Interesting discussion. I and colleagues have done a number of experiments on the dust produced by the falling WTC Towers using scanning electron microscopes and other tools, and we have published our results and conclusions. Also, we have made measurements of the acceleration of WTC 7 during its dramatic fall-- this is the 47-story building that was NOT hit by a plane yet collapsed to its footprint on the afternoon of 9/11/2001.
Four of my peer-reviewed published papers are referenced here, near the top of my web page:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
You might want to take a look at the HARD EVIDENCE which challenges the official government narrative of 9/11.
@PhysicsProf
Try watching these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related
instead of what your currently watching. And if your such a smart man why don't you know anything about Islam and don't tell me you do, it is quite obvious you do not! The real hard evidence is with Islam. Peer-reviewed by some of your hard left college buddies yea I'll believe whatever you and they say.
To a few that have recently posted some revealing points of view, which speak volumes of themselves.
Perhaps you never read the predictions of George Orwell in "1984". You would have learned that wars are not to be won, but to be continued. Remember "War is peace".
Wars are extremely profitable for those who wage them and those who collect the debt of the population forced to fight them, not so profitable for the boots on the ground who pay the price in blood and loss of life.
Reasons for war are always needed, when not available they are "created" Now we have the "faceless" boogey man of terrorism.
If you watch too much TV and listen to all the talking heads, you will believe all this nonsense. If so, I suggest you sign up now to go fight in foreign lands. The future gene pool wil not miss those with such a continued ignorance of history.
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.26, 21:52:51
To a few that have recently posted some revealing points of view, which speak volumes of themselves.
Perhaps you never read the predictions of George Orwell in "1984". You would have learned that wars are not to be won, but to be continued. Remember "War is peace".
Wars are extremely profitable for those who wage them and those who collect the debt of the population forced to fight them, not so profitable for the boots on the ground who pay the price in blood and loss of life.
Reasons for war are always needed, when not available they are "created" Now we have the "faceless" boogey man of terrorism.
If you watch too much TV and listen to all the talking heads, you will believe all this nonsense. If so, I suggest you sign up now to go fight in foreign lands. The future gene pool wil not miss those with such a continued ignorance of history.
Well said, ION.. We're on the same page.
Not so with Room3327 obviously, but
if you want a serious discussion on 9/11 -- start with the observed free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (which even NIST finally admitted to, when their original "constant velocity" nonsense was challenged by myself and physicist David Chandler).
QuoteRoom3327: hard left college buddies yea
Just so you know, my choice for President would be Ron Paul.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.11.26, 15:17:23
Interesting discussion. I and colleagues have done a number of experiments on the dust produced by the falling WTC Towers using scanning electron microscopes and other tools, and we have published our results and conclusions.
Take a look at this...here. (http://images.google.com/imgres?q=9/11+damages+on+cars+impossible&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&biw=1280&bih=860&tbm=isch&tbnid=986V7PmVcx3pqM:&imgrefurl=http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html&docid=-WZqn_qo4kiKGM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/SBsomNDgmwI/AAAAAAAAAjE/u0MqtUXc1NM/s400/Image11.jpg&w=400&h=300&ei=i3fRTteyA6eniQKCufyIDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=285&vpy=552&dur=192&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=138&ty=141&sig=101116310510459186736&page=3&tbnh=145&tbnw=185&start=41&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:41)
I'll tell you what. I've seen things that are either naturally unexplainable or artificially impossible in my life. This cop cruiser sticks out in may mind: The front 2/3 thirds is
well! blistered, but the back 1/3 is relatively undamaged.
Here's a point: There are pros and cons to the conspiracy debate. http://www.AboveTopSecret.com has many threads devoted to this 9/11 conspiracy, or there are others to be further debated. Perceptions are key to this issue. Anyone can see what they want or not. Personal opinions, beliefs, and past experiences can color the situation. I can't convince anyone I'm correct in my opinion on something as contentious as 9/11, so I hardly try. Some information I may have been given by those who were capable of knowing any truth in, say, related fields of either experience or investigation will have to remain with me. I will say: The conspiracy theorists and the debunkers can both not necessarily be precise in their findings. Why? There are things they can assume on the basis of their training and experience that can be insufficient to analyze precisely the actual situation. Others with
different, more
specialized, training can know more. I'd compare it to animals and children merely looking and casually observing their surroundings without being able to comprehend and discern
why whole scene is the way it is. Some of what I've been told, and also the way my mind functions, disallows my saying more in terms of detail. I've been asked not to. Both sides of the debate aren't looking close enough or aren't "thinking outside the box" with respect to this issue of what happened on 9/11. You'll have to try and figure it out on your own.
(I'm being "long-winded", so to speak because I'll have a job shortly where I'll need to be fully explanatory to make sure my point is made clear. My correspondents will give me all the time I need in discussion.)
Quote
...Also, we have made measurements of the acceleration of WTC 7 during its dramatic fall-- this is the 47-story building that was NOT hit by a plane yet collapsed to its footprint on the afternoon of 9/11/2001. ...
...
Four of my peer-reviewed published papers are referenced here, near the top of my web page:
...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
...
You might want to take a look at the HARD EVIDENCE which challenges the official government narrative of 9/11.
Alright, I can take a look at your research papers. I've read many papers on different subjects in my time as an informal researcher. This may take some time in the future, and I may or may not have the time to spare at leisure. I'll try and get back to you on that. This forum is being sidetracked, but until recently, I was the main contributor to the threads. I at least will also try to get back on topic whenever possible.
Reedit:First off: Not all papers are available to me. SpringerLink is a reprint archive for papers dealing with a variety of subjects. Without a personal subscription, or my having to travel to the local university, I get no free downloads. However, I was able to download the paper on
"Active Thermite Material..." by Harrit, et al.
I supose I can read that first, but the others need to be on a free download archival service or else the likes of a university archival library site for myself and others to download a printoff.
--Lee
Quote from: Room3327
...
Try watching these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related
instead of what your currently watching. And if your such a smart man why don't you know anything about Islam and don't tell me you do, it is quite obvious you do not! The real hard evidence is with Islam. Peer-reviewed by some of your hard left college buddies yea I'll believe whatever you and they say.
This sort of tough talk nearly always originates
from agents of the parties truly responsible for
"911" and associated mayhem.
"Things" are never as they seem in today's world
where deception and promotion of an AGENDA
are beamed towards the masses non-stop by
a compliant and complicit media.
Those who behind the scenes are making "things"
happen are soon to be revealed as the masses
further awaken with an intense desire to know
the full and complete truth; the shield of deception
has been broached.
In the end the "Good Guys" really do win!
Professor Jones has made a great contribution to
the cause for truth and justice.
Thanks Dumped -- and @all for comments.
@Lee -- I cited my web page, which LINKS to three of the 4 papers. Please therefore go here to get at these three papers at NO CHARGE (this is one of the reasons we selected these particular journals -- FREE access on-line).
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
Thanks for your willingness to read these papers. The fourth paper, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, Apr 2006, I count as my first peer-reviewed publication; but it is not available on-line, unfortunately.
I should link to my Australia talk also, a decent summary I think -- including SEC'Y of Transportation Mineta's testimony re: No air defenses on 9/11 and Mr. Cheney... (Cheney makes me sick, too, EMd.) Covers the free-fall acceleration of WTC7 also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmXfSLHajM
This talk in Sacramento also provides an overview of 9/11 research I've been involved in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDVWlUy0BWo&feature=related
Both YT vids are in several parts. Sorry for the hijacked thread... but glad you fellas are interested in world events!
Perhaps someone can start a thread about this. Personally, I think Occam's razor wins out here. The buildings collapsed because fuel-laden jets were flown into them. The dust from the collapsed buildings was nasty, which is not surprising. We live in an era of hypersensitivity with respect to our environment and our exposure to different substances, etc.
I watched just the first clip of the eight-part series on YouTube, "911 Dr Steven E. Jones - Science and Society." Dr. Jones makes a point of stating that the investigation board in their report stated that they could not fully explain why the towers collapsed. The meaning behind that statement is being twisted as far as I am concerned. It's simply good science to be conservative, because the ultimate truth is that nobody really knows the exact, precise technical reasons for the building's collapse. However, there is arguably convergence on an answer. You put all of the pieces together and most of them fit and converge on an answer. Some of them might not fit, and it's because nobody knows the actual truth, we are not gods. You simply don't obsess over the fact that some pieces of the puzzle don't appear to fit. They would fit if you were all-knowing, but you can't be all-knowing.
The truthers hang on subjective observations and wild speculations. Look at the business where one single reporter stated that he thought the second plane didn't look like a commercial jet, he saw no windows and recognizable markings on the plane. Anybody that takes this on face value needs to watch the movie "Twelve Angry Men." The simple truth of the matter is this: If you asked 25 people to describe a plane flying by in the sky under similar conditions to what that reporter saw then the chances of them all describing the same thing are zero. People are notoriously unreliable when it comes to describing their observations in a consistent manner. One person's blue is another person's gray or purple. Plus what a person "sees" is what his visual system "creates" for him to see. When we look at the world with our eyes, we don't see "reality" we see what our brain has massaged into our perception of reality. Just look up optical illusions on YouTube. How come you see a spiral but when you trace the lines out with your mouse on the screen you can clearly see it's not a spiral? Your brain can't cope and decides to make you "see" a spiral when it's not even there. Ditto for the reporter.
Final thought: Modern buildings are like fragile snow crystals. They just have enough materials in them to give you the required structural integrity to stay up and meet all building codes. It's not like the buildings that were built in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Those older skyscrapers were solid massive structures built with bricks and concrete and steel with outer walls several feet thick. New buildings are like "ultra lightweights" compared to the earlier "heavyweights." Give them an unexpected shock and they will crumble into dust. The larger the building the more this effect comes into play. The relative strengths of materials decrease as you go up in size. A simple example is a large ship like an aircraft carrier. If an aircraft carrier crashed into a dock at one-half mile per hour, it would be disastrous. On the scale of the size of an aircraft carrier the metal that makes up the bow of the ship may as well be putty. If the ship crashes into the dock, the metal will buckle and deform like putty. When you go the other way, the smaller you get the relative strength of materials increase. That's why grains of sand only get so small. A grain of sand under normal conditions is for all practical intents and purposes indestructible.
Well said MH,
I would like to know why none of the rest you have addressed the elephant in the room. With all this banter no one has brought up ISLAM, which is the elephant in the room, You say we are fighting terrorism and don't know who our enemy is, I say BS we know who the enemy is! just because no one wants to name the elephant in the room it does not mean the elephant doesn't exist.
If 911 was our own government perpetrating this on us, and you are trying to say the Bush administration came up with this conspiracy, think about it. Bush was only in the white house for a few months before this happened. Could you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out. If not Bush then the explosives must have planted before his administration, then you must mean that the Clinton administration did it, at least they had time to plan it and set it up. So are you telling me the Clinton government and the Democrats planned 911 and perpetrated it on us. Just what are you people saying?
And I really love the accusations of being a disinformant, that is really funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal twisted beliefs is obviously an agent provocateur and must be working with the enemy, because they couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you people.
the 911 buildings was nuked.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.11.27, 18:20:55
the 911 buildings was nuked.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
Your trying to tell me the towers were blown up from the bottom :D I guess I shouldn't believe my own lyin eyes, I could have sworn they came down from the top.
It's amazing that some people can actually believe that the twin towers were nuked.
However, it's not really surprising if you want to assume that you can treat human thought patterns like a statistical variable. The range in thought patterns (or world views) can be modeled like a bell curve, a.k.a., a normal distribution.
(http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/algtrig/ATS2/normal67.gif)
The society is not healthy without the lunatic fringe!
@Room3327
shock wave powdered all buildings structures except in the top.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
And here we have Dimitri Khalezov of Russia revealing that it is standard policy in the United States to use such a device when constructing very large buildings.)
Dimitri replied:
"About the nuclear device under the U.N. building, I did not know that before, but it sounds reasonable to me. Because since the Controlled Demolition Inc. has patented nuclear technique for demolition, it would be reasonable to expect that they would promote it to get more contracts to secure more work for the future. This is capitalism, after all and everyone is after profits...
It should be noted that the nuclear weapons manufacturers are not 'commercialized' and to use nuclear devices on some commercial projects is a rare opportunity for them to get into some commerce too. So, why not use such an opportunity? So, I would not be surprised at all if this is true as reported by Russbacher.
Moreover, since the publication of my 9/11 movie, I've read even stranger news on the Internet regarding a Japanese architect who claimed that at least two skyscrapers in Japan also have nuclear devices installed under them by the Controlled Demolition Inc. (not surprising, considering that the initial architect of the WTC was a Japanese guy and he understandably brought this kind of idea back to Japan).
It looks awful, to be honest... I do remember that the U.N. building was promptly evacuated on 9/11 and it was also reported on television as a piece of important news."
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.11.27, 05:23:21
...Sorry for the hijacked thread... but glad you fellas are interested in world events!
The question I have---briefly---is can this discussion be held in a more general setting on the OUR.com site? This is a Bench forum, and I'd like it to stay that way.
Peterae or another Moderator may be able to advise me on this. I'll start a thread, if you like, on an appropriate Forum--just not here.
--Lee
Interesting. I'm traveling today through Wednesday, not likely to post again until I return.
But note MH:
Quote
The buildings collapsed because fuel-laden jets were flown into them.
No, WTC 7 was NOT HIT BY A JET. Try again. I suggested that we begin with WTC 7.
Room states:
QuoteCould you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out.
And yet -- you're willing to believe that 19 hijackers and a guy with a lap-top in Afghanistan could carry it OUT? Including NO AIR DEFENSES on that day and the destruction of WTC7 which was NOT hit by a jet? :D
The hard physical evidence such as free-fall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet, and the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust (there is much more) points to the use of explosives/incendiaries. Exactly HOW and WHO pulled this off would require a criminal investigation; that's what we're asking for.
BTW -- I check for radiation in the dust and in a section of WTC steel -- none above background level. The evidence is strongly against the use of a nuclear bomb in the WTC.
Lets focus on the scientific evidence regarding the free-fall ACCELERATION of WTC 7; how do you explain that? And I agree with OK this would be better in a separate thread.
See y'all in a few days.
As to Professor's post #45,
I'm PMing Peterae to coach me on setting up a separate thread to discuss this elsewhere, even with my own participation. These posts will be exported there for additional debate.
This is an electronic research Bench. The new thread will be in a more general Forum suited to its topic.
--Lee
Continuation of debate from Lee's bench thread.
The new thread has been created in the miscellaneous discussion section. "9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!"
Last post from PhysicsProf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting. I'm traveling today through Wednesday, not likely to post again until I return.
But note MH:
Quote
The buildings collapsed because fuel-laden jets were flown into them.
No, WTC 7 was NOT HIT BY A JET. Try again. I suggested that we begin with WTC 7.
Room states:
Quote
Could you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out.
And yet -- you're willing to believe that 19 hijackers and a guy with a lap-top in Afghanistan could carry it OUT? Including NO AIR DEFENSES on that day and the destruction of WTC7 which was NOT hit by a jet? Cheesy
The hard physical evidence such as free-fall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet, and the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust (there is much more) points to the use of explosives/incendiaries. Exactly HOW and WHO pulled this off would require a criminal investigation; that's what we're asking for.
BTW -- I check for radiation in the dust and in a section of WTC steel -- none above background level. The evidence is strongly against the use of a nuclear bomb in the WTC.
Lets focus on the scientific evidence regarding the free-fall ACCELERATION of WTC 7; how do you explain that? And I agree with OK this would be better in a separate thread.
See y'all in a few days.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteLets focus on the scientific evidence regarding the free-fall ACCELERATION of WTC 7; how do you explain that?
I have a theory for that, but since you are very involved in this issues, may I ask you for your explanation first? This is a serious question, not trying to be argumentative. It would be nice to know your views on this first.
I know that you are traveling, so whenever you have the time.
MileHigh
QuoteAnd yet -- you're willing to believe that 19 hijackers and a guy with a laptop in Afghanistan could carry it OUT? Including NO AIR DEFENSES on that day and the destruction of WTC7 which was NOT hit by a jet?
First: I am sorry to the-big-M, for starting this in your bench, I will get out of here.
Second: But this first: Yes Prof I am willing to believe that that is exactly what happened! Why, because they spent years preparing for this, which is widely known, and Bin Laden himself took credit for planing and executing it. Bin Laden is on tape telling people like you that he did it and yet you still don't believe that a band of religious fanatics could have possible done it. Why? because you obviously do not know anything about Islam!
I don't have a problem with you Prof. In fact I kind of like you. But you also do not know everything there is to know. None of us do, so don't act like the fount of all knowledge, many of the people here know much more then you do on a number of subjects, I am just tired of left wingers acting like they hold the high ground on every subject and problem there is.
May I also recommend that you read through the sites you frequent, I spent 3 and a half years reading every post made at Overunity.com before I joined or posted.
There just may actually be good information at the energy forums that has been buried by the BS.
I'm done lets take this to a different thread./
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html
It all ties together when you take the time to do the investigative research as opposed to just having an "opinion".
But first you've got to deprogram yourself: Start by turning off your TV and start emptying your head of everything you've been programmed to believe about 9/11.
The programming is sometimes subtle, sometimes in your face, nevertheless it continues to bolster and buttress the fiction that has been created for you to believe.
I'm really not interested in debating with the likes of MH and Room 3327, as they have opinions, but have not spent the last ten years doing intensive research, collecting data, scrutinizing the crime scene and the likely motives of the criminals.
It would take way too long to get them up the learning curve, and as such, they are fairly un-redeemable and not worth the effort, unless you've got many years to waste with them, which I don't. Their programming is burned into fusible ROM. New data will not append or amend their core program.
There is the hate program of Room3327: simply stated: all Muslims are evil and we we must war against them.
For MH it is Occams Razor defense, which in this case does not apply and need not apply. You are after all dealing with sinister plots of extreme obfuscation.with many layers of sheep dip to hide the truth. We know we plan such things, if you don't believe it, read some of the declassified documents concerning our planned invasion of Cuba by General L. Lemnitzer.
Also read the "Project for a New American Century" or PNAC. It outlines the master plan for domination of the mideast and it's oil reserves, published in 1999, and calling for the necessity of a "Pearl Harbor" like event if we are to convince the masses such an escapade is worth pursuing.
We definitely needed such as an event before we could convince our children it is ok to sign up to fight "terrorism" around the globe.
So I would rate MH and Room 3327 as part of the "Lunatic Fringe" of which MH speaks. Regarding the bell curve, unfortunately in this case the Lunatic "fringe" dominate the center of the bell curve especially in the USA where the propaganda machine is working day and night to keep the fiction going.
The rabbit hole is deep indeed, and only the courageous are able to go there. Others would have to forgo cherished lifelong belief systems which are far too dear for them to let go of. It is a difficult task for sure.
You see the problem.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 17:49:30
First: I am sorry to the-big-M, for starting this in your bench, I will get out of here.
I'm done lets take this to a different thread./
Well, alright, thank you. I'll accept your apology with this provision:
I PMed Peterae to ask him (he
knows) how the transfer of info would go smoothly between this thread and Forum and any other on the site, especially a 9/11 thread started by me or anyone else. Since I have control of this Forum Bench, I can do that from the
"Additional Options" mouse click icon Your 9/11 thread is under the control of the site Moderators and the Administrator (Peterae). If I import the extraneous posts to the thread you started, it'll confuse people, most likely.
That's why I asked him first. I'm an American Vet, and
I report to superiors first. That's how I was trained. Even if it's somewhat, rather,
very! :D >:( ;D C.C :P harsh-sounding, I'm making that point. I ask permission on someone else's Forum, since I don't control it---they do.
I still need some way to proceed with these 9/11 posts. If all of you want another thread, I'll delete these extra ones except this one, as an announcement of my intentions.
Last call: Do any of the Members have an opinion on this course of action immediately above?
--Lee
MileHigh,
Concerning this thread and the posts on my forum thread:
I just finished a well-worded, sorta short tirade :D ;D >:( :P (with these cute smiley faces) post on my Bench, as to what I want to do with the 9/11 posts there. Delete them (they're perfectly good for this discussion) or import them here? I have the ability there, but they stay here after they arrive---this isn't my Forum.
My post is still there and will remain there as an announcement of my intentions. I'm putting a notification and return-to-topic check mark on this thread.
--Lee
big-M,
I'm sure the posts on 911 can be moved to the 911 thread, I think peterae will help you with that.
Again sorry, I had merely commented on something you posted, didn't mean for it to get out of hand.
What can you do to survive in a world that is so corrupt and controlling?
big-m
My vote would be for you to please post them here. Thank you.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 20:25:09
big-m
My vote would be for you to please post them here. Thank you.
Very good; I'll keep that in mind. I'd rather do that anyway, but I'll give it a day or so.
Thanks,
--Lee
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 20:19:13
big-M,
I'm sure the posts on 911 can be moved to the 911 thread, I think peterae will help you with that.
Right. I'll wait for him to respond. I'm seriously thinking of moving them.
Quote
Again sorry, I had merely commented on something you posted, didn't mean for it to get out of hand.
No, that's okay. No worries. It's a touchy subject, anyway.
--Lee
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.28, 19:44:02
So I would rate MH and Room 3327 as part of the "Lunatic Fringe" of which MH speaks. Regarding the bell curve, unfortunately in this case the Lunatic "fringe" dominate the center of the bell curve especially in the USA where the propaganda machine is working day and night to keep the fiction going.
"The Lunatic "fringe" dominate the center of the bell curve" LOL LOL do you hear what you are saying? I'm sorry but that is really funny! so people like me and MH are the lunitic fringe but we occupy the center of the bell curve. Who is the real hater here? I have studied extensively in many different disciplines through my entire life and am still studying and learning and I would be happy to learn something new if you were able to teach it to me.
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.28, 19:44:02
There is the hate program of Room3327: simply stated: all Muslims are evil and we we must war against them.
I guess I can't let this go without comment either.
I have never said all Muslims are bad, evil or any other thing, don't set up a straw man argument. I know that there are good muslims out there, I have always said that most of you need to learn about ISLAM. Islam is an ideaology and once you get to know Islamic ideaology you too will come to know how contrary to our beliefs it really is. Calling people like me, who are sounding the warning alarm, names does nothing for truth. So again I ask everyone who can, to at least read the Koran, I know it is boring but it has become a necessity if you want to understand what is going on in the world. Without the knowledge of Islam you cannot put it all together.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.28, 17:05:45
...
This is an electronic research Bench. The new thread will be in a more general Forum suited to its topic.
--Lee
Aye, we are thinking people with minds which
are inclined to wander.
Even while at the bench our thoughts cannot
remain long focused on the task at hand.
It is hard not to let the stresses and anxieties
of the world enter into our thoughts as we strive
to come to terms with things we cannot understand.
Your tolerance and gentle suggestions are very
much appreciated. You have been far more
accommodating than most... Many thanks.
The discussion which began here is very important
to all concerned.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.11.28, 21:19:35
Your tolerance and gentle suggestions are very
much appreciated. You have been far more
accommodating than most... Many thanks.
The discussion which began here is very important
to all concerned.
Good man. Everyone appreciates being appreciated.
--Lee
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 20:42:06
...
Who is the real hater here? I have studied extensively in many different disciplines through my entire life and am still studying and learning and I would be happy to learn something new if you were able to teach it to me.
Where is there any "hate?"
This deflection terminology is too much used by
agents of the true perpetrators and your use of
the same accusatory terminology is highly suspicious.
We tend to speak as we've been "programmed"
to believe.
Is it necessary to rely on someone else to "teach"
us? Why impose that responsibility onto another?
Is it not possible to do one's own research and
study?
Or, have you been "conditioned" to expect others
to provide for you?
Quote from: Room3327
...
So again I ask everyone who can, to at least read the Koran, I know it is boring but it has become a necessity if you want to understand what is going on in the world. Without the knowledge of Islam you cannot put it all together.
This is good advice - the Koran is most interesting.
At the same time I'd further suggest that all should
read a good reliable translation of the Talmud. This
document is also most interesting and revealing.
ION has "
nailed it"
Dumped,
Try reading post #4 above from ION.
Sorry you really don't get what I am saying, try reading the entire threads sometime.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 21:51:51
Dumped,
Try reading post #4 above from ION.
Sorry you really don't get what I am saying, try reading the entire threads sometime.
I've read all of the posts within this "entire
thread."
I "get" what you're saying, both before and now.
Why would you think otherwise?
QuoteIs it necessary to rely on someone else to "teach"
us? Why impose that responsibility onto another?
Is it not possible to do one's own research and
study?
Or, have you been "conditioned" to expect others
to provide for you?
Dumped,
I was being facetious, apparently right over your head.
Quote
Watch all the vids on youtube of [Deception project]
Take note of the card game from 1996 called [Armageddon]. It portrays the twin towers burning on one the cards.
Oh, the Bible tells of a great liar in control in the end times. I saw a picture of Obama with a hand placed on the wailing wall wearing a yamaka.
And when you fold up U.S. currency bills to show actual pictures of the event. Could this be done at any other time in history?
Islam: Beat yourself in the box.
Muslim: Stay in the box.
Judiasm: Nobody else is in the box but us.
Buddha: Be nice in the box.
Western religions: The inside of the box is a nice color.
Christainity: Can you just take one step out of the box? Please?!?!!?
Vaedic texts: What is a box, we have many layers.
Hare Krishna: Did you know that the universe and beyond pulsates?
Hinduism: It is infinity.
Atheists: The power to discern belief from reality.
Me: Manicled to the wrong planet.
Tell a black man he comes from monkeys and he'll kick your ass. But the government can teach evolution unabated. OBTW, where did snakes come from? Any fossil records? Any new reptiles?
Lies. The process of explaining something that doesn't exist. What patterns do you live by?
Ive seen most of the videos and commentary vids on it all.
1 building was hit 2 times. But 3 buildings went down like perfect demolitions.
No buildings like these have ever gone down due to fire. none
Control towers at the time, had the capability to control the planes by remote, as they can today.
And, they must have been doing some Philadelphia experiment at the pentagon, to get all of that passenger jet into that hole in the side of the building. No wings, no engines. People? Passengers? Not on the lawn. Its all in the hole. lol
It was a sham.
Mags
Adolf Hitler had his radio engineers design special low cost radios. These were widely distributed and sold to the populace so that everyone in Germany could hear the speeches of the "fuhrer". Funny thing about those radios, they were weak on receptivity and could not pull in stations from outside the country. Hitlers large powerful transmitters insured that his programming agenda swamped any signals from other countries.
In the U.S we have the major newspapers, which are pretty much wholly owned by Rupert Murdoch, and the cable and sattelite news networks which broadcast their purportedly "balanced" news programs. The "agenda" is spoonfed daily and most suck it up like candy or as if it was real information. .
One might compare the center of the bell curve of Germany in the 30's and 40's to the center of the bell curve of the US in the years pre and post 9/11. Then we can talk about the "Lunatic Fringe".
If you ask anyone on the street how a car or TV works, you will get a myriad of opinions, most of which will probably be useless as to the real functionings of a car or TV. But everyone is allowed to have an "opinion". So it is with 9/11, there are many opinions about it.
To find the truth, you will need the skills of a really savvy detective, for the truth has been hidden deep, and like the movie"Twelve Angry Men" where the majority are sure they are right about their opinion of the murder, they can be dead wrong.
You will have to start accumulating data, perhaps terabytes of data. You will need to spend countless hours of your daily life to uncover what may be the truth of the matter, for the truth has been skillfully hidden..
Most people are too lazy to do this and would rather swallow the standard "conspiracy theory". It is convenient and does not take away time from their favorite TV shows.
The "old saw" that if you don't believe the standard government proliferated conspiracy theory regarding the perpetrators of 9/11, you are probably one of those tinfoil hat types that also don't believe we ever went to the moon.
My retort would be that if you do believe the standard government proliferated conspiracy regarding the perpetrators of 9/11, you probably also believe that governments never lie to their populace.
Of course they never lie! LOL. Attached for your reading pleasure "Operation Northwoods". Real fun begins on page 7 of the original document.
Also sited earlier and attached is the PNAC document, but "sigh" its too much to read and you'll miss your favorite TV show.
ION,
I don't disagree with some of the things you say, I totally agree with you that the Main Stream Media is absolutely useless for real information anywhere in any country and government on earth. And YES we are being lied to, by many different people and organizations and governments, gosh does this mean I must wear a tin foil hat now?
Maybe the fuel from the jetliners was not enough to take down the buildings, but think about the chemtrail chemicals on those planes. Who knows what temperature that stuff burns at?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.29, 00:54:36
ION,
I don't disagree with some of the things you say, I totally agree with you that the Main Stream Media is absolutely useless for real information anywhere in any country and government on earth. And YES we are being lied to, by many different people and organizations and governments, gosh does this mean I must wear a tin foil hat now?
There are many pillars that support government. These pillars must be kept disinformed for if the people were given the truth, the pillars would collapse and the governments imperial agenda would fail.
There are trillions of dollars to be made by major oil companies by dominating the mideast's resources. If a big lie and 3000 deaths will help mobilize us to that goal, why not, there are 50, 000 deaths on US highways every year that get us nothing, not to mention heart attack and cancer deaths.
I believe it was Hitler that said if you are going to lie, make it big one , then it is more believable than a small lie.
QuoteThe Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
We can agree to disagree, nevertheless, there is much to learn.
Lots of opinions indeed. Each side sees the other side as "brainwashed" and there is not much that you can do about it to bring them together.
Just like nobody really knows how the towers fell nobody really knows what is going on within the government. I suppose it depends on how much of your mental energy you want to put into all of this stuff. For me it's very little.
You go through life and in my case I work in the tech sector. So I have been to various companies and dealt with government, etc, and from what I can see they are normal people and normally there are no grand conspiracies whenever something out of the ordinary happens. This does not mean that there are not heavy things that go down in the name of national security. I would not be surprised if way before 9/11 that there were functioning, active government hit squads. However, they would go after especially nasty people for a real reason, stuff that almost nobody will ever know. I don't lose sleep about it.
But, a few examples of people "stepping out of their bounds:"
QuoteNo buildings like these have ever gone down due to fire. none.
It doesn't really matter, you can't draw any conclusions at all from that statement. I will just repeat what I said before because it's relevant: The larger the scale of the building the more fragile it is. This was the largest skyscraper ever to catch on fire, and be hit by two airplanes, and have a couple of thousand gallons of accelerant added to the mix to exacerbate the effects of fire. Now
that's never happened before and nobody really knew what could have happened under those conditions.
QuoteMaybe the fuel from the jetliners was not enough to take down the buildings, but think about the chemtrail chemicals on those planes.
Chemtrails make a cameo appearance in the discussion. This is getting pretty close to tin foil hat territory. This is just the conspiracy theory cottage industry stirring up nonsense to sell books! Call it the "John Bedini" effect. Everybody has to make a buck. It's just HHO in the sky!
QuoteAnd, they must have been doing some Philadelphia experiment at the pentagon, to get all of that passenger jet into that hole in the side of the building. No wings, no engines. People? Passengers? Not on the lawn. Its all in the hole. lol
Yeah, sh*t happens, and it's pretty strange sometimes. I think that if I invested 45 minutes of my time online I could find some legit stories describing some of the plane remnants. What I do know through is that except for the engines and the main rib in the wing, a passenger plane is yet another delicate snowflake that will pretty much disintegrate into dust if it crashes into a hard target like the Pentagon. Planes are light fragile flying balloons, there is not much to them. It's perfectly plausible and reasonable to not find much after the crash.
QuoteTake note of the card game from 1996 called [Armageddon]. It portrays the twin towers burning on one the cards.
It's called coincidence Giankiller. This notion that some big bad boys in government are "planting signs" for us to see like they are the Joker from the 1966 Batman TV series is positively whackadoo.
Did we land on the moon? Yes!
MileHigh
"Plausible deniability" is "open source".
Organized groups of people can use various tactics against "The System". Of course we are taught that we are too disorganized, or too stupid to ever pull off a flip on "The System". This may indeed be so. The task of organizing a team and infiltrating "The System" is a daunting task this will take decades. Where would you even start? Hmm. Sounds like a good movie.
The Group Anonymous comes to mind, and they have some credible hacks to date, but we need to seek higher goals.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.28, 20:29:35
Very good; I'll keep that in mind. I'd rather do that anyway, but I'll give it a day or so.
Thanks,
--Lee
Okay, guys, I'm about ready to transfer 9/11-related posts to here. The "Move" function doesn't specify where a particular post lands when it gets to this Board. I have no experience, which is why I asked .99 about it.
After the posts arrive, you can obviously comment on them individually. Better than deleting them.
--Lee
MH said:
QuoteJust like nobody really knows how the towers fell nobody really knows what is going on within the government. I suppose it depends on how much of your mental energy you want to put into all of this stuff. For me it's very little.
That's why you have an "opinion" as opposed to learned research.
To pry open and get a little look at what goes on in government, you could consider past declassified documents.
Perhaps you could grace us with an analysis of the two documents I posted earlier. Have you got the time or energy to read them?
If you don't like to read, two videos for your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3P2wDKQK4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxz06SwfnlU
This discussion is pointless for one big reason. There is no evidence that the 9/11 people will accept as proof that it was Al Queda hijackers that took down the towers, and that there was no inside job.
I do not believe it was an inside job, as I find the physical evidence unconvincing and motives wacky (i.e. if the goal is to get into a war, make money, whatever, there are much less riskier ways to do this than to crash planes into towers), but I can tell you, as soon as people involved in the conspiracy start testifying as to the details of this conspiracy, I will start changing my mind. What about you truthers? What evidence would you accept that would change your mind?
Here's some questions I have about 9/11 and some opinions:
Within a day or less of the attacks on 9/11, we knew exactly who did it and why. Why so quick, don't investigations take time? Our government seemed to have the answers right there at their fingertips, including the terrorists' mug shots? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Then when they reported Atta's passport found in the rubble I knew it was a set up. How ridiculous! Where is the body then? Let's do some DNA testing; if the passport survived certainly pieces of the human body would survive! Before anybody commits a nation to war don't you think they should first find out who the enemy is beyond all doubt? So no, I don't trust their account of who did it because it was too quick and full of "you have to trust me" type of evidence. Who really did it has not been proven, and in fact this whole war is just them telling you who the enemy is, who you should hate, how the enemy hates you, how he is fighting you, how he is plotting to kill you, and how well your government is protecting you from them, etc.... etc..., all information filtered and coming through our military and government controlled media outlets. Doesn't that seem strange? Fighting "global terrorism" is the biggest lie ever. Under this banner the US invaded sovereign nations and killed innocent people and then label the resistance they encountered as terrorism. How ridiculous, the whole world ought to be outraged, but wait they have fallen for it too. Remember the coalition of the "willing"? how about the coalition of the deceived and bribed! The US bribes Pakistan as we speak, billions of dollars in aid. They hate our guts but love our dollars! But I digress,
My question still remains: who really flew those planes, or controlled those planes into the buildings?
If it was some crazy terrorists like they claim, then obviously our government knew about the attacks ahead of time but chose to let them proceed to accomplish their goals. Or perhaps they under estimated their diabolical plan. In the past hijackers would land the plane and demand something, but perhaps not this time. Also, why would these terrorists be so willing to kill themselves by flying into a financial building in such a horrible and scary way? I think the people that guided those planes in the buildings could not have been located in the cockpit, staring death in the face, no way! These planes had to be remote controlled! There is a government entity that records all electromagnetic emanations and they have the data but won't release it. It's national security! I say it's criminal evidence and the "books" need to be opened and judgment begin!
The exact reason for why the buildings fell and all that is peripheral to this conspiracy in my opinion, and I see it as a diversion sometimes especially when trying to say the buildings fell faster than gravity would dictate.
In conclusion, there is so much circumstantial evidence that points at a 9/11 conspiracy by our government. The way the US leaders acted or not acted, the way the military acted, bogus phone calls like a son calling his mother from one of the flights and saying his whole name including his last name, how strange is that? All these made up "facts" point to somebody trying to establish the fact that the planes were hijacked. Ask yourself, why would somebody want me to believe that? What do they want from me? Could it be my willingness to sacrifice my sons and daughters and my freedom for their cause? The rich who rule this world are not loyal to any one nation, they use whoever to get what they want. They plunder the resources of one country and move on to the next. Stop buying products made in other countries by people you don't know especially from these huge international corporations, buy products made by your neighbors and fellow countrymen and give them the jobs! Every nation should be self sufficient and trade at a minimum. Globalization only means oppression, the more and far reaching a law, the more oppressive to the 49% that voted against that law but were outnumbered. 49% of 100 people is 49 people, but 49% of 6 billion people is 2.9 billion people who might not agree with a given law! Just think about that. Everybody ought to have their own little laws in their own little corner of the world and live as they choose!
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.11.29, 03:07:23
This discussion is pointless for one big reason. There is no evidence that the 9/11 people will accept as proof that it was Al Queda hijackers that took down the towers, and that there was no inside job.
I do not believe it was an inside job, as I find the physical evidence unconvincing and motives wacky (i.e. if the goal is to get into a war, make money, whatever, there are much less riskier ways to do this than to crash planes into towers), but I can tell you, as soon as people involved in the conspiracy start testifying as to the details of this conspiracy, I will start changing my mind. What about you truthers? What evidence would you accept that would change your mind?
It will all be revealed to you soon, but it is not my job to attempt to spoonfeed while the pablum of weak arguments run out of your mouth and down your cheeks.
You need to do some research, find out what Al Queda really is etc.
EM, you are right on target, but be careful, the liars would like to steer you into the LIHOP camp. (Let It Happen On Purpose)
This is a safe camp where they can manipulste you into thinking it was a "failure of intelligence" that let it happen.
Just as the Kennedy assassination was also deemed a failure of intelligence in the Warren Commission, when you investigate yourself and claim your own incompetence, who can argue with that? mea culpa!
QuoteThe rich who rule this world are not loyal to any one nation, they use whoever to get what they want.
You are right that it was not any single government but a cabal of profiteers that were involved.
I will ressurect this post:
The towers had the Wallstreet backups of backups in them they are gone. No record of Morgan Stanley.
Building #7 had the records of Waco in it. What happened to Bldg#7? Was that an unadvertised terrorist attack?
Where was the plane in the Camphill crash?
There was a hand and lower arm found in the debris of the OK city bombing vehicle. A vehicle is not allowed to be parked unattended in front of federal buildings.
So what happened? Timothy told the passenger 'Wait here I'll be right back'. He walks around the corner and the truck gets detonated.
I miss stated before.
OKC had the records of waco. BATF, building #7 had the records of OKC. Bldg#7 was vacant that day of its demise. Vacant? No news of its schedule demolition? A fire on one of its floors? No mention of it in the 9/11 news reports? Makes one think. If'n ya don't yer missin sumthin.
Usually when one tries to follows the money they find the audits are gone.
Also the [One world religion] comes to mind. I say it is capitalism.
I wonder...
Is there some relationship between the ideas of Moon landing hoaxes, pulling energy from nowhere and 9/11? (The Government is a shoe that fits all ;) )
In the words of the now immortal Andy Rooney - What's Up With That?
--------------------
There ya go Ma'. I stuck my toes in and the water is way too hot!
I'll wait 'til Ol' Man winter visits before I risk the seething waters
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.29, 03:40:33
It will all be revealed to you soon, but it is not my job to attempt to spoonfeed while the pablum of weak arguments run out of your mouth and down your cheeks.
You need to do some research, find out what Al Queda really is etc.
So I take it I was correct, and there is no evidence that will change your mind. Really think about it. What evidence, if presented, would change your mind?
Ion:
I downloaded both and glanced briefly at the first. I believe it may be about the early 60s False Flag operation where a general proposed flying a plane into a building as an option. I think the premise was to create conditions for invading Cuba. I will try to read them later.
I find it interesting that EM and Ion and perhaps others have made reference to the concept of terrorism as being something that is being used to manipulate our thoughts by the powers that be. A cabal of profiteers can rake in giant bags of cash in glee while causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and general misery and hardship for millions of people. It's almost a comic book simplification in my opinion.
A response to terrorism is going to be imperfect no matter what you do. But terrorism is real, you just have look at what's happened over the past 15 years. There really are people that will sacrifice their lives for a cause. It's been like that throughout history. If in their minds they believe their cause is just then they are fighting with honour. Look at the programed killing machines that attacked Mumbai in 2008.
But even if they are fighting with honour from their perspective, they are our enemy. There are arguably objective standards for fighting with honour, and gratuitously cutting off someone's head and making a video clip of it is not honour. Throwing acid in the faces of young girls trying to go to school is not honour.
It's too bad they didn't go into Afghanistan with overwhelming force to conquer every single square inch of the country just like things were done in World War II. They should have gone in with 600,000 troops minimum. The Afghanistan war would have been OVER in 2002. I realize that this is pure speculation but it's at least a plausible scenario.
EM, the reason the government could identify the hijackers right away was by looking at the flight manifests and then looking up every single person and then narrowing it down by a process of elimination. That would take less than 12 hours. Plus they had the intelligence gathered by the people that made cell phone calls on the hijacked planes. See, you are falling into a trap of sorts. The answer was right under your nose and yet you chose to think that "the government must have known something in order to identify the hijackers so quickly."
We live in a less free society as compared to before 9/11 but it is still a free society. Part of the price of living in a free society is that you can't know everything about the day to day life of the citizens of the society. Another 9/11 type attack could easily occur again. Conspirators could do everything by word of mouth and operate in overlapping three-person cells, etc.
For me, after you distill though all of the talk and debate, no mater what you do the terrorists/freedom fighters that want to kill you are real and dangerous. Some of them will shoot you in the head and kill you if you don't agree to convert to Islam on the spot. Talk about a loving God. If there is only one God it must be the same one the Christians worship. Not to say that the Christians and their churches haven't been severely tainted with the personification of evil themselves.
For me the end game is to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq if you fail. You tried and you failed, what can you do? Really, the US is not there to save the world all the time. Let the neighbouring Arab and Muslim countries take over the task or if Afghanistan and Iraq descend into anarchy, let them. You really can decide to flip the switch if you want to. It would be sad because chances are Afghanistan would rapidly deteriorate, Iraq might be at a point where they could pull through but nothing is certain.
But whether you like it or not, a quasi New World Order could not let an Afghanistan/Iraq "flu" destabilize lots of other countries in some sort of a 21st century domino effect. The US, the EU, China, and other countries could and would prevent that from happening.
You never know what the long term results of the Arab Spring will be also. Some of those countries could draw up constitutions separating church/mosque and state and create societies based on secular and humanistic values. I can hope that and see it as being a positive thing, and someone in Afghanistan would like to kill me for just saying it and view it as an evil thing.
OK, I will shut up now...
MileHigh
@MH,
I agree with what you divulge here. But it is the weeds and the weeds are real. Look up above the weeds and take notice of the gardener.
Lets just say evil gets bigger the farther one stands out.
GK, good info I read that before.
Ion, Good point
MH, I agree with some of what you say. Regarding the flight manifests, for the longest time one could pull them up from the airlines own websites and none of the terrorists names were on there, at least that's what I remember.
All
Looks like we enjoy this topic more than free energy itself :)
Here is nothing to be worried about... ;]
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/28/indefinite-domestic-military-detention/
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/28/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/
Mags
Mags
Thanks for that reading, this is serious stuff. We need a serious change of direction in this country, better yet we need to limit federal powers and make the states more sovereign. We look at other countries and smugly approve of their need for a revolution, when in fact we need one right here.
On the american dollar bill it says "in god we trust" if i remember correctly.
Does any body know if middle eastern countries have similar slogans in their currency?
Is is important?
Beware of those who tell you who to hate . You might believe them
Why MileHigh presently is so resistant to
acknowledging anything other than what the
media "spoon feeds" the populace is not at
all surprising. The techniques of "mind control"
are effective. The programming begins at a
very early age.
It seems that, very unfortunately, MileHigh has
not had the opportunity to experience Military
style "behavior modification" or to participate
in any of the Military "special programs/operations."
It is very difficult for the "average" citizen to
comprehend what takes place daily in the interests
of "National Security." Most in fact have no desire
to become aware of these machinations for the reasons
ION laid out earlier.
But the time is coming - sooner that most would imagine-
when it will be impossible to deny the truth. Some will
find their having to accept what they've denied for so long
a fate worse than death itself. It is going to get very ugly
worldwide as the AGENDA progresses to its finality.
Those who know will rejoice for the end is near!
The saga will have a very happy ending/beginning.
Who opened this can of worms ;D
Building 7 came down with no plane, yet the explanation for the twin towers to come down was the impact by 2 planes, so surely then the building 7 should also have been hit by a plane to justify it's collapse also.
So what i am saying is what happened to the plane that should have hit building 7 LOL, could it be the one that the people on board took over and crashed into the ground, maybe the terrorists on the third plane forgot to set their alarm clocks or were foiled.
One thing for sure it was known in advance of building 7 collapsing that it was going to collapse, as there have been witnesses and film footage of people being warned it was about to come down.
The owner of Bldg 7 was on TV that day and said "they" made the decision to "pull it down" or demolish it. My question is, how long does it take to set up for such operation? Days? Weeks? Hours? Dr Jones is right, there were explosives around there that day.
Indeed EM, i don't think it's physically possible to safely and accurately set explosives in a few hours, i just cannot imagine it being possible, but i am sure there must be a web page that goes through the details and time scales for a building that size.
and then theres the question why bring it down then and there, a full structural analysis to justify it being demolished should have be filed somewhere to justify the action, last time i checked things cant just be blown up LOL
QuoteThe owner of Bldg 7 was on TV that day and said "they" made the decision to "pull it down" or demolish it. My question is, how long does it take to set up for such operation? Days? Weeks? Hours? Dr Jones is right, there were explosives around there that day.
The actual quote is "pull it." Now the real question is what does that really mean? I have never seen an interview with that gentleman after the fact where they asked him to clarify his statement. There is a very very good chance that he is being misunderstood. If something so conspiratorial had taken place why would he almost casually admit it on camera? It doesn't make any sense.
Think about that in this context: Some of the "truther" films, (some of which I think were linked to in this (original) thread) ask the question, "Were there any explosions?" Then they go on and show about 50 instances where people are being interviewed on the street, cops, firemen, reporters, TV anchorpersons all talk about "explosions." You get about 50 sound bites where people mention explosions. Holy Crap!!!! Must be true!!!
Talk about junk and who the hell is doing the programming here? The "truthers" are making their best shot at brute force brainwashing here, Dumped would be proud. Yeah, just pound the word "explosions" into the heads of the dumb masses and they will come?
Can anybody else see what junk pseudo truther-fascist crap is going on here?
My God, all of those people said "explosions" because they
heard what sounded like an explosion. But they actually have no clue if an actual explosion took place, none!
If 10 floors of a building suddenly drop down one floor and crash into the lower floor, I bet you that
sounds like an explosion.Have you ever seen a stress test on a piece of concrete where they put it into a giant industrial press and compress the concrete until it fails? What happens when the concrete fails? It basically "explodes" when this happens, but it is not the same as a true explosion at all. However, it
sounds like an explosion. When all that concrete was crushed under high pressure it must have made exploding sounds when it failed.
Certainly the jet fuel could have and probably did explode. Especially where there were pockets of air filled with fuel vapor. Those were real explosions that sounded like explosions but they were due to the actions of the terrorist hijackers, not the government.
Dumped, I can assure you my "bullshit attempted mind-control RADAR" is very alive and kicking. Perhaps you think my "programming" has skewed my perception. However, the problem for me is that I look at what you are saying and to me you are a fully programmed drone doing the bidding of whoever programmed you. You feel satisfaction and fulfillment in telling us that "the end is neigh," just executing your program that your puppetmasters have put into you. But you can't see it because you are in your own fishbowl, just like you allege that I am in my fishbowl.
So who's wearing the fishbowl on their heads? You or me? I think time will tell. I say nothing is going to happen, you say we are close to the Rapture (or whatever), but time will tell.
MileHigh
P.S.: I think I may have read between the lines here in Dumped's statement and figured it out:
QuoteBut the time is coming - sooner that most would imagine-
when it will be impossible to deny the truth. Some will
find their having to accept what they've denied for so long
a fate worse than death itself. It is going to get very ugly
worldwide as the AGENDA progresses to its finality.
Those who know will rejoice for the end is near!
The saga will have a very happy ending/beginning.
I think this one is about the alleged agreement to cull the population of the world because it is too high. Six billion is way too many people and the powers that be have decided that about 500 million is a sweet spot. With a population of 500 million and our current technological level then Man could inhabit the Earth and live a life of luxury and not put any excessive stress on Gia, the living biosphere.
So the gloom and doom from Dumped is about the upcoming mass murder of five and one-half billion people. Am I right Dumped? Do you have an escape-death ticket yourself?
QuoteCertainly the jet fuel could have and probably did explode. Especially where there were pockets of air filled with fuel vapor. Those were real explosions that sounded like explosions but they were due to the actions of the terrorist hijackers, not the government.
Jet fuel does not explode, to explode it needs to be mixed with a % of oxygen and then contained in a strong vessel before simultaneous combustion, it can be seen quiet clearly that when the plane hits, the fuel burns like slow molasses as the bulk of the fuel mixes with oxygen from the air, nothing violent here apart from the ability to start more fires, it's a bit faster than watching the Hindenburg burn
"Pull it" pertained to 'pulling the plug' on the building. That meaning it could not be saved due to the damaged caused by the collapse of the twin towers some three hours earlier.
Body parts for testing to confirm the owner of the passport? Please.
The presence of those bodies could be smelled, tasted and coughed up but the likelihood of separating a single sample of one person for analysis was just plain poor. We were there the day after lending our ability to establish communication on a moment's notice.
I recall the first conspiracy theory I heard was the government had blacked out communications in order to hide facts. What a bunch of idiots! Nearly ALL of the communications abilities went down with the towers. My God! Even the fire/rescue/police commo was shunted to other systems incapable of handling the bandwidth. The only communication they had when we got there was short range radio-radio. Groups like ours setup the first sat up/down data links and were aided by other amateur radio operators around the continent to establish phone patches to victim's families.
Jet fuel doesn't explode? Granted, vaporized it is fuel for explosion. The same goes for concrete, steel, bodies, etc.
No further explosives were required.
Sorry, I'm just going through a data dump subroutine.
Who are the programmers, anyway? The government or the truthers? Sorry, I think I lost track.
------------
Sh!t. It doesn't matter anyway. In about twenty years from now the truthers will proclaim it was all staged on a movie set.
From MH
QuoteTalk about junk and who the hell is doing the programming here? The "truthers" are making their best shot at brute force brainwashing here, Dumped would be proud. Yeah, just pound the word "explosions" into the heads of the dumb masses and they will come?
Can anybody else see what junk pseudo truther-fascist crap is going on here?
How about pounding the word Al Queda into the heads of the dumb masses shortly after the towers fell. Also show over and over a rag tag Al Queda training camp, and repeatedly a picture of Osama with an AK47 and a grin, and there you have it folks, brainwashing at it's best. And don't forget Mohammed Atta.
You were also shown the ugliest photo shopped picture of Mohammed Atta over and over, but never the real shots of the guy. This CIA asset performed his puppet duties perfectly, but was never on that plane.
You can't have it both ways MH, a plane crumbling to dust (your words) when it hit the Pentagon, but somehow able to punch through box columns 2' x2' and over 3 " thick, close spaced, and leaving the perfect imprint of a plane right down to the wingtips in the building face. And the fires were so hot (sure), people were seen standing in the opening waving handkerchiefs for rescue shortly after the event
It is well known that a large aircraft at 400 to 500 mph cannot fly in level flight less than 100 feet from the ground because of "ground effect", the pressure built up between the aircraft and the ground. But those skilled LOL Al Queda pilots were able to perform wonderful maneuvers and defy physics in hitting the Pentagon
You should know better MH, that you don't just manually steer an aircraft that large flying at those speeds and ever hope to hit a target. You've heard of PID and overshoot involved in processes with large time constants?
And you don't believe you were propagandized? Here are some other photos of M Atta you were not shown on the day of Sept 11.
By the way, use that word "fascism" more carefully before you throw it around, as it can be defined as the perfect alliance of military and state power to further the corporate interests of the state. Now where do we see this? MH?
In the truthers....I don't think so....guess again.
I grow weary of you and your weak arguments MH, I once thought you were a relatively astute guy, but you posts on this issue bore the h*ll out of me for their mainstream "man on the street" intelligence level. You've got it all figured out but don't need to do any research because you already "know it all"
You have admitted you don't have the time nor interest in researching this issue, so I consider what you say as an "opinion" of one (uninformed) who has not done his due diligence or his homework, and shoots very nicely and quickly from the Hip.
WW, were you there when Bldg7 was "pulled"? The official story is that it was demolished, and that statement was made after the fact.
Peter, yes, nobody just blows up buildings on the spur of the moment.
MH, yes, the "explosions" heard by the masses as the main towers fell are most likely structural materials snapping. I have a hard time with the explosive theory for the twin towers, but not Bldg 7. But I could be wrong
Ion, so true. They flashed their pictures on TV day and night along with Bin Laden, talk about "trial on the news" who needs a court room anymore and cross examination when we have our dedicated "intelligence" community looking out for us. That's sarcasm in case anybody is confused.
Milehigh, never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and then win with experience.
I am missing the point of this thread.
There will always be covert, shadow deals being made in our goverments and companies. This isn't "Heaven" that we live in.
The sad fact is the "we", "the people" have allowed this to happen.
Say we get rid ofthe Federal Reserve and go to "greenbacks". What prevents the US Government from printing as much as they want, effectively taxing "the people" right into inflation? Every fiat money system has failed in the past.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.11.29, 14:43:50
Milehigh, never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and then win with experience.
Carefull with the name calling, we are having a serious debate here. I don't think you want to call Dr Jones, Ion, Peter, GK, WW, or even myself Idiods, do you? (anybody else who wants to be included in my list, just say so LOL :P)
EM
I am amazed at how little people have been hearing about the occupy movement and whats been happening with this.
In London they have claimed an empty ex bank building and opened it for public 'The people' i wonder how long before they get evicted from it.
Very little main stream media coverage over here in the UK, no one i have spoken to so far have even heard of the occupy London group, and it's right across the UK and building up in force i think.
One of us guys better hurry up and get a FE dev working, because during the collapse of iceland, one of the conditions of the IMF lending money was for outsiders to be able to scoop the Iceland energy companies up and privatize them, this also happened when Ireland was bailed by the IMF.
I suspect the same will happen in Spain/France/Italy/UK and more
What happens when all power production is under one wealthy group of controllers, maybe this is the way they are paving for the electric future we will need to stop relying of fossil fuels.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.11.29, 15:53:43
One of us guys better hurry up and get a FE dev working, because during the collapse of iceland, one of the conditions of the IMF lending money was for outsiders to be able to scoop the Iceland energy companies up and privatize them, this also happened when Ireland was bailed by the IMF.
I suspect the same will happen in Spain/France/Italy/UK and more
What happens when all power production is under one wealthy group of controllers, maybe this is the way they are paving for the electric future we will need to stop relying of fossil fuels.
Making progress on the solution.
The only thing that Bankers pave for is larger profits and more control:
QuoteWho controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.
EDIT:
Isn't money a representation of energy? So, with free energy, you negate the need for money to some degree. Of course "time" is still very valuble, and people want to be paid for it, as are other commodities, but free energy is a serious equalizer to energy as a commodity. Copper and silver will become very valuable.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.11.29, 15:40:06
Carefull with the name calling, we are having a serious debate here. I don't think you want to call Dr Jones, Ion, Peter, GK, WW, or even myself Idiods, do you? (anybody else who wants to be included in my list, just say so LOL :P)
EM
OH, but it seems just fine for your side of the argument to call names! It seems that is what your side is best at! Lefty tactics, when you have no good argument to defend your stances with, attack your opponent personally, smear their reputation and call names. It's been working well for them.
Just check what you guys have called me so far in this debate.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.11.29, 14:43:50
Milehigh, never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level and then win with experience.
I don't consider anyone on this forum to be an "idiot", nor should you. There are more informed and less informed persons.
There are persons that form an "opinion" after a cursory look at some of the available data.
There are others that have made a serious study of the 9/11 enigma over many years and thousands of hours of research. Their "opinion' may be more informed, it also may not, as it depends on the initial bias of the researcher.
The point is to have an open mind, collect and review as much information as you can get your hands on, and try hard not to form an "opinion" too quickly as you may get stuck having to defend an untenable position.
The truth is out there for those who seek it in earnest. It will not be delivered to the lazy on a silver platter or by your evening newscaster.
And you are right, experience does usually win in the end.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.11.29, 16:02:57
Isn't money a representation of energy? So, with free energy, you negate the need for money to some degree. Of course "time" is still very valuble, and people want to be paid for it, as are other commodities, but free energy is a serious equalizer to energy as a commodity. Copper and silver will become very valuable.
Peterae said
"One of us guys better hurry up and get a FE dev working, because during the collapse of iceland, one of the conditions of the IMF lending money was for outsiders to be able to scoop the Iceland energy companies up and privatize them, this also happened when Ireland was bailed by the IMF."
I read an article that said THEY were thinking of using "energy credits" to replace money in the new world monetary system, coming soon.
So yea, we better get something going quick. If the monetary system were based on "energy credits", it may be a shoot to kill order for the likes of us.
Mags
For those that will, or are, picking up and reading the Koran there are some things that you should know before hand.
The Koran is not arranged in chronological order, It is arranged, front to back, from the longest passage to the shortest passage. So as you read through it the time line is scattered all over.
In Islam they have what they call abrogation, because in the Koran there are many verses that contradict each other. The earlier verses, when Islam had no power, were real nice sounding and these are the verses they hold up to us Kafir to show that their religion is peaceful and like other religions, but these are not the verses they believe in. They believe that god can change his mind and that at one time he may say one thing and at another time something else (because he is god he can do anything he wants). So they came up with abrogation and what it does is tells them which verses in the Koran are the right ones, the ones they follow and believe in and were the last and final verses that god wanted them to follow. So make sure you have a Koran that informs you of the abrogated verses. In fact you don't even need to read them because they are not what true Islam follows. They are abrogated, thrown out, not valid nor followed by Muslims.
Unfortunately the peaceful and tolerant verses are the ones that have been abrogated and thrown out, after they gained power everything changed.
Also keep in mind that everything you read in the Koran supposedly came directly from god through Mohammad. They believe that this book is the actual word of god.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.11.29, 17:38:07
I read an article that said THEY were thinking of using "energy credits" to replace money in the new world monetary system, coming soon.
Interesting!
"Energy" in it various forms can replace gold or other standards as a basis for monetary value. When you boil money down to what it is, money is energy credits, except the amount is not currently based on the actual energy supply. Control of the energy supply makes one very powerful!
That's where we are going...
1. Take control of energy reserves (completed)
2. Crash current currency/economy (almost complete)
3. Instill new system, with selfish bastards in control of it all (2012?)
4. bleed the people dry!
I like the "human value unit": HVU = 400 joules
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/proposed-new-currency-would-be-backed-by-e-cat-energy/
Quote
Some background about the link between energy and money:
Energy is what underwrites every economic and ecological process. It is the foundation of all human wealth creation. Since money can be anything which is representative of value that can be traded for a wide range of goods and services across geographical areas, then energy itself can be used as money.
Unlike fiat currencies, an energy currency is a genuine commodity in universal demand, which represents the value of work already done as well as the potential of work which can be done. As a scientific unit of measure, there can be no manipulation of its value over time or place, and therefore no speculation. It can be used to scientifically stabilize and rationalize the economic process at every level. The value of commodities, services and goods can fluctuate in relation to the standard of value of an energy currency, but those fluctuations will not be speculatively driven on the monetary side (as is the case with the dominant fiat system), any fluctuations will be driven by real factors of cost and demand.
An energy currency easily translates into energy accounting, and therefore provides a more accurate and complete analysis of economic output and resource consumption, so it would not be possible to exclude the full human-social and ecological costs of any economic activity in the accounts, as it the case with the present system. Since no one nation or corporation can "own" energy as a currency, it will represent the first genuine international and non-political monetary system.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.11.29, 14:37:00
WW, were you there when Bldg7 was "pulled"? The official story is that it was demolished, and that statement was made after the fact.
My understanding was it was demolished after determining it was likely to cause more surrounding damage and injuries if left to fall on its own, again. I was there when the demolition happened but I was a bit busy. Between the Red Cross trying to call in more troops and the completely disorganized communication attempts by fire/police, it was a lasting nightmare.
The angel in the whole deal was a newly licensed young girl (lower teens, I believe) that manned a Red Cross station for three days without sleep.
As bad as the whole thing was it was cause to realize the greatness that can come out of people.
I've been an active member of ARES & SKYWARN for longer than I care to admit. For my efforts I lost three weeks of pay from my employer but kept my job. Talk about right-wing blood suckers >:(
Ever see the new solidstate electric meters to replace the old rotary ones on your home?
Well, there are many references to these as they can detect how many computers you have running in your home, etc.
I wonder how they know what type of device it is? Power supply signature? EnergyStar? Its on just about everything these days.
Like how my pc knows Im connecting its HD video out to my Sony 50"(vga also). Is there a digital line in the cable that determines this? Or is it a signature of sorts that the pc can detect without data?
So, is there possibly something built into the pc's that could be sending data through the power lines in the house?
Lol, I suppose if you wanted to get around this, use the power coming to the house to charge batteries and run all devices off of an inverter.
Some articles say that there is suspicion that the new digital meters send out a harmful signals, intentionally. ;0
Not sure I believe that, other than it adds more cell freq activity to each home, office, etc. to send data out, about you.
But, I dont like the fact that they can know my electric life and record it.
I know a woman that works for 911 and she says she wont own a cell phone, as in her work, she has the ability to track any phone, and turn the mic on via remote without the phone showing notification of it happening.
I know of a shop that installs devices in unmarked police vehicles, that they can ride through your neighborhood and turn on mic's to get leads, on anything. They tell the shop not to say anything(but you know how that is ;] ) as they told them it is "illegal" to use the devices, the way they use them.
Mags
I have to some cross-checking but it appears "they" are already preparing for "carbon currency":
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19380
Quote
Carbon Market Players
The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market is now predicted to reach $3 trillion by 2020 or earlier.
Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol, states that the carbon market "is therefore all about cash and trading – but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future." (See Who Needs a Carbon Market?)
Who are the "traders" that provide the open door to all this profit? Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Bloomberg noted in Carbon Capitalists on December 4, 2009 that
"The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they've done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They're also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors."
At JP Morgan, the woman who originally invented Credit Default Swaps, Blythe Masters, is now head of the department that will trade carbon credits for the bank.
Considering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbon trading, it's no wonder analysts are already predicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other commodities trading.
(OU device = billionaire?)
What I also find kind of funny is it is the same people who will insist that overunity is possible that will believe in the wildest 9/11 conspiracies. Hey how about this, if you do not think the fuel in the planes had enough energy to bring down the towers, why don't you just assume it was some overunity effect that did it? If overunity is possible, that means you can get infinite energy from nothing, and if that is possible, how about alot of energy from alot of fuel?
You know eaten, I think you got something here.
It could have been the downward movement of the steel girders through the earths magnetic field caused massive flows of current that blew iron oxide off the girders so violently it attached itself to fine particles of aluminum creating thermite which then ignited from the friction and finished blowing the towers down. Maybe I've been wrong all this time?
:D
Quote from: MileHigh
...
Dumped, I can assure you my "bullshit attempted mind-control RADAR" is very alive and kicking. Perhaps you think my "programming" has skewed my perception. However, the problem for me is that I look at what you are saying and to me you are a fully programmed drone doing the bidding of whoever programmed you. You feel satisfaction and fulfillment in telling us that "the end is neigh," just executing your program that your puppetmasters have put into you. But you can't see it because you are in your own fishbowl, just like you allege that I am in my fishbowl.
So who's wearing the fishbowl on their heads? You or me? I think time will tell. I say nothing is going to happen, you say we are close to the Rapture (or whatever), but time will tell.
MileHigh
P.S.: I think I may have read between the lines here in Dumped's statement and figured it out:
I think this one is about the alleged agreement to cull the population of the world because it is too high. Six billion is way too many people and the powers that be have decided that about 500 million is a sweet spot. With a population of 500 million and our current technological level then Man could inhabit the Earth and live a life of luxury and not put any excessive stress on Gia, the living biosphere.
So the gloom and doom from Dumped is about the upcoming mass murder of five and one-half billion people. Am I right Dumped? Do you have an escape-death ticket yourself?
As world events unfold in the near future we
shall all soon see what is really what.
The prophecies of The Book tell us that about
2/3 of the world's population will be lost in the
coming wars and other man-made catastrophes.
There is scant little anyone can do to make
preparation for what is soon to come. And, there
are no "escape-death" tickets for anyone but the
"Elites" themselves who believe, in their arrogance,
that they are firmly in control of their AGENDA.
Their plans will be foiled in a most wondrous way
just when they believe they've achieved all of their
aims...
Death itself is only temporary. In The Book it is called
a "sleep" from which we'll be awakened at the time
of the beginning of the New Era. It is during that time
that all will be made right.
Again, we shall see as it all unfolds...
Fasten your seatbelts!
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.29, 17:53:19
For those that will, or are, picking up and reading the Koran there are some things that you should know before hand.
The Koran is not arranged in chronological order, It is arranged, front to back, from the longest passage to the shortest passage. So as you read through it the time line is scattered all over.
In Islam they have what they call abrogation, because in the Koran there are many verses that contradict each other. The earlier verses, when Islam had no power, were real nice sounding and these are the verses they hold up to us Kafir to show that their religion is peaceful and like other religions, but these are not the verses they believe in. They believe that god can change his mind and that at one time he may say one thing and at another time something else (because he is god he can do anything he wants). So they came up with abrogation and what it does is tells them which verses in the Koran are the right ones, the ones they follow and believe in and were the last and final verses that god wanted them to follow. So make sure you have a Koran that informs you of the abrogated verses. In fact you don't even need to read them because they are not what true Islam follows. They are abrogated, thrown out, not valid nor followed by Muslims.
Unfortunately the peaceful and tolerant verses are the ones that have been abrogated and thrown out, after they gained power everything changed.
Also keep in mind that everything you read in the Koran supposedly came directly from god through Mohammad. They believe that this book is the actual word of god.
Islam has very interesting, and little known,
origins. As does the Saud family of Saudi
Arabia.
Before reading the Koran one should first
study the Talmud and the Kabbalah. Reliable
interpretations can be found online for both.
It is helpful to study in accordance with the
developmental timeline.
Wow G
Carbon credits are already making a lot of people rich, quiet a strange system reminds me of the trading of bad debt which the banks just folded over.
MH and ex will be telling us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq next and that the war was just & legal.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.11.29, 19:28:52
Before reading the Koran one should first
study the Talmud and the Kabbalah. Reliable
interpretations can be found online for both.
Not at all necessary, I mean read them if you want but studying them before the Koran is not necessary, it is the Koran that is giving us the biggest problems.
Let me address the idiots:
They [pulled] building #7 the same time as the towers fell?
Do ya need to look down the barrel of a clue?
The opposite of this model is:
You can tout about something. You can write about something. And nobody will believe you. But if you show a video then all believe. WTF (world trade fools).
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.29, 19:35:05
...it is the Koran that is giving us the biggest problems.
The Koran?
Dude! You must be "hard on the pipe"!
(http://suchabastard.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/crackhead.jpg?w=232&h=317)
Hey Grump,
Whats the idea of posting a picture of me, and where did you get it, thats just great, now my cover is blown!
:'(
Room
I never would have recognized you with the beard !!
Chet
Quote from: Room3327
... it is the Koran that is giving us the biggest problems.
The "us" would be whom?
Quote from: ramset on 2011.11.29, 21:06:59
Room
I never would have recognized you with the beard !!
Chet
Chet, I had to grow it so I could blend in with the crowd when they come my way with pitch forks and torches.
Peter: there is always another angle to things
Don't sell the energy, just sell the green part of it!
QuoteCREDITS FOR SALE. At this point, most states only allow customers to generate enough energy to cover their own needs. Through a process called net metering, an individual or business produces energy during the day, feeds it back into the grid, then gets credited for the amount of energy produced. Though customers can't yet sell electricity to other customers, since they're constrained by having to send their electricity through the existing grid, there are ways to make a profit. The most common way is through selling renewable-energy credits, which are credits clean-energy producers receive and sell to utilities so that utilities can meet their quotas for deriving energy from renewable sources.
Brokers get in touch with local energy producers and purchase the credits, then aggregate them and sell them to the larger utilities. The producers usually get between $200 and $300 for every megawatt hour of energy they generate in a given year. They're not selling the energy itself, but instead are being rewarded for producing their energy cleanly and sustainably.
Michael Mercurio, the president of Island Wind, a clean-energy consulting firm in Long Beach Island, N.J., is one of the pioneers. He currently has a solar energy production system on his home's roof and is about to install a small-scale wind turbine generator. "I don't make money from the sale of [the energy back to the grid or to the utility company], but from the renewable-energy-credit side of it," says Mercurio, who expects to make about $2,820 in total RECs this year, or $235 per megawatt hour he produces.
Green energy took down the towers! Case closed!
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.11.29, 18:34:25
What I also find kind of funny is it is the same people who will insist that overunity is possible that will believe in the wildest 9/11 conspiracies. Hey how about this, if you do not think the fuel in the planes had enough energy to bring down the towers, why don't you just assume it was some overunity effect that did it? If overunity is possible, that means you can get infinite energy from nothing, and if that is possible, how about alot of energy from alot of fuel?
No, sorry that is an assumption by you and an ill founded one. I , for one, do not believe in the "wildest 9/11 conspiracies", and least of all the official government version, yet I believe energy from as yet unknown sources might be possible.Which then begs the question,
why are you here? I asked you this once before and you just slithered away and did not answer.So what is your purpose here? To enlighten all of us that you call "idiots"?. You will probably slither away once again and not answer this direct question.
what is your intention and purpose for being on this forum?
See I'm a bit suspicious of other motives??
In 1993 the towers took a whack {brutal whack] I was called to the site at that time by the chief engineer for the port Authority of NY and NJ.
I have to tell you I spent time in NYC doing High rise Demmo
I think the building was mortally wounded dieing in slow motion from the roots up!
The rest is a type of Lightning we use to see in the City all the time!!
What do you do with a zillion dollar liability thats gonna do a leaning tower of wallstreet some day?
Get creative......................
?
My 2 cents
Chet
What about the asbestos and corrosion? Imagine the cost to rehab those buildings?
EDIT: (sorry for long post)
Larry "Lucky Larry" Silverstein
You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million
Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.
Mr. Silverstein's first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin's cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.
The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.
Another little "coincidence" -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".
Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.
There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely.
WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.
How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:
"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, "Pull" is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building's tenants:
US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank
The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.
Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.
What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends — a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
More on that cozy little relationship later...
"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong,
which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man.
To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor,
both to yourself and to your country."
- Mark Twain
###
"lucky Larry." Follow the money...More Questions...
Not so fast Grumpy,, Water you saying? The missiles that hit the towers were powered by HHO or what? Dont be so facetious man. ;D sorry this is just such a dark thread. i had to try. C.C
one thing is for sure it had nothing to do with the 7 trillion reported lost,,,i mean misplaced,, umm well stoled then on 9-10-11
The plot thickens:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
Some of these coincidences are just too uncanny!
I am sure the best feats of these men is best to come! Big Oil is always blamed for supressing new energy sources, but never the Big Bankers! You rarely hear of a bank CEO getting assassinated. Of course that German man got both legs blown off 20 years ago. Shaped charged job via bicyle! Absolutely beautiful!
Heres one for ya. Some of what I post is not directly related to 911, but really, in the end, all this nasty stuff is part of the grand plan. Its just more proof of the lies and deceit going on. Sort of a character reference. And I bet it is THEY that are at the hands of all of it.
Anybody know anyone with thyroid problems? We dont see a lot of people that have it, goiter like issues that are clearly visible, because a lot are taking medication, "to keep it in check". No lump in neck, better blood flow to the brain, due to no lump, and breathing issues solved, no lump. A well known cause is excessive heavy metal intake.
Thyroid is just one problem people are suffering from due to geoengineering(chem trails)
When I was a kid, the trails of a jet never remained in the sky like they do today. These metals, chemicals, even human blood(was found), etc. can remain up there for up to around 3 years(to supposedly redirect sunlight to cool the earth), before making it to the ground. And that is a new issue for many if not all. Our soils and water are being covered with this stuff.
Just wait till I get into Japans 3rd reactor. It is through the floor of containment and a fear of a Hydro-volcanic reaction once the core reaches(melts its way) a reservoir of water. Stated by the man who designed it.
The US and Canada are being basically blasted due to virtually constant easterly winds over the pacific. Hawaii adds Boron to the milk there due to radiation levels in the milk were 2300 times the normal amount. And its $15 a gal there. Is 2300 times a lot? And, there is 20 million tons of houses, garbage, etc. coming our way. Check it all out for yourselves if interested.
Did you know Fluoride is a neural toxin? Toothpaste. How many times do you brush? Water. How much do you drink?
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/29/group-aims-to-pursue-lawsuit-over-geo-engineering-related-illnesses/
These are the times that the book of Revelations becomes easier to understand. Earthquakes and volcano activity, etc. will come like birth pains. Stronger and more often till..........
Mags
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.29, 21:43:02
The western world.
What is happening in the "Western World" is not
spontaneous or the result of any "Muslim" threat.
It has all been "engineered" by the same operatives
who engineered "9/11" in order to further their AGENDA.
In order for the AGENDA to succeed certain well planned
tensions, conflicts and wars involving certain pre-determined
"sides" must occur. What is presently happening today was
on the drawing boards more than 50 years ago. In some
cases much, much more than 50 years.
When the attack upon the U.S.S. Liberty did not succeed in
producing the desired effect, alternatives were resorted to
which were already well planned out ahead of time.
The "leaders" of the Western World are very much involved
in all of these shenanigans. Things are never as they are made
to "appear" to be. We are all immersed in a manipulated "reality"
which does not bode well for the majority.
Look to the skies and see evidence of weather manipulations
which are capable of producing violent storms and very heavy
localized rainfall. It is very much a "weapon" long in the planning
and development which is now being unleashed as another
facet of the AGENDA.
The financial collapse soon to occur is another "weapon" in their
arsenal which is approaching fruition.
There is much more to come - some of which will be utterly
unbelievable. They (the leaders/owners of the Western World)
are not nice people.
Try to remember that Lucky Larry Silverstein is a comparatively small time mob member, who like all members of gangster organizations, he had to hand the money up the chain of command. He may have been able to keep a small percentage.
So where does the insurance money come from? I'm sure the insurance company that covered the policy did not want to pay up, as they probably knew the truth of the matter(insurance investigators know when to smell a rat, they have the probabilities on the bet all worked out). But with a gun to their head (political pressure) they would have to pay up.
So where does the insurance money come from?.....probably you and me as the insurance companies are in business to make money, not lose it, so they will raise rates to their customers to compensate and recover losses.
The money handed up the chain will probably fund other mob activity in the form of black ops.
Dumped:
Precisely what is the AGENDA? Why beat around the bushes like you have been doing for months? What is it?
Ion:
If you have invested a lot of research time into 9/11, then what is the real truth as far as you are concerned? Same comment as stated to Dumped, why beat around the bushes? Just say it straight up.
Magluvin:
What do you precisely mean by geoengineering using chem trails? Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? What are their goals? How are they doing it? Same comments as above, no beating around the bushes, just say it straight up.
MileHigh
From MH:
QuoteIon:
If you have invested a lot of research time into 9/11, then what is the real truth as far as you are concerned? Same comment as stated to Dumped, why beat around the bushes? Just say it straight up.
I will quote a famous line from a movie:
The truth? You want the truth? Well you can't handle the truth!Thats right, you can't handle the truth, so hold on tight to your blue blanket, cover your ears and eyes and pretend it will go away.
Straight up as I could give it to you. Do your own research if you have the guts for it.
Leaders of the world's large banks are manipulating the nations of the world. They influence political, military, and economic policies and actions on a global scale. I am sure they have trained the latest anti-christ and are waiting for the right time to let him rise to power.
I await MH's demand for "proof", which he doesn't want to see and he knows I lack to time/effort to go and find it for him.
If you want to know what is going on, you will seek the answers.
IMO
As Mags said
This is Biblical Stuff !!
But I also Completely believe OU is Biblical stuff !!
But what do I know...................
Chet
Hey Mh
Well, you should see some vids on YT on it. There is one that shows a large volume of liquid/gas being spewed from the plane, Not a toilet flush at 600mph mind you. And its not just jet exhaust. 100% spittin.
Another story is of a private pilot taking his lil bird out and a large jet was near him, not suppose to be there, and looked to be spewing fuel. He called the tower, and explained what he was seeing, and the person on the other end seemed more interested in who the pilot was, and what/where etc. rather than calling the jet that seemed to be leaking lots of fuel.
Reasons that have been told are that they are releasing particulates in the high atmosphere, Aluminum, Boron, etc, the list goes on, but they say it is to reflect some of the suns rays to help the earth not heat up so fast. Geo-engineering. They all need to be taken out for an afternoon of electroshock.
But theories are many. Population reduction, a way to enhance Haarp, and the list can go on and on. But even IF they didnt intend to harm us from it all, they were wrong.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/09/promo-video-why-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/21/if-chemtrails-and-haarp-didn%E2%80%99t-disturb-you-enough-wait-until-you-hear-about-morgellons/
there is a lot of info on it. I have just gotten into it a few months ago. I say yep, there something going on. ;]
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.30, 01:11:33
Dumped:
Precisely what is the AGENDA? Why beat around the bushes like you have been doing for months? What is it?
Ion:
If you have invested a lot of research time into 9/11, then what is the real truth as far as you are concerned? Same comment as stated to Dumped, why beat around the bushes? Just say it straight up.
Magluvin:
What do you precisely mean by geoengineering using chem trails? Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? What are their goals? How are they doing it? Same comments as above, no beating around the bushes, just say it straight up.
MileHigh
All of the questions that you've asked above
have answers that are readily found with just
a modicum of research.
You're demonstrating a "profile" which is quite
common among academics and intellects today.
All creative effort is focused on research which
is translatable into monetary gain. All other creative
effort is essentially eschewed as being valueless
or wasted time.
In today's world it is absolutely incredible the numbers of
bright people who are so absorbed in satisfying their own
needs that they seem incapable of taking notice of what
is truly going on around them.
They're fully satisfied with what the media presents each
day which relieves them of any oblligation to discover
answers to occasionally nagging questions by their own
devices.
Their reasons for avoiding truth which may lead to feelings of
discomfort are deeply embedded and very resistant to intrinsic
modification.
Until they've run head on into problems which demand immediate
action and cannot be relegated to low priorities.
As has already been aptly pointed out: uninformed opinions
which are devoid of verifiable facts are nothing more than
hearsay.
It would be ever so nice to see some semblance of knowledge!
"Head in a bowl?" You bet!
So I ask three straightforward questions and I get two cop-outs and one attempt at an answer that's all over the map.
It sort of makes me think of my early days on YouTube asking people about their supposed free energy experiments. The common reply was, "Do the experiments yourself." But the problem was that all of the people I asked clearly weren't doing experiments at all. They were just measuring one or two things with their multimeters and watching their creations spin.
I think this little exercise was very revealing.
MileHigh
Also if you have serious doubts, Hawaii is trying to pass a bill for a no fly zone for these sprayings. Its real alright.
Does anyone here know of the numerous nuclear plat problems we have had here in the US since Japans problem?
2 in Nebraska due to flooding they had earlier this year. Did you hear about it? ;]
1 in Alabama had 7 power lines torn from the tornado(Haarp?Many tornados at the time, many.) that were incoming lines for the cooling pumps. 10,000 gallons of deisel per HOUR to run those pumps on emergency gens. Estimated 2 weeks to repair the 7 lines.
Did you hear about that one? ;]
Associated Press did a 12 month investigation on the safety of nuc plants. The found that 48 of like 65(of 111 I think here in the US) plants investigated were leaking tritium into the ground and into some water systems. They found that most plants are running on extended permit(license) beyond the 40 year limit. At 40 years, the plants should be shut down and "fully" serviced and checked before continuing operation. Did you hear..........
Los Alamos nuc facility. Outside tents cover nuc materials in containers. UNDER TENTS. Well there was a BIG fire (few months ago) that was heading that way. What a bunch of idiots we let run this country. Das right, we let them. Mostly because many never hear about these things. Media control.
The Viginia plant hit by the earth quake(Ive read that it was a nuking of underground cities. Seismometer signature was not of a normal earthquake, more like nuc.) was found to be leaking tritium via broken OLD cooling system.
Did you hear about that one? ;]
But it is amazing what you find when you are aware. ;]
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.30, 02:07:48
So I ask three straightforward questions and I get two cop-outs and one attempt at an answer that's all over the map.
It sort of makes me think of my early days on YouTube asking people about their supposed free energy experiments. The common reply was, "Do the experiments yourself." But the problem was that all of the people I asked clearly weren't doing experiments at all. They were just measuring one or two things with their multimeters and watching their creations spin.
I think this little exercise was very revealing.
MileHigh
Practice makes Perfect!
You'll be greatly and pleasantly surprised to
discover that you're fully capable of finding
satisfactory answers if you'll but expend some
effort to seek and hone your skills.
Aye, the exercise is very revealing indeed!
Great Teachers cannot be shamed or cajoled
into doing the work the student needs in order
to gain benefit.
Chin up! Press on!
Edit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Short answer: Your profile indicates that your
belief system is inefficient at accepting and
processing external input for retention.
Any input from external sources which your
belief system finds unacceptable for retention
produces destructive and highly verbose feedback
which attempts to nullify the "incongruous" input
followed by total short term memory erasure.
Your belief system demands that all beliefs
originate internally as if they were your own
in order to be accepted and processed for
retention within allocated memory.
Smart cattle are still cattle.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.30, 02:07:48
So I ask three straightforward questions and I get two cop-outs and one attempt at an answer that's all over the map.
It sort of makes me think of my early days on YouTube asking people about their supposed free energy experiments. The common reply was, "Do the experiments yourself." But the problem was that all of the people I asked clearly weren't doing experiments at all. They were just measuring one or two things with their multimeters and watching their creations spin.
I think this little exercise was very revealing.
MileHigh
Cmon M. You asked...
What do you precisely mean by geoengineering using chem trails? Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? What are their goals? How are they doing it? Same comments as above, no beating around the bushes, just say it straight up.
I said - Reasons that have been told are that they are releasing particulates in the high atmosphere, Aluminum, Boron, etc, the list goes on, but they say it is to reflect some of the suns rays to help the earth not heat up so fast. Geo-engineering.
Answered
I said - Nothing. Who do you think? THEY. ;]
I said - Same as first answer.
I said - Same as first answer.
I said - Umm Airplanes? Chemtrails? Never heard of it? Yer a virgin. ;]
I can tell you everything, but its all over the net. Pick your search results. ;] Depends on if you want to know more.
Mags Beating Bush
I always knew that, someday, this day would come.
A toast I say to the many splendours that missed our view.
Cheers to all that bicker and bitch about much of nothing.
Farewell to my brethren who have lost their world.
Forever to my brethren who have kept their soul.
It is as it is written and so claimed.
The evidence of evil is pervasive.
Pity will not come our way but dissolve.
As a believer, joy comes my way but not to the many.
The passing of this final moment marks the decision.
The day that Grace was removed.
@Milehigh
QuoteWhat do you precisely mean by geoengineering using chem trails? Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? What are their goals? How are they doing it? Same comments as above, no beating around the bushes, just say it straight up.
On the surface it would seem there should be no cause for concern however I think your post hit the nail on the head. Now if I were to place a 100 gallon tank of water in the back of my truck and rig a spray bar to spray this "water" into the air as I drove down the highway I can assure you I would not make it more than 10 or 20 miles before someone called the police and I was pulled over and questioned as to what in the hell I was doing. However concerning these jets frequently dumping large amounts of unknown substances into the atmosphere over populated areas we have a complete information blackout, as you say "Who is doing it? Why are they doing it? What are their goals? How are they doing it?". You see in the real world environmental agencies must be informed, studies and disclosures are made to the appropriate agencies and the public informed through various channels yet none of this has happened. Apparently all the environmental laws which must be followed to the letter and all the disclosures and protocols have simply been ignored which I think should give any sane individual cause for concern.
Then we have the fictional "terrorist threat", now if a terrorist can fly a jet into a building then one would think mysterious jets dumping unknown substances into the atmosphere might be cause for concern by some level of government. When I fly they do everything short of a body cavity search just in case I may be hiding a terrorist somewhere on my person however apparently thousands of gallons of a mystery substance which never arrives at it's destination is no cause for concern.
Is that weird --- or what?.
Regards
AC
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.28, 20:16:19
@everyone
I just finished a well-worded, sorta short tirade :D ;D >:( :P (with these cute smiley faces) post on my Bench, as to what I want to do with the 9/11 posts there. Delete them (they're perfectly good for this discussion) or import them here? I have the ability there, but they stay here after they arrive---this isn't my Forum.
My post is still there and will remain there as an announcement of my intentions. I'm putting a notification and return-to-topic check mark on this thread.
I was afraid of that. My whole thread was transferred to here,
or else, the posts from PhysicsProf's #31 in my thread, to the end of the thread, came here and the preceding posts were deleted.
Okay; I just looked; the second supposition appears correct. Off-topic posts to the end of my former thread were copied here and the preliminary posts were deleted. At least I think so. There was more than one page of them, assuming 10 posts to a page.
Oh, well. Everyone learns, sometimes the hard way. I would have done it differently if I had known that. I would have copied-and-pasted individual posts to a blank target text screen on this thread, one at a time. Then deleted the original posts in the Bench thread when I knew the posts was here.
Now, then: Peterae indicated to me he'll merge what I posts sent into the rest of this thread on his own time. I'm moving tomorrow and I don't know how much time I'll have to be here. I will
"Be Back!" as The Terminator has said in more than one movie. :D ;D ;) ^-^ >:-)
--Lee
Grumpy, that was most interesting, thanks for posting. This is what I mean by all this circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11, and I know there is more cause I read it way back when. This topic is so vast one can go in so many directions and write volumes on it.
@all
I think the following article is unbiased as far as possible, and seems very exhaustive with plenty of references on this question of demolition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories
Like I've stated before, I see this demolition issue as a diversion to the main conspiracy of who did it. It should be very apparent to an intelligent person that the reason the towers fell is because they were hit by airplanes and damaged, with the collapse starting at the damaged location. I don't discount what Dr Jones et. al. found, either. We just don't know where the red chips found in the dust came from, but why be obsessed with red chips in the dust when there are so many other things to investigate? On the question of Building 7, I know what I've heard on TV during the news, and what the intended meaning of the words was. The "pull it" remark did not refer to pulling the emergency personnel from the buildings, as the article states, but to demolish it. I believe they didn't need to set up explosives on all floors, as they usually do, simply weaken a few beams up top and the force of the floors collapsing on the bottom ones increases, and a domino effect takes it down all the way, just like we witnessed. The placing of these few explosives could have been carried out that day maybe in one hour or less. This was certainly not a standard demolition project, but a quick emergency type of operation.
Let's talk about remote control of flying vehicles. During the Afganistan and Iraq wars it became apparent that a new way to prosecute wars is being utilized. Remote control drones, like the Predetor and Reaper, are now mainstream war machines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html
These vehicles are controlled from half the way around the world, from the US mainland. I worked with a few folks that went into "combat" from the comfort of their chairs. Now let me ask this question. Did these systems get developed in a year or two since the war began? No they did not. Some of the architecture and links that make this possible have been around for a while but not widely advertised. I know because I worked on related technology and waveforms around that time, and it wasn't new. In fact Remote Control of airplanes goes back to WWII, that's how JFK's older brother died, and his death was classified and not even president Kennedy could get the answers he sought about his brother's death at that time. (the info has been declassified since) So, if the planes that flew into the world trade center were remote controlled, I have no doubt a remote control terminal was used much like what is now used to control the drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
After the Clinton era, and the significant demilitarization of the US, (e.g. number of bases closed, pentagon budget reductions, etc..) because of the end of the cold war, and after that euphoric dot com bubble period, I knew that as soon as the republicans were taking over something military in nature was going to happen to bring back the value of all the defense stocks. As soon as Bush junior took office, we had that China incident, that mid air collision between a US surveillance plane and a Chinese jet and the ensuing drama after they made an emergency landing in China at some military base. I thought OK these guys are focused on Asia, and North Korea, so we'll see action there, but then out of the blue, on September 11th, we find out that the game had changed and we were getting involved in the oil rich regions of the middle east, once again. If papa Bush couldn't do it, by golly, junior was going to pull it off and finish what was started.
OK, let me fast forward a bit, we went to war in Afghanistan not necessarily to get Bin Laden, but to make a regime change. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was the excuse, and the Taliban would not turn them over, so we decided the Taliban must go, they are too fundamentalist, and they don't play nice with the new world order. Bin Laden in a few interviews has said that he did not order attacks on the WTC, I read that in a few places but I don't have a link. But no matter, we finally caught up with him in Pakistan and what a royal screw up that mission was contrary to all the praise and cheer.
So many people tend to idolize the Navy Seals, Delta Forces, and all these other "elite" squads, and rightly so because they undergo some serious training and have some nifty equipment, but in reality, the operations they pull off are usually a piece of cake compared to what the Marines endured on the streets of Fallujah in Iraq, day in and day out. These Special Op guys have a very easy job from this perspective. I mean, how hard is it to sneak in with night vision goggles and shoot unarmed men and women, catching them unawares? Think about that.
The operation they pulled off in Pakistan was a ridiculous blunder if you ask me. They shot the one men that could have shed so much light on 9/11 if put on trial, and lost a billion dollar stealth helicopter in the process, revealing critical technology to a foreign country. They ought to be prosecuted under the Import Export laws, same laws I abide by at work. We worked hard on some of this stealth technology, and these nitwits couldn't even carry out a proper destruction of the helicopter. What do you expect from a bunch of trigger happy muscle heads? But what really bugs me about the whole Bin laden operation is his killing, and then not even releasing photos to prove they got him and of course DNA and make the body available for analysis by 3rd parties, which they claim they did on the boat, yeah sure. Talk about a slap in the face to all the military families that have lost loved one in this war believing the lies about terrorism and Bin Laden in particular. I think a senator or congressmen initiated a lawsuit against the White House administration for this purpose. And by the way, that "famous" photo of Obama and his cabinet with some Generals and Hillary Clinton watching in awe the operation as it unfolded is such a fake and staged of course later after the fact. In fact the live feed was never transmitted after a certain point.
What a sham this whole 9/11 and all the repercussions, and all the loss of life. The world is controlled by this cabal of power hungry maniacs. Since the world's been turning, the powerful have wanted more power, more territory, more control. Examples like king Nebuchadnezzar of ancient Babylon come to mind, the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and since then the most notorious, the Papacy and the reign of terror they carried out during the middle ages until the "deadly wound" was received when the French General Berthier took the Pope captive in 1798 ending their more then a 1000 year supremacy. Then the "wound" was healed later by Mussolini, and the world has been wondering after the "BEAST" ever since. Do you see what crowds this little puppet figure of a false man made religion draws? In the book "Keys of this Blood", Jesuit Malachi Martin, reveals some very interesting facts about this organization and it's operations and desires. Do you know that these Jesuits have infiltrated all political levels? This once Protestant nation is now un-recognizable, and the separation "wall" between State and Religion is constantly being eroded. So who is really pulling all the strings behind the scenes? Who are the real players at the very top? Is it Israeli banking giants? Capitalists? Papal fish heads? Why do so many people want to control you and me, and rule over us? How about we give them all the finger, and stop fighting their wars, believing their lies, buying their products, and using their money? I can't believe the Papacy use to sell indulgences at the time of the reformation. Give us money and you can sin. Talk about a new low. Just so you know I don't hate people that believe a certain way, but I sure think they are deceived by their moral and religious leaders, and this applies to anybody who does not question what they are told, weather it be wall street stories, world history, or your local car salesmen down the street.
ok, that's my rant for tonight. >:-)
A quote from the latest article about Fukushima....
Children over 32 miles from ground zero are suffering fatigue, diarrhea, and nosebleeds, the three most common of eight radiation sickness signs, the three in the earliest stage.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/29/fukushima-will-not-go-away/
Mags
Well, just for fun, here is a hypothetical story for all of you to contemplate.
A jet plane leaves a vapour trail when the water that is the the product of the combustion encounters air at the right pressure, humidity and temperature to form water droplets. "Clouds," if you will.
This has been going on since the dawn of the jet age, and it goes much further back than that. High-flying piston-powered aircraft can do exactly the same thing.
Then someone, perhaps in the late Seventies, speculated that they were mysterious chemical trails. Planes were flying across the land spraying chemicals. Somehow, the evil government scientists could not figure out how to make this nefarious act of spraying the population with chemicals an invisible process. Everybody in the secret underground lab went "Duh!" at the same time. Nonetheless, the evil string-pullers behind the evil string-pullers decided to go ahead with the program anyways.
So, lots of nervous energy has been expended over the past 35 years worrying about those nasty chem trails. Makes you think that it might call for a class action lawsuit, all that collective suffering. However, the people that give lectures about the chem trails and write books about them have a vested interest in keeping the chemical poisoning of the population ongoing, a continuous process. They give lectures and write books to keep a roof over their heads and to eat.
And it's all pure crap. Just junk snake-oil salesman trying to make you believe that the vapour trails left by jet engines are some kind of chemical being sprayed as part of a government conspiracy, when it's just ordinary water. Just ordinary water, period.
And the next time a strange weather phenomenon takes place the chem trail lobby will blame it on the chem trails, and some people will believe it.
Quote from: EMdevices
...
In the book "Keys of this Blood", Jesuit Malachi Martin, reveals some very interesting facts about this organization and it's operations and desires. Do you know that these Jesuits have infiltrated all political levels?
...
ok, that's my rant for tonight. >:-)
Ah yes, the Jesuits. They themselves are the
product of an infiltration of the Roman Church.
Christendom was infiltrated by "pretenders"
since long ago (First Century) and has been
molded into a tool of the AGENDA.
The Dark Ages were their handiwork.
The entire hierarchy of both Catholicism and
Protestantism are servants of the Synagogue
of Satan. Such is their wealth, power, influence
and control. Babylon the Great.
Radical Islam is their invention too.
MH says...
Makes you think that it might call for a class action lawsuit
This link is from about 5 of my posts ago
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/29/group-aims-to-pursue-lawsuit-over-geo-engineering-related-illnesses/
First you say how badly I answered your questions.
Then you make the statement above after I post the link above.
Maybe put the bong down for a bit. ;]
And for the clincher, he blurts out a bunch of knowledge on the subject. Why ask so many questions if you already know most of the answers.? Bong hit? ;]
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.30, 03:16:38
Well, just for fun, here is a hypothetical story for all of you to contemplate.
A jet plane leaves a vapour trail when the water that is the the product of the combustion encounters air at the right pressure, humidity and temperature to form water droplets. "Clouds," if you will.
...[Blah, blah, blah. Uninformed opinions and sheer speculation.]
...
Fun.
Hypothetical Story.
Surely you're capable of better than that
MileHigh...
Your efforts at defending the AGENDA and those
who are promoting it are becoming futile.
@MileHigh
Quote... And it's all pure crap ...
For once we are in perfect agreement! Sorry guys, we agree on other subjects but not this one. In fact, what is polluting the planet more then exaust from planes is exaust from automobiles. That is by far the highest poluter, that's why all the Smog emission checks. This brings us back to free energy, we need a non poluting solution quick.
Magluvin:
I fatuously am implying a class action lawsuit against the people that want to make you believe that chem trails exist. They are the ones that are causing the mental suffering.
QuoteThe group discusses geo-engineering, which is a process used to manipulate the climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Try thinking rationally about this. Putting tiny "white particles" into the air from jet aircraft will affect global warming?
Dumped:
It sounds like a good name for a movie, "The AGENDA." Followed by "Trilateral Commission vs. The AGENDA." lol
MileHigh
here is some spam for your samich ;]
oh yea, another reason is weather modification. ;]
NOTICE OF INTENTION WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY HEREBY GIVES NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONDUCT A WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM NATURE AND PURPOSE: The purpose of the project is to increase rainfall to help alleviate deficiencies of water supplies in Santa Barbara County. Clouds would be seeded by the dispersal of Silver Iodide (AgI). Two possible modes of seeding, air based and ground based, would be used. LOCATION OF PURPOSE: Project operations could be conducted during the period between November 15 and April 15, for each year, 2011-2012 through 2015-2016. Airborne seeding operations would utilize air space over Santa Barbara County, portions of San Luis Obispo County as well as the Pacific Ocean immediately west of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Ground based seeding operations would be conducted from the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Casmalia Hills and the San Rafael Mountains. The target areas for seeding operations are the watersheds behind Cachuma and Gibraltar reservoirs on the Santa Ynez River as well as Twitchell reservoir on the Cuyama River. LICENSEE: The project would be operated and supervised by a licensed weather modification consultant.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/28/solid-proof-that-weather-modification-projects-are-being-conducted-all-over-the-united-states/
What are they spraying?
Mags
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.11.30, 03:39:37
@MileHigh
For once we are in perfect agreement! Sorry guys, we agree on other subjects but not this one. In fact, what is polluting the planet more then exaust from planes is exaust from automobiles. That is by far the highest poluter, that's why all the Smog emission checks. This brings us back to free energy, we need a non poluting solution quick.
The device itself is just the tip of the iceberg.Say I hand you a device right now. DC, 500v @ 50 amps (25kw). Totally free, and will run continuously once started.
Hmmm. Your car is an ICE.
Where do you start? Go ahead and have a look around at what is available to convert a car to electricity. It isn't cheap and it isn't easy.
So, not daunted by the car project, maybe you decide to work on your house. What can you run directly, and what requires an inverter? Can you power anything in your home with this device?
Maybe you feel ambitious and decide to get a matching inverter to sell power back to the grid.
Can you find a grid-tie inverter that will work with this device?These are the very real questions that you have to ask yourself when you say you need an energy source.
Mags:
Cloud seeding has been around for decades. I don't know how real it is in terms of serious usage and all that. Too tired to read tonight.
But the problem is there is no real linkage between cloud seeding and vapour trails from aircraft. It's just water, you could gather it up and take a bath in it! (Or power your car? har har)
MileHigh
G, what's your point? Inverters for dumping power back in the grid are quite common, especially in Solar power installations.
NO!
Do not transact currency! I have stated this before. Do not include the government at a volunteer level of submission to them.
Do you all understand the implications of this?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.11.30, 04:18:43
The device itself is just the tip of the iceberg.
Say I hand you a device right now. DC, 500v @ 50 amps (25kw). Totally free, and will run continuously once started.
Hmmm. Your car is an ICE.
Where do you start? Go ahead and have a look around at what is available to convert a car to electricity. It isn't cheap and it isn't easy.
So, not daunted by the car project, maybe you decide to work on your house. What can you run directly, and what requires an inverter? Can you power anything in your home with this device?
Maybe you feel ambitious and decide to get a matching inverter to sell power back to the grid. Can you find a grid-tie inverter that will work with this device?
These are the very real questions that you have to ask yourself when you say you need an energy source.
Hey guys,
What a 9/11 debat has to do here? Will it give us free energy? Are you not yet fed up with this pointless matter? Planes full of kerosene are not solutions to energy crisis, they are the problem.
"Overunity research" is the theme of this forum. Please, leave conspiracy theories and back to work! :)
Deep cut
quote:
Chet, IMHO you are a complete fantasist.
================
Perhaps you have lived to sheltered a life?...... ,Because your phone didn't ring after the Bomb went off in 93 you call me a liar??
This topic runs very close to my lifes experience !!
It changed my life dramatically .
Where I come from you don't call men liars to there face for no reason whatsoever ?
Very Odd .....Very Odd Indeed ?
Perhaps Ex Is right ?
PS
Grumpy
That device would be on a plane tomorrow [slight exaggeration] heading to Somalia ,as the main ingredient in a Desalination plant !
You are however correct ,we the true 1% could never have our lives changed by Ou as Much as the other 6 Billion peeps that can't even get a glass of clean water!
And if you were perfectly Honest "we don't even need it"[to survive]
But they do ,And ultimately "They" will be Us................
Just My Humble opinion!
Chet
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.11.30, 04:42:12
G, what's your point? Inverters for dumping power back in the grid are quite common, especially in Solar power installations.
Everyone wants an OU device with absolutely no regard for the rest of the iceberg. The device itself is only the beginning of the solution and lot of work/effort/money is required to achieve the goal. Seriously, perform some conceptualization with the device specifications that I provided and see what you are up against.
Find the answers to my questions and you will have a head start on everyone else. ;)
I'm not willing to get into the chemtrail debate as I don't have enough information and would rather spend my investigative hours on the 9/11 issue.
Who was behind the 9/11 attack is the big one. The fish stinks at the head. The head may have not been Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney, they areprobably errand boys carrying out orders from higher up the organization, the group of mobsters that run the planet.
How it may have been accomplished is quite easy once you are aware of the technology that could be used.
I'll give a few hints: Building 7 may have had high power microwave beaming equipment on the 23rd floor within direct sight of of both towers.
Planted earlier in the month prior to 9/11 were microwave detonateble explosives. No wiring required. The tuned antennas on these explosives could not be triggered by ordinary cell towers or phones, as they were insensitive to all but a very high powered narrow focused horizontal beam of the correct frequency.
The high power microwave beam was swept sequentially from the floor of drone impact and down quite a few floors, eliminating all support for the upper structure. Gravity would do the rest with thousands of tons of upper structure crashing free fall into the lower floors. This would insure a top down collapse and minimize collateral damage.
Building 7 was probably pre wired for demolishment months ahead of time and had to be destroyed to remove all traces of the microwave high power beaming equipment.
Special "bullet proof glass" was supposedly installed on the 23rd. floor of building 7(Giuliani's Emergency Bunker) I'll let you guess why. Hint:Microwave opacity. Research: Giuliani's Bunker
Do the research on remote detonation of explosives by radio waves. This is not science fiction, but currently available technology.
As an engineer, this is how I would have brought down the towers using available technology and considering the "effect" that it was desired to create. It is just an informed opinion, conjecture if you like. Do the pieces fit...you decide.
Who "are" the heads of the snake?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.11.30, 08:05:50
Hey guys,
What a 9/11 debat has to do here? Will it give us free energy?
Yes! The Truth will give us free energy!
Apparently "Count Hans Kolvenbach" is running the show now.
Hmm...seven men make up his general staff.
Kinda ironic that the Zionist are getting the bad rap for things now.
Wow! Their Protocols are interesting. Yeah! Get everyone drunk with pleasures and take over the world!
The Jesuit Order is divided into 83 Regions, with a "Provincial" for each Region. Babylonian all the way Baby!
Damn! this is one deep abyss!
@ION
I strongly recommend watch the movie (in 26 parts) which is on the bottom in the site http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
911 Nuclear Demolition
---- Dimitri Khalezov's Nuclear Demolition Videos Being Scrubbed Off Web! ----
You, and most of people are missing 2 important things of physics:
1. Aluminum can not penetrate through steel, how big it wasn't.
2. Its no ordinary explosives in the World to demolish such monstrous buildings with 90+ percents of steel in constructions. - no termite, no dynamite, etc..
ONLY Nuclear Demolition
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.11.30, 16:37:39
@ION
I strongly recommend watch the movie (in 26 parts) which is on the bottom in the site http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
911 Nuclear Demolition
---- Dimitri Khalezov's Nuclear Demolition Videos Being Scrubbed Off Web! ----
You, and most of people are missing 2 important things of physics:
1. Aluminum can not penetrate through steel, how big it wasn't.
2. Its no ordinary explosives in the World to demolish such monstrous buildings with 90+ percents of steel in constructions. - no termite, no dynamite, etc..
ONLY Nuclear Demolition
I'm familiar with Dimitri's work and his video's. Dimitri does not rule out the use of explosives on the upper floors and to create the outline of the plane right down to the wingtips.
I do not rule out the use of mini thermo nukes as he suggests in order to collapse the massive inner core structure.
Automobiles that were some distance from the scene spontaneously bursting into flame and exploding could be accounted for by the EMP of a mini-nuke detonation.
I have not tied those pieces together but it makes for interesting study. I'll just continue to collect the data before I consolidate an "opinion".
To MH
When I was Chief Engineer and later VP of Engineering, I had a couple of people who fit your profile working for / with me.
They were never very creative and hardly capable of thinking outside the box, but were really good "slide rule jockeys" and "bit bangers". They were useful for double checking and fine tuning the creative work of others.
They excelled at TTL and CMOS logic design, ones and zeroes,black and white, but had trouble with simple analog circuits. Power design and engineering caught them well out of the water, and they sometimes had great difficulty visualizing how a simple two transistor synergistic circuit works.
I have noticed that you only go after the sure thing on this forum, the easily debunked and obviously erroneous circuit design or analysis. You steer well clear of anything with any degree of sophistication and have never posted a creative circuit of your own. What is with that?
So I can understand your profile and why you think the way you do. Though I appreciate that you take the time to set some of the beginners straight, why not graduate from always picking the low hanging fruit for your basket.
Though I often agree with your analysis, it is often rudimentary, and I am not impressed, sorry.
BYW, I was not copping out earlier, it's just that you need to have a willing student before you can transfer some new ideas. I believe your mind is already made up and not open at all hence I won't fall into your "setup".
Your gun is already cocked and ready to shoot down any idea that will "shake your world view" so I won't take the bait.
And you can continue to write me off as a tinfoil hat Fascist idiot.........it doesn't hurt a bit.
for me its picture clear now. when you find the truth, you can not find more than truth. for me Dimitri Khalezov put all dots on "i". you can find only some more details, like, who press the red button, but it is not important, until people wake up and case go to the court.
I would just like to say there is nothing new for me in any of what has been said in this thread. I too have been studying all this stuff and I have to say have probably read a heck of a lot more then most of you. I see your points I hear your information and I don't disagree with much of it, believe it or not, but yes there are points of contention.
I think this subject has hung up this site and until it is hashed out I doubt this site will go anywhere futher. With the way I have been treated in this thread I can assure you I wouldn't share the time of day with most of you, and I believe there are other people here who feel the same.
MH and I have been told that we only have an opinion not an informed view, and yet all other responses here are only opinions themselves. If anyone here has an informed opinion I would say it is Physics Prof. He has actually done study and written professional papers on it, which I have been studying. If I decide to stick around here we will discuss them.
Personally I think most of you are delusional and don't have a good grip on reality. The only way you can cope with someone like me is to smear, call names, and belittle, but you will never consider that what I am saying may have some validity to it. It's OK we all reside in our own little worlds we build up around ourselves, some seem to be microscopic worlds but each to his own.
To MH and a number of others here, your astute knowledge and observations have been appreciated by me and I Thank You! The rest of the crowd needs to catch up.
Edit: PS Please leave the pitch forks and torches at home.
I have also worked with people that appear to be like MH or i should say the impression MH gives of himself, they make lousy fault finder's.
I also worked with some rally down to earth open minded guys, one of the best designed a front end for a temperature controller based on a nand gate oscillator, it was so accurate & stable it's still widely used in the top controllers around, the company i worked for are world leaders in temperature control instrumentation.
Reverend Father Adolfo Nicolás is the current Black Pope.
@Room3327
You are calling names
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.30, 18:38:48
Personally I think most of you are delusional and don't have a good grip on reality. The only way you can cope with someone like me is to smear, call names, and belittle,
that's all what you can say something new about 911 to us?
Its need to call yours name?
Ion, very impressive sir! Chief Engineeer and VP of Engineering, that is an honor! My hat is off to you!
@ all,
Today's stock market surge in the US, (of the Dow Jones, Nasdaq, S&P 500, etc..) only illustrates how commited these Globalists are to this idea. While European banks are dried up and have no more access to money, they made a decision to lend them more money. So they are injecting money into a failed system as we speak. ? Strengtening the Global ties only puts the whole world at risk, as the ties are strengtened. One hickup in one part of the world can amplify and debilitate the whole WORLD! That's the way they want it I guess. >:(
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.30, 18:38:48
If anyone here has an informed opinion I would say it is Physics Prof. He has actually done study and written professional papers on it, which I have been studying. If I decide to stick around here we will discuss them.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.30, 19:43:29
Peterae,
So what are we doing here comparing credentials?
From EM
QuoteIon, very impressive sir! Chief Engineeer and VP of Engineering, that is an honor! My hat is off to you!
Thank you EM!
I held several jobs, some connected to the Apollo mission, but that doesn't mean I am totally convinced we went to the moon, just because there were hardware contracts written to the Valley Forge Aerospace Center. I'll reserve my opinion as I collect more data.
I spent my last 30+ years with a Temperature / Process control company. I was their idea man, but had to work my way up the ladder which was not too difficult since they were a small company. Some of my titles on the way up the ladder were: New Products Manager, Senior Engineer, Research and Development Director and finally those priorly mentioned.
One of our flagship products around the early 80's was a dual display, dual heat / cool output PID controller. I did all the hardware design including the discrete A/D converter under processor control, and much of the firmware design using a 6500 processor. With just 2K of ROM memory, we were able to scan the keyboard, strobe and update the display, calculate and linearize thermocouple, RTD, and process inputs, calculate fully variable PID settings and also had two fully configurable alarms and enough room left over to install an autotune algorithm. We could sure pack code in those days.
Besides outlining and implementing ideas for new product design, my responsibilities also included managing the engineers, techs, and drafting personnel.
I must say, my techs, some of whom were amateur radio operators could run circles around the engineers who seemed very myopic and awkward when given a project to tweak on the bench. They had their place though.
Hat off to ION with that, we had a big R&D department to do what you did above, just shows what a single person can do.
The machine assembly code was reviewed instruction by instruction to minimize it's code size in some of the controllers back then because of rom space :)
Early 90's the guys were working on a fuzzy logic Auto tune controller, it was first created using a fuzzy C compiler and then hand converted to machine language to fit into the micro code space.
We also had a 6502 based controller, very similar to your description.
I was mainly involved in test and test fixture building, and mostly involved with a multi zone rack system, but could repair & Calibrate every controller they ever built.
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.29, 22:25:50
No, sorry that is an assumption by you and an ill founded one. I , for one, do not believe in the "wildest 9/11 conspiracies", and least of all the official government version, yet I believe energy from as yet unknown sources might be possible.
Which then begs the question, why are you here?
I asked you this once before and you just slithered away and did not answer.
So what is your purpose here? To enlighten all of us that you call "idiots"?. You will probably slither away once again and not answer this direct question. what is your intention and purpose for being on this forum?
If I did not respond before it is because I visit infrequently. To answer your question, I am here for entertainment. It is funny to occasionally read what deluded people have to say.
Apparently, Hugo doesn't play ball:
QuoteNuncio to Venezuela In 2010 President Chavez ordered a review of relations with the Holy See. The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference warned this week about growing political polarisation ahead of key legislative elections in September. Chavez has described local Catholic leaders as "troglodytes". In a televised speech on 14 July 2010, President Chavez said he was asking his foreign minister to examine a decades-old agreement with the Holy See. The accord granted privileges to the Catholic Church that other denominations did not enjoy, he said. He also challenged the Pope's authority, saying he was the Vatican's head of state but not Christ's emissary on Earth. "Christ does not need an ambassador. Christ is in the people and in those of us who fight for justice and freedom for the humble," he said. On 12 July, the Venezuelan bishops' conference expressed concern that "ideological and political polarisation" was creating a hostile environment ahead of the legislative elections on 26 September.[1]
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.11.30, 15:25:17
Who "are" the heads of the snake?
Cui bono?
Who has gotten what they've wanted in the
aftermath of 9/11?
Who was found to be video recording the
event and jumping in jubilation when it came
off as expected?
Who is the media protecting by making it
"untouchable" and "unreportable?"
Who owns the media?
There you will find the head...
The current Superior General is the Reverend Father Adolfo Nicolás.
He is at the top of the top. Far above the bankers and network owners.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.11.30, 21:39:10
If I did not respond before it is because I visit infrequently. To answer your question, I am here for entertainment. It is funny to occasionally read what deluded people have to say.
Thank you for your honest response We'll probably keep you around for our amusement until it is time to jettison some of the "troll baggage"
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.11.30, 22:34:51
The current Superior General is the Reverend Father Adolfo Nicolás.
He is at the top of the top. Far above the bankers and network owners.
Perhaps so - but he was positioned there by
those to whom he answers.
Look higher still...
From Peterae:
QuoteHat off to ION with that, we had a big R&D department to do what you did above, just shows what a single person can do.
Thanks Peterae, sounds like we can talk the talk of process and temperature control.
I had a few good helping hands, mostly self taught tech types. Most of our engineering team was for sales and customer support, with just a handful of us executing new designs..
@Grumpy,
QuoteChrist is in the people and in those of us who fight for justice and freedom for the humble," Chavez stated. On 12 July, the Venezuelan bishops' conference expressed concern that "ideological and political polarisation" was creating a hostile environment ahead of the legislative elections on 26 September.[1]
The secondary parlee by the pope is most psychologically evil comment I have ever heard. Imagine the depth of unwilling recruitement this sets up?
Good find.
Quote from: EMdevices
...
Today's stock market surge in the US, (of the Dow Jones, Nasdaq, S&P 500, etc..) only illustrates how committed these Globalists are to this idea. While European banks are dried up and have no more access to money, they made a decision to lend them more money. So they are injecting money into a failed system as we speak. ? Strengthening the Global ties only puts the whole world at risk, as the ties are strengthened. One hickup in one part of the world can amplify and debilitate the whole WORLD! That's the way they want it I guess. >:(
Aye, that is precisely the way they want it!
They have the power to make their own "money"
and as much, or as little, as is suitable for their
immediate objectives.
They too shall have their Waterloo...
http://www.louisville.com/content/sen-rand-paul-fights-against-martial-law-legislation-arena
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.11.30, 23:44:02
Perhaps so - but he was positioned there by
those to whom he answers.
Look higher still...
Not quite.
Read up on the Jesuit, and find that the Superior General, Reverend Father Adolfo Nicolá (aka "The Black Pope), answers to NO ONE. Except maybe the other Pope - not sure how that relationship actually works.
My point is that the Jesuit have been the real problem for 500 years. Not Communist, not Islam, not Muslims, not Rednecks in the US, not Jews.
BY the way, only one more Pope will be appointed and then the Vatican is destroyed.
Ion:
You really descended into ad hominem attacks there, like I really rattled your cage. Some of what you said is true but I don't really care. Your WTC theory is right out of The Thunderbirds. Pretty wackadoo if you ask me. If you don't believe we went to the moon (you didn't explicitly state either way) that's wackadoo also.
This event is similar to the Oklahoma bombing where right away lots of people where convinced that it was a government conspiracy. No evidence at all in the beginning and many people were already convinced.
Ridicule is a legitimate feeling. The free energy enthusiasts or the conspiracy theory enthusiasts use it all the time. So you have to expect for it to be a two-way street. I suppose both sides feel a certain justification. I look at all these "poor people" babbling on about chem trails and worrying for nothing and spending money for nothing. It's offensive thinking of people being taken advantage of.
Anyways, these things are never going to change, they are just part of the human condition. The people that are taken advantage of the most are probably the free energy enthusiasts. I bet you that ZeroFossilFuel is still working on his next big Mueller build.
So lots of theories have been hashed through and I suggest we pick it up with Professor Jones. He should be back soon!
MileHigh
Here is a little backup on that article I first posted the other day. Believe or not. ;]
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/29/rand-paul-aims-to-kill-%E2%80%9Cindefinite-detention%E2%80%9D-provision-of-controversial-bill/
Excerpt...
With the bill expected to be up for a vote within 48 hours, Senator Rand Paul has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that will kill a provision allowing the military to detain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process.
The "indefinite detention" sections of the NDAA bill would turn the whole of the United States into a "battlefield" and hand the executive branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens and hold them without trial.
Mags
Hello, I'm back.
Interesting discussion, and I congratulate those who have studied the hard 9/11 evidence and read my published peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Four of these published papers are linked on my web page, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ .
Have you read my published papers on 9/11? If so you will note that I approach the subject by asking "What evidence is there?" and I do experiments, and I have published my findings with colleagues -- in scientific/technical journals. I also have lectured many times regarding this research -- likewise on my energy research going back to muon-catalyzed fusion research (began with experiments for which I was the Lead Investigator, LAMPF, 1982 for about a decade).
In addition to publications, several of my talks have been recorded and are available on YOUTUBE; search "Steven Jones 911". For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjaqquI5OKM
= My talk in Australia in Nov 2009; discusses in parts 4 and 5 my findings on the destruction of WTC7 and why I find that EXPLOSIVES were used to bring WTC 7 down. See attachment.
I do not shy away from other "non-hard" evidences either -- e.g., the PUT OPTIONS that made many millions when UA and AA stocks plummeted after 9/11, Sec'y of Transportation Mineta's whistleblower testimony, the lack of air defenses that day, the Bush/Cheney administration lies about the safety of the WTC dust, and so on. These topics are presented in several of my videotaped talks -- and in this rather humorous review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Some of you will find interesting: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
in which I note that our "metal-catalyzed {cold} fusion" claims have in fact been verified in experiments in Japan and Europe; with references of course. The best metal alloy to enhance cold fusion found so far is a Pd-Li alloy; and BTW my work on cold fusion continues (see links at my web page).
Realistically now, I do not think that Congress will investigate 9/11 or the Bush/Cheney administration's LIES in getting the US into the 9/11 wars. Nor do I think that the problem lies just in that one administration... or in just one party. There are elite, wealthy controllers who control money and energy -- of this I find considerable evidence which I would rather not take the time to go into here. (See my vids, please.)
But IMO the globalist oligarchical controlling power elite have weaknesses, like the Death Star on Star Wars. A critical weakness (for us a strength) I believe lies in the ability of inventors such as ourselves to come up with an alternative energy source which if cheap, green and reliable -- will undercut the control they now wield over oil/fossil resources, and over the electrical grid. Finding such an energy source could lead to a New Renaissance, a peaceful revolution if you will.
I and many of you seek alternative, non-conventional novel energy -- call it free energy if you wish. (I don't particularly like the term 'free energy', because it suggests the energy comes out of nothing, violating Conservation of Energy).
TWO LINKED GOALS: 1) we achieve novel energy AND 2) get it into distributed manufacture around the world -- into homes and communities without having it controlled or stomped down by the power elitists. Can you see what this would lead to? energy in the HANDS of the 99% rather than controlled by the 0.1%? I'll leave it at that for you to ponder.
Ciao, for now.
Steve
Norman Mineta's military career was spent in army Intelligence. Read his testimony to the 9 11 commission. The young nervous assistant who kept asking Cheney if the orders still stand after he said the plane was 10 miles out (from the Pentagon) were NOT shoot down orders but orders to proceed with the "9 11 drill" simulating the attacks. 10 years later were still in the damn drill!
In 1998, I was working for a defense contractor in Texas and Bush junior, then governor came to visit and I saw him but didn't get a chance to speak with him. However, I remember more then one person told me emphatically HE IS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT. I don't think he announced his candidacy at that time, which really had me puzzled and still does. Anyway, Cheney was the real power behind the scene, because Bush was too inexperienced, that's why he got sent to Florida during 9/11. If you guys remember he even had trouble speaking, and tried to make fun of himself to minimize it's seriousness. The sad thing is, he wasn't even an elected president but voted in by the Supreme Court. All these dudes have and had ties to energy or defense industries. And what a better place to advance the two than in a war in the middle east.
This concludes this evenings "delusional episode". Lol
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.11.30, 15:44:33
Quote
...
What a 9/11 debat has to do here? Will it give us free energy?
Yes! The Truth will give us free energy!
Is it irony or whishful thinking?
Until now, only lies give free energy ^-^. see Lutec, Dennis Lee, Johnson, Aviso, MPI, Cycclone and so on
EX, I knew you were on our side. You want us to get back to work on free energy! Excellent, but right now we have to vent our frustrations and paranoia, and than we'll take a fresh stab at it. This is also a good decoy from the MIBs, they too need a break for the Holliday's . Lol
From MH
QuoteIon:
You really descended into ad hominem attacks there, like I really rattled your cage. Some of what you said is true but I don't really care. Your WTC theory is right out of The Thunderbirds. Pretty wackadoo if you ask me. If you don't believe we went to the moon (you didn't explicitly state either way) that's wackadoo also.
No, MH, you lack the ability to rattle my cage. I was merely demonstrating that there are differing mindsets and some are capable of connecting the dots (pattern recognition) others do not have that ability.
If you've seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind" loosely based on a true story, you will know what I mean.
Using you as an example of a profile I have worked side by side with over the years was done to drive the point home, don't take it personally. You are good at some things, very weak at other things as I am also. That's why I suggested that your mindset always goes after debunking the low hanging fruit, the obvious sham alternative energy scams like Bedini, Steorn etc.
If you don't believe that remote radio detonation of explosives is a patented technique, you should do more research.
It is even done on a crude level in IRAQ by the so called "insurgents" with their with their IED's.
For the record,
I have not called you or your theories wackadoo as you have called mine, nor have I called you a
tinfoil hat Fascist idiot as you again have insinuated So who is dipping into ad hominem attacks?
And again please be sure you know the definition of words like "fascist" before you throw them around.
As for the moon landing, does reserving the right to withold an opinion due to lack of sufficient data and too many glaring problems in the official story make me "wackadoo"? I think it is prudence.
For the record, I do not believe 99.99% of the "conspiracy theories" out there, nor do I believe or invest my time in 99.9% of the OU claims out there. You can waste your time fighting with and debunking the 99.99%, I on the other hand like to stay focused on the 0.01%, as I am not desiring to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.
I will ask you the same question I asked eatenbyagrue: What is your purpose and intention on this forum? To continue to demonstrate your ability at debunking the obvious scams? To save people time and money? To demonstrate your grasp of elementary electronics? (yes many of us already know an inductor releases it's energy like a current source).
Can you not make one positive contribution in the form of a circuit you have designed that demonstrates novelty?
Maybe you just get your kicks in being a "naysayer".
You will probably not reply to this and let it "slip away" so that you are not to embarrassed by your own behavior.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.01, 05:56:20
But IMO the globalist oligarchical controlling power elite have weaknesses, like the Death Star on Star Wars. A critical weakness (for us a strength) I believe lies in the ability of inventors such as ourselves to come up with an alternative energy source which if cheap, green and reliable -- will undercut the control they now wield over oil/fossil resources, and over the electrical grid. Finding such an energy source could lead to a New Renaissance, a peaceful revolution if you will.
I and many of you seek alternative, non-conventional novel energy -- call it free energy if you wish. (I don't particularly like the term 'free energy', because it suggests the energy comes out of nothing, violating Conservation of Energy).
TWO LINKED GOALS: 1) we achieve novel energy AND 2) get it into distributed manufacture around the world -- into homes and communities without having it controlled or stomped down by the power elitists. Can you see what this would lead to? energy in the HANDS of the 99% rather than controlled by the 0.1%? I'll leave it at that for you to ponder.
Ciao, for now.
Steve
Won't the groups in control seek to suppress any alternative energy source that threatens their control?
How do we get the technology into enough hands to make it permanent before we're dead? I'm optimistic that there is a solution, I just don't know what it is.
You know, one thing that would be an immense help is a nice collection of inverter circuits that can operate on HV DC, designed from readily available components. Sized to provide, say 20 amps, 50 or 60 Hz. A modular 5-amp version would be even better. Something you could connect in parallel to increase load ability (probably have to be sync'd?). Think about it. You could disconnect individual circuits from your electric panel and run them from your device(s). See, this way, you do not need 5kw straight out of the gate to get your home off the grid. Also, small modular devices may be cheaper to produce. Someone will eventally make some boards, start poducing them in a small scale. $2k and up for a large inverter is too much for people oppressed by high retail prices and taxes. Now all the EE's here have a goal and can do us all a great service. Even MH can get a pece of the action. Come on Gents, help a brother out!
You don't need to build anything, superb designs exist and are out there and available at very low cost.
I have a large collection of them that I bought surplus for a pittance, everything from a few hundred watts up to 10 kW. They are Uninterruptable Power Supplies (UPS"s) They can be had very cheaply from surplus outfits and ebay.
They all work on DC input, anywhere from 12 VDC to 120 VDC. Many of them put out a pure low distortion sine wave as the output is a resonant transformer tank circuit.
Others use digital sine wave synthesis. The smaller use a modified sine wave PWM scheme.
Most of these have computer monitor capability.
Here's a photo of a BEST FERRUPS II, part of my collection. It is a 4kW 120 /240 AC output 48 VDC input. I think I paid $50 bucks for it.
Thansk for pointing that out Ion. Sounds like the ticket.
Suppose that we can achieve 500 to 800vdc easier than 120vdc or less. Then what?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.01, 14:32:03
Thansk for pointing that out Ion. Sounds like the ticket.
Suppose that we can achieve 500 to 800vdc easier than 120vdc or less. Then what?
You have several options, one of which would be to charge banks of batteries in series and use a circulating switch that picks off the appropriate voltage required, but in a circular switched pattern picking off the required voltage so that all batteries are used eventually, but not all at once. This is called "circular staging control"
Also series charge, parallel discharge, regardless of what MH says, this is a safe practice when used with appropriate fusing and / or circuit breakers between banks.
Third option, design a simple converter to charge the required battery bank. This would require a single transistor, an inductor and a timing circuit. It would be a DC to DC step down from 800 VDC to 120 VDC or lower if required. This is very simple stuff indeed. The battery bank can be replaced with a large capacitor if the switching frequency is high enough.
Fourth option and least worthy is to use a dynamotor to do the transformation. Most dynamotors are step up devices, from around 27 VDC to 300 or 400 VDC, but they can be nade to work in a reverse transformation.
Best solution of course is to size the voltage output of the OU device appropriately.
That's why I've collected so many inverters. If we ever get a OU device working, I will package it into the inverters and head for the hills. Anyway these inverters have been fun to play with and analyze their circuits.
They have many uses on the farm. Sometimes I pack one on the back of my electric tractor and use the tractor batteries to supply it such that I might use hedge clippers, electric chain saws etc. in remote locations.
Gotta cross that bridge when we get there, we are a long way from a proof of principle simple bench experiment.
Thanks for the options. Best bet seems to be: "produce a voltage you can use". Take SM's TPU for example, I think he said he had 800v. If the collector is continuous around the ring, it might be split up into segments and the voltage for each segment may be 50v,
but the current is under the same influences, now paralleled. You drop the voltage and the current stays the same for each segment. A 2kw output now becomes 20kw. Quite a beautiful concept, if it works that way. This makes a small ring a real power plant.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.01, 14:58:01
Gotta cross that bridge when we get there, we are a long way from a proof of principle simple bench experiment.
I think we are closer than most think, despite the lack of desire to perform simple experiments and our tendency to get hung up on speed bumps along the way. No one else may see it yet, but changing the density of a magnetic field with a pulsed electric field is one of the keys to the universe. You should try it and see.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.01, 14:14:48
Won't the groups in control seek to suppress any alternative energy source that threatens their control?
I am sure something somewhere has been suppressed, but history is littered with once powerful technologies being completely discarded. Telephone companies once ruled the world, but they could not stop the Internets.
Maybe we should ask Peterae to start a separate thread for this subject of inverters and move this stuff there, as there is good info here that will be lost in the 9/11 discussion.
BTW I just bench tested a couple of dynamotors and they work equally well to step up or step down the DC voltage. No modifications necessary since they are basically two DC motors/generators on the same rotor shaft that share the stator field.
Another robust inverter idea would be to take one of those gas powered generators (with a blown engine, can be had cheaply) and replace the engine that drives the alternator with a husky DC motor. Then you have HV DC in and AC 120 /240 60 HZ output providing you regulate the speed of the DC motor, which is rather easy.
Naturally solid state is the best way to go, I'm just offering some innovative options for those on a budget that like to tinker but don't want to reinvent the wheel.
Here is a true story you might enjoy:
Back in 1990, a company on the east coast USA that I am familiar with as I was a consultant to them manufactured large induction furnaces and electric arc furnaces that took an ingot and by progressive melting with an intense electric arc, the steel would re-solidify with exceptional purity and crystal alignment.
This steel was especially good for forming into high strength tubes such as could be used for missile casings.
The US Dept of Commerce fully approved these furnaces for shipment to IRAQ in 1990 and 1991 with no flags raised even though the dept knew of their potential use.
He frowned on anyone that drove an imported car. He was on the board of directors and said that the engineers should specify all made in USA components. When the engineering staff replied that they are too expensive and will price us out of the market, he backed off from that request.
The owner of the company always wore a little USA flag on his lapel, I know him personally.
Just goes to show that you can wear the flag, and wave the flag, but when it comes to money, patriotism usually goes out the window.
Thanks Ion. The goal is definitely achievable through a variety of methods.
Grumpy:
QuoteWon't the groups in control seek to suppress any alternative energy source that threatens their control?
How do we get the technology into enough hands to make it permanent before we're dead? I'm optimistic that there is a solution, I just don't know what it is.
Sure they will; e.g., Henry Moray's device smashed by gov't agent Felix Fraser, decades ago.
But he made the mistake of seeking a US patent, and inviting a gov't inspector into his lab. We won't make that mistake again, I think.
The solution seems to lie with a large number of researchers worldwide, producing "the" device then announcing on a single date/time -- and getting the demonstrations into their LOCAL media outlets (which are not all controlled). And on Youtube etc. It has to go viral worldwide in order to escape being squashed. I believe we as a community are capable of this -- IF we can keep our collective mouths shut in the final month or two of the development, then speak out as one voice on a given Date/time.Grumpy again:
QuoteNo one else may see it yet, but changing the density of a magnetic field with a pulsed electric field is one of the keys to the universe. You should try it and see.
You've got me intrigued -- how do I do this? any details of the circuit/build?
From G
QuoteIf the collector is continuous around the ring, it might be split up into segments and the voltage for each segment may be 50v, but the current is under the same influences, now paralleled. You drop the voltage and the current stays the same for each segment. A 2kw output now becomes 20kw. Quite a beautiful concept, if it works that way. This makes a small ring a real power plant.
SM alluded to this very thing when he spoke of multiple "collectors" that could be put in series or parallel.
And it is common practice with transformer secondaries or sources of any type. Just remember that pure current sources are paralleled and pure voltage sources are series connected to prevent backfeed, unless the voltage sources are all of the exact voltage and have some finite series impedance, then they too can be paralleled, as in transformer secondaries.
@Grumpy,
Either this is out of the mouths of babes or you know:
QuoteNo one else may see it yet, but changing the density of a magnetic field with a pulsed electric field is one of the keys to the universe. You should try it and see.
THIS IS THE PATTERN OF THE STANDARD PROCESS IN ALL CONFIGURATIONS.
Compressing the magnetic field and letting it hit back.This rings the aether like a bell. A bell sends a reverberating note through space that hits our aura.
The ring can send a very high speed compwave as a shockwave against the aether pushing it outward. It snaps back. We push it again in tune. Like water in a bath tub. You can lower the volume appreciably with one hand. This is where you buy a clue. 8)
I am going down in history with this statement. ;D
@Physicsprof,
I hope you realize that there are no rewards in publishing this in academia. There is only enough time to get killed. Reality will change within a week when things come full schedule. If you don't heed these words then you can be my [prairie dog].
Bifilar compwave generation in a toroid made of vertical bifilar windings over copper horizontal loops. Out of the mouths of babes...
For those of you that think remote detonation of individual unwired explosives placed in the upper floors of the twin towers by microwave beams from building 7 is a "whackadoo" theory (thank you MH), here is a primer on the dangers and distance precautions required by explosives experts when working near radio energy sources.
Bear in mind that when we talk of gigahertz frequencies, we only require antenna lengths in the range of one inch or less, perfectly doable and capable of triggering a blasting cap to detonate the explosive.
Such tuned circuits could be dumbed down (made far less sensitive) by killing the "Q" of the resonant antenna circuit or using a higher temp igniter in the blasting cap. Alternately this can be done by reducing the energy delivered to the "fuse" with a resistor.
Hi power narrow horizontal beams swept downward provides the perfect timing mechanism without the need for complicated timing circuits and cross wiring of any type.
This is the elegant solution that eliminates the need for wiring and could have been placed in just a few days time.
We know about the power downs and security blackouts and the crews that brought large boxes of something into the buildings while the camera's and security were turned off.
We have reports of dust being found all over the desks of workers on other floors shortly after the power downs and security blackouts, carried through the ventilation system.
Concerning the return of this thread to this Board:
Pererae has transferred the whole thread back. I'll have to begin exporting 9/11-related posts to the 9/11 related thread in "Misc. Discussions". When I have the time. I'm between home moves and jobs right now. I'll get to transferring those posts to MH's authored thread later. Best that I can do now. Sorry for the hassle. I would ordinarily be glad to do it for you quickly, and I often try to be accommodating whenever possible.
--Lee
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.01, 18:34:54
You've got me intrigued -- how do I do this? any details of the circuit/build?[/b]
I made a coil with very high self-induction (see "Brooks Coil"). I pulsed this coil with either a 10kv DC spark gap system, or an avalanche transistor stack running at 1 to 4kv dc. Both methods used a piece of coax as a delay to set the pulse width, about 5 feet long.
Anyway, While this coil is being pulsed, I hold a small neo magnet near it and the magnet, with your fingers, will buck all over the place in sort of steady rythm. At the time, I just free-ran the pulses and the effect varies with the rate. I could set this up again and sweep through a freq range, but this will take some time.
(I used to have a video of this, but lost it a couple of yers ago.)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.12.01, 18:57:05
@Grumpy,
Either this is out of the mouths of babes or you know:
THIS IS THE PATTERN OF THE STANDARD PROCESS IN ALL CONFIGURATIONS.
Compressing the magnetic field and letting it hit back.
This rings the aether like a bell. A bell sends a reverberating note through space that hits our aura.
The ring can send a very high speed compwave as a shockwave against the aether pushing it outward. It snaps back. We push it again in tune. Like water in a bath tub. You can lower the volume appreciably with one hand. This is where you buy a clue. 8)
I am going down in history with this statement. ;D
Probably, but too cryptic for me... At least the MIB's won't get it? ;)
Quote@Physicsprof,
I hope you realize that there are no rewards in publishing this in academia. There is only enough time to get killed. Reality will change within a week when things come full schedule. If you don't heed these words then you can be my [prairie dog].
Totally realize -- and agree -- and further, I'm no longer in academia nor do I seek another professorship. (Although one was offered to me at Utah Valley University; I turned it down.) This might be publishable; but it might get a "national security - shut up" stamp during the review process.
Likewise, I don't have to worry about some University or corporation "owning" my ideas or work. That's what I like about being 'retired', though still doing research in my home office.
@grumpy:
QuoteI made a coil with very high self-induction (see "Brooks Coil"). I pulsed this coil with either a 10kv DC spark gap system, or an avalanche transistor stack running at 1 to 4kv dc. Both methods used a piece of coax as a delay to set the pulse width, about 5 feet long.
Anyway, While this coil is being pulsed, I hold a small neo magnet near it and the magnet, with your fingers, will buck all over the place in sort of steady rythm. At the time, I just free-ran the pulses and the effect varies with the rate. I could set this up again and sweep through a freq range, but this will take some time.
Thanks, Grumpy -- let me think on that.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.12.01, 18:57:05
bunch of cryptic stuff...
I think Spherics' choice of the term "COMP" was becuase the effect is "compimentary", meaning "in addition to". There are several ways to look at what "addition" may actually mean. Why buck, compress, or otherwise effect a magnetic field when you can just make it stronger at any location you wish? The magnet experiment is just an easy way to see the interaction. SM, Energia Celeste, spherics and others learned to use it and it is a lot more than just a magnet near a coil.
It doesn't have to be as complicated as SM's "magical frequencies", or complicated epxlanations that abound. To really understand, ask yourselves what a magnetic field really is, and then enjoy the ride. Why does a magnetic field have to change in order to induce a current? What is "current"? These are the hard questions.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.01, 20:49:03
Thanks, Grumpy -- let me think on that.
Here is an old pic of the coil.
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.29, 12:48:59
It is well known that a large aircraft at 400 to 500 mph cannot fly in level flight less than 100 feet from the ground because of "ground effect", the pressure built up between the aircraft and the ground. But those skilled LOL Al Queda pilots were able to perform wonderful maneuvers and defy physics in hitting the Pentagon
That's a bunk notion, sorry. There were no physics defied when that plane hit the Pentagon, as it was -not- in level, but descending flight, otherwise it would have remained at your 100 foot high altitude, and no plane could ever do controlled flight into terrain.
As as pilot, I know about angle of attack, the wing's the thing, and yes, even at those speeds, you can fly a 757 into the ground, and into a building. Easily, actually. Unfortunately, since they are expensive, and hitting things is frowned upon by those other than terrorist whackos (fanatical whackjobs would be my preferred term for 'terrorists' anyway), we won't be seeing much real life data.
But yes, you can fly a big plane into something like the Pentagon. In fact, the faster you are going, the easier it may be. That ground effect, once a certain angle of attack was achieved, would let the thing coast right into it the rest of the way just like a puck on an air hockey table. Anyway, get yourself something based on realistic flight models, such as X-Plane and see for yourself. Then add in the very highly motivated aspect of someone behind the stick that day who knew that had to get it right, as opposed to knowing they have the comfort of a do-over.
I have an open mind, but I don't allow just anything to be poured into it. No offense meant to the intelligences of those viewing, but without someone like MileHigh on this forum, it would seem to be a place where logic & reason are not very welcome. My own opinion is that anyone who thinks we did not go to the Moon lives in a world mostly molded by belief, not facts. I've read all the conspiracy sites, then gone and found sites where their 'facts' are finely and easily debunked, for both Moon and 9/11.
I saw the NOVA show on the towers, and see nothing to indicate that is not a purely possible, and realistic assessment of what occurred. Things fall at 'freefall' speeds because that is what gravity does when it gets going. Doesn't matter what's below as to these buildings in question. The forces of a single floor below resisting forces from above, when impacted by the mass of several above, will and do give way easily, and then the next, and so on. It's Newton, not even rocket science.
Yes, compressed air from the acceleration of gravity along coming down from above will blow out windows and make for what looks like explosions too. The air finds it's own way, doesn't have to follow expected paths either...it follows the path of least resistance until it must blow out something finally - wherever that happens to be.
Thanks again, Grumpy.
@ION: An astute and insightful analysis! May I quote you? (giving you credit for the concept, certainly)
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.01, 18:58:23
For those of you that think remote detonation of individual unwired explosives placed in the upper floors of the twin towers by microwave beams from building 7 is a "whackadoo" theory (thank you MH), here is a primer on the dangers and distance precautions required by explosives experts when working near radio energy sources.
Bear in mind that when we talk of gigahertz frequencies, we only require antenna lengths in the range of one inch or less, perfectly doable and capable of triggering a blasting cap to detonate the explosive.
Such tuned circuits could be dumbed down (made far less sensitive) by killing the "Q" of the resonant antenna circuit or using a higher temp igniter in the blasting cap. Alternately this can be done by reducing the energy delivered to the "fuse" with a resistor.
Hi power narrow horizontal beams swept downward provides the perfect timing mechanism without the need for complicated timing circuits and cross wiring of any type.
This is the elegant solution that eliminates the need for wiring and could have been placed in just a few days time..
We know about the power downs and security blackouts and the crews that brought large boxes of something into the buildings while the camera's and security were turned off.
We have reports of dust being found all over the desks of workers on other floors shortly after the power downs and security blackouts, carried through the ventilation system.
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.12.01, 21:16:46
[snip] Things fall at 'freefall' speeds because that is what gravity does when it gets going. Doesn't matter what's below as to these buildings in question. The forces of a single floor below resisting forces from above, when impacted by the mass of several above, will and do give way easily, and then the next, and so on. It's Newton, not even rocket science.
Sorry, what you said above is "bunk." I've taught Newtonian Physics for over 21 years, and let me see if I can state this clearly for you: FREE-FALL ACCELERATION AS OBSERVED IN THE FALL OF WTC7 FOR OVER 100 FEET MEANS NOTHING WAS IN THE WAY TO SLOW THE FREE-FALL ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY. ANY MASS IN THE WAY, SUCH AS CONCRETE FLOORS OR STEEL BEAMS, WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE ROOF OUT OF FREE FALL, WHICH WAS OBSERVED for WTC7.
Indeed,
this is what we mean by "free fall ACCELERATION" -- free to fall, with no mass in the way. Any mass in the way would SLOW the fall, by conservation of momentum, even if the supporting beams were very weak.
(e.g., MV initial = (Mi +m)Vfinal, so Vfinal < Vinitial.)
But in WTC 7 there were tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel below the roof and upper floors.
SOMETHING (such as explosives!) had to move the material out of the path of the falling roof, for over 100 feet.
NOW -- you can't really escape this conclusion, because I and physicist David Chandler independently insisted that NIST get it right -- and they finally did, admitting to free-fall accleration of WTC7 for over 100 feet.NIST: preliminary report on WTC 7 (which we challenged, publicly):
Quote"Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..."
NIST: final report, agreeing with David Chandler and me after we challenged the above assumption and made them LOOK AT THE DATA:
Quote"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval.
"This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g."
"...This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)..."
NCSTAR_1A_p87
I have attached the NIST graph, which agrees with my analysis and Chandler's, for your convenience.
Here then is proof that explosives were used in WTC 7 -- unless you can find some other agent for moving all that concrete and steel OUT OF THE WAY of the falling roof for over 100 feet.
Or -- maybe you disagree with the data finally admitted to by NIST (a national lab)?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.01, 21:33:37
Sorry, what you said above is "bunk." SOMETHING (such as explosives!) had to move the material out of the path of the falling roof, for over 100 feet.
Freefall obviously would be true freefall if there wasn't anything - at all- below, but I see all kinds of people saying the WTC big towers fell at freefall speeds, so had to be explosives. I just don't agree the facts support it.
Who is it who rigged all these explosives? When did they do it? How did they do it with no one working at those buildings observing it?
But forget that.
What in your dataset is the source of the data used to generate this notion of the 100 foot free fall for that building.Which videos in particular?
From Physics Professor:
Quote@ION: An astute and insightful analysis! May I quote you? (giving you credit for the concept, certainly)
Not necessary for me to get credit for the theory, more important that the theory get out there to be scientifically challenged. Spread it into the community, you have more connections than I.
This would be extremely easy to test by anyone skilled in microwave beam technology, not my forte, but as an engineer, I know what is possible.
I'm sure any amateur radio operators that have worked with microwaves would find the theory sound.
On a small scale, it could be tested with the magnetron from a microwave oven, appropriate waveguides and a parabolic antenna. To simulate the fuse, a simple small lamp such as a "grain of wheat" type and tuned circuit could easily demonstrate the generation of temperatures at a distance high enough to ignite a primary detonator.
This is really nothing new, it is known technology that can be researched. It's just an insight that shoots down the naysayers that insist all that wiring could not have been placed in a short time and would have been noticed.
It also sheds a different light on Giuliani's 23rd floor bunker in building 7 and the need for it's demise. I'm certain that microwave equipment would have been blown to smithereens once it's job was finished.
Again, only necessary to take out enough floors to get the massive upper structure moving at a decent speed, gravity would finish the job.
Nasa was once talking about beaming huge amounts of power from space (solar collectors) to earth using microwaves to solve our energy needs, since there would be little attenuation from an atmosphere for the solar collectors.
Thanks, ION -- I'll share your concept with other researchers in the field.
Good point here, too:
QuoteThis is really nothing new, it is known technology that can be researched. It's just an insight that shoots down the naysayers that insist all that wiring could not have been placed in a short time and would have been noticed.
Now, to answer ArtistGuy:
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.12.01, 22:00:56
Freefall obviously would be true freefall if there wasn't anything - at all- below, but I see all kinds of people saying the WTC big towers fell at freefall speeds, so had to be explosives. I just don't agree the facts support it.
Who is it who rigged all these explosives? When did they do it? How did they do it with no one working at those buildings observing it?
But forget that.
What in your dataset is the source of the data used to generate this notion of the 100 foot free fall for that building.
Which videos in particular?
Interesting that ION has addressed some of your questions --
a complete answer would IMO require a criminal investigation with subpoena power -- motivated by the overwhelming evidence we now have for the use of explosives!
NOTE:
Here I'm talking specifically about WTC 7, the skyscraper which fell completely and totally to the ground on 9/11/2001, yet was NOT even hit by a plane! The Towers also accelerated in their fall, which has been analyzed by several engineers (see JournalOf911Studies.com), but not at g=32.2 ft/s**2 as did WTC7.
A video of this fall of WTC7, the one I used in my analysis, is presented in my Australia talk, URL to youtube given in my post yesterday. (I guess you missed it.) Here is a link to THREE videos of the free-fall motion of WTC7,
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
There is (AFAIK) no refutation published of the Jones/Chandler/NIST analysis for free-fall acceleration of WTC7. None.
Artistguy:
A large number of "pilots for 911 truth" that fly the big birds would seem to disagree with you about the ground effect and angle of attack.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
Do you actually fly a large jumbo jet? What kind of plane do you fly? Playing with a flight simulator is only as good as the info you were given about the flight path, speeds and angle of attack. How do we know this is truthful information?
Sure you can crash a large jet into anything if the angle of attack is right. Not so if it is nearly level flight at high speed, then as a rule of thumb it is roughly limited to the wingspan length dimension, in this case I believe 127 feet above ground.
The powerful wingtip vortices generated when flying at those speeds a few feet above the pentagon lawn would have seriously torn up the turf on it's way in, yet we see no evidence of lawn damage. I take it all as data.
Some insight may be gained on the planting of the explosives by eyewitness testimony that is available in interviews concerning the strange goings on in the weeks prior to 9 / 11 at the twin towers. These people courageously came forward and reported events that could probably only bring lots of trouble to their door.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.11.22, 01:24:02
I've revised the "radiant water plasma BEMF circuit" so that it has only one relay and then I added a battery. What makes it significant for this thread is that that I'll further add a fluorescent tube to the circuit so it becomes a stand-alone UPS. With additional solar modules, it becomes a power generator and a UPS as well.
The lighted solar module(s) circuit that recharges batteries as well is done. The sames as the previous one, but with a fluorescent tube and solar modules.
Here it is:
Crap. I can't see the pdf's before I post them with this software. Will come back later.
--Lee
Ion:
QuoteIf you don't believe that remote radio detonation of explosives is a patented technique, you should do more research.
It's not that I don't believe in the remote radio-controlled detonation of explosives, that's just a trivial technical challenge. What's wackadoo is that people would actually believe that people would set up such a system in a grand conspiracy involving hundreds of people or more over multiple years to destroy the WTC towers like some giant movie set special effect. That's completely wackadoo in the extreme!
QuoteFor the record, I have not called you or your theories wackadoo as you have called mine, nor have I called you a tinfoil hat Fascist idiot as you again have insinuated
Straw Man on the fascism comment, I was talking about a clip on YouTube.
Meanwhile, here you are actually acting like a fascist:
QuoteWe'll probably keep you around for our amusement until it is time to jettison some of the "troll baggage"
QuoteWhat is your purpose and intention on this forum?
The answer to "Show me your papers." is "Kiss my ass." I am not going to be interrogated by you, or have to justify my existence for you because you are a bit ratted. Shame on you. And a preemptive shame on most free energy enthusiasts that are so "cool and open to new ideas" that become spineless mutes when they see this kind of despicable behaviour.
This comment:
QuoteAs for the moon landing, does reserving the right to withold an opinion due to lack of sufficient data and too many glaring problems in the official story make me "wackadoo"? I think it is prudence.
I don't think it's prudence.
QuoteYou will probably not reply to this and let it "slip away" so that you are not to embarrassed by your own behavior.
You should pull yourself together and take a look in the mirror.
Now I will try to get back to the 9/11 stuff.
MileHigh
PhysicsProf:
So here is one of your critical points to support your argument:
QuoteSorry, what you said above is "bunk." I've taught Newtonian Physics for over 21 years, and let me see if I can state this clearly for you: FREE-FALL ACCELERATION AS OBSERVED IN THE FALL OF WTC7 FOR OVER 100 FEET MEANS NOTHING WAS IN THE WAY TO SLOW THE FREE-FALL ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY. ANY MASS IN THE WAY, SUCH AS CONCRETE FLOORS OR STEEL BEAMS, WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE ROOF OUT OF FREE FALL, WHICH WAS OBSERVED for WTC7.
Indeed, this is what we mean by "free fall ACCELERATION" -- free to fall, with no mass in the way. Any mass in the way would SLOW the fall, by conservation of momentum, even if the supporting beams were very weak.
(e.g., MV initial = (Mi +m)Vfinal, so Vfinal < Vinitial.)
But in WTC 7 there were tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel below the roof and upper floors. SOMETHING (such as explosives!) had to move the material out of the path of the falling roof, for over 100 feet.
ArtistGuy basically answered this and I alluded to the explanation for this a few days ago. Indeed the building could fall at a speed that was very close to free fall.
The explanation is also very simple. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the main vertical support beams (about 50-ish if I recall) all failed at the bottom of the building. So you have the mass of a 47-story office building where the structural integrity of the very bottom of the building, the main vertical support beams, has been catastrophically corrupted.
Once a given vertical support beam looses its proper vertical load-bearing function because its geometry has been changed, and coupling that with the fact that the weight above the beam is immense, that of a 47-story office building, then all hell will break loose.
You deform the vertical lines of the main support beams, then on the massive scale of the office building, those beams may as well be like limp cooked spaghetti. The beams started to twist and deform like curlicues and all of a sudden had no real load bearing capacity and the building started to go down and crush itself out of existence.
The amount of resistance offered by the deforming curlicue wet spagetti support beams relative to the weight of the falling building was negligible and the building went into free fall. By the time the building had dropped just one single story and built up some momentum, then the bending spaghetti support beams offered even less resistance relative to the momentum of the falling building and as a result the building was in full near absolute free-fall. Only after the mass of the remaining upper floors of the building started to become comparable to the resistance offered by the crumpling support columns did the decent rate of the building start to noticeably slow down.
That's my take on it and it all fits relative to the observed data as far as I am concerned.
What you seem to be missing in your presentations is a critical examination of the relative magnitudes of forces and effects, and this is extremely important.
So, seriously now, did you ever consider this analysis? This theory of the collapse mechanism for Building 7 came to me shortly after seeing the clip the first time.
The observed free fall acceleration of Building 7's collapse has a boring mundane common sense explanation as far as I am concerned.
MileHigh
Curlicues? Limp Cooked Spaghetti? Curlicue wet spaghetti support beams....now that's real humor. Al Dente steel perhaps?
That theory definitely gets the big gong from me. Have you ever worked in a steel mill? (I have and know what it takes to melt or deform steel)
MH said:
QuoteIt's not that I don't believe in the remote radio-controlled detonation of explosives, that's just a trivial technical challenge. What's wackadoo is that people would actually believe that people would set up such a system in a grand conspiracy involving hundreds of people or more over multiple years to destroy the WTC towers like some giant movie set special effect. That's completely wackadoo in the extreme!
That's a large exaggeration of the manpower and the time required. Ever hear of compartmentalization. A small team maybe four guys to set up the microwave beaming equipment, and perhaps a dozen to plant the explosives over a couple of days. Then these guys are given a new mission a few months later which finds them all on the same plane that mysteriously breaks up and goes down in the harbor on it's takeff, no survivors. These are expendable assets too risky to keep alive. No years or hundreds of people.
QuoteThe explanation is also very simple. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the main vertical support beams (about 50-ish if I recall) all failed at the bottom of the building. So you have the mass of a 47-story office building where the structural integrity of the very bottom of the building, the main vertical support beams, has been catastrophically corrupted.
That explanation is very simple indeed but extremely improbable,
all 50 support beams at the base of the building fail at once? Even the interior support beams? By your theory, we should be seeing large buildings just free falling to the ground all the time. I'm sorry MH you've got to be kidding.
BTW Nice cut and paste and taking things out of context to improve your image.
I often like what I see in the mirror, but not some of the theories from you sir! (some are ok)
QuoteAnd a preemptive shame on most free energy enthusiasts that are so "cool and open to new ideas" that become spineless mutes when they see this kind of despicable behaviour.
I agree with you, something should be done about your behavior but what the heck, live and let live.
I don't think we have seen anything yet.
Somehow, they have to remove that mosque, "before" they can rebuild the Temple of Solomon.
Then there is the prophecy that the Vatican is "destroyed", once "Peter of Rome" becomes the last Pope.
Exciting times we are living in.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.02, 00:59:33
PhysicsProf:
So here is one of your critical points to support your argument:
ArtistGuy basically answered this and I alluded to the explanation for this a few days ago. Indeed the building could fall at a speed that was very close to free fall.
The explanation is also very simple. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the main vertical support beams (about 50-ish if I recall) all failed at the bottom of the building. So you have the mass of a 47-story office building where the structural integrity of the very bottom of the building, the main vertical support beams, has been catastrophically corrupted.
Once a given vertical support beam looses its proper vertical load-bearing function because its geometry has been changed, and coupling that with the fact that the weight above the beam is immense, that of a 47-story office building, then all hell will break loose.
You deform the vertical lines of the main support beams, then on the massive scale of the office building, those beams may as well be like limp cooked spaghetti. The beams started to twist and deform like curlicues and all of a sudden had no real load bearing capacity and the building started to go down and crush itself out of existence.
The amount of resistance offered by the deforming curlicue wet spagetti support beams relative to the weight of the falling building was negligible and the building went into free fall. Buy the time the building had dropped just one single story and built up some momentum, then the bending spaghetti support beams offered even less resistance relative to the momentum of the falling building and as a result the building was in full near absolute free-fall. Only after the mass of the remaining upper floors of the building started to become comparable to the resistance offered by the crumpling support columns did the decent rate of the building start to noticeably slow down.
That's my take on it and it all fits relative to the observed data as far as I am concerned.
What you seem to be missing in your presentations is a critical examination of the relative magnitudes of forces and effects, and this is extremely important.
So, seriously now, did you ever consider this analysis? This theory of the collapse mechanism for Building 7 came to me shortly after seeing the clip the first time.
The observed free fall acceleration of Building 7's collapse has a boring mundane common sense explanation as far as I am concerned.
MileHigh
Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti --
it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread! I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum.
Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives!Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s**2.
The observation that the World Trade Center towers fell at almost the free fall speed, is worth pondering but there's some uncertainty. Here's some observations:
1) We don't see when the top piece of the building reaches the bottom, because of all the dust kicked up. That's some serious uncertainty.
2) On the other hand, why is there so much dust? In my opinion, it is way too much for a simple internal mechanical failure that occurs in sequence, way too much, and notice that the bulk of the dust develops towards and at the bottom of the building as it begins to fall.
3) However, it does appear the buildings fell pretty quick, almost at free fall speed if we do some interpolation, where we can't see because of the dust. Note: don't compare free fall with people falling from up there, because a lighter human being has a lower terminal velocity.
4) In order for a building to free fall, it needs all the floors to start falling at the same time, OR, it needs to have a large mass up top that as it falls, it buldozes down through all the obsticles in it's path. I believe this is what is occuring. It's true what the Profesor is saying about momentum cut in half, when one mass hits another of the same mass, but what he left out is the notion that the falling mass of the World Trade Center buildings accumulates as each floor is impacted, and this moving mass getts larger and larger. Therefore, each additional stationary floor encountered barely affects the speed anymore, because of the ratio of the masses grows smaller and smaller. That's the explanation Professor!
Personaly, I don't think much of this demolition theory, except for building 7, which is a fact, but reading other websites now, it appears I'm under the wrong impression. That's the problem with this whole 9/11 debate, it's constantly shifting like quick sand.
EM
From EM
Quote4) In order for a building to free fall, it needs all the floors to start falling at the same time, OR, it needs to have a large mass up top that as it falls, it buldozes down through all the obsticles in it's path. I believe this is what is occuring. It's true what the Profesor is saying about momentum cut in half, when one mass hits another of the same mass, but what he left out is the notion that the falling mass of the World Trade Center buildings accumulates as each floor is impacted, and this moving mass getts larger and larger. Therefore, each additional stationary floor encountered barely affects the speed anymore, because of the ratio of the masses grows smaller and smaller. That's the explanation Professor!
This would produce an exponential or very non-linear rate of fall, starting very slowly and gathering speed. We don't see this in the data or the visuals.
Em said
Personaly, I don't think much of this demolition theory, except for building 7, which is a fact, but reading what other websites now it appears I'm under the wrong impression
Well, why believe in the demo of building 7, and not the others? ;]
As for the top of the building coming down, the pic below shows quite a large upper portion, above the plane entry, very large portion, LOTS of weight, at a tilt. So not all of the falling portion is coming down straight and even. Id like to see a pictrue of this about 1/2 to 1 second later, to see how far off to the side that large portion goes. Not that it still couldnt have an effect of dropping the whole building.
How much does a jet plane of that stature weigh? Yeah its just a shell, but at 500 mph or so, thats a whole lot of impact force.
Throw a bullet at me and I will laugh, put it in a gun and I will bleed.
And, the plane had enough impact(along with fuel, maybe explosives in the plane) to cause enough damage to seemingly break the building, that did allow, that large section(above the entry) to come down. But, it could have just weakened it in that area and the explosives took it down completely in the end.
Just some things that make it all seem possible that the planes could have done it alone. But other things I see and think, tell me somethings more fishy. ;]
Mags
So mags
Whats that a 30 story piece of building in motion? 30 floors each one a full acre in size ...lets say for arguments sake that pic was snapped as it was descending at 3 feet per second?
Now it was a lightwieght experimental building built with bar joists 40,000 square feet lets say it weighed 100 pds a square ft [ very low figures]
4.000.000.00 pds x 30 floors
one hundred twenty million pounds moving down at three feet per second ....on top of a light weight skyscraper with no active fire protection system .
how much do you think it weighed at three feet one inch down...........
Free fall speeds ??
I was in those buildings hundreds of times over there lives .. testing that crappy bar joist for the port authority every time they renovated or opened up a floor for new construction.
I can't believe they didn't just topple from the impact!!
Now building 7.. that i was only in to test the steel for fire proofing attachment ,one thing I can tell you
It looked screwy the way it was built .Monsterous Connections on the early Floors with a funny transition after that.
Very weird design IMO
Who Knows???
Chet
Ram said
I can't believe they didn't just topple from the impact!!
Tru dat. Maybe if it hit in the middle and not off to the (edit)right, there would have been more impact directly to the core.
Tesla could cause a bulding to go into convulsions with a lil tapper box.
The other building got hit quite a bit higher than the first, not leaving as much of a top portion to come down as hard as the first. But it all sure was quite timely. ;]
Mags
Seriously: Who on the face of this earth is going to do anything about it? Few could.
They control all levels of government (as far as I have been able to tell). Their may be separate factions in intelligence groups, but this is not confirmed.
They control our military, police, medical, energy, and education institutions.
Ex is right. We should be working to free ourselves.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.01, 22:21:43
There is (AFAIK) no refutation published of the Jones/Chandler/NIST analysis for free-fall acceleration of WTC7. None.
Just this, by NIST. Which shows that it (by my measure, that the roof, left side penthouse) began collapsing a full 7-9 seconds (watch the windows clear from the inside up top, top floors .12-.20), taking out those columns you think were exploded as all that fell down to the below, cascade failing interior column supports. Look at the model.
And -then- the thing fails. Fire caused it, 7 hours worth, from 10 floors of fires initially, combined with no sprinklers on much of it (broken main). No conspiracy needed. Same way fires caused the collapse of the big ones from the weakening of floor supports, and buckled interior column support.
Mags
Tap a steel building and it rings.. these buildings were not built the way the ones that tesla "rang" where.
I am tempted to say these buildings where Crap ,Junk .... Built like a cheap hundred story shopping Mall.
But ...They were Tuff, They took a Hit that was unfreaking believable .....there design saved tens of thousands of lives .those creeps that did this wanted to Kill Many many more people.
It was a miracle!!
One thing about building seven being empty ...
I think it was mostly always empty [very few tenants]
But honestly I didn't do much testing in Building seven, so i am no to sure.
Chet
BTW
Artist guy
There were No interior columns in the trade centers ... they were clear span light weight bar joists holding up light weight concrete floors ,from the core to the perimeter!
Wide Open one acre floors
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.02, 02:22:11
Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF!
That is true but only when and if the masses are the same, M1 = M2. In the case of these buildings, the top floors and materials falling, M1, represent a cumulative mass > M2 in the way. The mass impeding this once they begin falling is only a single floor's mass + surrounding support, if any...however, the mass above is more, so that floor newly hit gets added to the collapsing mass, and barely slows things down at all...then it falls on freely down to the next floor (airspace in between) , smack, that one gives way , and so on,
but you know this.
WTC7's
interior seems to have given way
first, allowing the whole outside to fall cleanly...unlike the main towers, it seems this one fell apart from the roof down into the interior (beginning .11-.12 secs), leaving the outside unsupported (time .20 in the video I posted). In the case of the big towers, they pancaked on down, due to the many floors falling from above them.
Anyway, all the conspiracy people have to much invested in believing gubment or whomever did it, and will never give up that belief, even in the face of new evidence.
That's my belief, and why I should have just stayed out of this. ;D
I went to pilot 'truth' site, saw the NTSB videos, and the path that plan took, and it was so leisurely, and so simple, even a rookie like me with only 120 hours, not 600+ could have done it. "Oh look how expertly that wheel/stick is tended to, impossible." Right. Nothing extreme at all. Again, that guy's problem was landing, not flight itself. He didn't have to land here. No landing gear problems either. Whoa, turning off the transponder, who'd a thunk it? They did, apparently...and that's not even a good talking point. Not like they weren't advised about the planes in some fashion, I am sure, or they didn't have a Sporty's Full Dashboard poster to look at for the things. http://www.pilotshop.com/cockpit-poster-757-p-5281.html (http://www.pilotshop.com/cockpit-poster-757-p-5281.html)
Again, ground effect not much factor, any sufficient amount of forward stick would have stuck that plane. It's angle of attack that's important, even when in ground effect. Just push harder, it'll dive right in.
I will look in to the dispute about the MSL measurements...but what did cut those lightposts? Why did witnesses see a plane fly into the Pentagon? Why were there plane parts inside and out?
Well, despite how it might feel nice to think it was a conspiracy, it was because a plane actually hit it, flown by a fanatical whackjob.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.02, 03:58:19
Seriously: Who on the face of this earth is going to do anything about it? Few could.
They control all levels of government (as far as I have been able to tell). Their may be separate factions in intelligence groups, but this is not confirmed.
They control our military, police, medical, energy, and education institutions.
Ex is right. We should be working to free ourselves.
Thing is, there are people still trying to do something about it. ;]
How do we become free from THEM?
These Occupy groups are not the way. Its just pissing them off.
What would hurt them more than anything? If the citizens( non gov) collaborated and said, We are not going to do it any more.
We are not going to work tomorrow, or ever again.
We are going to work with each other, some rich some poor.
We are going to farm OUR lands, and grow organic foods that we will share with each other.
We will fix our old cars and bicycles, we will fix our old shoes.
We will make our own clothes, just like we always have.
We will not work for YOU anymore.
We will do it till YOU are gone.
How will THEY survive, without us. ;]
Who will fix THEIR shoes? Congressmen?
Who will make THEIR cloths? The senate?
Who will fix THEIR cars? Nasa?
Who will grow THEIR food? Monsanto? THEY deserve it.
Who will do anything for THEM?
They would nuke us all.
They would release a bio weapon.
They might play a nice lil tune on the Haarp for us. ;]
Such a coordinated effort like this is what dreams are made of, and movies. ;] But as for what THEY can do, its all very easy and very real.
So, any other suggestions? ;]
Mags
Yeah
I have a suggestion
Pray...... Lots
Have a good night
[goin up to say some prayers]
Chet
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.12.01, 07:48:07
Yes! The Truth will give us free energy!
Is it irony or whishful thinking?
Until now, only lies give free energy ^-^. see Lutec, Dennis Lee, Johnson, Aviso, MPI, Cycclone and so on
Is it not irony, not whishful thinking, just straight - when we will have free energy - we will also know not just who exactly push the red buttons on 911, but The Whole Truth.
conspiracy and FE lead us to the same point.
otherwise the humanity will disappear.
If you havnt seen it in the news yet, its horse meat for everyone.
Literally, approving horse meat for food.
Mags
The NIST video is ridiculous. As more floors collapse internally the shell is relived of weight, so the likelihood of its collapse gets diminished not increased. In the video the whole building is seen going down, typical of demolition , which they claimed. The controversy is why the story was changed. By the way, taking out the columns at the bottom, say 1st and 2nd floor, is all that was needed. The noise from the charges would be minimal and blend in with the overall collapse noise, so that NIST guy thinks were stupid.
Peter:
That clip that you just posted looks like some dude took some pictures of a plane used for aeronautical research and then called it a "chemtrail plane." It's so horrible to see the twisting of ideas by twisted minds like the guy that made that clip.
"A cloud buster placed in your backyard will actually disperse the chem trails." Really? That's absolute nonsense and is nothing but pure hucksterism saying "Please buy my plans, come to my web site!"
That kind of stuff is just god-awful.
EM:
The NIST video put up by ArtistGuy about Building 7 looked pretty dam good and sensible. I hadn't seen it before and I had forgotten how you could see the penthouse area on the left collapse first. The analysis of the failure of the building seemed to make sense and it still can tie into what I said relative to PhysicsProf's statements.
Mags:
QuoteThing is, there are people still trying to do something about it. ;]
How do we become free from THEM?
These Occupy groups are not the way. Its just pissing them off.
What would hurt them more than anything? If the citizens( non gov) collaborated and said, We are not going to do it any more.
We are not going to work tomorrow, or ever again.
We are going to work with each other, some rich some poor.
We are going to farm OUR lands, and grow organic foods that we will share with each other.
We will fix our old cars and bicycles, we will fix our old shoes.
We will make our own clothes, just like we always have.
We will not work for YOU anymore.
We will do it till YOU are gone.
You need to watch the movie "Taking Woodstock" followed by the movie "Gimme Shelter" followed by the Star Trek episode "The Way to Eden."
The communes all disappeared in the early Seventies, dude!
MileHigh
Back to Building 7:
PhysicsProf:
QuoteOh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread!
I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives!
Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s**2.
I don't even need to study up on Newton in this case. Your modelling makes no sense at all. There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE!
The NIST video showed how the building collapsed and there was a fundamental common point with what I stated in that all of the center vertical support columns buckled and then we were in spaghetti territory.
As the building falls and destroys itself from the bottom up the falling mass of the building is slowly decreasing from an erosion process of sorts and what's being compacted at the bottom of the building goes nowhere, it's just being compacted. There is nothing that has to "get out of the way" so as to not impede the destruction of the building allowing it to fall at near free-fall speeds.
So your entire model for the collapse of the building necessitating explosives to "get stuff out of the way" is wrong. There is no need to get anything out of the way.
Looking at the NIST video, essentially the same process ultimately happens. At a certain point all of the main support columns have snapped and the building is crushing itself out of existence where a floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building. Hence a near free fall.
MileHigh
A real chemtrail plane (if such things do exist) would not need to be filled with computer equipment, just large cannisters of whatever they wanted to mix via venturi effect with the atmosphere.
The guy further destroys any credibility by tying it in with cloudbusting , as if dispersing the clouds would neutralize the toxins somehow. I have a lot of Wilhelm Reich's books that I read back in the 70's and more recent video's that touch on the subject of cloudbusting, but his main work in psychotherapy laid the foundation for bioenergetics.
I'm on the fence about chemtrails and cloudbusting. Just not nearly enough SOLID data to support the claims. I therefore put this into my 99.99% junk science folder, awaiting more data.
Seeding the clouds with toxins would seem like a very inefficient way of poisoning the populace, when they have so many very efficient and direct means with the food supply chain and water supply. Additionally, you would expect the planes to be circling heavily populated areas, but there are a lot of straight lines directly out into the country where there is far less population. Inefficient for sure.
A lot of junk conspiracy theories on the web appear to be a diverting means to keep people unfocused on the real issues, which are far more provable like blatant government corruption, corporatism, militarism and the imperial strivings of empire.
We may not always agree, but I agree with MH on the chemtrail video.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.02, 14:49:59
This would seem to be a diverting means to keep people unfocused on the real issues, which are far more provable like blatant government corruption, corporatism, militarism and the imperial strivings of empire.
They keep us drunk with pleasures while they take control.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.12.02, 04:27:37
So, any other suggestions? ;]
Mags
Become as self-sufficient as you can. Then you don't need them.
My father always advocated moving into the mountains and pulling the road in behind him.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.02, 02:22:11
Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread!
I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives!
Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH. Even weak spaghetti will slow solid spaghetti by conservation of momentum, precluding free-fall at g = 32.2 ft/s**2.
Are you sure you are really a physics professor? This analysis of your has just been debunked in a few minutes by amateurs.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.02, 14:58:34
My father always advocated moving into the mountains and pulling the road in behind him.
that way doesn't work already now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yw3RiMdS7sE
From Eatenbyagrue:
QuoteAre you sure you are really a physics professor? This analysis of your has just been debunked in a few minutes by amateurs.
Now hold on there pilgrim! One shoddy "shoot from the hip" opinion by MH using wet limp spaghetti models does not constitute debunking.
I can assure you the Professor is indeed a Prof with a long teaching career and many peer reviewed papers, and yes some of the naysayers here have all the earmarks of amateurs. Their "quick draw" analysis is way below credible.
If you were even an incompetent detective you would have figured out who the Prof is by now. He gave his identity away many times. You have not been paying attention or are just rather dense.
On another issue:
Regarding the chemtrails , what would add some credibility is air samples at ground level before and after a spraying showing a marked increase of new toxins or identifiable strains. I have not seen this information if it is available and will stand corrected if it is presently available.
MH said (to ION)
Quote"Kiss my ass."
Thank you for the kind offer. Should I ever be moved to so grace a horses posterior I will certainly take you up on this.
Thanks, ION.
My wife and I enjoyed the blue-grass concert last evening and now this morning I find further "misunderstood physics" to contend with. First MH, then NIST and the artistguy. Here goes.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.02, 13:07:52
Back to Building 7:
PhysicsProf:
I don't even need to study up on Newton in this case. You modelling makes no sense at all. There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE!
[snip for brevity]
Looking at the NIST video, essentially the same process ultimately happens. At a certain point all of the main support columns have snapped and the building is crushing itself out of existence where a floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building. Hence a near free fall.
MileHigh
1. MH: "The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building."
NO, by Newton's Third Law, the upward and downward forces are equal in magnitude (and opposite in direction). I realize this fact is hard for many to accept, because I've taught Newtonian physics for over 21 years and I found that people just could not believe that the Third Law "really works", but it does. One has to properly isolate the two interacting objects to understand the Third Law correctly (I've found with hundreds students), in this case the falling mass and the resisting "compacting mass".
2. MH: "floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. " Hold on -- this removes kinetic energy from the fall, so that free-fall at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed and admitted to by NIST in their final report (as I noted above) would not be possible. Another way to look at it is that the Third-law reaction force upward from the "compacting mass" would slow the fall so that free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed would not be possible.
3. Note also that you are saying that there IS MASS IN THE WAY, mass getting compacted, although you started out by saying "There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE!" You contradict yourself, do you not?
I look forward to your point-by-point response, MH. I rather anticipate an effort to say that Newton's Third Law does not work here; but it does.
Next, the NIST video and artistguy...
The NIST video is interesting, largely for what it does NOT say.
It points out the computer-model simulation that they relied on for their explanation of the fall of WTC 7; and re-iterates their claim that there was "no evidence for explosives". What they did not say:
1. When one does a velocity-time analysis on their simulation (done by physicist David Chandler), one finds that the acceleration of the falling roof is NOT g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed, but rather much less than g. So their simulation does NOT agree with the observed fall, the data.
2. The video states that the interior of the building first collapsed due to fire, then "the outside shell of the building fell". I have screen-captured the point in the video where this statement is made; attachment. Problems with this model include the fact that the falling "outside shell" mass still must hit lower shell mass, which will impede the motion so that acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 would not be possible. (But that is what is observed in the videos, as admitted to by NIST.)
IOW, just because the mass of the floors is (NIST says) out of the way, one must still remove the mass of the lower shell to permit acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed. Math example: 39 floors-worth of "outside shell" hitting just one floor of "outside shell", then by conservation of momentum at time of collision the speed drops by 2.5% (1/40), and the next floor the speed drops by another nearly 2.5% (1/41) -- and already we find this "model" is OUTSIDE the allowed error for the fit to the observed g= 32.2ft/s**2 which I posted earlier. So material must be moved out of the way, according to the data.
Further, the observed fall during this 105 feet (over eight floors!) is symmetrical -- the roof does not appreciably tilt to one side during this stage. This means that the otherwise-impeding lower-outside-shell must be removed SYMMETRICALLY and essentially simultaneously. How is this done (without explosives)? NIST just does not mention all this.
3. NIST states that there was "no evidence" for explosives. They said the same thing with regard to the Towers. But did they look for explosive residues? I will quote from my co-authored paper published in the Open Journal of Civil Engineering, which I hope you will read!
QuoteNIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?" Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wast- ing your time... and the taxpayers' money." [27].
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST's approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is "wasting your time." We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people...
4. NIST failed to mention here that they have adamantly refused to allow me or other scientists to have access to their computer model. Thus, there is no opportunity for peer-review by other scientists, no professional courtesy extended. A result which cannot be challenged does not represent good science.
5. N
IST in their final report admitted that they had set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO, and that they had the fires burning near the critical column 79 for several HOURS. In reality, the thermal conductivity of steel is not zero, so that heat is transported away from the point where the fire is heating the steel -- wicked away to connected structural beams. NIST turned this heat conductivity to ZERO -- and they're getting away with it! You see, I would like to put reasonable PHYSICAL parameters into the computer simulation -- and see if the building actually will fail and fall at g=32.2ft/s**2 when this is done...
There is more, but I'd really like to get at the LC circuit I'm analyzing.
Ciao.
Hurry up and get past the "how the towers fell" part and we can take a crack at "why".
Towers fell, thousands died, we immediately declare war on Terrorism, IRA immediately says they will only seek political solutions as they are not terrorist, we kick off on Afghanistan just before 9/11, invasion of Iraq followed, everyone focuses on "blood for oil" missing the real reasons.
We set quite the infrastructure over there. Even control what they plant for food.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.02, 16:41:54
Regarding the chemtrails , what would add some credibility is air samples at ground level before and after a spraying showing a marked increase of new toxins or identifiable strains. I have not seen this information if it is available and will stand corrected if it is presently available.
And, Hawaii is writing a bill to stop the spraying in their area. Not proof? ;]
Mags
Don't suck the sack, Bro! Don't fall for the distraction!
The government of Hawaii is "controlled" like the government of every state is.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.02, 14:49:59
We may not always agree, but I agree with MH on the chemtrail video.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.02, 16:41:54
Regarding the chemtrails , what would add some credibility is air samples at ground level before and after a spraying showing a marked increase of new toxins or identifiable strains. I have not seen this information if it is available and will stand corrected if it is presently available.
It is very sad when people can not see whole picture of mosaic when some details is missing, some details is in wrong place.
this is an animal consciousness level when he stay in front of slaughterhouse doors and he can not understand, that this building is for his purpose.
it is nothing strange for you in that picture of the sky?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Nl_4d_bL1A
http://douktris.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/3022/#comments
http://douktris.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/kiaule-visur-purvo-atras-o-conspyracytheorystas-teisingai-net-danguj/
and again, sorry for being nasty:
@ all, PhysicsProf:
1. the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!! You need to check material physics.
All videos with planes are faked.
2. It is no ordinary explosives to pulverize 90% of steel constructions of such buildings in to the dust. only 150 megaton nuclear device.
It is lie that government sold steel constructions to China. It was no constructions, only dust. It's survive from pressure of the shock wave of nuclear explosion only very top constructions of WTC1 and WTC2 and nothing of WT7 because it was lesser.
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.02, 19:15:54
...
and again, sorry for being nasty:
@ all, PhysicsProf:
1. the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!! You need to check material physics.
All videos with planes are faked.
2. It is no ordinary explosives to pulverize 90% of steel constructions of such buildings in to the dust. only 150 megaton nuclear device.
It is lie that government sold steel constructions to China. It was no constructions, only dust. It's survive from pressure of the shock wave of nuclear explosion only very top constructions of WTC1 and WTC2 and nothing of WT7 because it was lesser.
Wait,
are you really saying that all those amateurs who videotaped the plane hitting the second Tower -- that their videos were faked also? "All videos with planes are faked. "
(Let's start with your first point above.)
Are you trying to throw in junk science (not evidence-based) here?? It certainly appears so. But I await your explanation.
I don't believe in chemtrails , i do believe that the result of these trails that there is a strong likely hood that it would alter the amount of sun energy allowed to hit the ground and instead be reflected or absorbed by them, what the net result would be i am not sure, during the twin trade towers when planes were not allowed to fly, the temperature rose as a result i believe although i am not that interested in this and cannot say i have really researched it in any depth.
So basically the amount of traffic that is in our Sky's must be affecting us, but this is purely due to the amount of traffic, in the summer here sometimes theres so many it's almost a complete blanket of criss crosses of white haze.
They don't build large metal shears in steel mills that have to cut one or two inch steel with tinfoil aluminum blades. The blades would mushroom and deform instantly. It doesn't matter how fast the blade is moving into the steel, relatively it can be considered that the steel is moving instead of the aircraft aluminum.
I have worked in a steel mill that had these large shears, trust me, a thin aluminum cutter blade would crumple like tin foil against the steel. The box columns shown tysb's drawing demonstrate the immense amount of really strong steel used in the WTC buildings. If it was not strong high grade steel it would have cold flowed out from under the building a long time ago from the immense vertical tonnage it had to support.
The "light bulb group" here will probably counter that you can use water to cut steel if the velocity is high enough. This is true, but it will take an awfully long time. Try it with your pressure washer sometime and a very thin piece of steel.
I am now convinced that the likes of MH and eatenbyagrue have absolutely no experience or feel for that which they conjecture about. It is laughable but sad at the same time. I really wonder what their life and work experience consisted of.
Common sense, it appears, is not so common.
Chemtrails: they admit to Weather modification
Hmm... Control the weather and then what?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
What's next?
Underwater nuclear detonation caused a tsunami to hit Japan and destroy their nuclear power plant?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.02, 19:47:25
Wait, are you really saying that all those amateurs who videotaped the plane hitting the second Tower -- that their videos were faked also? "All videos with planes are faked. "
First: You are sure, that they was genuine amateurs?
And yes, all videos with planes were faked.
Why you need use the planes (what is very complicated) if they can not penetrate the buildings?. The easiest way is to create video clips and translate its thru controlled mass media, put termite explosives in the place to create the holes. that's it.
chek pretty nice straight cuts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-nflAtHJY
ordinary people don't trust what is being said. they trust what they "see".
they see the fake videos, the hole, but don't see the straight cuts.
A summary of arguments AGAINST the "no planes hit the Towers" hypothesis is given in this peer-reviewed article:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
From the article:
QuoteWith the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary. My previous articles dealt with the core of these claims at length. Those articles were lengthy, so the purpose of this review is to provide a somewhat condensed and updated summary for those new to the subject or lacking in the time to delve into the details of the image analysis.
There have been two no-plane hypotheses put forward: The first, that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by synthetic 3D graphic images of 767s (including real-time superimposition of these images on all live TV footage as it was broadcast). The no-planers have labeled this scenario "TV Fakery." The second argument holds that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. This hypothesis has since been abandoned. ...
I invite tysb3 and any others interested to read up on the evidences that REAL PLANES did indeed hit the Towers, reading this paper and the authors other data linked in that article.
I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Too many things that just don't add up.
This article is old, 2009, but brings up some interesting points:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601
Coupled to the firefight death and burial at sea, and the team that killed him gets shot down and dies...just to uncanny.
Quote from: ION
...
I am now convinced that the likes of MH and eatenbyagrue have absolutely no experience or feel for that which they conjecture about. It is laughable but sad at the same time. I really wonder what their life and work experience consisted of.
Common sense, it appears, is not so common.
The personae projected by both MH and ebag
are incapable of adopting any viewpoint or belief
which is contrary to the established power structure.
Their life programming simply will not permit it.
No matter how scientifically sound any data and
accompanying analysis may be they must reject it.
It has to do with fear.
Their sense of power is itself derived from the
establishment; they in effect become extensions
of the power of the state. To depart from the
mainstream would be very fearful as they would
lose their sense of perceived power over any and
all who voice opposition to the establishment
propaganda. They cannot help themselves; the
programming is central to their core and linked
directly to their emotions.
If the establishment tomorrow changed its tune and
reversed all propaganda they would unhesitatingly
follow course without any qualms. Science is not
their game - it is about fear and power.
They are only doing as they've been programmed;
free choice is not an option.
Mind Control is very real and, unfortunately, it is very
effective.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.02, 20:34:48
What's next?
Underwater nuclear detonation caused a tsunami to hit Japan and destroy their nuclear power plant?
next is that:
"The earthquake that generated the great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 is estimated to have released the energy of 23,000 Hiroshima-type atomic bombs, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)"
- was Underwater nuclear detonation toooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.02, 21:45:29
I invite tysb3 and any others interested to read up on the evidences that REAL PLANES did indeed hit the Towers, reading this paper and the authors other data linked in that article.
sorry I dont need any more proofs that all videos with planes was faked.
I have one that nobody can challenge - the law of physics
- the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!!
Yours proofs with planes can be easily faked.
tysb3
Are you saying there were no planes used In the tower attacks??
I'm having a hard time following
Little Slow......
Thanks
Chet
tysb said:
Quote- the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!!
I thoroughly agree with you, but do not rule out that planes or something like planes hit the towers. Whatever hit the WT Center Towers, it should have crumpled like a beer can, with wings shearing off and most of it flattening against the massive steel columns, energy absorbed by virtue of it's structure.
When considering velocity of impact, the mass concentration must be studied carefully. It is not a hardened steel carefully shaped armor piercing projectile, rather it is a large billowy soft structure of aircraft grade thin aluminum. It's tonnage is spread out over many square feet not focused to a steel piercing point. It has built in cushioning and energy absorption by virtue of it's structure, much the way automobiles are designed to absorb energy on impact.
Try aiming your .22 hyper velocity rifle at one of those steel box columns (1435 feet per sec.) and see how far the lead or copper tipped shell penetrates. You will be lucky if you are not killed from the ricochet. This is more than twice the velocity of the plane which was less than 700 feet per second.
So the light bulbs would have you believe there is no need for DU hardened projectiles for armor piercing, it can be done with a very soft material like lead or aluminum providing it has the velocity. By this logic, whole battles could have been won by snipers with .22 's and aluminum bullets against armored divisions. You have to wonder what they are smoking.
UMMM
Do you fellows have any Idea How hard the steel is inside a jet engine?? How hard the front Titanium gear is ,ETC ETC .............
No Planes HUH ??
Any Hoo
Have a nice day..............
Chet
@ ramset
Yes, no planes!
I repeat again: you need to watch 26 parts of this video:
from this site from the bottom:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
or from this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xggmc0_9-11-world-trade-center-nuclear-demolition-1-26_news#rel-page-1
after this video you will don't have any questions except who (personally) push the red buttons.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.02, 22:52:49
UMMM
Do you fellows have any Idea How hard the steel is inside a jet engine?? How hard the front Titanium gear is ,ETC ETC .............
No Planes HUH ??
Any Hoo
Have a nice day..............
Chet
Nobody find a jet engines :(
and any black boxes too :(
if they were that strong to penetrate steel columns, where they disappear? :(
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.02, 22:52:49
UMMM
Do you fellows have any Idea How hard the steel is inside a jet engine?? How hard the front Titanium gear is ,ETC ETC .............
No Planes HUH ??
Any Hoo
Have a nice day..............
Chet
Chet: I understand how hard the steel of a jet engine is and would expect to see two puncture wounds from them in the building, but not the perfect outline of the whole plane, that is over the top and looks contrived.
I never said there were no planes.
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.02, 22:20:20
sorry I dont need any more proofs that all videos with planes was faked.
I have one that nobody can challenge - the law of physics
The law of physics says overunity is impossible, yet you believe in that, right?
Ion
You Know My Family has much History In the construction supply Biz In NYC ,We Had Tons Of customers All over the city watching from Roof tops after the first impact
One Job was right accross the river In Jersey [I mean Rjght there ] What was it JP morgans Building I think? [One of the Banks I get them all confused?], I never personally saw the impacts But plenty of fellahs did... All Union workers.
I also Took a ten year Hiatus into The demolition Biz In NYC ,I have to tell You ,Once you make a hole all bets are off as far as What happens next.
I have plenty of respect for your opinion .
I just can't get my Head around No Planes... Having spoken to Hundreds of Fellahs that saw planes, As a matter of fact Just today A man stopped by Who is in the fire department
In NYC he was there during the attacks ,His engine Company lost Most of its Members.We never talk about these kinds Of things In the trades [bad luck]
I will ask him a few questions Next time I see him [later this Week].
Chet
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.02, 23:07:11
@ ramset
Yes, no planes!
I submit you are sheeple. I cannot believe you think that the twin towers actually existed. They were merely holograms you fool, and so there were no actual explosions, merely the projection of collapse and then a big hole was blown up in the ground.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.02, 23:57:44
The law of physics says overunity is impossible, yet you believe in that, right?
it's not law of physics says, it's physics theory says
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.03, 00:02:57
I submit you are sheeple.
Is this yours argument how aluminum tube penetrate steel column?
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/02/the-entire-united-states-is-now-a-war-zone-s-1867-passes-the-senate-with-massive-support/
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/02/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-if-at-war-with-us/
Mags
PhysicsProf:
Quote1. MH: "The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building."
NO, by Newton's Third Law, the upward and downward forces are equal in magnitude (and opposite in direction). I realize this fact is hard for many to accept, because I've taught Newtonian physics for over 21 years and I found that people just could not believe that the Third Law "really works", but it does. One has to properly isolate the two interacting objects to understand the Third Law correctly (I've found with hundreds students), in this case the falling mass and the resisting "compacting mass".
If only you could see the simple model but apparently you can't. A massive block of concrete and steel (let' call that 'Big M') is falling due to the acceleration of gravity. The gravitational force causing that massive block of concrete and steel to accelerate downwards (let's call it 'Big F') is F = Mg.
At the same time there is an upwards force acting on the falling mass M due to the compacting of the floors and the deformation of the support beams. (Let's call that 'Little f.')
Anybody should clearly see that F >> f. The downward gravitational force on the falling building is probably at least hundreds of thousands of times larger that the upward compacting force f.
So where does that leave us? The net force causing the acceleration of the building will be equal to (F - f).
We know that acceleration is equal to the force divided by the mass, i,e.:
a = (F - f)/M
But since we know that F >> f, then we can say that:
a <is approximately equal to> F/M.
And we also know that F/M = g
Therefore, a <is approximately equal to> g.
In other words, in plain common sense language, the collapsing mass of the more or less intact structure of Building 7 was so huge that as the lower floors got crushed it barely slowed down the collapse. In fact the building was so massive that for a substantial portion of the collapse the building was falling at near-g acceleration, 9.8 meters per second squared.
This is just Physics 101, Mr. Physics Professor.
Your talk about the Third Law is just a Red Herring. Yes action is equal to reaction but it's not about that. It's about the
NET FORCE on the mass of the collapsing building determining it's acceleration.
I just turned common sense into equations.
MileHigh
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.03, 00:02:26
Ion
You Know My Family has much History In the construction supply Biz In NYC ,We Had Tons Of customers All over the city watching from Roof tops after the first impact
One Job was right accross the river In Jersey [I mean Rjght there ] What was it JP morgans Building I think? [One of the Banks I get them all confused?], I never personally saw the impacts But plenty of fellahs did... All Union workers.
I also Took a ten year Hiatus into The demolition Biz In NYC ,I have to tell You ,Once you make a hole all bets are off as far as What happens next.
I have plenty of respect for your opinion .
I just can't get my Head around No Planes... Having spoken to Hundreds of Fellahs that saw planes, As a matter of fact Just today A man stopped by Who is in the fire department
In NYC he was there during the attacks ,His engine Company lost Most of its Members.We never talk about these kinds Of things In the trades [bad luck]
I will ask him a few questions Next time I see him [later this Week].
Chet
Chet: I agree there were numerous witnesses to real aircraft hitting the towers
I never said there were no aircraft, you have me confused with someone else.
PhysicsProf:
Quote2. MH: "floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. " Hold on -- this removes kinetic energy from the fall, so that free-fall at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed and admitted to by NIST in their final report (as I noted above) would not be possible.
There is a disconnect here.
Yes, the mass of the falling building is being eroded away and "this removes kinetic energy from the fall." Meanwhile, the acceleration due to gravity is always adding kinetic energy to the fall.
But if you really could "put on your science hat," for lack of a better term, you would realize that the point you are making above is meaningless and irrelevant to the question whether of not the collapse approaches free fall acceleration or not. And you are stating that this process whereby some of the kinetic energy in the fall is removed by the compacting event will prevent a free fall acceleration and this is clearly not the case at all. The only critical issue as I just stated in my previous posting is what the net force on the falling mass is. The fact that the falling mass is not constant and is slowly decreasing over time is a secondary factor. It simply means that over time the ratio of (F/f) will change. However, the observation that F >> f will not really change for most of the duration of the fall.
QuoteAnother way to look at it is that the Third-law reaction force upward from the "compacting mass" would slow the fall so that free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed would not be possible.
Yes, here I agree with you. As the eroding mass of the falling building becomes smaller and smaller eventually the upward force from the compacting process starts to become comparable to the downward force due to the acceleration of gravity and then the building will start fall at noticeably less than free-fall speed. This goes back to what I said in my original posting and how it is consistent to what is measured in the videos.
Quote3. Note also that you are saying that there IS MASS IN THE WAY, mass getting compacted, although you started out by saying "There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period. There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY! NONE!" You contradict yourself, do you not?
The mass of compacted concrete and steel accumulating at the bottom of the building is not "in the way" it's simply accumulating and not moving. There is no "need" for that mass to move and of course it won't move.
I am not contradicting myself. You are just taking statements out of context and juxtaposing them.
MileHigh
PhysicsProf:
QuoteIOW, just because the mass of the floors is (NIST says) out of the way, one must still remove the mass of the lower shell to permit acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed. Math example: 39 floors-worth of "outside shell" hitting just one floor of "outside shell", then by conservation of momentum at time of collision the speed drops by 2.5% (1/40), and the next floor the speed drops by another nearly 2.5% (1/41) -- and already we find this "model" is OUTSIDE the allowed error for the fit to the observed g= 32.2ft/s**2 which I posted earlier. So material must be moved out of the way, according to the data.
I suppose that I am just hammering the point home. There is no need to "remove the mass of the lower shell to permit acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2."
I am all for simplifying but sometimes you can simplify too far. In the above statement it's almost like you "forgot" that gravity is always adding momentum. Also, it's obtuse and uncomfortable to read you talking about "conservation of momentum" which implies something like a perfectly inelastic collision between two bodies where after the collision the new single body of mass is moving. Nothing even remotely close to two masses moving and a perfectly inelastic collision is going on here. To use the concept of conservation of momentum is inappropriate and simply wrong in this case.
No material "must be moved out of the way." Sorry, just hammering the point home.
MileHigh
PhysicsProf:
Quote4. NIST failed to mention here that they have adamantly refused to allow me or other scientists to have access to their computer model. Thus, there is no opportunity for peer-review by other scientists, no professional courtesy extended. A result which cannot be challenged does not represent good science.
I am certainly not disagreeing with you here in principle. But there is a lousy thought experiment that one can make if they did release the models. Thousands of people would then run simulations for themselves and start playing with all of the variables. The NIST report would then get drowned out by tons and tons of reports of simulation runs, some of them good, but likely most of them bad. It would have created an uproar of "noise" that may have drowned out the original report itself. People would "exploit" the variables for their own purposes.
Quote5. NIST in their final report admitted that they had set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO, and that they had the fires burning near the critical column 79 for several HOURS. In reality, the thermal conductivity of steel is not zero, so that heat is transported away from the point where the fire is heating the steel -- wicked away to connected structural beams. NIST turned this heat conductivity to ZERO -- and they're getting away with it! You see, I would like to put reasonable PHYSICAL parameters into the computer simulation -- and see if the building actually will fail and fall at g=32.2ft/s**2 when this is done...
I can't disagree with you here either. However, there is a flip side to this with respect to a related issue. People always say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and it's used as an argument to support the conspiracy theory. There is either the intentional or unintentional omission of some points that would prove that point about the jet fuel incorrect, once you factor in the proper context.
MileHigh
Tysb3:
Quote1. the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!! You need to check material physics.
All videos with planes are faked.
Certainly it is interesting, perhaps even surprising, to see that some of the steel support beams of the tower walls were sheared by the plane.
The problem is that it actually happened, sadly illustrated by that clip that you pointed to of the woman in the gaping hole.
Sometimes you have to try to figure things out after the fact. I would assume that if a materials expert and a mechanical engineer examined the problem they could work out a model that explains it. Don't forget, not all of the support columns were sheared straight through, most of them more or less remained intact (you assume) and the support column sections were ripped out of the building wall where they were attached by bolts. So the bolts failed, not the steel support columns themselves.
Sorry but your comments about all the videos being faked and other comments (like the nukes) put you in that "too far out" class for me.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.03, 02:13:04
Tysb3:
Sorry but your comments about all the videos being faked and other comments (like the nukes) put you in that "too far out" class for me.
MileHigh
Can You guarantee that all videos with planes wasn't faked? It is impossible?
Sorry, but that's yours problem if you can't see the whole picture from the facts. I don't have credentials to prove something to you.
I just point some details which fall out from chaotic picture of the official story and which fit nice in mine perfect picture. Which is sure not mine. I'm not nuclear specialist :)
I'm just conspiracytheorist :)
Well there was no plane debris @ Camphill or the Pentagon. The wings never showed up regardless of the attack angle.
30 days before the twin towers falling the rock group Mountain was in the plaza at ground zero playing 'Mississippi Queen', a song about a prostitute in Louisianna. Nice message to send about 'Our' morals and how self righteous we are. Funny thing too, in NY with the Woman holding a torch. A gift from the French. Oh yeah, Baton Rouge(red rod). Now what do you think that means?
@MH -- glad we agree on some things, like the clearly problematic issue of NIST admitting that they set the thermal conductivity of steel to zero in their computer model.** But then you go on to say:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.03, 01:56:52
I can't disagree with you here either. However, there is a flip side to this with respect to a related issue. People always say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and it's used as an argument to support the conspiracy theory. There is either the intentional or unintentional omission of some points that would prove that point about the jet fuel incorrect, once you factor in the proper context.
MileHigh
Now that's obtuse....
Are you saying that jet fuel enters into the picture for the fall of WTC 7? That's the context of the current discussion, is it not.
Regarding Newton's Third Law.
You wrote:
QuoteThe gravitational force causing that massive block of concrete and steel to accelerate downwards (let's call it 'Big F') is F = Mg.
At the same time there is an upwards force acting on the falling mass M due to the compacting of the floors and the deformation of the support beams. (Let's call that 'Little f.')
I'm trying to help you to understand the Third-law picture, but you seem to be missing the point, so I ask the questions:
Are you saying that these (F and f) are a "Third-law pair" of forces? If not, what is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the upward force f? And what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F? We can go from there, once I see from your responses if you truly grasp Newton's Third law and its implications for WTC7.
And I notice that you have not commented on several points I've made, particular my point #1 above:
Quote"1. When one does a velocity-time analysis on their [NIST] simulation (done by physicist David Chandler), one finds that the acceleration of the falling roof is NOT g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed, but rather much less than g. "
What do you think of that?
I await your responses... noting that I will be traveling to visit my son and his family much of the day tomorrow (Saturday).
** I noted,
Quote5. NIST in their final report admitted that they had set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO, and that they had the fires burning near the critical column 79 for several HOURS. In reality, the thermal conductivity of steel is not zero, so that heat is transported away from the point where the fire is heating the steel -- wicked away to connected structural beams. NIST turned this heat conductivity to ZERO -- and they're getting away with it! You see, I would like to put reasonable PHYSICAL parameters into the computer simulation -- and see if the building actually will fail and fall at g=32.2ft/s**2 when this is done...
According to MH's "common sense put into equations" we should now condemn all skyskrapers built of steel and concrete everywhere in the world as they are in immanent danger of collapsing at the slightest perturbation e.g. the rumble of a minor earthquake that produces a vertical component where F>f.
He has made some major assumptions in those simple equations, so by these you should grab your hard hats and head for safety.
There is a resiliency and conversion to horizontal wave motion when forces meet in real structures or objects. This is a shock absorption principle not accounted for in the "simple equations".
e.g. If you hit a long steel bar on the end with a hammer of equal hardness, neither the hammer nor the bar is instantly destroyed, instead we hear the bar ring as the energy is absorbed and converted to wave motion.
The twin towers were designed with a certain resiliency to withstand large hurricane forces and were allowed to bend and move by several feet in high winds. As such a large vertical downward force could also be absorbed by the bending shock absorption principle.
This is totally neglected in the "simple equations" of MH.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteAre you saying that jet fuel enters into the picture for the fall of WTC 7?
That was a comment about the twin towers, sorry for any confusion.
QuoteAre you saying that these (F and f) are a "Third-law pair" of forces? If not, what is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the upward force f?
No I am clearly not saying that. I said the resultant of F and f was the net force accelerating the mass of the building downwards into the compacting zone.
I can give you the whole Third Law treatise but I don't see the point. You end up with F and f as I described in my previous postings.
F -down [][][][][][] <F-down and f-up acting on mass of falling building>
f -up [][][][][][]
[][][][][][]
[][][][][][]
f-down [][][][][][] <bottom of building>
------------------------
f-up XXXXXXX <top of compaction zone>
f-down XXXXXXX <bottom of compaction zone>
-------------------------
f-up ///////// <ground layer>
QuoteAnd what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F?
The downward force is Mg where M is the mass of the falling building. We will pretend for a second that M is constant.
The equal and opposite upward force is d(Mv)/dt. That's equal to Mdv/dt.
There you go, and when you let all of the force vectors cancel themselves out you are left with (F-f) accelerating the mass of the building down into the compaction zone.
MileHigh
Ion:
QuoteAccording to MH's "common sense put into equations" we should now condemn all skyskrapers built of steel and concrete everywhere in the world as they are in immanent danger of collapsing at the slightest perturbation e.g. the rumble of a minor earthquake that produces a vertical component where F>f.
He has made some major assumptions in those simple equations, so by these you should grab your hard hats and head for safety.
There is a resiliency and conversion to horizontal wave motion when forces meet in real structures or objects. This is a shock absorption principle not accounted for in the "simple equations".
e.g. If you hit a long steel bar on the end with a hammer of equal hardness, neither the hammer nor the bar is instantly destroyed, instead we hear the bar ring as the energy is absorbed and converted to wave motion.
The twin towers were designed with a certain resiliency to withstand large hurricane forces and were allowed to bend and move by several feet in high winds. As such a large vertical downward force could also be absorbed by the bending shock absorption principle.
This is totally neglected in the "simple equations" of MH.
This is nothing more than a gratuitous nonsense posting where you are trying to compare apples to oranges. "f" is defined as upward force on a collapsing building from a compaction layer at the bottom of the building where the building has completely lost its structural integrity at the compaction layer itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are discussing above.
I am pretty sure that you are aware of the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are discussing above and in that sense you should be worried about your own personal integrity.
MileHigh
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.03, 00:15:58
it's not law of physics says, it's physics theory says
But all of a sudden you like physics theory when it helps you prove up your conspiracy? You cannot have it both ways. Either physics theory is reliable, and overunity is impossible, or it is not reliable, in which case you cannot use it as foundation for any argument.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteAnd I notice that you have not commented on several points I've made, particular my point #1 above:
I noticed that you have not commented on the entire main thrust of my argument that explains how WTC7 fell at near free-fall speed and I hope that you do.
QuoteQuote
"1. When one does a velocity-time analysis on their [NIST] simulation (done by physicist David Chandler), one finds that the acceleration of the falling roof is NOT g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed, but rather much less than g. "
What do you think of that?
Not much that I can really say not having read the report. Nor am I an expert on simulations but I do understand the base mathematics with respect to the finite element modelling. The granularity of the simulation is probably quite coarse (just a guess) considering they are trying to simulate a whole building on fire and subsequent collapse. You have to give them credit for not "massaging" a variable or variables in their simulation to make the building fall faster and instead sticking by their best attempt to do the modeling.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.03, 15:53:12
Ion:
This is nothing more than a gratuitous nonsense posting where you are trying to compare apples to oranges. "f" is defined as upward force on a collapsing building from a compaction layer at the bottom of the building where the building has completely lost its structural integrity at the compaction layer itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are discussing above.
I am pretty sure that you are aware of the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are discussing above and in that sense you should be worried about your own personal integrity.
MileHigh
I'm basing my statements on personal experience with real world structures which can demonstrate modes far more complex than simple equations can provide for.
You are basing your opinion on oversimplified equations.
We agree to disagree, so be it, maybe you missed the point or would rather ignore it. In either case I'm not really worried about my personal integrity, as the ones who really are mixing apples and oranges seem to also be getting their buildings mixed up.
I'm now convinced there is no point in wasting any more time in endless debate on this issue as points of view on both sides are entrenched, and I think "dumped" summed it up rather well quite a few times.
I also won't ask you any questions or for your opinion on certain matters since you took it so badly the last time I did as if I was a Nazi interrogation officer, which I am not.
Rather, I will make my own assumptions about your "world point of view" as you already have concerning mine.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.03, 15:56:09
But all of a sudden you like physics theory when it helps you prove up your conspiracy? You cannot have it both ways. Either physics theory is reliable, and overunity is impossible, or it is not reliable, in which case you cannot use it as foundation for any argument.
You don't see any difference between law and theory?
Against the law you can not put any theory.
Against the theory you can put thousands of theories of many directions.
You can not penetrate steel by aluminum in given speed - that's law.
The fly can not penetrate front window of car wihich goes 100 mph. That's exactly what will happen to aluminum plane when it hit the twin tower.
Overunity is impossible - that is the theory which will exist until OU device will be created, or conspiracy will be eliminated.
OU and conspiracy is the same ways. If you go conspiracy way you necessary come to OU (what happened to me).
I think a lot of time can be saved by pre-qualifying anyone you wish to have a debate with concerning their world view.
Sometimes people are just too far apart politically, ideologically etc. to be even close to the same ballpark to have an engaging and insightful discussion with.
For example, if your debating opponent believes the US government is a benign, loving organization that never lies and is, dedicated to freedom and the spreading of freedom and democracy to all people, you will have a huge hurdle to overcome.
Does government never engage in conspiracy?
"Of course not, those good men in the Pentagon are too busy guarding us against foreign attackers to be hatching sinister plots"
History shows us that this is not the case as men do indeed get together to further their economic interests, be they mafia or government, those are just labels. Men do "conspire" and form groups to further their economic aims by whatever means necessary using blatant military force or clandestine black ops and then spin lies to their family or constituency to make their actions palatable and justifiable.
Peel back a layer of lies covering truth, and you will definitely be called a "conspiracy theorist" at every turn as if conspiracy was something separate from and not an essential tool of corporatism, something outside and separate from empire building. The media tries to do this every time a layer of lies is peeled back to reveal a little truth, as the media and journalistic endeavor has long long ceased it's existence as the "fourth estate" and is now firmly well established in the pockets of government.
Whenever you are called a "conspiracy theorist" that should be an immediate red flag as it has always been used in a very negative connotation by the propagandists to instantly label you a nut, a fruitcake, a whackadoo, a tinfoil hat wearing hippie pinko beatnik type.
When this happens best to back off in constructive retreat and find someone to talk to that you can share some ideas with and still have a friendly discussion.
Few know that the term "beatnik" was coined by propagandists shortly after "Sputnik" was launched by the Russians in order to imply a "commie pinko" connection somehow to those that saw through the mask of the system and hence decided to drop out or otherwise change their lifestyle to something other than an "approved clean cut one".
Choose your friends carefully, the divide can be wide.
"THEY" still is calling names. It's their weapon. But it'll became inefficient when majority will be experienced in conspiracy. Then call name "conspiracy theorist" will change its meaning.
I don't afraid this name. If you find truth and speak it, you can not escape this call name until conspiracy is not disclosed to majority.
Nothing is constant in present times. Lie can't be constant how big it wasn't.
Everything is masterbation be it physical or theoretical...
Milehigh do you believe that 911 happened because of terrorists and the government had no part in it. Do you believe that the government after 911 did not fabricate and twist data to convince the American people to attack Iraq.
Could you please clarify where you stand, do you trust the US government. My own personal view is I don't know whether 911 was a government plot, I believe they knew something was going to happen and let it happen in order to invade Iraq. I believe the government fabricated data after 911 to convince the American people that Iraq was responsible for 911. I personally do not trust our US government at all.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.12.03, 22:32:26
Milehigh do you believe that 911 happened because of terrorists and the government had no part in it. Do you believe that the government after 911 did not fabricate and twist data to convince the American people to attack Iraq.
Could you please clarify where you stand, do you trust the US government. My own personal view is I don't know whether 911 was a government plot, I believe they knew something was going to happen and let it happen in order to invade Iraq. I believe the government fabricated data after 911 to convince the American people that Iraq was responsible for 911. I personally do not trust our US government at all.
cheapower2012:
If you have listened carefully, you know exactly where MH stands, it is all there in the many clues he has left. His general language is ripe with adjectives that give his position away very clearly, not just on 911 but in regards his political leaning, belief systems, disbelief systems etc. He is an easy read.
Be careful about asking him such questions he is very touchy about that. His general image of himself is in his screen name, i.e. way above us all by 5280 +/- feet, both intellectually and technically.
But maybe he will answer you anyway.
MH, ebag and several others take great
delight in their ability to evoke emotional
response to their proddings.
The have been programmed by the "Best"
(some would prefer BEAST) to carry out
their mission.
Rational discussion is an impossibility with
such heavily indoctrinated minions of the
established Powers that Be.
ION has correctly stated that their real
intent and motives are well characterized
within all that they write. They wittingly,
and unwittingly, reveal to all who are able to
"see" what and who they truly are.
Have pity on them. They have been greatly
deceived and believe that they have the
favor of the upper hand.
We are in the age when Truth will finally be
made known to all; when the deceptions of
all time will be revealed and the perpetrators
exposed. For many it is going to be a very
rough and painfully difficult time.
We have all been deceived and "programmed"
to some extent. Fortunately the majority are
fast becoming aware and earnestly look forward
to the changes for good which are soon to come.
I was home when I received the call to turn on the TV on the morning of 9/11 so I was able to watch and tape much of what was broadcast on the networks.
I rarely if ever watch TV, mostly I view it as a programming / propaganda device, and when I do watch, such as on that morning, I am always wondering "what are they trying to get me to believe, how are they trying to shape my mind and the mind of others".
I was in that mode on the morning of 9/11 and all through the day as network banner after banner spelled out "America Under Attack" with all the talking heads reading their scripting to the masses. It was so obviously a propaganda machine churning out stuff to shape your beliefs, but if you were just taking notes as I was, none of it would stick.
You have to actively practice this mode if you are going to watch any TV, especially the staged "State of the Nation" so called discussions where "experts" seem to be arguing among themselves. This stuff is cleverly scripted to shape opinion. It is not a casual discussion.
And after watching it if you are not careful, you will surely come away with an opinion, the one they want you to have.
As the day wore on I could see where the anger would be growing in the American people, because nothing was put into perspective and an agenda was being created. As the week wore on the banners changed, the agenda became clearer "America Under Attack" changed to "America Mourns" then "America At War".
I am very sorry and it saddens me deeply that 3000 innocent Americans were killed on that day. Their deaths must have been unimaginably horrible, and the fright they must have experienced makes my skin crawl when I think about being crushed and ground into pieces by the falling debris. I imagine "what if my own son or daughter had been there that day, how would I feel" and trust me it is a nightmare to imagine.
So on that day was the beginning of the programming that would cause lots of young people to sign up to fight in a foreign land and take their anger for 9/11 out on innocent dark skinned people who had nothing to do with the "attack". And in the following years hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans were slaughtered as vengeance, men women and children.
Even if you take the stance that we were indeed attacked by foreign terrorists, our response was totally disproportionate and unfocused, shameful and not befitting a nation that calls itself "God fearing or Christian or even fair".
Funny thing, no one on the media is outraged when ten or twenty thousand die prematurely from a bad drug churned out by the pharma industry. We don't mobilize to take out the internal terrorists that make the billions on bad legal drugs. There is no big media campaign "America Fights Back at Big Pharma".
They are protected by the gangster state and the complicit media.
End of Rant.
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.03, 17:21:01
You can not penetrate steel by aluminum in given speed - that's law.
I have not heard of that law. Please bring forth your studies. I am sure that there are so many examples of jetliners hitting skyscrapers that we have a wealth of data about this and know exactly what is and what is not possible.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.04, 00:34:57
You have to actively practice this mode if you are going to watch any TV, especially the staged "State of the Nation" so called discussions where "experts" like William Kristol and Richard Pearle seem to be arguing among themselves. This stuff is cleverly scripted to shape opinion. It is not a casual discussion.
Thank you for posting this honestly. Now we all know you're a kook.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.04, 00:39:48
Thank you for posting this honestly. Now we all know you're a kook.
Thank you for the compliment! I am considering the source!
Cheappower:
I believe that 9/11 was an act committed by Muslim terrorists. It was a "fix" for the 1993 bombing that got it right in their eyes.
The Iraq war is certainly a big can of worms but I don't believe that there was overt malicious intent on the part of the government when it decided to wage war. I suppose the jury is still out on the whole war and what it ultimately will mean for the Iraqi people.
An easy thought experiment goes like this: If nobody took down Saddam Hussein and he ended up committing some sort of major atrocity or waging a devastating war then the same people that hate the US government for going into Iraq would hate the US government for their inaction.
Ion:
You should resign from your position as "Global Moderator" and loose your Smurf colours because you clearly have lost it. Just join us regular grunts and leave it at that.
Dumped:
Pound away as much as you want because in the final analysis if anybody bothers to think about this 10 years from now, they will realize that nothing you ever said came true. You are the virtual manifestation of the dude that has been in Times Square for the past 25 years holding up a sign saying, "The End is Near." You have been listening to Coast to Coast in rapture for far too long.
MileHigh
From MH:
QuoteIon:
You should resign from your position as "Global Moderator" and loose your Smurf colours because you clearly have lost it. Just join us regular grunts and leave it at that.
I reluctantly accepted this position and actually named a few others
including you that I thought would be a better fit.
I will consider your request, I don't like titles anyway, and had nothing to do with the smurf colours
Considering whatever it is you perceive I have lost, I hope you find some of it, you could use it.
BTW, clever ploy aligning yourself with the "regular grunts" to garner support in your attack, that's right out of "Games People Play"....have you read the book?
So you are not a "Mile High" anymore, you are down in the trenches with the "regular grunts"...how nice, refreshing, I guess the hot air finally leaked out of the bag.
Sorry MH you are just too easy to read.
EatinBarbeque
Why are you so Cranky??
What are your beliefs in this Matter??
Chet
Ps
HHHMMMMm
Everyone seems a little extra Cranky ?
Cept The killer [GK] seems like he knows how to have fun at a party
Quote from: MileHigh
I believe that 9/11 was an act committed by Muslim terrorists. It was a "fix" for the 1993 bombing that got it right in their eyes.
The Iraq war is certainly a big can of worms but I don't believe that there was overt malicious intent on the part of the government when it decided to wage war. I suppose the jury is still out on the whole war and what it ultimately will mean for the Iraqi people.
An easy thought experiment goes like this: If nobody took down Saddam Hussein and he ended up committing some sort of major atrocity or waging a devastating war then the same people that hate the US government for going into Iraq would hate the US government for their inaction.
...
Hasbara.
For those interseted in the tactics of hasbara:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara
Interesting propaganda manual attached. We see some of these tactics being used here to discredit alternate theories of 9 / 11, and now we know why.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.04, 00:38:09
I have not heard of that law. Please bring forth your studies. I am sure that there are so many examples of jetliners hitting skyscrapers that we have a wealth of data about this and know exactly what is and what is not possible.
Why You need my studies if you can't understand simplest things? If I tell you the Earth revolves about the Sun You ask my studies too?
If you have not heard of that law, that's Your problem and you need to go to study how aluminum penetrate steel.
So Tytes3
Hows about I cut your steel with water ??
would that make you happy??
And you don't even have to Study...........
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.04, 02:59:01
So Tytes3
Hows about I cut your steel with water ??
would that make you happy??
And you don't even have to Study...........
I see you happy :) ,
but I'm not :(
You need to go to study too :(
"The plain water-abrasive mixture leaves the nozzle at more than 900 mph. The latest machines can cut to within two thousandths of an inch, and have jet speeds around Mach 3."
and you think that aluminum plane have the time like "watercut" mashine to cut trough like this?:
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.04, 02:59:01
So Tytes3
Hows about I cut your steel with water ??
would that make you happy??
And you don't even have to Study...........
Chet, I covered that earlier, and how much time it takes. Do not confuse the process of "erosion" of a metal with "cutting or shearing", as they are different processes. "Corrosion" will do the job too with acids or plain rust but it takes a long time to cut a large box column 2" thick with these processes.
tysb3 is completely correct.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.12.04, 00:55:32
EatinBarbeque
Why are you so Cranky??
What are your beliefs in this Matter??
Chet
Ps
HHHMMMMm
Everyone seems a little extra Cranky ?
Cept The killer [GK] seems like he knows how to have fun at a party
For the record, I do not eat barbeque.
As far as my beliefs, well, I would say that to me the hijacker evidence is plausible. However, I am open to changing my mind. What I am seeing from the other camp, which surprises me, is the level of certainty you guys have, given that we have near zero empirical evidence of jetliners hitting skyscrapers. People talk with great certainty of these temperatures and velocities and structural strength, and frankly I do not see how you guys can be so certain about it.
An another hand, the inside job plot makes no sense. Why the elaborate plot with planes? Why not just blow up the buildings with explosives and say they were explosives planted by terrorists? It would be completely plausible given, get this, the terrorists actually tried explosives on WTC a few years before.
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.04, 03:55:25
I see you happy :) ,
but I'm not :(
You need to go to study too :(
"The plain water-abrasive mixture leaves the nozzle at more than 900 mph. The latest machines can cut to within two thousandths of an inch, and have jet speeds around Mach 3."
and you think that aluminum plane have the time like "watercut" mashine to cut trough like this?:
Stop and think, The plane carries x amount of mass moving at y speed, I don't think it matters much what that mass is made of, it still carries z amount of energy when it hits the building, those steel beams are going to be deformed by the energy. The beams cannot deform without tremendous pressure at the ends where they are bolted together. The bolts failed and the beams came down. How intelligent does a person need to be to see something as simple as that, I'm sure even you can.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.04, 16:49:52
For the record, I do not eat barbeque.
As far as my beliefs, well, I would say that to me the hijacker evidence is plausible. However, I am open to changing my mind. What I am seeing from the other camp, which surprises me, is the level of certainty you guys have, given that we have near zero empirical evidence of jetliners hitting skyscrapers. People talk with great certainty of these temperatures and velocities and structural strength, and frankly I do not see how you guys can be so certain about it.
An another hand, the inside job plot makes no sense. Why the elaborate plot with planes? Why not just blow up the buildings with explosives and say they were explosives planted by terrorists? It would be completely plausible given, get this, the terrorists actually tried explosives on WTC a few years before.
eatenbyagrue,
Don't let these guys sway you, If any of them knew anything about Islam we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hey you guys try this on for size, see if it fits with your morals and values. Please don't attack the messenger with your pitch forks and torches, this is not me saying this stuff. This comes strait from the mouth of a great Islamic leader.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.04, 17:27:20
eatenbyagrue,
Don't let these guys sway you, If any of them knew anything about Islam we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hey you guys try this on for size, see if it fits with your morals and values. Please don't attack the messenger with your pitch forks and torches, this is not me saying this stuff. This comes strait from the mouth of a great Islamic leader.
Yes, for a science forum, the 9/11 truther people here are pretty unscientific. They all have this preconceived notion that the "guvmunt is evil, durr", and they then look for any evidence to support their view with regard to what happened on 9/11, conveniently discarding all evidence that does not comport with their worldview.
eaten,
yes I agree, what they don't realize is they have fallen for some of the Islamic propaganda that is everywhere out there. Maybe someday they will come to realize that.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying our government is perfect far from it.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.04, 17:13:26
Stop and think, The plane carries x amount of mass moving at y speed, I don't think it matters much what that mass is made of, it still carries z amount of energy when it hits the building, those steel beams are going to be deformed by the energy. The beams cannot deform without tremendous pressure at the ends where they are bolted together. The bolts failed and the beams came down. How intelligent does a person need to be to see something as simple as that, I'm sure even you can.
You make good points about the failure of the bolts, but I believe I read somewhere in the description of the construction of the twin towers that the beams were bolted AND welded together.
Also your model about energy is simplistic. Energy is absorbed in the structure of the plane itself as it crushes in on itself, just the way it does in automobiles that are designed to absorb the crash energy on impact. We don't see automobiles taking out bridge or overpass abutments, rather we see an extremely crumpled accordion of metal that absorbed the energy of impact and gave it off as heat in the process.
Posting those Khomeini quotes can be quite inflammatory and lead to others posting equally vile quotes from Judaic literature. Do you really want that?
Regardless of whether the planes brought down the towers , cut through beams etc. or not, one thing is for sure, there are people, corporations and nations that did benefit tremendously from the resulting invasions and wars that followed the destruction of the towers.
So even if it was the act of terrorists and you don't believe any alternative views,
those terrorists did a lot of folks a big favor.Israel benefited by having US, British etc. soldiers die to fight one of her enemies.
US war corporations and military industrial complex made a fortune on the war.
Somebody made a killing in the stock market on futures betting.
Larry Silverstein made a killing in insurance on his 3 buildings that went down.
Corporations in Israel received numerous contracts for new airport security scanners and other screening devices and made lots of $$$$.
The NY port authority no longer had to worry about abatement of the asbestos in those buildings and the fines they would have paid for non-compliance or the cost of demolishing them.
The list goes on and on, so the terrorists must be really sad that they caused so much good fortune for so many.
Who did not benefit from the alleged attack?
Average Joe US citizen who is footing the bill for much of the above.
The poor boots on the ground that had to do the dirty work.
The poor folks who perished in the Towers and their grieving families..
The poor Iraqis and Afghans who cannot even have a wedding without being blown to bits by erroneous US bombing. And the hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children in those countries that have been killed by US, British etc. bombs and bullets.
As a final statement, you would have to be pretty stupid and not think ahead at all to attack an enemy that is millions of times stronger than yourself, knowing full well that you and your people would pay an enormous price for such an act, and that you would be squashed like bugs by the military force that would be unleashed. Your cities, towns and villages would be bombed to rubble and thousands of your innocent family members would be rounded up and killed.
The disproportionate killing would be on the order of 500 to 1 or more.
This would be like chaining yourself to a tree and stirring a stick in a nearby fire ant's nest. I have trouble believing that anyone is that stupid.
I know, you're going to say that Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are that stupid.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.04, 18:43:15
You make good points about the failure of the bolts, but I believe I read somewhere in the description of the construction of the twin towers that the beams were bolted AND welded together.
Also your model about energy is simplistic. Energy is absorbed in the structure of the plane itself as it crushes in on itself, just the way it does in automobiles that are designed to absorb the crash energy on impact. We don't see automobiles taking out bridge or overpass abutments, rather we see an extremely crumpled accordion of metal that absorbed the energy of impact and gave it off as heat in the process.
Posting those Khomeini quotes can be quite inflammatory and lead to others posting equally vile quotes from Judaic literature. Do you want that?
The beams bowing inward would put a shearing force on the bolts and whatever welding was done, most likely shearing them quite easily.
Do you mean 3000 year old manuscripts put up against 30 or so year old quotes.?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.04, 18:50:47
The beams bowing inward would put a shearing force on the bolts and whatever welding was done, most likely shearing them quite easily.
Do you mean 3000 year old manuscripts put up against 30 or so year old quotes.?
We have no proof either way so it is conjecture from both sides.
I'm sure Khomeini's quotes, if they are real and not more Israeli propaganda, are derived from mindsets and manuscripts that are quite old and perverted in their thinking just as it is with some of the Judaic literature.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and the pot should not call the kettle "black"
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.04, 17:13:26
Stop and think, The plane carries x amount of mass moving at y speed, I don't think it matters much what that mass is made of, it still carries z amount of energy when it hits the building, those steel beams are going to be deformed by the energy. The beams cannot deform without tremendous pressure at the ends where they are bolted together. The bolts failed and the beams came down. How intelligent does a person need to be to see something as simple as that, I'm sure even you can.
that's interesting!:
--------------------
"Tower Blueprints
Surviving Evidence of the World Trade Center Attack
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
some Tower Blueprints you can find there: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
---------------------------------------
this is the pieces of story taken from this: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3873416/1/
(in red is my writings):
"Here are a few of the salient points that the NIST found in the discovered Port Authority documents from February 3, 1964:
1. A structural analysis was carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson and is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.
2. The buildings have been designed for wind loads of 45 lbs per square foot which is 2.5 times the New York City Building Code requirements of 20 lbs per square foot, the design load for the Empire State, Pan American and Chrysler Buildings. In addition to static wind loads, a complete dynamic analysis has been made to take into account extremely high velocity gusts.
3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8. ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage ---- but not penetrate the whole building like shown in faked videos with planes --- which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
7. The design has been reviewed by some of the most knowledgeable people in the construction industry. In a letter to John Skilling, the Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, the Chief Engineer of the American Bridge Division of U.S. Steel Corporation said:
"In reviewing this design with our Operating and Construction Departments, we are very optimistic that you have turned a new page in the design of structural steel."
---------------------------------------
"First of all, a fully fueled Boeing 707, carries 23,000 gallons of fuel and a fully fueled Boeing 767 carries 23,980 gallons of fuel. Not a significant difference, unless Robertson is correct about the status of the Boeing 707 the WTC Towers were designed to handle."
---------------------------------------
"The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s."
--------------------------------------
"Claiming the WTC Towers were never engineered for 600 mph 767 impacts, assuages his sense of guilt over those many lost lives.
A tragedy that he could never have prevented and holds no responsibility for.
82 year old Leslie Robertson is yet another innocent victim of the Inside Job."
----------------------------------
and again - full story about 911 is there. watch the 26 parts of video on the bottom: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
this is my study as conspiracy theorist. You don't need to have skills of nuclear or constructor engineer. You need only logical thinking and an awareness that conspiracy exists.
that's it.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.04, 18:21:56
Yes, for a science forum, the 9/11 truther people here are pretty unscientific. They all have this preconceived notion that the "guvmunt is evil, durr", and they then look for any evidence to support their view with regard to what happened on 9/11, conveniently discarding all evidence that does not comport with their worldview.
yes that's exactly what does criminal inspector who "are pretty unscientific" in most cases - remove false testimony and put in scientific facts from professionals.
Tysb3:
Quote3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8. ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage ---- but not penetrate the whole building like shown in faked videos with planes --- which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
Well I would say that the best building engineering and architectural minds doing their analysis in 1964 made a valiant attempt but unfortunately their calculations were wrong. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they were wrong, we can assume that they did their best with good intentions. Needless to say most of their calculations were probably done with slide-rulers and adding machines, and they may have run very simple computer simulations by paying for access to someone's mainframe computer.
I think you were the one making the big point about it being impossible for the planes to slice through the steel columns but we collectively refreshed ourselves about that one. Only a few parts of the planes were capable of slicing through the steel columns, and what really happened is that steel column sections were "punched out" of the steel column matrix in the outer supporting walls by the impacts of the planes. That pretty much takes the wind out of your argument but I'm not sure if you have at least acknowledged that point.
But when you insist that there were no planes and all of the amateur video was faked, 99.999% of the people, Truthers included, would think that you are a kook first, conspiracy theorist second.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.04, 20:29:09
...
But when you insist that there were no planes and all of the amateur video was faked, 99.999% of the people, Truthers included, would think that you are a kook first, conspiracy theorist second.
MileHigh
Quite so -- I pointed out the EVIDENCE from numerous amateur video recordings and referred to a scholarly paper by Eric Salter providing evidence for real planes hitting the Towers (but not WTC7). Many people on the ground also HEARD the sound of the low-flying incoming jets; I have talked to some of these.
I have referenced the
JournalOf911Studies.com earlier, but I should point out that this journal includes ONLY peer-reviewed papers by scholars in various fields, and makes a valiant effort to sort out fact from unsubstantiated fiction by requiring that EVIDENCE be brought to bear on various questions related to 9/11/2001.
Did real planes hit the WTC Towers? Yes: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
Did nukes bring down the WTC Towers? No: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
Did an energy beam from space (Judy Wood) knock down the Towers? NO: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf -- and other papers in the same journal
What was the nature of the order by Dick Cheney to questioning assistant (Mineta testimony) just prior to the Pentagon hit? http://journalof911studies.com/letters/OrderRegardingAA77HittingPentagonOn911.pdf
Is there a mathematical analysis of either Tower's collapse, which challenges the official story? Yes: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
IOW, the so-called "Truther community" has indeed sought to sort out the wheat from the chaff, truth from error, evidentiary fact from nonsense.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.04, 20:29:09
Well I would say that the best building engineering and architectural minds doing their analysis in 1964 made a valiant attempt but unfortunately their calculations were wrong. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they were wrong, we can assume that they did their best with good intentions. Needless to say most of their calculations were probably done with slide-rulers and adding machines, and they may have run very simple computer simulations by paying for access to someone's mainframe computer.
you are not the best building engineer and architect. you can not evaluating their competence. that's only yours speculation. computers is not matter of argument. just mater in speed of calculations.
and I'm sure you don't have computer simulations which show how aluminum plane penetrate the buildings like in fake videos with planes.
because
"The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information."
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.04, 20:29:09
I think you were the one making the big point about it being impossible for the planes to slice through the steel columns but we collectively refreshed ourselves about that one. Only a few parts of the planes were capable of slicing through the steel columns, and what really happened is that steel column sections were "punched out" of the steel column matrix in the outer supporting walls by the impacts of the planes. That pretty much takes the wind out of your argument but I'm not sure if you have at least acknowledged that point.
My acknowledge that the explosives placed on the steel constructions do pretty much better that job than aluminum plane and takes the wind out of your argument but I'm not sure if you have at least acknowledged that point.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.04, 20:29:09
But when you insist that there were no planes and all of the amateur video was faked, 99.999% of the people, Truthers included, would think that you are a kook first, conspiracy theorist second.
First: I do not insist. I show the proofs. watch the video where is the proven fake videos: full story about 911 is there. watch the 26 parts of video on the bottom: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
Second: you insist by calling names and show your self what you are. call the name ? ;)
MH; you still don't have the Third-law force-pair correct.
I asked you:
QuoteQuote
And what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F [=Mg]?
You replied:
QuoteThe downward force is Mg where M is the mass of the falling building. We will pretend for a second that M is constant.
The equal and opposite upward force is d(Mv)/dt. That's equal to Mdv/dt.
MileHigh
Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 17:12:03 by MileHigh
I recommend you consult a Physics text if you wish to get it right. Both of your forces above act on the SAME OBJECT and therefore we immediately see that these two forces CANNOT possibly be a Newton's Third Law pair.
I have a Physics text in my office at home, so I quote briefly from Halliday and Resnick to help you out:
Quote
"Every time you find a force, a good question is: Where is the reaction force?
... The forces of an action-reaction pair always act on different bodies; thus they do not combine to give a net force..."
"Two forces that act on the same body are not an action-reaction pair..."
If you wish to continue this discussion, I recommend you read up on:
1. Newton's third law, and action-reaction pairs
2. The mathematical analyses of the fall-motions of WTC1 and WTC7 by mathematics Professor Kenneth Kutler, here:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
and
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf .
These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteI recommend you consult a Physics text if you wish to get it right.
I would prefer if you simply educated me and gave me the correct answer right now so we can move foreward. Can you do that?
QuoteThese analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1.
I read the shorter WTC7 paper. Now I can understand why you are referring to "conservation of momentum." And it's really Bizarro in my book because the person that wrote the paper is modeling the WTC7 collapse ass-backwards:
QuoteCould this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?
QuoteAssume there is not support for any floor when it is hit by the collapsing floors from above.
Thus it is like the floor is just floating in the air when it is hit but it is stationary.
So he is modelling a pancake collapse from the top down. But I think my simplified model, based on observing the videos, is that the bulk of the structure was essentially intact and got destroyed from the bottom up as the bottom of the falling structure went into the "compaction zone."
It's like the guy's calculations are more applicable to the twin towers than WTC7. So I am baffled. His calculations may be right but that's not fundamentally what happened to WTC7. I will be so bold to say that I think most people would agree with me.
So, again, you have a force Mg acting downwards on a more-or less intact falling mass of concrete and steel and there is an upwards force f acting on the same mass of concrete and steel. And obviously "M" is actually M(t) because the mass decreases over time.
If the same guy wrote a proper paper based on my model, the critical thing that needs to be estimated is how much total energy is in the upward force impulse f(t) when a downwards traveling floor enters the compaction zone.
Quite simply, all that you would have to do is punch in values for the energy associated with f(t) to get a 6.5 second collapse time. Once you have that energy value, then you could look at it to see if it seems reasonable with the materials and structural experts.
Sorry, but this paper: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf (http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf) is almost unbelievably modeling the WTC7 collapse as a top-to bottom pancake collapse as opposed to my model of a compaction zone at the ground/subbasement level so his calculations are simply invalid.
MileHigh
Looks like my post #297 went by without a comment, except from Room3327, who only addressed the top few lines.
Too much food for thought there?
MH: Regarding your compaction zone model, I would agree except for one little fly in the ointment.
How do you get all those beams to fail simultaneously, especially the ones protected from falling debris that were on the inside and back of the building.
If the front facing beams were taken out, I would expect it would have toppled into the post office building rather than a beautiful symmetrical collapse, folding up into it's own footprint with all sidewalls neatly piling on center, typical of a classic demolition using explosives that first take out the inner beams then later the outer beams, and gravity finishes the job.
We are paying way to much to demolition companies if this can be neatly done with a few fires or Larry Silversteins prayers.
A demolitions expert is consulted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 00:02:55
Looks like my post #297 went by without a comment, except from Room3327, who only addressed the top few lines.
Too much food for thought there?
More like too many lunatic ravings.
Ion:
QuoteAs a final statement, you would have to be pretty stupid and not think ahead at all to attack an enemy that is millions of times stronger than yourself, knowing full well that you and your people would pay an enormous price for such an act, and that you would be squashed like bugs by the military force that would be unleashed. Your cities, towns and villages would be bombed to rubble and thousands of your innocent family members would be rounded up and killed.
Yes but some in the German army tried to kill Hitler to stop the bloodshed and end the war and they failed. Hitler fought to the bitter end down to the last few square blocks. Hitler is not unique in this matter, it still happens in modern times often enough.
The military-industrial complex and many others benefited from 9/11 just like you said. Think of the generic security and surveillance industry, the people selling cameras and motion detectors and building security systems. They also had a bonanza. Would they alone have benefited if the twin towers were bought down, as well as the horrible bombings that took place in Madrid, London, and Bali? Of course they benefited tremendously but that doesn't necessarily mean they go out and commit terrorist acts to increase their revenue stream. I am sure it meant for billions of dollars in increased revenue. Not to paint every corporation or vested interest as all innocent and benevolent either, ditto for governments. Inject innocent people with syphilis or refuse to pick them up in an ambulance because their skin is the wrong colour are things that come to mind. What about the tobacco lobby influencing government and the medical profession. You don't have to wear a hat to recognize that the world is still a very imperfect place and money can cause some people or governments to do really nasty things.
We like to think that we live in an ordered society and we are in control of our destiny but it is still a very existentialist world. Look at recent history. I think it was a man in Tunisia that set fire to himself and as a result Hosni Mubarak was booted out of power and Muammar Gaddafi got a bullet through his head. Last summer in London, you could have been out one evening to take your dog for a walk only to find ten hooded thugs rob you and nearly beat you to death - for nothing.
MileHigh
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.05, 00:33:13
More like too many lunatic ravings.
Looks like you are reading from your hasbara manual again. You've been unmasked, go back to sleep.
ION raises a good point about the symmetry of the collapse, which I referred to before but IIRC MH has not addressed this point. A good defense of the "official conspiracy theory" (ie., the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 was due to fires alone, in turn caused by Muslim hijackers alone -- who did even HIT WTC7 with a plane) would
address the symmetry issue.
Meanwhile, MH tears into Professor Kuttler who was analyzing the "official claim" that WTC7 fell via "pancaking floors" - But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7. The "official theory" has since changed dramatically,
with the interior of the building collapsing leaving the exterior shell still standing (it later falls)-- NIST's latest "conspiracy theory".
BTW -- the official government story claims that 19 Muslim hijackers did it all to the WTC and Pentagon -- including the free-fall collapse of WTC7. Did these 19 plan / conspire together? Then the official narrative is a conspiracy theory of its own. So, I am one who questions this "conspiracy theory ".
I'll wait for you to respond to ION regarding the symmetry of the fall, MH, before responding to your latest:
QuoteI would prefer if you simply educated me and gave me the correct answer--MH
Arab Gas Pipeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline
Natural gas reserves in Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran
Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market
http://www.iags.org/china.htm
QuoteWith real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020. To sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil. Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.
The worst is yet to come...
PhysicsProf:
I have other things to do now and I can address Ion's issue about the symmetry of the collapse at a later time.
But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:
The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable. I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup. You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect. I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner. Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed. Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.
In this debate, you have been pushing this "conservation of momentum" effect from the very beginning. I have watched some of your talks on YouTube and you mention the very same thing. You link to the document in question and state, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1." Then I show how Professor Kuttler's paper is all wrong in my opinion and based on a model that clearly is not correct if you look at the WTC7 clips. Then you state, "But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7." You are trying to backtrack but you have been pushing this point all along, that conservation of momentum would prevent WTC7 from falling as fast as it did. It almost seems to me like you never gave that paper a critical analysis and have just been repeating the Truther party line. And you are an active and high-profile contributor to that party line, including the issue about the timing of the WTC7 collapse.
So what's up professor? Do you believe in the pancake collapse model for WTC7 or do you give credence to the compaction zone model? If you believe that the compaction zone model is more reasonable and seems to fit in with what we see in the video clips then it would appear that you have been led astray by that paper, and perhaps other sources.
I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned. If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine. But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.
I hope that you understand where I am coming from. I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.05, 02:19:21
PhysicsProf:
But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:
The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable. I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup. You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect. I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner. Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed. Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.
This is a separate subject entirely. Are you attempting to bias the reader that the Professor's analysis of the bldg's collapse is "faulty" because of his electronics knowledge?
Here I will agree with MH that the Youtube clip he references was was indeed the work of a beginner that is misinterpreting his data and making erroneous assumptions.
I am not at all comfortable with the Physics Professors expertise in the field of electronics and his endorsement of some rather questionable devices and video clips, including his own "joule theif" work and questionable analysis of the results using DSO's, with no double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques.
But as G points out this is a separate issue.
I am very strong in designing analog and switchmode circuits, and I am very weak in knowledge and practice of other technologies such as advanced spread spectrum radio design. But this is a dichotomy within the same field.
Within totally separate fields such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and geopolitical events one could expect that no one is an expert in all .
I understand your discomfort MH but don't know how to assuage it, nor do I admit that it should be assuaged..
Quote from: MileHigh
...
I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned. If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine. But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.
I hope that you understand where I am coming from. I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.
MileHigh
Protesteth too much?
Who is "playing" with whom?
MH, please. Is all this drama really necessary?
Yes, it is discomfiting when loss of control seems
a certainty; when the "playbook" tactics seem to
no longer silence the opposing scientific arguments.
Desparation?.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.05, 02:19:21
PhysicsProf:
I have other things to do now and I can address Ion's issue about the symmetry of the collapse at a later time.
I await your response with eagerness, noting that I raised the same issue regarding the symmetry of the collapse earlier on, and you failed to address it then.
But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:
The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable. I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup. You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect.
YOU say that I implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect -- and I do NOT agree that this is true. I disagree with you and challenge you to find that I indicated that this was a possible OU effect..
I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner. Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed. Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.
I consistently push for more careful-- and repeated -- measurements.
In this debate, you have been pushing this "conservation of momentum" effect from the very beginning. I have watched some of your talks on YouTube and you mention the very same thing. You link to the document in question and state, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1." Then I show how Professor Kuttler's paper is all wrong in my opinion and based on a model that clearly is not correct if you look at the WTC7 clips. Then you state, "But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7." You are trying to backtrack but you have been pushing this point all along, that conservation of momentum would prevent WTC7 from falling as fast as it did. It almost seems to me like you never gave that paper a critical analysis and have just been repeating the Truther party line. And you are an active and high-profile contributor to that party line, including the issue about the timing of the WTC7 collapse.
So what's up professor? Do you believe in the pancake collapse model for WTC7 or do you give credence to the compaction zone model? If you believe that the compaction zone model is more reasonable and seems to fit in with what we see in the video clips then it would appear that you have been led astray by that paper, and perhaps other sources.
I do not believe in EITHER of these two models -- I have consistently maintained that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE WTC, particularly WTC7. I am surprised that you seem to have missed this point! Professor Kuttler demonstrated that the "pancaking floor" model was BS.
I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned. If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine. But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.
Seems to me that YOU are the one using "deflection" (see above).
I hope that you understand where I am coming from. I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.
Then answer my questions. Who is "playing" -- evading questions?
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 02:53:48
Here I will agree with MH that the Youtube clip he references was was indeed the work of a beginner that is misinterpreting his data and making erroneous assumptions.
I do not disagree; I believe he was overunityguide, who made that particular clip. I would however like to see further careful measurements before his work is simply dismissed.
I am not at all comfortable with the Physics Professors expertise in the field of electronics and his endorsement of some rather questionable devices and video clips, including his own "joule theif" work and questionable analysis of the results using DSO's, with no double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques.
I did not claim OU for my own device, but I did find "evidence for" an interesting effect. That's all I claimed. I diligently tried to do "double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques", which IIRC I was the first to suggest, but my colleague who said he would allow use of his calorimeter at the university inexplicably did an about face and declined to permit the measurement. I have explained all of this before.
Which are my "endorsements of some rather questionable devices and video clips"? You should substantiate this put-down if you will.
I am climbing the learning curve in this field and trying to be helpful; I admit I have much to learn. But ION, you stab me to the heart with your unsubstantiated critique. Why?
From Professor:
QuoteWhich are my "endorsements of some rather questionable devices and video clips"? You should substantiate this put-down if you will.
I am climbing the learning curve in this field and trying to be helpful; I admit I have much to learn. But ION, you stab me to the heart with your unsubstantiated critique. Why?
I'm sorry this is just a gut feel, not meaning to put you down, I respect your work in other areas. I don't recall nor could I find on this forum (things get buried) the exact instances that raised flags in my mind, so I will formally retract that statement and apologize.
I'm sorry if I caused you discomfort, not meant to cause harm, sometimes I ,without tact, state things that just make me feel uneasy. I should have chosen my words more carefully....apologies.
Early on I offered a dual chamber differential thermal bridge balance type energy monitor system, built it up and offered it as an alternative to calorimetric technique. It works very well and can very easily prove / disprove the existence of OU in nearly any device.
As an engineer with over 30 years experience in thermocouple thermometry and the design of measuring and control systems, it pains my heart that this work went largely unnoticed, quickly glossed over by hoopla in other areas. Outline and some notes are available on my bench. I have also offered many other innovative measurement techniques that were largely ignored.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/04/acars-confirmed-911-aircraft-airborne-long-after-crash/
mags
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 04:00:15
From Professor:
I'm sorry this is just a gut feel, not meaning to put you down, I respect your work in other areas. I don't recall nor could I find on this forum (things get buried) the exact instances that raised flags in my mind, so I will formally retract that statement and apologize.
I'm sorry if I caused you discomfort, not meant to cause harm, sometimes I ,without tact, state things that just make me feel uneasy. I should have chosen my words more carefully....apologies.
Accepted, thanks. I certainly have a lot to learn.
Early on I offered a dual chamber differential thermal bridge balance type energy monitor system, built it up and offered it as an alternative to calorimetric technique. It works very well and can very easily prove / disprove the existence of OU in nearly any device.
GREAT! do you have a working system at this time? could I send a small device for testing??
As an engineer with over 30 years experience in thermocouple thermometry and the design of measuring and control systems, it pains my heart that this work went largely unnoticed, quickly glossed over by hoopla in other areas. Outline and some notes are available on my bench. I have also offered many other innovative measurement techniques that were largely ignored.
To Professor regarding the thermal test setup.
I packed it all away and would take a while to dig it up and get it running again. I am disinclined to take your offer with the holidays coming, will be quite busy.
It would be better for forum members to get the concept so that they can roll their own. Many pages were written regarding this but since it wasn't all put on a bench, it has all been buried deep in the forum in threads I can't remember.
I'll try to dig up the threads. Meanwhile, I have extensively tested JT's using conventional methods and unfortunately have always seen under unity operation. Granted, I don't have your version, but we must remember all of this started by LTseung, who basically lifted his version from a JT do it yourself website. I seriously not only distrust his input, but he is a rank amateur regarding electronics.
That whole debacle ended with POYNT testing one of his devices that had a bad solder joint, and the merry go round was in full rotation.
Here is the beginning of the thread: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.0
Reply #38 outlines the thermal balance method.
PhysicsProf:
It's late now and let me try to make my point.
Your argument is that for WTC7 to be in near-free-fall, some explosives must be moving mass out of the way of the falling building because otherwise the principle of conservation of momentum will slow it down.
You say that at 13:30 in this clip:
"So obviously to get free-fall somehow you must have moved hundreds of thousands of tons of material out of the way."
Then you go on to state that you need explosives to move the material out of the way.
Quoting you in reply #205:
QuoteOh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread!
I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path? The speed drops by ONE HALF! Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2 if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY! How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path? Explosives!
Study up on Newton a little would you? I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH.
So you are clearly arguing that a model for WTC7 to fall at near free-fall speeds is to move mass out of the way with explosives. Without explosives then mass will be in the way and when moving mass A hits a stationary mass B then things have to slow down because of the conservation of momentum.
Then you point to a paper that makes an argument that WTC7 could not possibly fall at free-fall speeds if there is a top-to-bottom pancake collapse. To repeat your quote, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1."
So the thrust of your argument is that something is amiss because WTC7 fell at near-free-fall speeds when it "should not" be doing that. In your clip above you clearly imply that anyone with common sense should recognize this also.
Then I presented my "compaction zone" model and clearly demonstrated that in fact the building could easily fall at near-free-fall speeds without any requirement for explosives. You simply have to recognize that the momentum of a falling 47-story mass of building can completely overwhelm any compaction zone energy drain that is trying to slow down the falling mass of steel and concrete. The falling mass of steel and concrete must weigh millions of tons and would possesses a near-astronomical amount of energy after it had fallen for a mere two seconds.
QuoteI do not believe in EITHER of these two models -- I have consistently maintained that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE WTC, particularly WTC7. I am surprised that you seem to have missed this point! Professor Kuttler demonstrated that the "pancaking floor" model was BS.
Well, I have shown you that you don't need explosives to have WTC7 fall at near-free-fall speeds, nor are there any conservation of momentum issues to deal with in the compaction zone model.
The reason I brought up the electronics example was that in that case and in this case I got a strong sinking feeling when I read your replies. In both cases there was a tangible sense that you didn't want to really deal with the points head-on and you were implicitly dismissive of your own previous points and wanted to move on. So I am suggesting a pattern here that's a form of bait-and-switch, and that makes me uncomfortable.
The bottom line is this, if I feel it again I will let you know.
WTC7 fell at near-free-fall speeds and there was no need whatsoever for explosives to be used for this to happen. That is a fact as far as I am concerned and if people reading this agree with me then the argument about WTC7 is in a sense already over.
Nonetheless, there is Ion's issue to deal with and I think that you have a few other main points about the mystery of WTC7. I am pretty convinced that I can address the other issues and make a pretty convincing overall argument that although the collapse of WTC7 looked highly unusual, the fact of the matter is that upon closer examination there was nothing unusual about it at all. And I am just giving you my opinion and I am not an expert in structural engineering by any means and neither are you.
It's still fun debating the points. And to wax poetic for a second, there is an unfortunate hurtful angle to the whole WTC conspiracy theory "industry." I know that in a way you feel it is a patriotic thing to do to challenge the government and be a form of watchdog lest our liberties be taken away step by step and the world become that much more Orwellian. So challenging the government party line is an implicit form of patriotism. However, if you are wrong, like in this case, you hurt the families and the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. They have seen death right up close, someone is never coming home. And you can sway some of them to believe that evil people in the government have conspired to do this. How horrible and doubly-shocked and hurt they must feel because of this. And a lot of the "9/11 Truthers" are arguably unwitting dupes in the "9/11 conspiracy theory industry" that has grown up around this horrible terrorist act. If you want to look for evil, you can also look towards the people that milk the 9/11 tragedy for their own purposes. Anything to make a buck.
MileHigh
PhysicsProf:
Just for the sake of completeness:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18248#msg18248 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18248#msg18248)
QuoteAnd, correspondingly, the watt-meter shows that the input power goes DOWN when the load is applied at 950 Hz (Pin goes up when load is applied at 200 Hz).
These are experimental data to be explained. My questions:
Is the observed effect at 950 Hz due to decreased REAL input power being required with load (suggesting a possible path to OU) -- or is it merely a problem with the watt-meter?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18260#msg18260 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18260#msg18260)
QuoteI do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU. Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."
I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run.
So again, a sense of bait-and-switch is at play again here. If you had said, "Yes I see now that there was nothing in that clip that suggested a path to OU at all," it would have made a difference. Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I am being honest when I say I felt a sinking feeling.
MileHigh
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.12.05, 04:10:42
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/04/acars-confirmed-911-aircraft-airborne-long-after-crash/
mags
Wow, thank you Mags! Everyone pay attention and stop insulting each other.
The ACARS path is a slippery one and easy to 'identify' as confirmation of conspiracy.
I think the officials blew off the questions about ACARS proving a different location and a fully operational aircraft after the impact as obvious questions from conspiracy hacks.
I'm sure they would have and should have avoided answering.
The only significant fact I see is that the pilots never answered the messages.
MH said: (out of context)
QuoteSo challenging the government party line is an implicit form of patriotism. However, if you are wrong, like in this case, you hurt the families and the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. They have seen death right up close, someone is never coming home. And you can sway some of them to believe that evil people in the government have conspired to do this. How horrible and doubly-shocked and hurt they must feel because of this. And a lot of the "9/11 Truthers" are arguably unwitting dupes in the "9/11 conspiracy theory industry" that has grown up around this horrible terrorist act. If you want to look for evil, you can also look towards the people that milk the 9/11 tragedy for their own purposes. Anything to make a buck.
One thing that must be looked at: there are a lot of families of 9 / 11 victims that do indeed want answers and smell something fishy with the official story. They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation.
My heart goes out to these courageous people, including the numerous first responders that died or are dying from mesothelioma from the asbestos. Many of these also feel they were not sufficiently warned of the dangers of working around the debris of the WTC, and many also smell a rat with the official story.
I also despise anyone who tries to make a buck off this tragic event or OU scams though the former is infinitely more hurtful. Yes there is a 9 / 11 truth "industry" as there is with any tragedy, there are always ambulance chasers out to make a buck.
Be careful not to throw all serious researchers into that camp.
The idea of hurting the families by seeking truth is a ploy many have used to attempt to take the higher moral ground. Would you do that for the thalidomide victims also, or any of the millions that have lost loved ones due to medical malpractice, or big pharma harmful drugs, and just back away so as not to further hurt the families that lost loved ones?
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 14:26:30
MH said: (out of context)
One thing that must be looked at: there are a lot of families of 9 / 11 victims that do indeed want answers and smell something fishy with the official story. They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation.
This is true -- I have spoken to a number of these good people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 tragedy. Indeed, as ION says, "They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation." Ellen Mariani is one of these, who lost her husband on one of the airplanes. She sued for wrongful death of her husband, in that there were NO AIR DEFENSES that day.
My heart goes out to these courageous people, including the numerous first responders that died or are dying from mesothelioma from the asbestos. Many of these also feel they were not sufficiently warned of the dangers of working around the debris of the WTC, and many also smell a rat with the official story.
Again-- correct, ION. The dust was known to be dangerous, full of asbestos and highly alkaline, but the Bush/Cheney administration nevertheless issued misleading press releases saying the dust was safe and people should just go back to work. Thousands are now suffering with lung and other afflictions due to the toxic dust. The government LIED to them. We could discuss how Nikki Tinsley, EPA Inspector General at the time, disclosed the treachery and lies of the government in saying the dust was safe when IT WAS NOT SAFE. Do you know what happened to this whistleblower? Guess.
I also despise anyone who tries to make a buck off this tragic event or OU scams though the former is infinitely more hurtful. Yes there is a 9 / 11 truth "industry" as there is with any tragedy, there are always ambulance chasers out to make a buck.
Be careful not to throw all serious researchers into that camp.
The idea of hurting the families by seeking truth is a ploy many have used to attempt to take the higher moral ground. Would you do that for the thalidomide victims also, or any of the millions that have lost loved ones due to medical malpractice, or big pharma harmful drugs, and just back away so as not to further hurt the families that lost loved ones?
Excellent points, ION. As most of you probably know, I lost my position at the university where I taught for over 21 years because of my "whistleblower" status, challenging the official story of 9/11 -- that Al Qaeda was SOLELY responsible, including the destruction of all seven of the WTC buildings (when only two were hit by planes), and including the utter lack of air defenses that day. Indeed, there is "something fishy" about the official 19-hijacker conspiracy theory and the cover-ups that followed 9/11.
NIST declined to examine ANY of the steel from WTC7 -- they admitted this. Why did they set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO in their computer simulation of the fires in WTC7? think about that -- why would they set a known non-zero parameter to zero in a sim?
Speaking of money, we should also recall that PUT OPTIONS (where money is made when the stock FALLS) were made on the two airlines involved on 9/11 -- AA and UAL. LOTS of money, in "highly unusual" trades that took place the week BEFORE 9/11. "Lucky Larry" Silverstein also made lots of money, over $4Billion in insurance payouts for the loss of his WTC buildings due to "terrorist attacks". Lucky Larry insured these buildings against TERRORIST attacks specifically, just SIX WEEKS before 9/11.@MH:
QuoteSo you are clearly arguing that a model for WTC7 to fall at near free-fall speeds is to move mass out of the way with explosives. Without explosives then mass will be in the way and when moving mass A hits a stationary mass B then things have to slow down because of the conservation of momentum.
Yes, EXCEPT that we got NIST to admit to not just "Near free-fall speeds" as you repeatedly say -- but rather,
AT "PRECISELY FREE-FALL ACCELERATION," g= 32.2 feet/sec**2.
This does require that essentially NO MASS be in the way of the falling upper portion of the building -- for OVER 100 FEET, that is, 8-floors-worth of mass had to be moved. If you understand Newton's third law or, equivalently, the law of conservation of momentum PROPERLY.
Sure, there must be some error bar on this fit to the actual data from the fall of WTC7, and NIST failed to state the error % -- but the three-digit 32.2 accuracy which they do state implies a small error %. I realize from this discussion that I should take the NIST plot of the WTC7-fall data and do a data fit myself, to get the error bar -- from their own data, and finish the analysis for them.
This one is for CHET
Chet: since you worked around and on the WTC buildings, did you ever get to see the basement mechanics workshop there? I understand they had a 50 ton press and wonder what it was used for.
Also I understand there was a real corrosion problem with the aluminum fascia that covered the steel beams. Some say the fascia sections would routinely fall off due to corrosion between the dissimilar metals and the humidity from the harbor.
I'm not implying that this in any way weakened the structure, just curious about the corrosive effects.
Chet, Can you verify this? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 19:20:29
Also I understand there was a real corrosion problem with the aluminum fascia that covered the steel beams. Some say the fascia sections would routinely fall off due to corrosion between the dissimilar metals and the humidity from the harbor.
Could this be the source for all the red and gray flakes that are somewhat similar to thermite in the WTC dust?
Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide (rust) combined.
Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster
Very interesting.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.05, 20:20:09
Could this be the source for all the red and gray flakes that are somewhat similar to thermite in the WTC dust?
Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide (rust) combined.
I don't have a chemistry or metallurgical background so I will defer to someone who does. From my own experience, I will say that aluminum oxide builds up into quite thick layers once it starts (if humidity is present) , and may be able to form a reaction with the iron oxide if a high temperature is available to ignite it. Maybe the Prof can shed some light on this.
It is an excellent point to be considered.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.05, 16:28:24
[ This does require that essentially NO MASS be in the way of the falling upper portion of the building -- for OVER 100 FEET, that is, 8-floors-worth of mass had to be moved.
Can you dispense with the hot red text, please.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."
Big whoopee. If you read the final report, the why of that 8 or so floors of missing 'mass' is not a mystery. Columns buckling from fire, and the floors giving way en masse, all collapsing on the inside, leaving the shell to fall at gravity speed, mimics implosion.
Does not mean it happened.
Whenever I read the fringe stuff regarding 9/11, I go off looking for evidence to support their views, and like some 9/11 Romero Device, come away lacking. So, after seeing Mr. Implosion vids 1-3, I think, ok,
maybe Silverstein had it detonated for insurance money (something
much more likely than any gubment anything). But then I read up on what's required. I read up on the sounds that need to be there, which are missing. I read the evidence for a non-conspiratorial cause, including most all of the official final report, which answers, rationally, many of the questions posed here on this forum, yet I cannot see that it
was actually imploded.
I can see that the process mimicked it, and (some) people need to say that it was imploded, thusly.
It's kind of like having somebody come around after a fire which lightning started though, and calling it arson, because they found a point of origin which fit the criteria.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 20:54:53
I don't have a chemistry or metallurgical background so I will defer to someone who does. From my own experience, I will say that aluminum oxide builds up into quite thick layers once it starts (if humidity is present) , and may be able to form a reaction with the iron oxide if a high temperature is available to ignite it. Maybe the Prof can shed some light on this.
It is an excellent point to be considered.
I don't mean that it exploded, I just mean that a lot of this red and gray dust could easily have been created by the collapse of the buildings. Aluminum with its layer of aluminum oxide, which is corundum or saphire and is used on sand paper, grinding down with the collapse, the rust on the steel beams. I would think a lot of dust comprising aluminum and iron oxide would be created, which may be the stuff Physics Prof has studied and wrote his papers on.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.05, 19:20:29
Also I understand there was a real corrosion problem with the aluminum fascia that covered the steel beams. Some say the fascia sections would routinely fall off due to corrosion between the dissimilar metals and the humidity from the harbor.
I'm interested in what Chet was told on this issue. It was fairly common in and around Lower Manhattan. I designed and assisted in the installation of many of the backup Diesel/Gas electric power plants in those buildings for about 20 years, including the twins & building 7. We also had issues when using aluminum.
Liberty & Ellis Islands use my switchgear and control systems (sorry, no whoop dee do emoticon)
I just posted a report on "Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster"
QuoteAppendix C of the well-known FEMA Report on the collapse of buildings at the WTC on September 11th,
2001, focuses on two samples of badly corroded structural steel removed from the WTC debris field, /See
Ref 1/. The authors of Appendix C, namely J. Barnett, R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson Jr., describe
metallographic sectioning and EDS (X-ray fluorescence) analyses of two samples and show that iron
sulfide, FeS, surface deposits are associated with the severe corrosion of the steel. In an interview
published in the Spring 2002 issue of WPI Transformations, Barnett et al. speculate how the steel was
sulfided in the manner observed, but note that:
"The important questions are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer
could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain...... We may have just the inherent conditions in the
atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or
hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up,"
Barnett et al. note that the sulfur could also have come from the contents of the burning buildings, such as
rubber or plastics, or ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions
on turbine blades of jet engines. However, at the time of writing, (Feb, 2006), Barnett et al. have not
published any additional information on the sulfidation of steel at the WTC.
So, corroded aluminum, rusty steel, and sulfur combine to cook the crap out of the steel structure. Did they even need to bother planting explosives? That building may have been "ready to go" at any time. Hell, they may have discovered the "problems" when they inspected the building after the bombing in the garage.
Wrong thread really but i thought i would mention it, I have a friend who is MD in a company that designs, builds and installs High power switch gear for the UK railways, I asked him if he has ever seen or heard of any anomalies, his response was, the most important thing that can go wrong is the earthing system, if the earths are not good then he said the metal in nearby buildings structures migrates, i then responded migrates, surely you mean oxidizes, he said he does not know but the industry say it migrates. C.C
So the building has a steel structure the next check it doesn't :o
I know in the UK years ago, they used blocks of magnesium electrically connected to underground cast iron gas pipes, to stop the iron rusting.
Aluminum normally does not oxidise that easily as it forms a layer of oxide that protects the rest of the metal inside from oxidizing.
Here is a picture of the south tower under construction in 1969:
Quote1969 view of the original WTC bathtub looking northeast. The frame of the south tower is on the left. PATH eastbound tunnel F can be seen in the center, penetrating the slurry wall on its way up Cortlandt Street to Hudson Terminal. (Remnants of this tunnel can still be seen today.) The slurry wall runs along the west side of Greenwich Street. The IRT subway tunnel runs below the street (behind the slurry wall).
That's a lot of steel. Nice coat of rust too. Nice cross-bracing at the bottom.
So, we see how the building is contructed.
Then the impact zone in the north tower.
Does that look right?
here is an interesting forum discussion of the WTC collapse. Steel columns with no concrete or fire-proofing. Probably weakened by years of corrosion and fatigue.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/132842-what-temperature-does-fire-protected-structural-steel-fail-24.html
The shit-starters that control the world have succeeded in blurring the line of truth with a fine mix of fact and our imaginations. They leave out the details in their lies and we gladly fill in the blanks, but we never know the real truth because we blow right past it.
They got this condemned building to get rid of and a need to control Mid-East reserves. So, they sit around with a few drinks and cook up a plan. Works every time. Look at the hours, days, weeks, and years of work they have forced you into. With just a few little lies, the taxed you into slavery and you gladly paid with your time. Stupid part is that you are still paying and they are long past this issue and tightening the noose around our necks.
We all know Iran is next, then our sovereign asses. You smart gentlemen going to try to figure out the plan and interfere or wait for the fan to spray it in our faces and trry to clean up the mess?
EDIT:
Analysis: U.S. ramps up warnings on Iran strike risks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/us-iran-us-idUSTRE7B427I20111205
Where are the people on those flights that never took off on 9/11? :-\
http://letsrollforums.com/happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html
Dick Cheney is a crook! He did it, I'm sure. >:(
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/06_resume.html
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.05, 22:11:58
... surely you mean oxidizes, he said he does not know but the industry say it migrates...
Think of the electroplating process. All you need is a complete circuit. Just another reason to use A.C. for building power. If the situation is right you can have D.C. cross currents. Not a good thing in this context.
Quote
Aluminum normally does not oxidise that easily as it forms a layer of oxide that protects the rest of the metal inside from oxidizing.
Aluminum oxidizing isn't the big problem in a salt air environment where differential charges abide.
In an offshore oil platform generator application aluminum is forbidden unless there are no other options. When it is used it must be coated with a special multilayer epoxy system, no electrical connections are allowed and if at all possible it must be in a controlled environment (no salt in the air).
The reason is it will crystallize from within, become brittle at the least stress point and fracture.
I'm no metallurgist either but I remember having to send a very experienced painter to school so he was allowed to apply that special coating.
Professor:
QuoteYes, EXCEPT that we got NIST to admit to not just "Near free-fall speeds" as you repeatedly say -- but rather,
AT "PRECISELY FREE-FALL ACCELERATION," g= 32.2 feet/sec**2.
You are back in your Spin Zone again. "PRECISELY FREE-FALL ACCELERATION." Really? Look at the graph, the data points are above and below the red line and they are doing curve fitting and linear regression. You are contradicting yourself with respect to the NIST data that you yourself posted! That data probably comes from one camera view and it looks like they probably didn't do sub-pixel interpolation on the video frames to get a more accurate measurement of the displacement.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1195.0;attach=6520;image)
One more time ArtistGuy beat me to the punch. WTC7 had to have at least six subbasements or more so just like WTC1 and WTC2, and most of the building collapsed into it's own subbasement.
There is no need for explosions to "get mass out of the way." We have all seen demolitions of tall buildings using the bottom compaction zone technique and quite often they appear to be falling at free-fall speed also. How do you use bombs like giant directed charges to expel mass out horizontally timed perfectly with the disintegrating building? It makes no sense, it just doesn't fit. No controlled demolition companies in the world have ever considered what you are talking about.
I don't believe that you have made a single substantial comment about my description of the compaction zone destruction process. Nor have you made any comments about how the energy needed to crush the falling mass of building floor by floor in the compaction zone would be negligible compared to the energy inherent in the falling structure of the building itself. That is very revealing.
The building fell at a near-free-fall rate that was not detectible as being different from true free fall by the ordinary video cameras in use at the time. Again, just look at the irregularity in the data points on the NIST graph relative to the red line of constant acceleration.
QuoteThis does require that essentially NO MASS be in the way of the falling upper portion of the building -- for OVER 100 FEET, that is, 8-floors-worth of mass had to be moved. If you understand Newton's third law or, equivalently, the law of conservation of momentum PROPERLY.
No it doesn't require that NO MASS be in the way of the falling upper portion of the building. Your sense of proportion and scale is out of whack and your mechanical/physical intuition is not there. Let's assume the simplified model of a lower compaction zone and an integral mass of falling building. Let's say mid way through the four-second free fall, how fast is the building falling at that point and how much mass is there left in the disintegrating structure? Those numbers could be easily determined. Then you could easily calculate how much 1/2 M v-squared kinetic energy is in the falling building at that point in time. Then compare that to the amount of energy it takes to crush a floor in the compaction zone. That will give you your negative delta-v for the falling building. I can assure you that negative delta-v is negligible compared to the instantaneous velocity of the building at that point in time.
You crunch the numbers and do it PROPERLY. You will see that the building can easily fall at what appears to be free-fall speed for several seconds and the difference from true free fall is beyond the ability of the mediocre quality video frames to measure without doing any fancy sub-pixel interpolation.
MileHigh
OK, you have proved that the buildings did, indeed, collapse...
Okay, so to respond to Ion and others as to why I think WTC7 collapsed in what looked like a controlled demolition. Of course I am certainly not an expert and I am just expressing my opinion.
Let's start off with a simple thought experiment and my numbers are just hypothetical for illustrative purposes. Imagine a 30-story concrete structure that's just a 10 x 10 matrix of non-reinforced concrete pillars with normal strength horizontal connections for each "floor." It looks like a tall thin concrete tower. Suppose that each concrete pillar can support the weight of 10,000 tons. Suppose that at 30 stories high, each pillar is supporting the weight of 9,800 tons.
Don't forget, that we are dealing with pure concrete, no metal reinforcing bars inside the pillars. So what would happen if you took out let's say four of the pillars in one section with cannon fire (or whatever). What would happen? The intact pillars closest to the four destroyed pillars would then have more than a 10,000 ton load and be overloaded and therefore they would explode. This would quickly set off a cascade chain reaction and before you knew it, all 96 remaining pillars would explode because they were overloaded. It might only take 30 seconds.
Meanwhile, when this happened, the 30 story concrete structure would still be standing more or less straight up, because it's so huge and has massive inertia to overcome. In fact, you can imagine that it's center of gravity would still be within the square perimeter of the base. So yes it can fall over eventually, but it takes time because it's so huge and heavy and has a massive moment of inertia.
So think of that model in the context of WTC7. The context is that "all of the materials cost has been sucked out of modern buildings." That means the main support pillars were as thin as the computer modeling and building codes would allow. In other words, a modern skyscraper can be viewed as a structure that is "just strong enough to remain standing and no more," because the architects and the builders try to reduce cost as much as possible, and the way to do that is to reduce your materials cost, all the way down to how much metal you use in your main vertical support pillars.
My pet theory was that when WTC1 and WTC2 fell, they caused two very localized intense earthquakes. Because of the huge momentum of the WTC7 building, in effect many of the main vertical support pillars were somewhat damaged because of the jarring. The ground moved but the building refused to move, so the "ankles" of the vertical support pillars were damaged. Since the structural integrity of the vertical support pillars was compromised, they slowly continued to bend and deform over the period of seven hours right at the base of the building.
Eventually one of the damaged and deformed "ankles" snapped, and then a few others in the immediate vicinity snapped, and then before you knew it they all failed. At that point the building was still standing straight up with it's center of gravity within the outer perimeter. But of course all of the vertical support members became spaghetti curlicues and the building went down.
That was my initial theory.
In looking at the NIST clip, I was a bit surprised that they reported that the fire inside the building was much larger than I think most people thought, up to 10 stories in total vertical displacement. So with the heat buildup, eventually a few of the interior vertical columns failed and the same process took place as described above. There was a cascade failure in the inner rectangle of vertical columns after only a few of them failed because all of the extra strength had been sucked out of the building design to reduce cost. Once the inner rectangle of vertical columns failed then the outer main support wall columns then failed for the very same reason, they were all overloaded at roughly the same time and then the outer part of the building went down.
In thinking about the outer and inner rectangle of support columns (okay the outer "rectangle" was actually a trapezoid) it makes sense that the inner rectangle of columns was probably significantly weaker than the outer rectangle by design. My guess for that reason is that the inner rectangle was much less stressed due to wind forces as compared to the outer rectangle. Since the designers of the inner rectangle did not have to worry that much about compression stress due to wind pressure, they really went on the cheap when it came to the strength of the inner rectangle.
So you combine a weak inner rectangle of support columns with a fire that burns for hours and hours with no sprinkler system working and the building came down.
I haven't read any reports, I am just thinking about my original idea and watching the NIST clip for the first time a few days ago and telling you what I think. You basically had a "perfect storm" for WTC7 and the building came down.
MileHigh
Grumpy,
those pictures you posted of the WTC make it look so sturdy and strong! amazing! Now you got me thinking.
Why didn't the WTC South and North towers after the attacks, just topple over or fall a few floors down and then STOP? All those steel beams! Maybe the explosive theory has some merit? :-\
@ All,
Check out the pilots for 9/11 truth website, very good reading. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Structural engineers think the angle clips for the floor joist failed. Very likely with the burn scenario.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
The more interesting questions are why and how the crashes occurred.
More to come:
The slur campaign against Iran started years ago. They provided 100's of millions of support to terrorist. A logical JayZee action is to set off a few tactical nukes in the USA.
You get rid of the gun-toting red-necks and activist, blame the terrorist, fallout is minimal, you kick off on Iran, install a government that sells you oil and natural gas. China gets pissed and attacks, over half of the world population gets destroyed, now there are less people to control. Sweet!
You could even hit other countries and let Iran take the rap for it. Who would believe that Iran did not attack Israel if we tracked the missile leaving their country? The deviousness of those bastards has no boundaries. We are probably leaking nuke secrets to Iran while condemning them for building reactors at the same time. Sweet! Playing both sides!
There is the China connection too. China trades a little how-too nuke info for gas/oil - sweet...
Quote from: MileHigh
...
Of course I am certainly not an expert and I am just expressing my opinion.
...
My pet theory was that when WTC1 and WTC2 fell, they caused two very localized intense earthquakes...
...
That was my initial theory.
...
I haven't read any reports, I am just thinking about my original idea and watching the NIST clip for the first time a few days ago and telling you what I think. You basically had a "perfect storm" for WTC7 and the building came down.
MileHigh
In view of the candid "qualifiers," would
your opinions then be within the realm
of speculative fantasy?
Or, would you consider your opinions to
be scientific contribution to the "debate?"
There must be some reason for avoidance
of documented evidence, documented expert
opinions and published reports.
Pray tell, what might the reasons be MH?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.06, 00:07:53
OK, you have proved that the buildings did, indeed, collapse...
Grumpy,
Don't tell me you've fallen for that B.S. :-[
I'll bet you I can Google a web site with authenticated, documented and scientific<?> proof the buildings never fell and all is a ruse to gather free pizza, beer and a boost for the NYSE in hopes arm sales will skyrocket.
I am glad the link to pilotsfor911truth was posted. I fly commercial quite often. I'll be asking the crew members if they are a member of that group. If so, I'll just grab a bus or a boat. Talk about a furnace feeding its own flames....
I'll try to respond to MH
From MH:
QuoteLet's start off with a simple thought experiment and my numbers are just hypothetical for illustrative purposes. Imagine a 30-story concrete structure that's just a 10 x 10 matrix of non-reinforced concrete pillars with normal strength horizontal connections for each "floor." It looks like a tall thin concrete tower. Suppose that each concrete pillar can support the weight of 10,000 tons. Suppose that at 30 stories high, each pillar is supporting the weight of 9,800 tons.
Don't forget, that we are dealing with pure concrete, no metal reinforcing bars inside the pillars. So what would happen if you took out let's say four of the pillars in one section with cannon fire (or whatever). What would happen? The intact pillars closest to the four destroyed pillars would then have more than a 10,000 ton load and be overloaded and therefore they would explode. This would quickly set off a cascade chain reaction and before you knew it, all 96 remaining pillars would explode because they were overloaded. It might only take 30 seconds.
What you are describing here is similar to a fast blow semiconductor fuse composed of many strands of fine silver wire in parallel. When the current is exceeded in one of the strands, usually the weakest or the one that is hogging a little more current will fail and set of a chain reaction where the rest of the strands quickly blow. Quick blow semiconductor fuses blow in milliseconds. Here you admit that it is only a thought experiment, a fantasy, as there is no rebar in the mix as you stated. But wait......
QuoteSo think of that model in the context of WTC7. The context is that "all of the materials cost has been sucked out of modern buildings." That means the main support pillars were as thin as the computer modeling and building codes would allow. In other words, a modern skyscraper can be viewed as a structure that is "just strong enough to remain standing and no more," because the architects and the builders try to reduce cost as much as possible, and the way to do that is to reduce your materials cost, all the way down to how much metal you use in your main vertical support pillars.
So here you are basically saying that all modern skyscrapers are designed with no reasonable safety margins, and like a fast blow semiconductor fuse, you need only take out one or two pillars to start the chain reaction. You claim that all of the cost is sucked out and the designers of the buildings provide no safety margins as if they were designing a cheap toy. These things are ready to come down at the slightest earthquake. Whatever happened to building codes and safety margins. Was everyone "paid off"? Are automobiles designed that way too? I better not drive anymore if they are. Now that sounds like a "conspiracy theory".
No, as a matter of fact buildings and automobiles are designed to standards for safety, just as automobile critical components like ball joints, steering rods, tires etc. need to meet federal safety standards with wide safety margins regarding shock loads etc. Buildings also need to meet fire and earthquake safety requirements so they are usually overdesigned. The cost of having to rebuild a building that "just fell down 'cause it was marginally designed" would outstrip the cost of a little overdesign. So it is with automobile recalls. Not to mention the cost of the lawsuits that would occur.
QuoteMy pet theory was that when WTC1 and WTC2 fell, they caused two very localized intense earthquakes. Because of the huge momentum of the WTC7 building, in effect many of the main vertical support pillars were somewhat damaged because of the jarring. The ground moved but the building refused to move, so the "ankles" of the vertical support pillars were damaged. Since the structural integrity of the vertical support pillars was compromised, they slowly continued to bend and deform over the period of seven hours right at the base of the building.
Eventually one of the damaged and deformed "ankles" snapped, and then a few others in the immediate vicinity snapped, and then before you knew it they all failed. At that point the building was still standing straight up with it's center of gravity within the outer perimeter. But of course all of the vertical support members became spaghetti curlicues and the building went down.
Nice theory, but shouldn't those earthquakes have brought down a lot more buildings and reach pretty far out from ground zero in circular rings of intensity zones. Those seismic waves were pretty smart to take down only the insured buildings. Larry Silverstein must have been praying hard at temple. Must be a lot of buildings around ground zero with "spaghetti curlicue legs" ready to blow to this day. I can't find anything on WTC7 but architects have often claimed that WTC1 and 2 were overdesigned by a wide margin.
I'm glad you qualified this as "only your opinion". How many "tokes" does it take for you to form such an opinion, it's really "out there", but I do enjoy reading it.
Several good points have come out, although the content of my last post has been missed by some it seems. :'(
(I like the Santa smiley's, poynt.)
Now Room raises the question I've seen before:
QuoteI don't mean that it exploded, I just mean that a lot of this red and gray dust could easily have been created by the collapse of the buildings. Aluminum with its layer of aluminum oxide, which is corundum or saphire and is used on sand paper, grinding down with the collapse, the rust on the steel beams. I would think a lot of dust comprising aluminum and iron oxide would be created, which may be the stuff Physics Prof has studied and wrote his papers on.
Now, I would invite you to actually read our published peer-reviewed paper on the red/gray chips, here:
Find the April 2009 published article at this link.
Quotehttp://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Deseret News article on the paper:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705295677/Trace-explosives-in-911-dust.html
I comment on the paper:
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-04-04/active-thermitic-material-discovered-dust-911-world-trade-center-catastrophe
As you read this paper carefully, you will notice that there is a significant ORGANIC content in the RED portion of these red/gray fragments (see photo in attachment) that we found and studied. Attached find a Scanning Electron Microscope image of the red portion -- and note the comments regarding the UNIFORMITY of the thin (~40 nanometers thick) platelets containing the aluminum and PARTICULARLY THE ORGANIC MATRIX which holds the aluminum and the iron oxide.
QuoteI would think a lot of dust comprising aluminum and iron oxide would be created, which may be the stuff Physics Prof has studied and wrote his papers on.
Ah -- but you have forgotten the significant organic matrix in which the THIN aluminum is embedded -- where did this come from?
@MH: I have shown how the "compaction zone" model is NOT consistent with the observed free-fall acceleration at g=32.2 ft/s**2.
QuoteNIST final on WTC 7: "This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g."
"...This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)..."
NCSTAR_1A_p87
Note the accuracy of the fit to the data, to three significant digits. If you understand normal data-scatter, you will understand why some of the individual velocity points do not lie exactly on the a = g = 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2) line, even though the fit itself can indeed show the degree of accuracy which they give in their numerical fit (which however I would like to re-check/analyze with a data-fit of my own, as I stated in my previous post.)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.06, 02:27:21
Structural engineers think the angle clips for the floor joist failed. Very likely with the burn scenario.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Good link. If one watches the NOVA show on the towers and their design, then the loss of fireproofing (blown off the steel supports by the initial impact), along with some interior support columns (one tower more than the other in particular), offers no surprises as to the outcomes.
Here's the link for the stage 2 section of the NIST report I quoted...
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610)
Column 79...the impetus for the collapse.
FAQ
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm)
Excerpt:
11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.12.06, 04:37:30
...
FAQ
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm)
Excerpt:
...
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data.
Yes -- this is the work that physicist David Chandler and I insisted that NIST do, and they came up with the numerical result that the roofline indeed fell at g = 32.2 feet/s**2 as I have repeatedly cited in this thread.
@MH, I reply as a courtesy but remind you that you still have not addressed my straightforward questions,
1. What is the Third-law pair force corresponding to your F = Mg? If you don't understand enough to answer this simple question, I ask that you study up.
2. How do you explain the SYMMETRY of the fall of the "outside shell" of WTC7, part of which was hit by debris from the Tower, after the inner-floors (According to NIST!) have already fallen?
Dumped:
Quotewould your opinions then be within the realm of speculative fantasy?
Perhaps this is the opportune time to repost your "big reveal" posting, the most important announcement in the history of the world. You know the one that nobody commented on. Something about aliens from Cygnus Major coming to see us soon and everything was going to change. (or whatever)
Ion:
QuoteSo here you are basically saying that all modern skyscrapers are designed with no reasonable safety margins, and like a fast blow semiconductor fuse, you need only take out one or two pillars to start the chain reaction.
No I am not saying that because that would be totally ridiculous. What I am saying is that the designs are still trimmed to the bone to just respect the safety margins with as little material expense as possible. That is probably a contributing factor to the collapse of WTC7. You are fully aware of the fact that I am aware of the concept of safety margins in building design. The rest of your posting is just gratuitous "styling" or "pimping" of your original statement.
The bottom line is the building burned internally and apparently suffered a lot of internal damage and then collapsed. Perhaps 10 or 20 or 30 of the support pillars in the internal rectangle were compromised from heat and failed before the collapse started. The report focused on one critical corner beam. I don't know and you don't know. But the building did come down.
MileHigh
Grumpy:
Quotehe shit-starters that control the world have succeeded in blurring the line of truth with a fine mix of fact and our imaginations. They leave out the details in their lies and we gladly fill in the blanks, but we never know the real truth because we blow right past it.
They got this condemned building to get rid of and a need to control Mid-East reserves. So, they sit around with a few drinks and cook up a plan. Works every time. Look at the hours, days, weeks, and years of work they have forced you into. With just a few little lies, the taxed you into slavery and you gladly paid with your time. Stupid part is that you are still paying and they are long past this issue and tightening the noose around our necks.
We all know Iran is next, then our sovereign asses. You smart gentlemen going to try to figure out the plan and interfere or wait for the fan to spray it in our faces and trry to clean up the mess?
Yet "the powers that be" that have taxed you into slavery and have noose around your neck allow you to go to the supermarket and get food and go to the gas station and gas up your car so that you can sit at your desk in warm comfort and make postings on the Internet. Without the whole mechanism of society working and without the oil flowing within three weeks you would be cooking grass roots in a pot heated by wood from the neighbourhood trees that people are hacking down for fuel in order to not starve to death. Something to think about.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteNote the accuracy of the fit to the data, to three significant digits. If you understand normal data-scatter, you will understand why some of the individual velocity points do not lie exactly on the a = g = 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2) line, even though the fit itself can indeed show the degree of accuracy which they give in their numerical fit (which however I would like to re-check/analyze with a data-fit of my own, as I stated in my previous post.)
You can ignore my outline of the energy analysis all you want but the bottom line is that WTC7 fell at near-free-fall speeds in a very similar way to what happens when other similarly sized structures are demolished using the lower compaction zone technique. The structural failures in WTC7 due to fire made it appear to be very similar to a controlled demolition. You are obsessed with the near-free-fall speed when it means absolutely nothing.
QuoteWhat is the Third-law pair force corresponding to your F = Mg? If you don't understand enough to answer this simple question, I ask that you study up.
Now, now, now, professor, I answered that question stating that Mg was the force downward and the inertia of the object resisting acceleration was the equal and opposite force. You then responded by saying this is wrong because the force pairs cannot act on the same body. I asked you to explain. But if you want to play the game using phraseology like this, "If you don't understand enough to answer this simple question, I ask that you study up," then a strict school mistress is going to give you an over-the-knee spanking for entering this forum as a "physics professor" here to analyze a Joule Thief circuit only to quickly reveal to everyone that could tell that you had absolutely no idea what you were doing. So you get a spanking for making false statements about your qualifications with respect to circuit analysis and I can tell you that a lot of people had high hopes that were quickly dashed. It was already obvious that you were not qualified in electronics within less than 10 postings. When you turned and asked Poynt what the "resistance" of a particular diode was the floor collapsed all around you. Even though you had already lost your credibility by that time, it was still an absolute shock to see a "physics professor" ask that question, a shock!
So forget the pretense of the "schoolmaster" and "assigning tasks" with information conditional upon completion of those said tasks. Just respond to your question now that I have tried to answer it.
QuoteHow do you explain the SYMMETRY of the fall of the "outside shell" of WTC7, part of which was hit by debris from the Tower, after the inner-floors (According to NIST!) have already fallen?
That's easy to explain. The horizontal connections in the outer shell structure were still pretty much intact while it descended into the compaction zone. That plus the massive inertia of the outside shell itself resulted in a quite orderly descent into the compaction zone.
MileHigh
MH said:
QuoteYet "the powers that be" that have taxed you into slavery and have noose around your neck allow you to go to the supermarket and get food and go to the gas station and gas up your car so that you can sit at your desk in warm comfort and make postings on the Internet. Without the whole mechanism of society working and without the oil flowing within three weeks you would be cooking grass roots in a pot heated by wood from the neighbourhood trees that people are hacking down for fuel in order to not starve to death. Something to think about.
You are right about this and I agree totally. I have made the same point when people bash the engineering establishment, yet have the luxury of the internet, computers, central heating, indoor plumbing and warm baths.
I totally appreciate the level of comfort our modern organized society has given to us, or more correctly that we have created for ourselves.
It all started out wonderfully, the American dream, invention, TV, accumulation of wealth by the middle class. Then something went wrong. Tassel shoe'd scoundrels learned how to take over the controls of the money system and operate the pump in their favor, so that there is a check valve that limits how much of the creative efforts and hard work of the masses is returned to them. Yes we have comforts, and those comforts are allowed for now to keep the machine happy and productive. Happy well fed worker bees gathering honey for the beekeepers, with a little leftover for creature comforts for the worker bees themselves.
Wall street insiders are able to make millions per day without ever producing a a brick, a potato, or a grain of wheat to benefit the world. They just push a few buttons on their computers and get a piece of the money flow, the surges that enrich them with their "check valves". To me this is parasitical activity and should be outlawed or regulated as it harms most of society. But even extreme levels of greed are tolerated and more so, revered, in our materialistic society.
I like to fantasize that people are basically good, generous and want all boats to rise on the tide. Should the thin veneer of "society" become unraveled it will indeed be a different world.
Some of us are here to search for the as yet undiscovered "Holy Grail" of physics, overunity, hence the name of this site. There are plenty of wind and solar and nuclear sites around for anyone to migrate to that does not share this dream.
I hope we can actively get back to that.
For those of us that do, I hope we can bring our creative minds together and dream this impossible dream, and perchance make it a reality with positive contributions.
If I have rubbed anyone the wrong way in this 9/ 11 debate, I sincerely apologize. Oftentimes I was only trying to inject a little humor into a very difficult subject where everyone has strong opinions, but the bandwidth of the typed word often masks the true sentiment and spirit.
On another note, MH has recommended I resign as global moderator, which is probably not a bad idea. I'll leave that to Peterae and POYNT and whomever to decide and to appoint someone else.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.06, 10:58:30
Grumpy:
Yet "the powers that be" that have taxed you into slavery and have noose around your neck allow you to go to the supermarket and get food and go to the gas station and gas up your car so that you can sit at your desk in warm comfort and make postings on the Internet. Without the whole mechanism of society working and without the oil flowing within three weeks you would be cooking grass roots in a pot heated by wood from the neighbourhood trees that people are hacking down for fuel in order to not starve to death. Something to think about.
MileHigh
Don't defend them.
Yes, they do allow me to go to the grocery store, where the prices are inflated from their economic hand-outs. Most of the food is grown from modified plant variants that are not natural, and their safety is questionable. Most of the meat is feed-lot cattle with cancers, or poultry grown in deplorable conditions, jacked full of antibitoics to keep them alive ling enough to get to market. Have you ever been to a feed-lot or a chicken farm?
Yes, they allow me to go the gas station, where I am taxed about 18 cents by both state and federal governments, on top of the $3.50 per gallon price. This is not enough to collect all of my disposable income, so they invent the smog-check industry to froce me to pay to test my vehicles every other year and raise my registration costs because they cannot manage their budgets.
I burn wood because my home is very old and was built before central heat/air. I have a fireplace in the living room that heats half of the house, and thermostatically controlled electric heaters in the downstairs bedrooms and another electric wall-unit in the laundry/atrium area that supplements heat to that end of the house. I had propane for this before, but at $3.85 delivered, it is not practical for heating. I currently use propane for hot water and cooking, but hope to get off it entirely in 2012. Propane prices are tied directly to gasoline/oil price.
More than ever we need to strive to be more self-sufficient, to earn back our freedoms.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.06, 14:32:09
More than ever we need to strive to be more self-sufficient, to earn back our freedoms.
Nothing is stopping you from getting a farm and living off the grid, if you do not like what modern society and its integrated economy is providing for you.
MH
Please keep it "above the belt" with the professor.
I respect his willingness to learn and his humbleness asking the simple questions. A physics major does not mean a know it all. So please leave the JouleThief alone, besides you and Ion already "stabbed" him on this.
He asked you a very basic question, and you got it wrong, so I can understand why he told you to go study.
For future reference, the equal and opposite force to that experienced by a falling mass, is the force that the EARTH experiences upwards.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.06, 15:20:29
MH
Please keep it "above the belt" with the professor.
I respect his willingness to learn and his humbleness asking the simple questions. A physics major does not mean a know it all. So please leave the JouleThief alone, besides you and Ion already "stabbed" him on this.
He asked you a very basic question, and you got it wrong, so I can understand why he told you to go study.
For future reference, the equal and opposite force to that experienced by a falling mass, is the force that the EARTH experiences upwards.
EM
That is correct, EM -- you see how easy it is to find the third-law pair force when you understand the physics.
I guess what bothers me about MH is his attack-mode approach; yes, lack of humility -- can you grasp this problem, MH?
ION -- I hope that you will remain as a moderator; don't let MH get to you. I know that put-downs can be hard on me and you, but we can proceed together with an open-minded (not empty-minded) approach to the energy puzzles that now confront us and make progress.
I have learned new respect through these discussions for ION, EMdevices, Peterae, Ramset, Dumped, Magluvin, Grumpy and several others. There is a certain willingness to care about people as well as "truth" that is essential here, and you have shown this willingness. Thank you sincerely.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.06, 14:34:42
Nothing is stopping you from getting a farm and living off the grid, if you do not like what modern society and its integrated economy is providing for you.
Correct. I have a greenhouse that is half-completed. Walls and roof are up, just need lighting and power for the water pumps (for hyroponics). Right now I use it as a wood shed and the heat dries wood quickly. I plan to use passive mass for heating (water barrels) and water mist with a fan for cooling, so a mostly passive design.
In the attached overhead photo, which is very old and before I actually moved here, the arrow points to the greenhouse, and the oval is the garden. Lots more space (10 acres) to use. A garden has to be fenced or the rodents (rabbits, squirrels, rats, mice) will eat everything. Squash and root vegetables do very well. Nightshade family plants have to be shaded or they get burned in summer.
I will eventually turn the entire long shed into one big greenhouse.
I have a couple of neighbors that are already off the grid entirely. It can be done.
G nice place, there's plenty of room to achieve a self sustaining existence.
In the UK we have a tax called housing tax, which for a small flat or house is about £1000 a year, mine is about £1400, this has to be paid no matter what, although if you are unemployed it is possible to get the gov pay it.
Do you have something similar in the US.
I am heading to efficiency myself, i plan to collect water from the roof, this gets filtered and stored for use in the toilet flush and washing machine.
energy is a real problem for me, a lot of houses have solar panelled roofs, these have been in effect subsidized by the gov, basically the person allows them of their roof, in exchange for 43p per kWh payment which goes to the company that funds the installation, this payment goes up with inflation for 25 years, the person in exchange for the use of the roof gets to keep the free electricity, the gov have just changed this nice 43p per unit and lowered it on the basis that solar panels are now cheaper.
I will soon be installing solar heating for hot water and possibly room heating, although not very good here in the winter it does still work a little.
Maybe we should switch to a Thermite based heating system, sounds cosily hot and a silver mesh and hydrogen peroxide based water heater ;D
@Peterae,
We have property tax.
If your property is paid off and and you are off the grid and you don't pay your taxes anybody an pay your taxes and own YOUR property for a dime.
Then the new owners can kick you off your land with the governments help. We are never really free.
Getting off the grid means nothing. Sorry. But to be free within the confines is not to be free. When this country first started you could own your land. Now we have been taxed to death.
Hey G and Peterae
Looks like you are doin' it not just talkin' it. I have a 3 acre spread and large glass greenhouse, heat my home with mainly wood, but am forced to use some oil in the coldest months. I like to burn the fires hot with well seasoned wood for a clean burn. My stove also has an afterburner. Good idea using the greenhouse to season wood, I'll have to try that.
EMdevices said: (regarding the professor)
QuoteI respect his willingness to learn and his humbleness asking the simple questions. A physics major does not mean a know it all. So please leave the Joule Thief alone, besides you and Ion already "stabbed" him on this.
I'm sorry EM, I was just asking for additional proof which was not supplied. Not trying to stab anyone. When you make a video claiming 8X overunity using a DSO for all the measurements, which are very prone to error if not applied properly, I had to ask for a backup method such as normal Pin / Pout using shunt resistors and filtered metering.
I do respect the professor when he speaks within his area of expertise. As for the 8X overunity, everyone should be on top of this claim and scaling it up. Why is that not happening?
My own tests of JT's and blocking oscillators never showed anything near OU when measured with conventional filtered meters and shunts or with thermal methods. So I suspect the DSO measurements are somehow flawed.
I also respect his willingness to learn and his humbleness asking the simple questions.
Hi gk
Quotef your property is paid off and and you are off the grid and you don't pay your taxes anybody an pay your taxes and own YOUR property for a dime.
I am not fully understanding what you say here, so if you have fully paid your house and land, and have no income due for some reason say retirement, do you still have to pay your property tax, if so how are you expected to do that.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.06, 16:21:30
G nice place, there's plenty of room to achieve a self sustaining existence.
In the UK we have a tax called housing tax, which for a small flat or house is about £1000 a year, mine is about £1400, this has to be paid no matter what, although if you are unemployed it is possible to get the gov pay it.
Do you have something similar in the US.
I am heading to efficiency myself, i plan to collect water from the roof, this gets filtered and stored for use in the toilet flush and washing machine.
energy is a real problem for me, a lot of houses have solar panelled roofs, these have been in effect subsidized by the gov, basically the person allows them of their roof, in exchange for 43p per kWh payment which goes to the company that funds the installation, this payment goes up with inflation for 25 years, the person in exchange for the use of the roof gets to keep the free electricity, the gov have just changed this nice 43p per unit and lowered it on the basis that solar panels are now cheaper.
I will soon be installing solar heating for hot water and possibly room heating, although not very good here in the winter it does still work a little.
Maybe we should switch to a Thermite based heating system, sounds cosily hot and a silver mesh and hydrogen peroxide based water heater ;D
We have a "property tax", which is levied by the local (county level) tax assessor and based on the value of your property, which can change but never go over what you paid for it. This comes out to $3000 a year for me now and this is included in my mortgage and the mortgage company pays the tax.
I have wanted to collect rain water for several uses, but have not started since I am in what is called a "water trust". You buy shares of the trust which entitles you to a percentage of the water available. Rather than pay for what is used, you pay a maintenaince fee each month. so, I have unlimited usage of water for $50 a month, but they really bitch at me if the usage is high. Unless there is drought, which there never has been, they do not base quantity on your number of shares. If they ever do, I have 10 shares out of 1000 or so. I live in an arrid region though, and water is precious to those that do not have it. Ideally, I want my own well, but they are several thousand dollars to drill.
My father has a friend that installs geo-heating systems with the long hose burried in the ground - pretty good idea but expensive to install.
I have some great wind here, but they can get over 100mph and that is hard on a windmill. Several people within a few miles have large windmills, but since they became subsidized, the prices went way up. I have thought of building fake ones if i ever have an alternative power source, so when they come by to see how I am feeding so much power to the grid, they see a bunch of windmills. LOL!
Solar is not that popular even though we have many many sunny days - maybe the cost. Some organization is planning a large solar plant about 70 miles from my home, but it will be expensive to setup - hope they don't cancel it.
So much mroe we can do rather than sit in front of the TV.
I've looked into selling power back to the grid but it dosn't seem set up for a small power producer yet. I have some tentative plans to power various things around my home with alternative energy as I make it available. Mains power runs to your breaker panel and then to each circuit. You can disconnect each circuit and pwoer it separate, and also connect your expensive sine-wave inverter to the mains or only certain circuits.
As for owning your home, think of how fast you can pay it off if you have your own energy. All of the money you spend on gas, electricity, and wood/oil can be redirected. Imagine paying your home off in ten years instead of thirty.
Rather than debates over how the Puppet Masters pulled the strings, we need a breakthrough energy source.Property tax is due twice a year (one tax, two half-payments)
Property Taxes, and the related laws that allow for an auction of your home if you don't pay them, are an evil that needs to be rectified, IMHO
First of all, the current state budgets (in the US) are suffering in this economy because they are so heavily linked to property taxes. When the value of this sector went down, so did their tax revenues which are a percentage of the value.
But the main evil is allowing others to take your property away if you don't pay, like GK mentioned. Some states do not allow this, I think Arizona is one of them.
If we analyze what property taxes cover, they are not all that bad:
1) School District Funding (80% or more)
2) Fire Department Funding (5 %)
3) Police Funding (5 %)
4) Bonds for a Project (road, lake, dam, bridge, etc..) (5%)
5) Other services (5%)
I included the percentage that I think is representative from what I've seen in the past. Who is opposed to education? Not me, but I should say that this is no reason to take somebody's house away because they don't contribute to education, when perhaps they might not have any childred or have been in school themselves. How about everybody takes loans for going to school? Besides the highschools in the US are a disaster compared to other nations.
The other "services" provided to us seem more necessary, but still we can find other ways to fund them. Personaly, I think all revenue for the states and federal government should be derived from sales or income tax, that way if you don't work or don't have a job youre not stressed about taxes. Just my political view point.
EM
Totally agree with Grumpy:
QuoteAs for owning your home, think of how fast you can pay it off if you have your own energy. All of the money you spend on gas, electricity, and wood/oil can be redirected. Imagine paying your home off in ten years instead of thirty.
Rather than debates over how the Puppet Masters pulled the strings, we need a breakthrough energy source.
Exactly.
My sons (I'm helping) are doing a place for the most part UNDERGROUND, so the temp does not go below about 40 F even when the outside air goes to -10 F on cold winter nights. (Spot in a valley of the Rocky Mtns)
Cool in summer also, about 65 F maximum u-ground when the temp outside can go to 95-100 F. Pleasant.
Totally off-grid; solar-powered with batteries and inverters... Hoping for a non-conventional "breakthrough energy source." Septic. Water in a tank. Pretty nice set-up, especially if the electric grid goes completely down, as in an EMP attack for example.
Don't discount EMP warfare...
Though my home is paid off, I pay over $7000 per year in property taxes. I am retired so this is a big chunk out of Social Security, more than a third. I live on the remainder.
Most of that goes to the school district, we have a fire house but only the state police.
Interestingly the schools are getting bigger with more high tech stuff, electronic blackboards, swimming pools, sports fields, stadiums etc, but the kids are getting dumber. Recently there were no books for one class because the school couldn't afford them. Yet the contracts for new additions continue and the salary hikes for the principal and other high profile school board members keeps going up.
Now they charge the kids "activity fees" of several hundred dollars if you want to play soccer for instance. Also the kids can be lifted out of a failing grade by cooperating and bringing in soap, paper towels, boxes of tissue paper etc, when these items are requested....extortion and bribery!!
My kids are all grown and out of the house, still i have to pay this school tax, though apartment dwellers pay a very small amount indirectly through their rent.
I have paid a few hundred thousand over the years, there is no reprieve except move out of the states, always an option. We'll see what the future brings.
ION,
I'm sorry to have touched on a painful subject for you, but don't worry I'm with you. I was so outraged when living in Florida years ago, for much the same reasons you described. Then we also had the exorbitant mandatory owner insurance fees that excalted after the hurricanes of 2004, so I just moved away. Not always an option I know, some day I want to go back to FL if I can.
EM
We can set 2012 as our goal for a working system, get serious about it, will it to happen!
The two that appear most viable are the Kapanadze Green Box system and the Spherics AVEC. (Correa's plasma tube works per their reports, but I'd rather stay with coils.)
Everyone overlooks it since it is so simple, but a common spark gap produces a radiant effect that will charge capacitors - see Tesla two Radiant Energy patents. Tesla used a metal reflector behind the gap. How funny would it be if a bunch of spark gaps running off a bug zapper was OU? LOL!!! Don't forget the ground connection...
As for 9/11. We are all paying for it whether we acknowledge it or not, regardless of how it was done. This event allowed the Puppeteers to further their agenda and our demise.
hmm...now where did I put that bug zapper?....
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.06, 17:30:31
Property Taxes, and the related laws that allow for an auction of your home if you don't pay them, are an evil that needs to be rectified, IMHO
Amen to that. Government is nothing but force too much of the time. Threatening letters, threat of auction, and $5,000 in lawyer fees if you don't pay.
They just re-valued my house (and others in only 2 areas of the county) at pre-bubble prices...raised my valuation and taxes 30 percent. Now paying close to $2000 annual. When I first moved here, it was $1100. 10 years later, paying almost $900 more, about 80 percent higher, and yet my house's actual sale price that I could get, has only gone up 10-20 percent max.
Thieves.
No one 'owns' property in America any more. In my county, they'll come and tow your car off now right out of your driveway now, if you owe property taxes on it and haven't paid in suitable time by their reckoning.
Quote from: Grumpy
...
As for 9/11. We are all paying for it whether we acknowledge it or not, regardless of how it was done. This event allowed the Puppeteers to further their agenda and our demise.
hmm...now where did I put that bug zapper?....
That is just about the size of it. Well said.
Wow ION that's a lot of money to find.
Very interesting listening to you guys, our council tax is very similar, if you don't pay they send bailiffs to reposes your belongings, this can be your house, also we pay for rubbish collection, police and other things included.
We are all being shafted, well i guess that's how the system is setup, i am quiet interested in the system, there's some very interesting fights against the movement happening right now, people with little money are fighting back as best they can.
In the UK there a group of people calling themselves Freemen they are using very old English Laws to try and put up a fight against the current Laws, unfortunately their system only seems to stall the inevitable collection of taxes, very interesting watching them in action.
Basically when you are born you have a birth certificate, your parents are duped into thinking it's a good thing to register your birth, they go along and register, this creates a Bond in your name to which your whole life's worth gets tied to, you are now part of the system, every time you get a loan or a tax or a bill it's tied to the birth cert which is not a living soul.
Our Country the UK Ltd is a limited liability company, our police are privately owned and are a for profit company, same with most things.
In the US you have the same going on called A4V Acceptance for Value. and some say that if you call up a stock dealer he can locate your birth bond by giving him the number on it, this then shows the value of your bond. not sure how much of this is bull, there loads to read and see on youtube about it.
Solar heating is really good, much better than solar PV for efficiency, we also have ground source heat pumps, pump heat in during summer and take out during winter, DIY solar water heating is not too expensive really over here if you know where to buy the bits.
http://solarproject.co.uk/Panels.html
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.12.06, 19:49:13
No one 'owns' property in America any more. In my county, they'll come and tow your car off now right out of your driveway now, if you owe property taxes on it and haven't paid in suitable time by their reckoning.
In mine they don't toy with mobile items. My Alzheimer afflicted mother was thrown out of her house for back property taxes, for which she had receipts proving payment.
It cost me 6k to hire a lawyer to put a stop to it. They did nothing fast enough so I showed up in the courtroom the day the 'buyer' was requesting police assistance on eviction.
I was being forcibly removed when the judge told the bailiff to bring me to the bench. He listened. I walked out with a stay order and a threat of arrest if I ever do that again.
After fighting the county clerk for 5 months she had a mishap with unpaid federal taxes and a personal vehicle that wouldn't run for more than a day each time it went into the shop.
I was never closer than 50 yards to her or her vehicle outside the courthouse O0
Bitch!
You are correct Professor. Don't discount EMP warfare.
Got a good laugh out of your summary, Grumpy:
QuoteAs for 9/11. We are all paying for it whether we acknowledge it or not, regardless of how it was done. This event allowed the Puppeteers to further their agenda and our demise.
hmm...now where did I put that bug zapper?....
How true.
Now if the sheeple ever become "bugs", the "bug zapper" might just be EMP... estimated 60-90% die off rate in the US following an EMP attack. E.g., "One Second After" and "Lights, OUT" detail how this happens; mostly due to roving/hungry gangs -- and starvation. An 1800's energy supply (without the grid) can only support an 1800's population, finally.
But -- we can do some things to prepare for EMP-induced shortages. Like storing wheat, honey, salt, oats, canned goods, etc. If everyone did this, we could probably survive while the grid and computerized-vehicle infrastructure were re-built. Right now, the US -- and Europe -- are incredibly vulnerable to EMP warfare.
EM:
QuoteHe asked you a very basic question, and you got it wrong, so I can understand why he told you to go study.
That's complete crap. This whole thing is nothing more than pretentious and ridiculous posturing by PhysicsProf. "Go study your physics books and then come back and see me" is just PhysicsProf's attempt to "play" me in a vain attempt to make himself look like an authority figure. There is the overt use of passive English, "If you understand Newton's Third Law bla bla bla...." "If you don't understand enough to answer this simple question bla bla bla..."
Yes, I learned in Grade 8 that F = GM1M2/r-squared just like everybody else did. When the apple falls towards the Earth the Earth falls towards the apple. Wow Wee. I am trying to have a technical discussion on the merits of his argument and he tries to pull off a childish stunt like that. Like I am going to run to my physics books and then Dr. Steven Jones is going to tell me what he knows that I already know. What a joke.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of WTC7. Just a ridiculous waste of time. And PhysicsProf is so uncomfortable with my technical points and rebuts to his arguments that he is trying to just ignore them and pass by them like a zombie.
PhysicsProf:
Are you getting the message loud and clear? Any more buffoonery and you will be called on it.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteThat's complete crap. This whole thing is nothing more than pretentious and ridiculous posturing by PhysicsProf. "Go study your physics books and then come back and see me" is just PhysicsProf's attempt to "play" me in a vain attempt to make himself look like an authority figure. There is the overt use of passive English, "If you understand Newton's Third Law bla bla bla...." "If you don't understand enough to answer this simple question bla bla bla..."
Overt use of passive language, lol that's priceless, take a good look in the mirror buddy.
QuoteAre you getting the message loud and clear? Any more buffoonery and you will be called on it.
Sorry dude you have no authority here and if you can't play nice I will have to spank you again, you know I hate it when you cry like a little girl but it's for your own good.
To get back on topic, I'll express some doubts I have about the red chips found in the WTC dust samples examined by Dr Jones, et. al., Here's why:
1) The uniform thickness of these red chips, across various samples, imply they are some sort of a coating or paint applied to a metallic backing.
2) If they are part of an explosive, and that explosive went off, how come they are found unexploded or burnt up? An explosion or rapid burn will burn off ALL the explosive.
3) If by chance some separate explosive did not go off, we should see various thicknesses of explosive and even pieces NOT attached to metal, perhaps pieces from the center of the bulk of the explosive "pack" that this material belonged to.
4) If the inferred explosive was meant to be only a thin layer of coating, I don't see how that can damage a sturdy steel beam, it's impossible for even the most energetic materials at that small thickness, as these chips exhibit, so the explosive would have to be a much thicker "pack", but then the samples don't support this theory.
5) I'm assuming "organic" material found in the red chips can come from a number of places, perhaps even during the attack when jet fuel absorbs into the red coating. (isn't jet fuel considered an organic compound?) Lot's of answers that could have been explored.
6) On the subject of "energetic" materials, even wheat flower can burn rapidly and appear to blow up. Most compounds and mixtures seem to be energetic to some degree or level if their combustion temperatures are reached, so can we say that wood chips are explosives? How many remember the Hindenburg disaster? The coating on that blimp is what burned rapidly ignited by static electricity, it had the wrong mixture of compounds, oops!
In conclusion, my general feeling is that the red chips are not very significant, and certainly should not be used to imply explosives were planted in the WTC buildings prior to the attacks. This kind of leap of faith and conclusion, in my opinion, ends up obscuring the good science that was performed and casts the researchers into a "bad light".
EM
EM:
I think that you made a lot of valid points and hit a home run. My thoughts on that are that you really have to pull back to some basic science principles here. I doubt that the dust from collapsed buildings in the past was ever examined on the level of detail as the WTC dust was. If you assume that is true, then the simple fact is that nobody really knows what the dust is supposed to look like when you take a modern office building that is filled with office furniture and computers, etc, and put it through a "meat grinder" that grinds the building into dust. It's amazing how they found very few pieces of intact anything in the debris. In a clip a person working on the site says the largest piece of material he found was a piece of a telephone handset a few centimeters long.
Nobody really knows what you would expect to find in a modern ground-up office building. Photocopiers, electronics, medical equipment, stored samples from the stock rooms of small companies, etc. I think it would take years to even be able to make an estimate of what you would expect to find.
Therefore, it's very possible that the trace chemicals that everybody is getting excited about are "benign" in the sense that they were supposed to be there the whole time. So it's a case of looking at something that may be perfectly normal, you just don't know, and flagging it as being out of the ordinary.
This is a case of "you know that you don't know something." You know ahead of time that you don't have the data to determine what the dust is supposed to be like. Because of this, you have to be very conservative with your findings. You have almost no legs to stand on with respect to drawing conclusions about the composition of the dust. It's sound science to approach the problem like this.
MileHigh
These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm).
To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare with: front armor of the best tank of the WWII period - T-34 - was only 1.8 inch (4.5 cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shell available that time that would be capable of penetrating such front armor.
Of course, no explosives whatsoever would ever be able to tear throw such front armor of a tank either (except only a hollow-charge shell which would still not be able to tear a complete piece of such armor, but only to burn some narrow hole through an armor plate).
Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost trice as thick compare to the T-34 tanks' front amour, it would not be possible to find any solution to break such columns simultaneously in many spots in order to achieve an "implosion" effect - the basic goal of any controlled demolition.
It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-charges attached to each individual column, but even such an incredible solution would not help to achieve the desired "implosion effect".
The Towers were simply too high and too rigid - their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford.
And even if they could, still, such a solution would not lead to the desired effect - there would not be any guarantee that such a high-raised structure would fall strictly down to its foot print - it might as well scatter its debris as far as a quarter of a mile, considering its mere height.
So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any kind of traditional controlled demolition.
The same thing could be said about the WTC building # 7 and of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Either of them was constructed using similar thick double-walled steel frame that was impossible to break at once due to reasons described above.
However, in accordance with the US laws governing construction of skyscrapers buildings designers had to submit some satisfactorily demolition project before their construction project could be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one could be allowed to build a skyscraper that can't be demolished in the future.
This is the main point of the skyscrapers' in-built nuclear demolition features.
Ironically, such a nuclear demolition scheme of a skyscraper is not meant to actually demolish the respective skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means - it is only intended to convince the Department of Buildings to permit the skyscraper's construction whatsoever.
It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemes sincerely hope that their ideas would not be put to use during their life-time.
Anyhow, "Controlled Demolition Inc." began to study possibilities of demolishing modern skyscrapers by underground nuclear explosions at the end of 60s, at request of the then New York Sate Governor Nelson Rockefeller - when it became necessary to get a legal approval from the New York Department of Buildings for the WTC Twin Towers construction.
After some research, a final solution was found and approved by the Department of Buildings and "Controlled Demolition Inc." got its nuclear demolition know-how patented.
Part 3. How does a modern nuclear demolition work? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.07, 02:56:55
To get back on topic, I'll express some doubts I have about the red chips found in the WTC dust samples examined by Dr Jones, et. al., Here's why:
1) The uniform thickness of these red chips, across various samples, imply they are some sort of a coating or paint applied to a metallic backing.
Where did you get this notion? This is incorrect -- the red material does not exhibit uniform thickness across various samples.
2) If they are part of an explosive, and that explosive went off, how come they are found unexploded or burnt up? An explosion or rapid burn will burn off ALL the explosive.
There should not be explosive material found in the dust of the World Trade Center destruction... leading to my request (with many others) for an investigation of what happened that day. At AE911Truth.org you will find that over 1,500 architects and engineers have joined in the petition for such an investigation.
In my talk in Australia, referenced before, and in many other talks I stated my studied opinion that this red material, which has the properties of nano-thermite, was likely used as a trigger for more conventional explosives such as RDX. Have you taken the time to listen to my remarks on the red/gray chips from this talk? Los Alamos Nat'l Lab has an article which speaks of super-thermite "matches" and notes that this material can indeed be used to ignite high explosives for demolitions.
It is quite possible, IMO, for the high-explosive (RDX class) to have blown off the trigger material before ALL of the triggering material (red material) was completely burnt.
3) If by chance some separate explosive did not go off, we should see various thicknesses of explosive and even pieces NOT attached to metal, perhaps pieces from the center of the bulk of the explosive "pack" that this material belonged to.
Again, we do see various thicknesses of the red material and even pieces NOT attached to metal, just as you say should occur.
4) If the inferred explosive was meant to be only a thin layer of coating, I don't see how that can damage a sturdy steel beam, it's impossible for even the most energetic materials at that small thickness, as these chips exhibit, so the explosive would have to be a much thicker "pack", but then the samples don't support this theory.
NO, the high-explosive material would likely be set in cutter charges as usual in demolitions, with the red material as the trigger as I have said.
5) I'm assuming "organic" material found in the red chips can come from a number of places, perhaps even during the attack when jet fuel absorbs into the red coating. (isn't jet fuel considered an organic compound?) Lot's of answers that could have been explored.
Chemist Kevin Ryan finally has succeeded in making a nanothermite similar to the one we observed in the WTC dust, but this required the painstaking process in the laboratory explained in the extant literature by scientists from Lawrence Livermore Lab. You really should take the time to listen to my talk given in Australia.
6) On the subject of "energetic" materials, even wheat flower can burn rapidly and appear to blow up. Most compounds and mixtures seem to be energetic to some degree or level if their combustion temperatures are reached, so can we say that wood chips are explosives? How many remember the Hindenburg disaster? The coating on that blimp is what burned rapidly ignited by static electricity, it had the wrong mixture of compounds, oops!
We showed in the paper (have you read it? I think not) that the thermal trace very nearly matches that found with known nanothermite -- in a study published by Lawrence Livermore Lab. (a US military lab). Except that the red material from the WTC dust was MORE energetic than that made at LLNL. However, if you wish to do an experiment in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter as we did with wheat flour -- or whatever you choose -- and get a trace that comes so close to matching known nanothermite, I would be happy to look at your data. We did the experiments using SEM/XEDS and TEM methods... have you done any work like this?
In conclusion, my general feeling is that the red chips are not very significant, and certainly should not be used to imply explosives were planted in the WTC buildings prior to the attacks. This kind of leap of faith and conclusion, in my opinion, ends up obscuring the good science that was performed and casts the researchers into a "bad light".
EM
I can see where you might reach this conclusion given your INCORRECT remarks-- I have corrected a number of your remarks above and correspondingly disagree with your conclusion.
PPT slide from my talk, discussing the use of superthermite (aka nanothermite) matches for "triggering explosives for demolition" -- from a report of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Professor, I read the paper and listened to the Australia talk, but I'll read it again more carefully. If the research points to explosives, I'm wondering is there absolute chemical proof of exploded material? (your claiming nano thermite is just the trigger ) If there was an explosion there has to be biproducts left behind.
EM
PS. Claiming this material is only the trigger, introduces more difficulty, because 1) a trigger is a smaller quantity, and 2) it burns off or should. What the authors are asking us to believe is that they found a "needle in a hay stack" and I have a hard time believing that. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I like the research that was done, I just object jumping to conclusions about bombs in the buildings.
I also have trouble believing that explosives were placed in the WTC buildings, except, maybe, bldg 7.
1. Why use nanothermite? Explosive are typically and easily set-off with expoding foils or bridgewires (i.e. detonators).
2. The alumium cladding that seemingly exploded off the steel columns was known to have corroded. This would leave a layer of aluminum deposited on the rusted steel columns. As for the organic material, which contained carbon, could this have been on the surface of the steel when it was milled? After all, the steel is "carbon steel".
3. Was there any evidence of fractured structural steel that had been exposed to explosives?
4. Steel comuns were found to have been extremely corroded by sulfur and heat. It was shown that the sulfur came from the materials in the building.
I believe that the building was ripe for collapse if a fire of strong magnitude could be started in the upper half of the building. A passenger jet full of fuel guaranteed success.
(http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg)
The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal. Was thermite used with the shaped charge?
I don't buy it.
How do I know that the column was not cut after the collapse? What guarantees do we have? It looks like it was cut with plasma.
Also, cutting with an exothemic material and fracturing with explosives are two entirely different scenarios, and cutting is not practical.
This page has a nice scenario explained and interesting evidence is presented:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html
Like I keep saying though, even if they did drop it on purpose, they will not admit it, and it matters only as a base to make predictions for their next move.
Scenario: tactical nuclear attacks on US soil by "terrorist"...
The slanted cut on that beam is very interesting, what other explanations are there besides it was done during cleanup. Was it an attempt to weaken the structure before the attacks? This is more plausible then the explosion theory and harder to detect. Also, the cut on that beam is too straight and sharp to be shaped charges, it is a plasma torch cut which I've personally done in the welding Class years ago. So, if it was not cut during the cleanup effort, it's criminal evidence of tampering and sabotage. IMFHO. :)
But what do I know ...
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.07, 07:05:38
Professor, I read the paper and listened to the Australia talk, but I'll read it again more carefully. If the research points to explosives, I'm wondering is there absolute chemical proof of exploded material? (your claiming nano thermite is just the trigger ) If there was an explosion there has to be biproducts left behind.
EM
PS. Claiming this material is only the trigger, introduces more difficulty, because 1) a trigger is a smaller quantity, and 2) it burns off or should. What the authors are asking us to believe is that they found a "needle in a hay stack" and I have a hard time believing that. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I like the research that was done, I just object jumping to conclusions about bombs in the buildings.
EM-- glad that you will take another look at the paper. Please note in particular the formation of iron-aluminum-rich spheres in the residue from our igniting the red material in the laboratory, in the DSC. These spheres are the bi-product expected. Their formation implies a high-temperature reaction involving aluminum and iron (since both of these elements are present in the final spheres, and observed when we ignite thermite for comparisons). There is also a large quantity of these spheres in the WTC dust.
Again, the sense of the authors after performing this study is --
the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust raises suspicions sufficient to mandate a call for a new and thorough investigation of 9/11.We do not have all the answers of exactly how nanothermite/thermite was used in the WTC destruction,
and
we cannot expect to find out HOW and WHY and WHO without a criminal investigation with subpoenaed witnesses.Note that over 99.5% of the steel was rapidly shipped to Asia and melted, thus destroying a great deal of evidence. This was done over the loud objections of scientists and engineers. "Criminal evidence tampering" is indeed a possibility. In particular, we do not have the column noted by Peterae with the gray residue on it for testing. There is similar gray residue on steel samples obtained by scientists from Worscestor Polytechnic Institute, discussed in a paper by them, but they declined a request from one of our scientific team (Dr. Jeffrey Farrer) to permit testing of this gray residue.
However, we do have a fair amount of the WTC dust which we tested, leading to our observations of anomalous active thermitic material in the dust, which merits further investigation.Note also that some steel was recovered from WTC 7, and yet NIST admits that they did not look at ANY of the steel from WTC7 for their study -- instead relying on a computer model in which they set the thermal conductivity of steel to zero, but which they refuse to release to other engineers for checking.
Again, an investigation with subpoena power will be needed to get at the facts.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.12.07, 13:56:36
I also have trouble believing that explosives were placed in the WTC buildings, except, maybe, bldg 7.
1. Why use nanothermite? Explosive are typically and easily set-off with expoding foils or bridgewires (i.e. detonators).
Note the LANL report regarding the safety of nanothermite matches:
Quote
"The Super-Thermite electric matches... are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat... thereby minimizing accidental ignition. "
"Applications include triggering explosives for demolition"
http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf
This may be the reason for using super-thermite triggers. Again, we see the need for an investigation with subpoena power.[/color]
Grumpy -- my responses to you point-by-point were lost on posting, sigh.
Let me just note that with over 99.5% of the steel from the WTC tragedy shipped quickly to Asia for melting, a lot of the evidence was destroyed (evidence tampering?) -- including evidently the steel column noted by Peterae.
NIST did have steel from WTC7, but they state that they did NOT look at this steel in doing their report on WTC7.
Further, NIST admits that they did not even look for residues of explosives in the WTC steel or dust.
That beam was not cut by a torch, how do i know this, well it's very easy really, why cut at an angle, you have twice as much metal to cut at an angle so if using a torch you would cut straight horizontal and then lift using a Crane.
Also if you look carefully it can be clearly seen the molten metal is only in the middle 3/4 of each side with the corner mechanically fractured due to force, if you used a torch you would start from a corner and proceed until the far corner is met. charges of Thermite were obviously attached to burn through the central 3/4 of each side to weaken it enough to not be able to take a load, the charge is at an angle to cause a failure mode which aims the falling girder into the center structure this way you can to a degree controll which way it falls, if these beams were coated in cement or plaster or some coating material which they would be then all that was needed was for a drill to drill a hole at 45 degrees in the plaster and fill with thermite and place a fuse of magnesium, hell you could even leave ignition to the flames from the plane, remember all the white smoke, well to ignite thermite you need burning magnesium, burning magnesium creates loads of white smoke.
thermite is the only way any steel would melt, there is no way for the temperatures to reach this high otherwise, no matter how intense the fire was, there was a case of a skyscraper burning for weeks and still it stood
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mandarin/beijing_torch.jpg)
This building did not collapse
@Professor, good points.
@Peter,
Quotethermite is the only way any steel would melt,
OK, I like this theory a little better now.
The Thermite was not a trigger for an explosion, but placed there so that it would light up when the plane struck, and it's intense heat would weaken the beams, thus ensuring the collapse. I can believe that. However, one objection I can think of is, why didn't they fall faster, within seconds of the airplane hit? Thermite lights up and burns quickly, that's why so much heat is generated.
EM
Hi EM
Thermite is very hard to light, it needs a high temperature, now imagine if the charges of Thermite were in place even years before, drill down through the concrete or plaster which is butted against the beam you want to cut pour in your thermite and fill hole, touch of paint if in a place that can be seen, it would stay there forever until enough heat was present which would first need to heat up the plaster or concrete enough to ignite the thermite, you could also place the thermite is a high temperature ceramic flask to help govern the way it burns and is held against the beam, the top would ignite first so this could have a magnesium fuse nearer to the surface of the plaster or concrete finish, so what i am saying is these charges could have been introduced over a long maintenance period as work was done in different area's.
Thermite has a sole purpose of melting steel, it's used in the UK for joining railway steel rails together see vid
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.07, 17:07:13
@Professor, good points.
@Peter,
OK, I like this theory a little better now.
The Thermite was not a trigger for an explosion, but placed there so that it would light up when the plane struck, and it's intense heat would weaken the beams, thus ensuring the collapse. I can believe that. However, one objection I can think of is, why didn't they fall faster, within seconds of the airplane hit? Thermite lights up and burns quickly, that's why so much heat is generated.
EM
That's where remote detonation using concentrated high power microwaves from building 7 makes sense. Those fuses the prof showed earlier could easily be formed into a dipole or loop antenna. A small tuned circuit could also have been applied, with the leads acting as antenna. I'm certain this has been developed to a fine degree by government research labs such as Livermore. Even MH agrees this is technically feasible. It takes as little as 350 milliamps to trigger some of these igniter fuses, easily had with a GHz tuned circuit.
I will not argue the issue of 9/11 anymore as I'm convinced it is impossible to budge those entrenched in status quo "government conspiracy theories". They lack or refuse to apply a creative mind to how alternative theories might have some merit, yet will supply the most outlandish and fantastic opinions to support their own belief system or the governments "Hollywood Style" conspiracy theory.
So be it.
A short true story:
This occurred many years after the Warren Commission Report.
A friend of mine, a very conservative engineer that does not believe in any conspiracy theories worked in a lab where there were forensic audio specialists. They worked for a company that designed a well known brand of spectrum analyzer equipment.
They were given the police radio tape of the motorcycle cop present and part of the parade that had his radio on during the Kennedy assassination. They were asked to analyze the tape as best they could.
These gentlemen believed in the official single bullet theory yet could not account for what they found on the tape.
It turns out that the differing echo patterns on the tape clearly revealed shots from at least two other directions besides the Texas school book depository. Their analysis went a little deeper but I am not privy to that information at this time. I will ask my friend for more information.
goods points on the cutting of beams, use of thermite, etc.
Demolition expert Brent Blanchard's comments are interesting too.
Next move: EMP Pulse?
I have to say there's a lot that just does not add up, offcourse proving it is another thing, i have to remain neutral until it's proven either way if not just for the poor victims of this or to put it another way i cannot be conclusive without verified evidence.
I'm done with this thread also, now where did i put my free energy device :)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.07, 17:07:13
However, one objection I can think of is, why didn't they fall faster, within seconds of the airplane hit?
EM
Well, if you were to plan out such a thing, in order to make it as real as possible, would you take down the building just after the planes hit? ;]
Great pic of the severed beam. ;] And I agree that if it were cut for removal, why go through the extra work cutting more than need be. What, are they lumberjacks? Heck, just taking out those in the middle at those angles, might have done the deed.
Also great pic of the fully engulfed building that didnt drop.
But here, 3 buildings went down in a single day. Go figgy. ;]
Mags
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.07, 17:48:12
That's where remote detonation using concentrated high power microwaves from building 7 makes sense. Those fuses the prof showed earlier could easily be formed into a dipole or loop antenna. A small tuned circuit could also have been applied, with the leads acting as antenna. I'm certain this has been developed to a fine degree by government research labs such as Livermore. Even MH agrees this is technically feasible. It takes as little as 350 milliamps to trigger some of these igniter fuses, easily had with a GHz tuned circuit.
I will not argue the issue of 9/11 anymore as I'm convinced it is impossible to budge those entrenched in status quo "government conspiracy theories". They lack or refuse to apply a creative mind to how alternative theories might have some merit, yet will supply the most outlandish and fantastic theories to support their own belief system or the governments Hollywood conspiracy theory.
Good points, ION, Peterae, Mags, EM.
My sincere hope is that facts regarding breakthrough energy source(s) will cut their way to the light of day.
Expect a bit of a battle in this arena, also...
This Presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM)
will help understanding why some are simply
not able to accept anything other than the
"official" story regarding 9/11.
For many the Truth is just too fearful a
proposition. The paradigm is shattered.
Fortunately, time heals all wounds and there
is hope that even the most fearful will one
day be able to face reality.
that's right D,
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !
;D
The main problem is that anyone breaking the law will try everything in their power to cover it up, when they have so much power there's little chance of proving it, you can imagine if there was one witness that was able to verify that it was rigged , i wonder how long they would live, bit like the bus bombing in London, anyone remember the foreign guy shot in the head 10 times or so by the police because he supposedly was running away, had a ruck sack on and was refusing to stop when the police tried stopping him, turns out he didn't have a ruck sack, and then eye witnesses say he was executed by the police. I wonder what he found out. Guess we will never know for sure again.
Not one camera verified the plane crashing into the Pentagon WHAT, it's probably the most heavily guarded and filmed building on the planet LOL, and even then there was a camera in a petrol station pointing in the right direction and guess what the tape went missing LOL. you cant make it up ;D
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.07, 14:22:27
The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal. Was thermite used with the shaped charge?
Picture posted, the angled cut?
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)
Hmm. People refusing to believe these things are all suffering denial, huh, due to trauma?
;)
There's a couple of problems with that website.
I don't see the core still smoldering, it was well documented the core smoldered for a long period, you can see this smoke still in the picture i posted coming from under the wreckage.
Also in the photo on that website they show a beam partly cut through, notice he went up hill and started at a corner, the reason for this is he was working from below the beam, due to gravity and the closeness of the beam to him it is perfectly natural to do this, in the picture i posted, the cut was started a couple of inches into the beam not on the corner, i don't think any welder would start there it's just not the logical thing to do, it takes too much heat to start the cut.
Seriously so he was going to fell this multi ton iron beam from below by felling it like a tree. WHAT, you use a crane, attach the top of the beam to the crane, take the weight and cut horizontally.
Getting to the Truth is always a tedious and
painstaking process when dealing with agencies
of deception.
Much of what appears on the web is distorted
dis-info to elevate the noise level and mislead
many.
But, have no fear. The Truth is gradually becoming
known and will in due time rise to the surface.
Those who are dedicated to exposing the Truth
are relentless. Those who refuse to acknowledge
the Truth may not be easily persuaded initially but
even they, in due time, will come to understand.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.07, 22:31:10
Seriously so he was going to fell this multi ton iron beam from below by felling it like a tree. WHAT, you use a crane, attach the top of the beam to the crane, take the weight and cut horizontally.
Well, I suppose the thing to do, scientifically, would be to track down the fireman in the picture, and ask him about it all.
What about the bulging side? The fact that the firemen themselves noticed the building leaning by 2pm, hours before it fell? Premature demolition?
Wow Wee.
This was quite a read: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)
"Ballad of a Thin Man," say no more.
Beyond that, Peter made the comment about the fire not being able to melt the metal structure of the buildings.
Dr. Jones quotes a source in his paper ( http://www.iwilltryit.com/stevenjones2.htm (http://www.iwilltryit.com/stevenjones2.htm)) that states this:
QuoteThe maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.
And Peter posted that picture of the Brazilian skyscraper that burned for a week and didn't collapse. There is something that you are missing there though. Plus you are trying to formulate a generalized conclusion from a specific event. That could be dangerous and cries out for critical thinking skills being put into gear.
But the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple, but just one level removed from the "general public's knowledge level." But at least if you have a scientific background you should know better.
The burning fires in an enclosed space caused a temperature buildup to the point where steel melted. The Brazilian skyscraper was only half-built and seems to have become a lattice of bare girders quite quickly and as a result the temperature could not get high enough to melt the steel superstructure.
Anyway I am about done myself. I hadn't ever really read up on the 9/11 debate like I did over the past week. My "programmed" brain hasn't budged one iota in the direction of the "scholarly Truthers" and instead I got a much broader sense of the "Truther sphere" than I ever had before. Unbeeleebabble.
MileHigh
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.07, 22:31:10
Seriously so he was going to fell this multi ton iron beam from below by felling it like a tree. WHAT, you use a crane, attach the top of the beam to the crane, take the weight and cut horizontally.
"...we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet" ( pancaking term defined )
Look how those columns are cut, near the end. Why the angles? Well, probably because they aren't using a crane, they are cutting them in sections, like a tree. Regardless, they were cutting them at angles. And it wasn't thermite, or CD.
I saw this guy's name on TV tonight about an unrelated matter and looked up his site.
I found this link and it's a good 10-minute read:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
Quote from: MileHigh
...
Anyway I am about done myself. I hadn't ever really read up on the 9/11 debate like I did over the past week. My "programmed" brain hasn't budged one iota in the direction of the "scholarly Truthers" and instead I got a much broader sense of the "Truther sphere" than I ever had before. Unbeeleebabble.
MileHigh
You are under no obligation to "budge" one
way or the other. You may do as you please.
In time you will "see" as your brain further
matures and continues to process all that
has been taken in and is yet to be taken in.
The brain never stops...
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.08, 05:54:51
You are under no obligation to "budge" one
way or the other. You may do as you please.
In time you will "see" as your brain further
matures and continues to process all that
has been taken in and is yet to be taken in.
The brain never stops...
Dumped,
Both sides of the debate should take your advice.
I will add another:
Make sure the analysis applies to the event. Example: The reference to the 'proof' that the air liner was somewhere else was based upon the radio communication network working like a cell phone network. 'Routing messages'? Did that 'researcher' assume the system was a cellular network designed and built in the very early 70's?
There have been some improvements made but the vast majority of it remains a network of 'repeaters'. The first paragraph of the web site was enough for me to know the complete web site was nothing but the rant of a fool.
MH,
"Unbeeleebabble".... If ever there was a word crying out to be included in the dictionary.... this is it!
9/11 WTC impossible speeds confirmed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDa7B_LG10&list=PLE002083635D18096&index=3&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE002083635D18096&feature=plpp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMjf0KuHUWQ&list=PLE002083635D18096&index=9&feature=plpp_video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11e_1313999698
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.08, 20:22:34
9/11 WTC impossible speeds confirmed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDa7B_LG10&list=PLE002083635D18096&index=3&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE002083635D18096&feature=plpp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMjf0KuHUWQ&list=PLE002083635D18096&index=9&feature=plpp_video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11e_1313999698
Youtube videos do not confirm anything. Peer review is what confirms science.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.08, 21:14:57
Youtube videos do not confirm anything. Peer review is what confirms science.
thank you so much.
You confirm that videos with planes do not confirm anything that planes on 911 exist. :)
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.08, 21:46:23
thank you so much.
You confirm that videos with planes do not confirm anything that planes on 911 exist. :)
What are you talking about? There were no planes, no buildings and no new york city. Do not be sheeple.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.09, 16:08:55
What are you talking about? There were no planes, no buildings and no new york city. Do not be sheeple.
yes, that is simple for mass media Hollywood - it's no planes, no buildings and no new york city. only digital edited movies for sheeples and put explosives on steel columns to create holes for "planes" and pres red buttons to pull down scrapers by nuclear demolition devices.
but that is good, that you don't trust in videos. that's first step. next step is start to thinking.
this is fresh example how Hollywood news is working:
URGENT - FOX News Caught Using Fake Video Of Riots HA, HA! (in Russia)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGUpxtfcoc
Why is that news?
I though all videos of riots in Russia were faked ???
They must be. Russia doesn't really exist.
See.... All you must do is say it is so and it is so ^-^ Very Scientific!
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011.12.09, 18:21:07
yes, that is simple for mass media Hollywood - it's no planes, no buildings and no new york city. only digital edited movies for sheeples and put explosives on steel columns to create holes for "planes" and pres red buttons to pull down scrapers by nuclear demolition devices.
but that is good, that you don't trust in videos. that's first step. next step is start to thinking.
this is fresh example how Hollywood news is working:
URGENT - FOX News Caught Using Fake Video Of Riots HA, HA! (in Russia)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGUpxtfcoc
Wait, are you one of those sheeple who thinks mass media even exists? You know there is no such thing. The government merely feeds the TV with content in manufactures.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.12.09, 22:39:59
Why is that news?
I though all videos of riots in Russia were faked ???
They must be. Russia doesn't really exist.
See.... All you must do is say it is so and it is so ^-^ Very Scientific!
that is not news for me. I wrote "fresh example".
and yes
if for you is faked Hollywood news videos
reality, then
real Russia doesn't exist for
you (not for me).
simple you are brainwashed.
science is a language of facts. Do You complain that fresh fact about Foxed News?
you see trough Foxed News riots in Russia. But it wasn't. it's same with faked videos with "planes" on 911
Ah!
From Fox News?
In this case I will agree with you. Fox News is always full of nonsense. For that reason, I removed the local Fox channel from my TV channel selections over a year ago. They don't exist for me anymore.
Final comment has to do with the way debates often end. Instead of some of the participants acknowledging good points being made by people on the opposite side of the debate, they just fall silent. They might even actually concede a point, as radical a concept as that might be in this day and age. You see it in real life and even more so on the forums.
So as far as I am concerned "'falling silent' is the new 'conceding a point.'" What has happened to the human condition to bring us to this point where many of us are worse than a typical clichéd politician?
If you read some of the links you would have seen how the tired old argument that "fires can't bring down a building with a metal superstructure" is not true at all. I explained how the Brazilian skyscraper fire was different from the WTC fires and nary a peep from anybody. In my opinion Professor Jones' arguments were blown out of the water, especially by some of the links at the end of the discussion and nary a peep.
That's just the way it is in this day and age. Just fall silent and run away if you are uncomfortable in the virtual online world, whether it be in an online forum or in a business email exchange.
MH,
I don't see 'falling silent' as concession. I'm sure it has been for some points but 'falling silent' is the same as walking away from a discussion in real life. Sometimes it is just better form or not worth the trouble when the 'facts' are so ingrained for either side.
Both sides see the 'facts' as indisputable and obvious. When the debate is leading to an argument there will be no gain. Why continue?
WaveWatcher:
You are right, it can be for either reason, and I should have mentioned both reasons in my posting. Interesting though how in the vetting for presidential candidates falling silent (in a manner of speaking) can be the Kiss of Death. Besides the allegations of sexual misconduct, when Herman Cain "fell silent" on the question about Libya he was finished.
An example on my part of not falling silent.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.11, 19:03:43
WaveWatcher:
You are right, it can be for either reason, and I should have mentioned both reasons in my posting. Interesting though how in the vetting for presidential candidates falling silent (in a manner of speaking) can be the Kiss of Death. Besides the allegations of sexual misconduct, when Herman Cain "fell silent" on the question about Libya he was finished.
An example on my part of not falling silent.
MileHigh
I think the 9/11 arguments are a great example of confirmation bias, somewhat on both sides, but I think mostly on the truther side. There is such a wealth of evidence for the official story, and so little actual evidence to support the conspiracy theories (most truther evidence is of the "well see, this building fell funny" variety, which does not actually prove any kind of conspiracy). But truthers are expert at seeking out only the evidence that conforms to their opinion.
It seems all the technical guru's fell silent on this statement by EM that I challenged.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=237.175
Post 189 By EM, Challenge post: 192 by ION
All of those who should know better were strangely silent so I gave up and walked away.
Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.
I have great respect for EM, but believe him to be wrong on this issue.
Seems people pick and choose who they will support based on other belief systems that they agree or disagree on. This is not scientific inquiry and is immature behavior.
I will be silent a lot because of this, having now lost faith in the objectivity of some high profile forum members..
Whenever a "debate" is initiated regarding
subject matter which has political and/or military
and/or intelligence "service" implications, some
of the participants will be at a disadvantage.
Participants who have experience in the fields
relevant to the "debate" will have a better
understanding of how the "system" actually
operates and the level of manipulation/control
and deception utilized in high places.
Participants who rely upon the media for
accounts of events will lack this intimate knowledge
and will thus be more inclined to present spurious
arguments. In fact, those in high places themselves
rely upon the gullible masses to escape scrutiny.
Consequently an impasse is soon reached for reasons
which WaveWatcher has referred to.
Until those participants who lack knowledge are able
to "get up to speed' by means of "inside experience"
little progress can be made in their ability to see
through the daily "show" dutifully performed by the
"talking heads."
As in all of life's aspirations, knowledge is key.
The more truthful the knowledge the better.
Unfortunately, in today's world getting to the truth
is not an easy task. Too many are fearful of finding
painful truth - the pill is an easier swallow.
Life goes on - until it doesn't anymore...
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.11, 19:33:39
It seems all the technical guru's fell silent on this statement by EM that I challenged.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=237.175
Post 189 By EM, Challenge post: 192 by ION
All of those who should know better were strangely silent so I gave up and walked away.
Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.
I have great respect for EM, but believe him to be wrong on this issue.
Seems people pick and choose who they will support based on other belief systems that they agree or disagree on. This is not scientific inquiry and is immature behavior.
I will be silent a lot because of this, having now lost faith in the objectivity of some high profile forum members..
I asked EM about it; Here is his quick explanation. By the way, I have asked how a disruptive discharge coil can melt tungsten with only a few watts output and no one ever explained how.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.08, 20:42:36
@ION, Grumpy, et. all, here's a diagram of the filament temperature profile under pulsing.
If I were to have a DC waveform of the same RMS power, meaning I spread out the pulsed power over the whole period of the cycle, the temperature of the filament would be below the one required to produce visible light. The decay you are seeing in the temperature, is very similar to an RC time constant, except here the "C" is like the thermal mass of the filament, and R is the radiation resistance for the heat. Like I've said, I tried this an I lit a 60 watt bright bulb with 3 to 4 watts. the problem is a bit more complicated and involves heat transfer rates, nonlinear filament resistance, and non linear heat flow as temperature changes, but this is the concept in a nut shell.
So, what does this have to do with TK? almost nothing, so forget I brought this up. (this is part of my "secret" that I used to mesmerize the crowds) ;D
EM
He added an image too. Why argue the issue? At first I thought he was talking about lighting bulbs with his mini Tesla coil, which made sense. There are many ways to light a bulb.
In that thread, it was pointed out that TK is lighting his bulbs with conduction current and no apparent power source, and that point just died right there.
Mile High makes a statement that should not go unchallenged:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.08, 04:23:56
Wow Wee.
....
But the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple,
... and so wrong.
MH, you provide a clear example of a "simple" explanation that is unsupported and unsubstantiated -- unless you can provide substantiation, can you?
The press made statements like that early on, that the "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel", but I challenged these statements given the temperatures reached in office fires (I looked at the data) and the temperature required to melt steel (about 1500 C). I concluded that the steel did not melt and said so in my talks.Then we have the National Institute of Standards and Technology that looked at the question and concluded:
QuoteNIST: "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahren- heit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Cel- sius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)"
Reference: S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to fre- quently asked questions", Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006.
So -- I challenge you to provide evidence to support your statement, "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple..." Perhaps a video of a steel beam melting (not just bending) during an office fire? Thanks.
@PhysicsProf
A quick question, physicists believe that conservation of energy and matter and the laws of
thermodynamics
cannot be violated ever. Because of this, perpetual motion is impossible, most devices presently
here require creation of energy so therefore are impossible. A free energy device therefore is
impossible, because it requires creation of energy. There are claims of free energy devices
using pseudoscientific energy, like cold electricity, vacuum energy, radiant energy,
zero point energy or other things ,pure bull.What is your view on conservation of energy and matter and
the laws of thermodynamics?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.12, 00:16:14
The press made statements like that early on, that the "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel", but I challenged these statements given the temperatures reached in office fires (I looked at the data) and the temperature required to melt steel (about 1500 C). I concluded that the steel did not melt and said so in my talks.
If a+b = weakening and b + c = weakening then a + d = weakening, one might think. And one might think that weakening is actually possible at fire temperatures and actually happened here. Might one? Melting is not required, only a loss of load strength resulting in sagging and pulling away from the bolts that held the whole works together.
Bearing in mind that the impacts and explosions inside blew off the protective covering off the steel, lowering its fire resistance substantially along with the rated -load strength-:
A:WTC
The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-NIST-chapter1-47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-NIST-chapter1-47)
B:From some ignorant hick of a fire chief, I guess, who couldn't possible know his business of what happens during fires? http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html (http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html):
Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure's mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.C: From Wiki
Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel)
D:NOVA
Edit: corrected typo
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.11, 19:33:39
Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.
I took that more like the typical EMDevices sneaky challenge. I wasn't going to bite but wait to see who supported the statement.
'Apparent light'? Yes. The brightness can 'appear' to be brighter for a given energy supplied to the light when comparing nice mains A.C. to noisy R.F. or pulses. (Especially when the bulb is burned out and the illumination is from the spark gap replacing the filament ;D )
Heat? No.
There may be a slight difference in efficiency but Watt-Hours are Watt-Hours. If he puts in 3-4 watts then the heat generated will be the same or slightly less.
As far as not being here for the whole flurry.... Not enough time for that.
PhysicsProf:
QuoteSo -- I challenge you to provide evidence to support your statement, "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple..." Perhaps a video of a steel beam melting (not just bending) during an office fire? Thanks.
I can only give you my common-sense analysis without being able to cite specific evidence, although I have to assume it exists. I think I saw the Nova episode that ArtistGuy linked to a few years ago. I watched the first few minutes and saw that they made reference to the floor supports softening and sagging (a.k.a. deforming) from high temperatures leading to the overall structural failure of the towers. That's the real answer so let me explore this.
So for starters, I was using the term "melting" in the colloquial sense, meaning the deformation and/or melting of the the steel and other metals in use in the buildings.
So I suppose that we can look at this in two parts:
The first part is that with respect to the steel girders, I am saying that they deformed due to high temperatures which ultimately caused the buildings to collapse. This is in contrast to the statement that you cited in your paper, "The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." In the quote from the paper above, they may or may not be referring to "melt" in the colloquial sense, but I don't think we need to get hung up on this issue. Your paper goes into considerable detail about the temperature/melting/deforming issue and I linked to it. I heard the same line of reasoning repeatedly in the lay press over the years. Something like "The burning temperature of jet fuel and/or office furnishings was lower than the temperature to melt and/or deform the structural steel. Therefore something must be amiss and/or there was a conspiracy that brought the buildings down because it would be impossible to cause the structural steel to fail." From looking at some of your talks and writings I think that is also one of your central themes.
The second part is that I don't think that anyone would disagree that while the steel girders were heating up and softening and then deforming, that metal was indeed literally melting as the towers burned. Exactly what was melting I don't precisely know but we all know of two facts that we can all agree on. There was molten metal pouring out one of the corners of the towers, everyone knows the video clip. Then when they were cleaning up they found pools of molten metal at the bases of the towers. I think but I am not sure that you might use that to support your argument that thermite or nano-thermite was used to melt the metal. However, my gut feel is that the amount of thermite needed to melt the estimated mass of molten metal in the bases of the towers would not make any sense at all. The argument that thermite was used to cut through the main support girders was clearly rebutted as being invalid when you estimate how much themite it would take to cut through a main support beam and what the cut would look like. I think ArtistGuy linked to an analysis showing this. Then ArtistGuy linked to a clip that clearly showed that the diagonal cuts in the main support beams were done by the teams doing the clean up.
Okay, so back to the first issue, how did the temperature get high enough to "melt," or more appropriately deform, the floor supports and the main support girders, etc, when the combustibles don't burn at that high a temperature?
Now we go back to basic physics to arrive at the explanation. The planes crashed into the towers and created a "cavern" of destruction and death inside each tower. The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly and you were basically left with a 3D volume that was insulated from the outside world by the non-burning floors above and below the impact zone. Each 3D volume still contained an aggressive burning fire.
So let's examine what the equivalent electrical circuit looks like: The burning fire is is a
power source. (It's not a voltage source or a current source.) The 3D volume is a capacitor, i.e.; it has some thermal capacitance. The insulation with respect to the outside world is a resistor (i.e.; a thermal resistance).
The voltage is analogous to the temperature.
So you have a power source putting power into a capacitor in parallel with a resistor. If the resistor is a high value, the voltage across the capacitor and resistor will increase and increase until the resistor is finally dissipating as much power as is being supplied by the power source.
So the ridiculously simple thermal modeling using an electrical circuit with three components tells you that
"the sky is (possibly) the limit" as far as the temperature goes inside the 3D cavity inside each WTC tower.Putting it another way:
The maximum temperature inside the burning cavity inside each tower had nothing to do with the maximum burning temperature of the jet fuel and other combustible materials.I will put it another way:
You are beaming a strong flux of infrared thermal heat power at the steel girders at X watts per square meter and they simply will soak it up and increase in temperature until they get so hot that they get soft and start to sag. Heat is being wicked away from the girders but at a much slower rate than the continuous bombardment of infrared heat power flux.
So there is common sense laid out for you with simple modeling using a basic electrical circuit. This is what I said was "one level above what you will see in the lay press."
The bottom line is that it's no surprise at all that the steel girders got so hot that they deformed leading to the collapse of the buildings, no surprise at all.
This is somewhat analogous to "flashover." In flashover the temperature in a room rises linearly with respect to time for the reasons outlined above until it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously starts to burn at the same time.
http://www.workingfire.net/misc3.htm (http://www.workingfire.net/misc3.htm)
QuoteThe scientific definition of flashover states it is caused by the radiation feedback of heat. Heat from the growing fire is absorbed into the upper walls and contents of the room, heating up the combustible gases and furnishings to their auto-ignition temperature. This build up of heat in the room triggers flashover.
This stuff is so basic that I am puzzled as to why after looking at a fair amount of your material, Professor Jones, that there is no mention of this concept. I watched all eight parts of one of your talks and you never address this issue of the natural process where the temperature has the potential to go so high that steel can literally melt. Did you ever consider this?
MileHigh
P.S.: Like everybody, I was shocked when the towers came down. I had no idea that it was going to happen ahead of time. But then you start to think about it after the fact and contemplate things, apply the basic physical concepts, review the evidence, absorb the available information, etc, and it all makes sense.
I will state a little addendum to this, it's an experiment that I did when I might have been 10 years old.
Get yourself a D cell battery and an old disposable speaker.
I am sure some of you have tried taking a piece of wire and shorting it across a D cell and you felt the wire warm up between your fingers. I did this before the arrival of alkaline batteries so if you did it today with an alkaline battery the wire might get quite hot.
Now, you carefully remove the voice coil from the speaker and you short the battery across it. Since the voice coil has closely spaced wire it's not surprising that it gets hot.
Then finally, the big test.
You carefully fold up the voice coil until it's all compacted together, it might be the size of the eraser head on the end of a pencil.
Now you connect the battery and watch what happens. The voice coil will get white hot and then shortly thereafter fail.
So what's the conclusion: Even an ordinary D cell battery can make resistive metal white hot, even turn it into molten metal, if you can make the thermal resistance to the outside world high enough. Note that the source of heat is a power source, not a voltage source or a current source.
By folding up the voice coil you are reducing it's surface area to the outside world and therefore making the thermal resistance to the outside world higher.
The same type of process was going on inside WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Fires were burning inside the buildings and the thermal resistance to the outside world was high enough and the fires burned long enough such that the temperature got so high that the steel girders deformed and the buildings collapsed.
MileHigh
Finally, here is the good old waveform that some of us have seen a million times:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Series_RC_capacitor_voltage.svg)
This is approximately what the voltage waveform would look like for a constant power source pumping power into a capacitor in parallel with a resistor.
You can imagine for the sake of argument that at 55% of the maximum voltage (i.e.; temperature) that the steel girders would start to soften, and that at 70% of the maximum voltage (i.e.; temperature) that the steel girders would be at their melting point.
So you can see, if you do a thought experiment were the WTC towers do not collapse, that the temperature has the potential to go beyond the melting point of the steel support beams.
MileHigh
Excellent analysis Milehigh, as the outcast of the outcasts here, I can believe that Physicsprof was given early retirement not for being a whistle blower but for being a kook.
I have been reading his papers on the thermite issue and I just don't see it, he say's 'probably' so many times I wonder if he even believes himself. He claims there is a 100 degree C difference between the ignition temperature of the red and gray particles and real thermite, so is this red and gray stuff actually thermite, I would say no with that big of a temperature difference, and there was certainly enough material of the nature of thermite in the WTC to be quite prolific in the debris, especially with the grinding process going on in the collapse.
If there is a smoking gun in the two papers on it I read, please shoot me with it so I don't have to read any more of this stuff. If there is a smoking gun in the papers where?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.12.12, 18:06:45
Excellent analysis Milehigh, as the outcast of the outcasts here, I can believe that Physicsprof was given early retirement not for being a whistle blower but for being a kook....
Ad hominem, and not substantiated at all. Indeed, I have been invited by the BYU Physics Department (where I was a Full Professor of Physics) to give a colloquium there in March 2012. I will be speaking about energy research.
Furthermore, BYU made me an Emeritus Professor after I accepted early retirement.
MileHigh and Room3327,
I have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.
The flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?
GL.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.12.12, 00:46:50
@PhysicsProf
A quick question, physicists believe that conservation of energy and matter and the laws of
thermodynamics
cannot be violated ever. Because of this, perpetual motion is impossible, most devices presently
here require creation of energy so therefore are impossible. A free energy device therefore is
impossible, because it requires creation of energy. There are claims of free energy devices
using pseudoscientific energy, like cold electricity, vacuum energy, radiant energy,
zero point energy or other things ,pure bull.What is your view on conservation of energy and matter and
the laws of thermodynamics?
As I have said elsewhere on the forum, an "anomalous" energy source can be found and still preserve the fundamental laws of physics.
For example -- "dark energy" is estimated by astrophysicists to predominate (at ~70%) in the total mass-energy of the universe. We do not yet know what this energy is, nor how it interacts with "ordinary" matter. A novel energy source could tap into "dark energy" -- for example -- without violating conservation of energy etc.
This from an old posting of mine:
Quote
I would define a "novel energy" (NE) device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:
1. Energy from a non-conventional source. This excludes: fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3). It does not exclude: earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields. Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.
2. More power out than in (that is, COP = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU). This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated. It does imply a novel energy source. Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)
3. The observation of OU must be repeatable. A device must work every time specified conditions are met. Successful replication must be demonstrated also.
4. The power output must be capable of scaling up. (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.
5. I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide, and not controlled by some big corporation or government entity. A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.
6. If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. For example, if a proton-nickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required. This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.
I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.
Insights. (http://www.henrymakow.com/001155.html)
Things are not at all as they seem.
@PhysicsProf
If you mean a converter,converting an unknown form of energy
into electrical energy,then were in agreement.The only device that fits that category
is the TPU,however the inventor masked the details,think of an onion,
you hear about the outer skin all the time here,but the real truth lies beneath the layers.
Some advice,if you get involved with the TPU don't drink the koolaid(SM can't lie,won't lie,and wants you to make a TPU)
or you will go around in circles as people have for years,that's the real plan of the inventor.
Groundloop:
Of course I don't have the real answers to your questions but I can suggest some possible answers:
QuoteI have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.
In one of my links there was a lot of detail about WTC7 that I had never heard before. Apparently firemen were in the building for hours and then they started to notice a tilt on one side of the building (if I remember correctly) and then they noticed a five-story-high curve or bulge half-way up on one side of the building.
Then they started hearing noises inside the building, creaking noises and banging noises indicating that the metal superstructure was under great extra stress and shifting. They decided to evacuate the building because it was showing all of the signs that it was going to collapse.
Two hours later the building did indeed collapse.
So, after the firefighters abandoned WTC7 they may have communicated to the press that they
thought the building
might collapse. This was simply misunderstood by the BBC and they thought that they said that the building
did collapse.
QuoteThe flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?
The door switch wasn't working.
MileHigh
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.12.12, 18:58:10
MileHigh and Room3327,
I have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.
The flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?
GL.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=65587 (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=65587)
The FDR parameter for the FLT DECK DOOR was not active and recorded on this model B757. Flight 77 was a B757-2 with "N" numbers, "of N644AA" indicating that it was built in late 1991, when this model was manufactured at Boeing. On this model the FDR did not record the state of this parameter in the FDR data, even though they left room for it and recorded this data later in the newer B757-3.
There is no indication that this model had ever been upgraded to a B757-3
The last 42 hours on the FDR data shows in fact no record of this function becoming active, meaning the door switch parameter had never been recorded as open on any of these flights even though this data covered 12 separate flights, again confirming that this FDR parameter was inoperative on this model of B757-2.BBC (there are others about this):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html)
General to conspiracy 'coverup':
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
(http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm)
Mr. Jones has even been given a whole page dedicated to his theories.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
(http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm)
How to Know if You Are Alexithymic
(http://eqi.org/alexi.htm)
One website lists these signs. It says you might:
- find it difficult to talk about your own emotions;
- be perceived by others as excessively logical, or unsentimental without being unfriendly;
- be perplexed by other people's emotional reactions;
- give pedantic and long-winded answers to practical questions;
- make personal decisions according to principles rather than feelings;
- suffer occasional inexplicable physiological disturbances such as palpitations, stomach ache, or hot flushes.
Alexithymia is defined by: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia)
1. difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings and the bodily sensations of emotional arousal
2. difficulty describing feelings to other people
3. constricted imaginal processes, as evidenced by a scarcity of fantasies
4. a stimulus-bound, externally oriented cognitive style.
Piecing the puzzle together requires looking
into the past to find the trail which ultimately
leads to 9/11 and beyond.
How the power structure was developed. (http://www.marketskeptics.com/2011/06/the-esf-and-its-history.html)
Are some in the U.S. above the law?
Actually when you look at this whole issue in more detail, like I did for the first time very recently, some interesting observations can be made.
Upon close examination, there are parallels between many free energy propositions and the arguments made by the 9/11 "Truthers."
Take the case of RomeroUK. Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication. But when you dig deeper into Romero you quickly find out that he is just an ordinary experimenter that is just a beginner in electronics and he is just pushing his luck and winging it when he is giving out advice. Nobody can make a successful replication, the extra wires are found that powered the device, and you are left with nothing, just nonsensical foolishness. And I have plowed through a few free energy propositions in my time and made mincemeat of them and quickly realized that the people promoting them were borderline clueless.
Same thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy theories about the actual building collapses. WTC7 was clearly not a controlled demolition and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you. The technical aspect promoted by the "Truthers" is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument. You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.
You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins. You will never convince some people otherwise. But putting the political/false flag/NWO/bla bla bla stuff aside for a second, the technical points with respect to planes flying into the WTC towers and causing the immense amount of destruction all makes perfect sense. You don't need squibs or explosives perfectly placed where the planes impacted the buildings and a million other far-fetched ideas to have what happened really happen.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh
Take the case of RomeroUK. Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication
Hopefully, not "everyone." The numbers of
those who were gullibly taken in is surprisingly
large however.
Quote from: MileHigh
You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins. You will never convince some people otherwise.
This is true: "A man convinced against his will is
of the same opinion still..."
Any change in beliefs will always originate from
within. Even in those cases where the techniques
of Trauma Based Mind Control have been utilized.
But then, the purpose of "debate" is not to change
anyone's mind - rather, it should be to enable
truth to rise to the surface. All who participate
may continue to believe as they will. Or, change
their minds as they see fit.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.16, 04:13:03
1)Actually when you look at this whole issue in more detail, like I did for the first time very recently, some interesting observations can be made.
2)Upon close examination, there are parallels between many free energy propositions and the arguments made by the 9/11 "Truthers."
3)Take the case of RomeroUK. Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication. But when you dig deeper into Romero you quickly find out that he is just an ordinary experimenter that is just a beginner in electronics and he is just pushing his luck and winging it when he is giving out advice. Nobody can make a successful replication, the extra wires are found that powered the device, and you are left with nothing, just nonsensical foolishness. And I have plowed through a few free energy propositions in my time and made mincemeat of them and quickly realized that the people promoting them were borderline clueless.
Same thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy theories about the actual building collapses. WTC7 was clearly not a controlled demolition and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you. The technical aspect promoted by the "Truthers" is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument. You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.
You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins. You will never convince some people otherwise. But putting the political/false flag/NWO/bla bla bla stuff aside for a second, the technical points with respect to planes flying into the WTC towers and causing the immense amount of destruction all makes perfect sense. You don't need squibs or explosives perfectly placed where the planes impacted the buildings and a million other far-fetched ideas to have what happened really happen.
MileHigh
Point one: This is condescension, as if no one except MH is able to look at anything in greater or more detail and draw a conclusion. It is a veiled form of arrogance. The implication is that none here are as smart or as analytical as MH.
Point two: This is a technique called "poisoning the well", or "dropping a turd into the punchbowl", no one will drink from it anymore. Further, MH paints with a broad brush here, anyone questioning the official story is called a "truther" as if they are all the same and all believe the same things. Associating 9/11 alternative theories with Romero's failed machine and all other bogus FE devices seems to fit the technique.
Point three: There's that broad brush stroke again, use of the word "everyone" as if all on the forum are just lemmings that blindly follow any free energy offering.
Regarding the rest of MH's post, this could easily be turned inside out and used by the other side of the debate, but I won't go there, as it is too obvious.
As I said before, I don't believe or put faith in 99.99% of the FE stuff posted on many of the forums including this one. Nor do I believe in 99.99% of the 9 /11 theories posted on the many forums. I also don't believe in 99.99% of the pat answers that are often given as rebuttals to questions of 9 /11. So, as a forum member, I reject being labelled in this manner. So what do I believe in? I'm still in a sorting process, just gathering information.
For the record, "truther" implies someone searching for the truth, which is not a bad thing regardless of MH's attempt at besmirching the word and anyone associated with it. We might in fact call MH a "free energy truther" as he is someone trying to dispel some of the untruth surrounding the FE community. This is a good thing and I applaud him for it. What I don't applaud is the arrogance of his style as if he "knows it all".
We can never get to the truth about many things, the rabbit hole is just too deep, and we will never have sufficient information, so the tendency will always be to fall back on the simplest explanation. Occams Razor?
What we can rely on is the body of truths given to us by the great electrical and physics researchers of the past. These have been proven by experiment. Hopefully we can build on their offerings and discover novel energy techniques.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.16, 14:35:20
For the record, "truther" implies someone searching for the truth, which is not a bad thing regardless of MH's attempt at besmirching the word and anyone associated with it. We might in fact call MH a "free energy truther" as he is someone trying to dispel some of the untruth surrounding the FE community. This is a good thing and I applaud him for it. What I don't applaud is the arrogance of his style as if he "knows it all".
Well, it is hard to not be at least a little arrogant when you are right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Is there a free energy device out there? No.
And here is what gets me about the conspiracy people. Why doesn't anyone ever try to think about this from the conspiracy planning standpoint? How does a plan like this, to crash planes into buildings (except for the Pentagon, which was a missile, right?), ever get greenlit?
If you want to explode the buildings, then plan explosives, and blame it on the terrorists. Why crash planes into them, which is a plan fraught with risks? Take WTC7 for example, all this hoopla about no plane hitting it and it going down. If they just brought everything down with explosives, this would not even be an issue.
And the Pentagon, what is this nonsense about a missile and not a plane? I mean, they used planes in the other attacks, what would be so bad about using a plane here too? No, they gotta use a missile and claim it was a plane, see how that is better?
And the fourth plane, crashing in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania. What is the point of that? Surely the outrage from the twin towers going down and the Pentagon getting hit is not enough, right? There is going to be insufficient pretext to war unless they also crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, right?
From ebag:
QuoteWell, it is hard to not be at least a little arrogant when you are right EVERY SINGLE TIME. Is there a free energy device out there? No.
Agreed, but with caution, as it is a mistake to apply credulity to everything a person says because they may or may not be right on one issue.
MH has picked on an easy one to bolster his credibility in other areas. But you and he may not be 100% right.
There may be devices out there that are classified that we can not know of.
MH comes off as a "know it all", but it is very clear, to me at least, what he does not know.
People soon cease to question someone who appears to "know it all" (Chinese proverb)
That's why debate on this issue is pointless as every argument can be inverted. As an example, here is an inversion of MH's statement in his prior post:
QuoteSame thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 standard accepted theories about the actual building collapses. WTC7 was clearly a controlled demolition and the only way to not arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you. The technical aspect promoted by the government official story is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument. You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.
Debate is pointless.
Ion:
You can attack me all you want but I stand by what I said. A closer examination of the technical claims made by the "Truthers" shows that the claims have no credibility as far as I am concerned.
I posted a link where a guy said that the firefighters noticed a lean and a bow in WTC7 that indicated that it was on the verge of keeling over. Nor did I know that there was a huge 10-story gash in the building. I bet you with some research you could find irrefutable evidence that it's all the truth. And that makes all of the WTC7 conspiracy theories junk and it makes a lot of the "Truthers" witting or unwitting propagandists.
I used the term "everybody" in a narrative sense and you are implying that I meant it in a literal sense about the people on this forum. I think that any reasonably astute person would have understood what I meant including you, yet you used it to attack me along with other ad hominem attacks.
MileHigh
mh
Don't get rattled, I was only making observations, much as you make observations, "upon closer examination" bla bla, definitely not an attack, sorry you perceive it that way.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
...
And here is what gets me about the conspiracy people. Why doesn't anyone ever try to think about this from the conspiracy planning standpoint? How does a plan like this, to crash planes into buildings (except for the Pentagon, which was a missile, right?), ever get greenlit?
If you want to explode the buildings, then plan[t] explosives, and blame it on the terrorists. Why crash planes into them, which is a plan fraught with risks? Take WTC7 for example, all this hoopla about no plane hitting it and it going down. If they just brought everything down with explosives, this would not even be an issue.
And the Pentagon, what is this nonsense about a missile and not a plane? I mean, they used planes in the other attacks, what would be so bad about using a plane here too? No, they gotta use a missile and claim it was a plane, see how that is better?
And the fourth plane, crashing in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania. What is the point of that? Surely the outrage from the twin towers going down and the Pentagon getting hit is not enough, right? There is going to be insufficient pretext to war unless they also crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, right?
All wars and all planning for wars is conspiracy.
All events which further an agenda are conspiracy.
Understanding how the conspiracy "works" requires
intimate involvement with those who plan the events
and organize their implementation. The average
"media-fed" being has little appreciation for the
simplicity of conspirational effort. Only a select
"few" at the highest levels know all. Lower level
minions carry out the "dirty work" without knowldedge
of the "big picture." The minions "follow orders."
What appears on the "tube" via the "talking heads"
is a consipiracy. Right down to the words that are
actually spoken and the facial expressions and the
verbal intonation. Training and "grooming" is a long
drawn out process and those who excel are paid well
for their service.
One day all of the secret workings will be exposed.
That work is in progress at this very moment.
Those who conspire to control the world care naught
about "the good of man" or the "betterment of the
social paradigm." They are ruthless.
Watch in amazement as the atrocities so characteristic
of the Soviet Union begin to occur everywhere world-
wide. It has already begun...
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.17, 02:18:51
All wars and all planning for wars is conspiracy.
All events which further an agenda are conspiracy.
Why spend 50 lines saying nothing?
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
Why spend 50 lines saying nothing?
Translation?
Ion:
QuoteDon't get rattled, I was only making observations, much as you make observations, "upon closer examination" bla bla, definitely not an attack, sorry you perceive it that way.
That's complete and utter nonsense, you attacked me about 10 times. Play yourself don't play me.
MileHigh
The "conspiracy" has long been underway. (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/)
Further connections. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=39727)
9/11 was planned long before the "event."
Quote from: MileHigh
That's complete and utter nonsense, you attacked me about 10 times. Play yourself don't play me.
Your "opinions" are deserving of commentary
and analysis. What Ion has said is in reality
spot on. Get a grip...
"Get a grip" coming from you is "laughable."
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.17, 20:19:50
The "conspiracy" has long been underway. (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/)
Further connections. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=39727)
9/11 was planned long before the "event."
Your "opinions" are deserving of commentary
and analysis. What Ion has said is in reality
spot on. Get a grip...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But are you going to do anything about it? We, the believers in the official story, are happy with the status quo. We do not have to do anything, as reality reflects our views of what happened. So if the truthers want an investigation, it is up to them to move the ball.
The final step of the diabolical plan has taken hold...
The Truth can not be confirmed. Now brother is set against brother like all the other wars.
No one can stand divided. The masses have their SOMA and cannot be moved from addiction of complacency.
As foretold...
Quote from: MileHigh
"Get a grip" coming from you is "laughable."
Yes! "Grip" has several meanings.
Will you tell us which you've chosen?
Quote from: eatenbyagrueEveryone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. But are you going to do anything about it? We, the believers in the official story, are happy with the status quo. We do not have to do anything, as reality reflects our views of what happened. So if the truthers want an investigation, it is up to them to move the ball.
Be patient. Watch and see how the
mystery unfolds. What will ultimately
be revealed will be shocking to all.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
The forces of badness which now are
in control will meet their end just as they
come to believe they've accomplished their
goals.
Patience. In due time all will be made known.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.18, 04:28:52
Be patient. Watch and see how the
mystery unfolds. What will ultimately
be revealed will be shocking to all.
How do you know this? Or are you just hoping?
Ah!
We have an Oracle, Soothsayer or some kind of Seeker.
I think we should have brought all these divine folks together so we could have avoided such disasters.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.18, 05:15:21
How do you know this? Or are you just hoping?
Now i may have this wrong but i think we already know whats going to happen, the end game of each major government is the 'New World Order'
They have openly stated this, i am not sure if anyone really understands what this would mean but most seem to say it's not good.
This is our previous prime minister's speech, i believe there's been one in the US by your president as well.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.12.18, 13:36:12
Now i may have this wrong but i think we already know whats going to happen, the end game of each major government is the 'New World Order'
They have openly stated this, i am not sure if anyone really understands what this would mean but most seem to say it's not good.
This is our previous prime minister's speech, i believe there's been one in the US by your president as well.
There is nothing nefarious in that speech, unless you are completely paranoid.
There has been a new world order created every time there was a shift in marketing or military power.
I realize that 'NWO' is a bad word to many. I have some siblings who cower in the shadow of the nearest cross every time NWO is mentioned or the conversation just goes off the deep end.
These shifts will continue There is nothing new going on.
The question is.... are we preparing for it?
Insights into what is soon to come:
Wars (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2199-war-without-end-amen-the-reality-of-americas-aggression-against-iraq-.html)
More Control and Deception (http://endthelie.com/2011/12/17/approval-of-covert-offensive-cyberwar-sneakily-inserted-into-ndaa/#axzz1goiiGcqB)
Financial and Economic Collapse (http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16919&title=gerald-celente---the-crooks-make-the-laws)
Those who presently have the "Power"
and the "Force" on Planet Earth are not
good people. The People will have much
suffering and hardship to deal with soon
on a scale the world has never seen...
Our eyes will be opened wide as the
AGENDA moves forward towards the
end game and "final solution."
Quote from: WaveWatcher
...
I realize that 'NWO' is a bad word to many. I have some siblings who cower in the shadow of the nearest cross every time NWO is mentioned or the conversation just goes off the deep end.
...
Such is the power of fear.
Rather than "cowering" we are told to
rejoice when we see these events taking
place. This coming tribulation signifies that
the end of all of this madness is finally
approaching.
Granted, there have been scenarios in the
past which have created great fear as well;
the coming events will be even greater than
any in the past and will encompass the entire
earth. It is going to be very, very difficult for all.
We shall all become well acquainted with the
"deep end." We will not enjoy it...
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.18, 20:03:29
Such is the power of fear.
Rather than "cowering" we are told to
rejoice when we see these events taking
place. This coming tribulation signifies that
the end of all of this madness is finally
approaching.
But again, how do you know this? I can tell that you believe this strongly, I just cannot understand why.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.18, 20:37:32
But again, how do you know this? I can tell that you believe this strongly, I just cannot understand why.
Eaten
Here is a beginners guide for you. ;]
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/18/the-intel-hub-game-on-in-2012/
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.12.18, 21:13:36
Eaten
Here is a beginners guide for you. ;]
http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/18/the-intel-hub-game-on-in-2012/
Mags
I have reviewed the link. I now know what nutjobs I am dealing with on this site.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.18, 21:22:46
I have reviewed the link. I now know what nutjobs I am dealing with on this site.
Nutjob. Really? Like that is the only link on the web saying anything of it. Wake up dude.
Reduction of population
Sodium Fluoride - Neurotoxin In your water in your toothpaste
Monsanto GMO foods - You look it up. Asian countries said, we will wait 10 years to see what happens to the American children. There are vids, lawsuits, articles.
Aspartame - A chemical that causes a variety of health issues from tumors to Alzheimer. Michal J Fox Big time diet drinker.
Chemtrails - weve gone over that
Xray in Airports - Look for reports on how many tsa agents working around those machines health problems. Let alone you and I.
But I suppose you are all knowing. Knowing that things are just fine and dandy.
You are way behind the times when it comes to information Eaten. Wake up.
Mags
Magluvin,
You are the one that has to wake up and put your brain in gear. In life you have bogus information coming at you from all directions from all sides of the spectrum and you have to have the wisdom to filter out the crap. I have seen a few links from you and they point to sub "National Enquirer" type supermarket tabloid junk.
"Chemtrails" are WATER for Christ's sake.
Anyway, there is no point except to make a point contrary to the nonsense that you spout to at least establish some sort of sense of balance.
When you read things like "Who performs the first longitudinal Moon-Bounce in history?" on the free energy forums one would hope that you can get up the learning curve to realize that the whole thread is just nonsense where you assume that most of the people contributing to the thread are basically ignorant when it comes to electromagnetics. Not being wise enough to know your own limitations is stupidity.
"How to build a GIGANTIC Joule theif for 288 V DC electric car?" - more complete and utter nonsense.
So just like there is technical junk on the free energy forums there is socio-political junk on the Web and in life and you have to learn how to filter out the junk from stuff that merits attention, being aware all the time that there are lobbies and unscrupulous motivations from all sides. You have to be equally aware that there is a lot of good in the world also.
QuoteAspartame - A chemical that causes a variety of health issues from tumors to Alzheimer. Michal J Fox Big time diet drinker.
Right there - that's almost proof that you have been "programmed" in a "Dumped" sense. You cite a single example of a person that has Parkinson's disease (not Alzheimer's disease) and also happens to drink diet soft drinks and you make a connection between the two. You see white trails of vapor in the sky and you believe that they are due to some kind of covert chemical spraying program because the Web has been brainwashing you.
MileHigh
MH
I knew you would gnaw on this one.
You do this a lot. You say that I put one example up and that means it is garbage. Where are your sources? Where is your example? How many would i have to post that would satisfy your needs?
I research this stuff, a lot.
You just go ahead and drink your diet soda and consume your GMO milk, etc, no body will miss you.
An attny friend of mine, his wife was a diet drink consumer. She had problems. Back pains etc. Stopped drinking the stuff, problems went away. There is a great vid on aspartame, but you wont take it seriously, like anything else.
It started out as a chemical that was to be used for something completely different than use as a sweetener. There is a LOT of history there. But you wont accept it.
Me, I have been drinking milk all my life. Lived on the farm in Pa. Moved here to Fl, and had digestion problems, that eventually caused me to get a hernia. Backed up. Couldnt go but every 3 days or so. Now I drink organic all day and no problems. Retried regular gmo milk again, and was backed up again.
2 reporters from Fox news, were just starting a new investigative series were fired in the middle of their first investigation on milk in Florida. Not just kill the investigation, but fired. Why? You look it up. Im not your do-boy
I can go on and on, but it wont help you or eaten in any way. But I do it for others that will look into these things and realize that what I show is true.
Sodium fluoride? What is it, in your world? Show me your evidence that GMO foods are good for you, and that Monsanto isnt trying to wipe out all organics world wide. "Who ever controls the food, controls the people of the world."
You can call me all the names you want. You can try to shut me down as a fruit cake. lol. I dont care. You 2 seem to be the only opposition here. Actually, MH, you seem to be in opposition to most things around here. Others will benefit from it.
Ion has you pegged, to the T.
Mags
Magluvin,
I noticed that you contributed to that "How to build a GIGANTIC Joule theif for 288 V DC electric car?" thread and it was a short thread. When I posted above I didn't know you made a posting there. I also thought that the thread was much longer because it hung around on the front page for so long.
Something cool from the motor you want to use, a performance chart:
(http://www.go-ev.com/images/003_09_01_WarP_9A_Graph.jpg)
Pretty interesting graph and it's the type of stuff that people that play with pulse motors should try to do also. I assume that these performance curves are based on 72 volts DC. I'm not sure what "CCWDE" means.
In the thread someone makes reference to a boost converter, a.k.a. a DC-to-DC converter so they were on the right track. So I was being harsh by saying that the thread was "complete and utter nonsense." I can reinterpret "GIGANTIC Joule theif" as "boost converter" and give the guy a break.
MileHigh
Well, thanks for the , err , retraction on that. What is it that you find interesting about the motor?
Mags
Magluvin:
I am going to tell you up front that I haven't done the research that you have done. But I can tell you what I know in terms of general knowledge. The FDA is very conservative when it comes to food additives and things like GMOs also. I think that it took several years to get Aspartame approved, possibly up to 10 years. It might not be perfect for every single person's metabolism, and it might have some side effects for some people. But here is the point Magluvin, I bet you corn or apples are the same. Even "natural" corn that grows in the wild will probably upset some people's metabolisms.
It's like the "study wars" for cell phone use and brain cancer. That one seems to sway back and forth every few years. Supposing that you can prove conclusively that one person in a million will get brain cancer from using a cell phone for an extended period time, say 10 years. Does that mean that we should ban cell phones? How many lives will be saved by the use of cell phones at the same time? How many times do you think having a cell phone when there was a bad car accident resulted in the ambulance arriving sooner and saving someone's life? How many parents got their children out of a bad situation because they both had cell phones?
So how many people have had better health through the use of Aspartame in soft drinks and food helping them control their weight or avoid the onset of diabetes? How many farmers have had better crop yields with a drastically decreased use of pesticides because of GMOs? That results in cheaper food that allows poor people and people in the Third World to have access to better nutrition. So how many lives have been saved through better nutrition because of the use of GMO foods?
I believe that the scientists and professionals in the FDA work for the most part in good faith and they feel a duty and obligation to do the right thing for the good of the population. Is that being naive? I don't think so.
You drink organic milk? Pure organic milk probably has a shelf life that's less than one-fifth that of standard pasteurized milk. Billions of people drink pasteurized milk every single day with no ill effects. Your anecdotal story about yourself, even if it is true, means nothing.
If you look at junk web sites then you have to look at real web sites to get a proper perspective, that's the real point. My impression is that you have conveniently forgotten things like the fact that the FDA works damn hard and tries their best to ensure that the food and drugs in the marketplace are safe. They can't always be perfect, it's impossible. Instead you gravitate towards junk pulp pseudoscience Web sites and gobble up the "Happy Pills." And some of the people behind those web sites are just trying to eke out a living by saying anything or pushing pseudo-scientific themes because they know that there is a market for that kind of information.
MileHigh
Some may look at the data as strange for an electric car, as in , not enough HP.
It takes about 16hp to cruise at 60mph in an average size vehicle. But peaks of acceleration hp can be over 200hp, with this motor.
So 0 to 60 is a peak time. So, a GE dc motor may claim only 18 continuous hp. this can confuse.
Most say that a manual tranny is more eff. Just put it in 3rd or 4th and hit the accelerator. Electric motors have most torque at the bottom end. But I see it as a waste to dump all that current into getting the car to go in 3rd or 4th.
Im going to use the 3spd auto and remove the down shift cable, do it goes through the 1st and 2nd gears faster than normal(tried it and it does this).
Mags
Magluvin:
QuoteWhat is it that you find interesting about the motor?
The performance chart could be a guideline or suggestion for every person that plays with a pulse motor, from RomeroUK on down.
Notice when the RPM is at a maximum, the output torque is zero and the power output is zero. The plots don't actually go there, they cut them off because that useless operating mode for the motor is considered out of bounds for the performance plots.
As the motor starts to output useful torque, the RPM starts to decrease. You should see a similar effect for a pulse motor.
After years and years of experimenters building pulse motors it would be great to see them plot performance curves. You can substitute the output torque for power output from a generator coil into a load resistance and still get interesting plots. You just have to vary the load resistance and measure the RMS voltage across the load resistor with a true-RMS multimeter and away you go.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
Good luck with the car project, it sounds really cool. Finding that right battery/motor/transmission combination should be fascinating. There is a annual electric car race done by competing universities. Last summer I think it was held in Germany. They build "go-cart" scale electric cars and they are the real thing, serious machining and electronics and regenerative braking, etc.
http://evgrandprix.org/ (http://evgrandprix.org/)
MileHigh
Well, as far as milk, the steroids they use on the cows, helps produce 30% more milk from the cow.
But the cows got sick, had utter infections, and needed antibiotics.
If I dring regular gmo milk and it has ill effects on me, but organic doesnt, are you saying that I am a very small percentage?
Well, why do they have alternative milks? Soy milk? Thats not milk. Soy IS one of the most genetically modified, along with corn, wheat and cotton.
As for the FDA. Look it up, the head of FDA is from Monsanto. Obama has 8 people around him that are from Monsanto in government.
So of course the FDA will approve these things.
As you said, you havnt looked into it heavily. Most dont.
Monsanto plants their stuff next to other farms. And when their gmo starts getting mixed in with the neighbors farm, Monsanto takes them to court and forces them to burn all their crops and seeds, due to Patent infringements. Look it up. They are patenting everything that grows. Is that right? You agree to this?
They tried to do this in Canada, but didnt get away with it and dropped the cases.
Seedless fruits and veggies. Nice thought. Think about it.
And some fruits and veggies with seeds are genetically altered so that the seeds are not usable, wont grow.
And as for being pesticide free, read up on how the pests came anyway, even worse, so even more pesticides are needed.
Monsanto IS the maker of pesticides. Why do you think that there is a huge loss in the honey bee colonies? Pesticides affected them to a point of, they could not find their way back to the hives. Its been researched. Studied. Truth is known, if you look for it.
Read about how Monsanto ruined corn crops in South America, by convincing small grower to use their seeds. READ IT.
In China, they grow pears in the hills. After they used Monsantos pesticides, the bees disappeared, and never came back. They have to pollinate each pear flower by HAND on ladders. Yeah, thats more efficient.
Baahh why do I go on.. You will rebut all of it anyway. If I filled up 10 pages, none of it will be good enough for you. But good enough for some. Thats too bad. But I have to be saticfied with that.
Are you an Obama fan? Im figuring Yes ;] What about God?
Mags
edited to change the 305 to 30% ;]
MH
Thanks I like this MH. The other, well its ok too.
Gas engines are only about 30% eff at using energy from burning fuel. Would better to be used on a steam engine.
I do electric bicycles also. Got 3 Looking to get a new kit from High Power Cycles. 50mph and 50 mpc miles per charge.
I want to get away from petrol.
People say that the electrics use power that is generated from coal and such, so they say its not eff. But it is.
Electric is about 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of gas per mile. So less fuel burned per mile also. Go figure.
Mags
While visiting a friend in the hospital a few years ago, his daughter came with her boyfriend, a lad of about 19 years old.
The young man had a scar across his head where a large tumor had been removed. One thing I noticed about the young man was that he was on the cellphone constantly, almost like an addiction, he could barely stop calling friends and chatting. He was certain he would recover now that the tumor had been removed. I wished him luck. He survived for about two years until another tumor emerged. This one killed him. Both were on the side of the head where he preferred to use the phone.
Yes this is just one possibly unconnected observation that has no merit, anecdotal to some.
I would not be extreme in argument and say that we should ban cellphones, but even the cheap trakfone I use comes with an external earpiece that I always use. Why not err on the side of safety? We know that the safe levels for RF radiation on human tissue were raised by quite a margin with the advent of the cellphone industry. Ionizing radiation occurs within an inch or two of a cellphone antenna and drops off significantly after that.
Can we rely on a trillion dollar business to provide reports showing how safe or unsafe cellphones are? There is a lot of conflicting information and studies. I always ask: Who funded the study?
As for GMO's you have to do the research and draw your own conclusions. There are probably a lot of benign GMO's being produced, and an equal number of harmful types. But do I want to eat a food that has been spliced with a gene that causes the plant to produce a poisonous insecticide, just so yields and profits can be higher, even if it is harmful to the end user?
To some these foods may have no negative effect, others may have severe gastrointestinal problems. To assume the FDA is working on behalf of the American public is naive, since a great deal of their funding for studies comes from big agra.
As for aspartame, I could bore you with heavy diet coke drinkers I know that have had blackouts, and Splenda users that have had severe stomach and intestinal problems from it's use.
Anyone who seriously believes that so called "diet" soft drinks are helpful in weight reduction or are safe for diabetics, well, what can I say?
The first time I used Splenda in my coffee at the recommendation of a friend, I had severe stomach cramps shortly thereafter.
So this is all anecdotal, unscientific, and just observations, I just call it life experience.
Magluvin: There are some here that you should not try to debate with as they will sweep away even the best of your years of research with a few keystrokes. This will indeed be frustrating to you. Save your health. Nevertheless, speak your truth if you must.
Thanks Ion for posting. ;]
The thing is, if the foods are genetically modified, should there not be extensive testing before FDA approval?
What, 5 years? 10? 20? We dont know what the internal changes that might be happening inside, even though they may taste the same. Its not just cutting a branch from one plant to another, It is dna mounted on tiny gold particles and shot into the cells of the plant. How accurate can that be? There must have been deformities in some samples.
If these things only harm some, not all people, is it still worth it?
Me, I like sugar. Some days if I drink to much(just) water, I get dizzy. My friend who is a Sherrif Dep, was working out and got dizzy. He doesnt do sugar drinks candy, etc. His doctor told him he was drinking too much water and washing sugar out of his system. Recommended more juices or sweet tea, fruits, etc.
Fda is cracking down on raw milk drinkers. They are making it against the law to drink raw milk. Rawsome foods was raided and everything taken and gag orders an all involved about the subject. Customers are angry.
My buddy, he gets raw milk from a store that gets its milk, cheese and butter from Penn Amish Dutch farms. $10 a gal
He has had back, neck and leg injuries that he was fighting the pains for a long time. He did some extensive diet and health research and found that good portion of the pains he suffered were from inflammation. And the one culprit that he put on the table was GMO foods and milk.
His diet now consists of 3 gal raw milk each week(protein) Organic bananas, avocados, sweet potato's, some greens and lots of fresh organic fruits. No meats
He feels great. Lots of energy. He says he has tried reg milk and other gmos and soon the pains come back. Days.
He says if they take away his milk, he doesnt know what he will do. Doctors would just load him up with pain killers.
Mags
Just before stepping down from office, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:
"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on... You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"
Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology: "The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior."
The biotech industry and the government have been foolhardy indeed. Blinded, perhaps by the baseless myth that GM foods are needed to feed the world, they gamble with our health and support their safety claims on obsolete or unproven assumptions. Accepting their vacuous assurances by eating these dangerous foods or serving them to your customers may likewise be overly optimistic or foolhardy.
======================================================================
Mag: In my own experience, raw milk completely wiped out one or more intestinal pathogens that caused severe long term gastrointestinal problems. The effect was very rapid. Trouble is, I find it hard to locate and buy the raw milk.
Jerry Brunetti has an excellent video "FOOD AS MEDICINE" regarding his bout with cancer and use of raw milk / raw diet. He lives in PA as do I.
Quote from: ION on 2011.12.19, 02:47:08
Mag: In my own experience, raw milk completely wiped out one or more intestinal pathogens that caused severe long term gastrointestinal problems. The effect was very rapid. Trouble is, I find it hard to locate and buy the raw milk.
;]
Yeah, the stores are not mainstream. Some are hidden in warehouses. Its not just the gmo, antibiotics, etc, but it is also the pasteurized and homogenized process that KILLS the milk. These milks are dead. No live enzymes. Raw milk can digest in under 2 hours. Raw goats milk as little as a half an hour. Look out, here it comes. ;]
Processed milk up to 8 or more hours. My case seemed like 3 days. ;]
Hope you find a source. ;]
Talking about depopulation, vaccines and flu shots.. California is enforcing that girls as young as 12 get Gardasil. They are giving the shots to them without parental consent. And if anything happens to the girls, some even die, the parents are not allowed access to medical records.
In Finland the gov is offering to pay for lifetime medical bills for 79 people affected by the swine flu shots.
Is it worth it?
Mags
Mags,
I appreciate your opinion and the research you did to gain that opinion.
Still, we all need to keep in mind that every opinion is only based upon experiences of the individual. Even when the result seems so clean and obvious there may be new information waiting around the corner that can change a mind.
As an example: I worked with a very good friend for a couple of decades. He was an avid whole milk drinker. In many cases he milked the cow himself and his family farm was the most natural you could ask for. My nose confirmed it every time he came to work.
A few years ago he started to have really bad stomach pains after eating lunch. He went completely vegan - except for the milk. He refused to follow the doctor's orders to stop drinking milk. He's been gone almost two years.
The milk aggravated stomach ulcers but made him feel better after drinking it. They migrated. He bled to death while they were trying to splice out the bad parts.
Milk is not a natural food for humans beyond breast feeding age. Only in relatively recent human history have we been stealing babe's food from other creatures. Some of us still can't handle it. I can't handle milk. It always comes back up looking like cottage cheese with a much worse smell. Some milk products I can handle.
Anything with Soy in it was removed from my diet recently and it wasn't due to my opinion.
All tried fake sweeteners will never be tried again. I'm one of the tiny percentage unable to handle the 'corroded copper taste' and almost permanent after taste.
I also think we should not be so arrogant to think we know all about sources of energy.
But....
Chemtrails don't exist from any jet I've been around. That number is not low.
Having performed tests of RF effects on a simulated human head I can say the manufacturers were full of crap until they 'rapidly' changed antenna designs and promoted the use of hands-free and blue-tooth devices. I'm sure it was only because they worried about law suits because there were no confirmed results on this being a real problem except by Erickson Electronics.
The tests I performed were only to compare the 'candy-bar' and 'clam-shell' body designs. The clam-shell won but very shortly after that the antenna disappeared inside as a 'directed pattern fractal style'.
So, I suppose now we will only suffer millitumors from the bluetooth?
Obama's crew are making all these rules about milk?
Did anyone look at the proposer, supporters AND the president actually in office at the time? Has anyone thought about WHEN and WHO actually made the 'Got Milk?' adds disappear?
Not that I care much for Obama but PLEASE watch something besides Fox News. Virtually everything they announce is bogus.
Everybody has there own experiences. These arguments are a waste except to try to label others. I don't give a rat's behind about your label and I would prefer to not hear about any alien abductions or read another sermon. Just let me know how you're doing on things related to free energy experimentation, things learned, etc.
There are some things MH and I do not agree on.
Go ahead and label me but I must back MH and eatenbyagrue on their posts I've seen.
I don't think either has been 100% correct on every post but at least their facts can be confirmed on reputable sources. The most reputable source I've seen for the opposition is Fox News. Not good as far as I'm concerned.
Hey WW
Na, Im not labeling you. You are not 100% in the box. ;]
I look around and see many apparently very healthy people that are drinking the diet drinks and chewing gum. I cannot find gum that has real sugar. Ugg, I feel the same of the diet drink taste. Awful. Maybe there are other parts of diet that counteract the harms of chemical sweeteners and gmo products.
Or some people are just weak, and some strong.
But if you have the choice between organic and gmo(some not gmo but pesticide used on them), what do you choose.
When you see "organic", what can be said of foods that dont say it? Why are they not marked as such?
Here is a story from Yahoo news. Not a gmo story but makes me sick to think of it.
"One of the moms said she had read about [how the juice is made] and they held it in tanks for up to a year and it pretty much lost all of its flavor and had to be reinvigorated with these flavor packs, which are essentially chemicals," said Murakhver, 40, and co-author of "They Eat What?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Weird and Exotic Food from around the World."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/orange-juice-moms-secret-ingredient-worries/story?id=15154617
I drink Odwalla and Bolthouse juices. All non gmo. cant even think about orange juice now. I preferred Simply orange, but its on the list.
Mags
Here is some general info on pesticides, organic and conventional. With references.
When you know there are choices, then you can make them. ;]
Organic vs. Conventional?
Safety
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the majority of pesticides now in use are probable or possible cancer causes. Studies of farm workers who work with pesticides suggest a link between pesticide use and brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, multiple myeloma, leukemia, lymphoma and cancers of the stomach and prostate.(1)
The question remains, however, does the low level of pesticides remaining on our food present much of a risk? Some scientists argue that the extremely low level of pesticide residue remaining on produce is insignificant and that there are naturally occurring toxins in all natural foods that are more significant. The large amount of studies performed on the typical pesticide-treated produce have demonstrated that consumption of produce, whether organic or not, is related to lower rates of cancer and increased disease protection. The health benefits of eating phytochemical rich produce greatly outweigh any risk pesticide residues might pose. Certainly, it is better to eat fruits and vegetables grown and harvested using pesticides than to not eat them at all, but it is also wise to minimize our pesticide exposure.
Environmental concerns
When we buy organic, we minimize our pesticide exposure, and we are also minimizing the amount of these pesticides that our environment is exposed to. Organic farming is clearly the more environmentally-friendly choice. According to the USDA, organic farming "integrat[es] cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity."(2) Although organic cropland acreage in the U.S. has increased five-fold since 1995, organic cropland still accounts for only 0.57% of total cropland.(3) Supporting organic agriculture will increase the demand for organic produce and decrease the percentage of farmland (and farm workers) exposed to potentially harmful agricultural chemicals.
Nutritional benefits
Organic produce usually has more nutrients – especially minerals and antioxidant nutrients – than conventional produce. Organic apples, plums, blueberries, grapes, strawberries, and corn have all been shown to have higher antioxidant capacities than their conventional counterparts. Organic strawberries were even found to have more anti-cancer activity than conventional strawberries! Scientists have theorized that when the plants are grown without pesticides, they are forced to deal with the stress of insects, which causes them to produce more antioxidant compounds, which are beneficial to humans.(4,5)
The Environmental Working Group provides lists of produce called the 'Dirty Dozen' (highest in pesticides) and the 'Clean 15' (lowest in pesticides). These are their most recent lists.(6)
Highest in pesticides – buy organic if possible:
1. Celery
2. Peaches
3. Strawberries
4. Apples
5. Blueberries
6. Nectarines
7. Bell Peppers
8. Spinach
9. Kale
10. Cherries
11. Potatoes
12. Grapes (imported)
Peaches have the most pesticide residue of all fruits – 97% of conventional peaches test positive for pesticides, and as many as 53 different pesticides can be found on peaches. The most pesticide-laden vegetables are celery and bell peppers. Sixty-four different pesticides were found on bell peppers. Imported produce is also more likely to contain higher levels of pesticides.(6,7) Choosing to buy these fruits and vegetables organically grown will help to protect us against the possible risks of pesticide exposure. If you do buy the conventional versions of these foods, it is best to wash them with soap and remove the skin before eating them.
Lowest in pesticides – buy either organic or conventional:
1. Onion
2. Avocado
3. Sweet corn
4. Pineapple
5. Mango
6. Sweet peas
7. Asparagus
8. Kiwi
9. Cabbage
10. Eggplant
11. Cantaloupe
12. Watermelon
13. Grapefruit
14. Sweet potato
15. Honeydew melon
Buying organic is a wise choice – organic foods taste better, and organic agriculture protects farmers and our environment.
References:
1. Environ Res. 1997;74 (2): 133-144.; Am J Ind Med 1993;24(6): 753-766.; Environ Health Perspect 114:156–164 (2006).
2. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop
3. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/organic/#national
4. J Agric Food Chem 2003; 51(19): 5671-5676.; Agron. Sustain. Dev.30 (2010) 33-41
5. J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Feb 22;54(4):1248-55.
6. http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php , http://www.foodnews.org/methodology.php, http://www.foodnews.org/sneak/EWG-shoppers-guide.pdf
7. J Land Use Environ Law, 1997;13(1).; Purdue Univ Coop Ext Serv p22, 1/17/05
Mags
I don't have time right now to read the last round of postings but it's an interesting discussion. With respect to pesticides, the argument is that after fruits and vegetables are washed and prepared for market, that the levels are far below a level that could cause harm.
Now, if you accept that premise, then it's either true or false. You can make measurements and do studies and so on and so forth. It goes back to the same notion of "Do you believe in the system?" Do you think that people that get university degrees in agricultural science and organic chemistry, etc, etc, are generally decent people or are they all part of a grand conspiracy to "poison the population?"
Again, I will remind everyone that if you go organic then I will assume that the produce harvested can have fungi and foreign bacteria, parasites, etc, and that is arguably something that is also foreign and potentially harmful. Certain parasites may naturally produce harmful toxins or simply ingesting them can make you sick because they take root in your system. Everything in this paragraph is just a hypothetical example.
Now, on the other hand, you might not accept that premise and argue than any level of pesticides in your fruits and vegetables is unacceptable. The problem here is that too much of any substance can be considered a "poison." Even too much water can kill you. What that implies is that no mater what the substance, there has to be a safe level associated with it. Even outright poisons can be ingested if the levels are low enough without doing you any harm. It's simply a logical deduction.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the human body is producing toxins and "poisoning itself" literally all the time. Your body is teeming with all sorts of toxins that you yourself are producing. However, the levels stay low enough through natural cleansing processes such that they do not harm you. It's all perfectly natural. And those levels of "natural self-produced toxins" in your system might be hundreds of thousands of times higher than the toxins you ingest when you eat an apple.
Some plants and trees fight battles of chemical warfare and almost poison themselves to the point of death so that animals and insects won't eat them. Some insects have evolved to be able to eat these plants even though they are poisoning themselves. "Natural" takes on a whole new meaning when you think about it like that.
Quote"One of the moms said she had read about [how the juice is made] and they held it in tanks for up to a year and it pretty much lost all of its flavor and had to be reinvigorated with these flavor packs, which are essentially chemicals," said Murakhver, 40, and co-author of "They Eat What?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Weird and Exotic Food from around the World."
Caught you here! Caught you with the usage of the term "chemicals" as if to imply that it is something foreign and unnatural. Whatever made up the flavour in the original juice before the year's storage was also "chemicals." When you really think about it, there is basically no true true distinction between "chemicals" and "natural food," it's all just chemicals.
Just a quick comment on this:
QuoteOrganic produce usually has more nutrients
I have always wondered about that one. How do you define "nutrients?"
Take an organic potato and a potato grown using modern farming techniques. Both are really essentially starch and you cook them to turn them into carbs. Carbs are carbs and on that level they are literally the same and have exactly the same caloric food value.
If the "nutrients" are vitamins and minerals, then let's say I concede that the organically grown potato has more "nutrients." Big deal in the sense that I eat the potato mainly for the food calories. Like supposing literally 99.999999999% of the value in the potato is in the caloric food value you can get from eating it. We are generally not vitamin and mineral deficient in our culture, and if you want you can take a one-a-day vitamin. You don't need the few extra micrograms of vitamin A that you can get from the organically grown potato. This is all my opinion trying to rationalize what I am looking at when I encounter this argument.
I simply don't buy the fact that organic foods have more "nutrients" because I know that organic or other, staying alive by eating food is primarily about getting caloric fuel to keep the slow burn going that makes your flesh warm. So there is essentially no difference between organic vs. non organic. It's just more of that "brainwashing" for lack of a better term.
MileHigh
Reading through quickly, noticed the observation that electric/hybrid cars are significantly more efficient than gasoline cars. Why is that?
Is the electric motor significantly more efficient in converting 100 J of stored energy to motion than is a gasoline engine?
So I did a little checking -- see attached. Mitsubishi electric car claims 112 MPGe -- what do you think of that? Sounds good to me.
Hey Mh
Well, dont buy it. ;] its your choice.
But, Why is it not, that you have been brainwashed into believing that gmo is ok? ;]
By the way. look up the chemical content on aspartame. There are 3 all together. If you have a hard time seeing the problems with all 3 , ill look up the info for you tomorrow. Each of them seem fine, but its what happens when metabolized that become an issue. Look up the test research that was presented to the fda and all the crap that was going on to get approval. Its just wrong.
I suggest you look more into these things. It will be good for you. And the people you love. ;] I mean no harm.
mags
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.19, 06:01:30
Reading through quickly, noticed the observation that electric/hybrid cars are significantly more efficient than gasoline cars. Why is that?
Is the electric motor significantly more efficient in converting 100 J of stored energy to motion than is a gasoline engine?
So I did a little checking -- see attached. Mitsubishi electric car claims 112 MPGe -- what do you think of that? Sounds good to me.
Hey Prof
Well, gas engines are only around 30% eff at converting gas to motion using internal combustion engines. Electrics, as shown in the graph MH shows, are 80 to 90% eff.
So yes, 112mpge is good. ;] Its great!. ;]
Mags
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.12.19, 06:01:30
Sounds good to me.
Why?
The only two things that matter are the cost of driving those miles and the amount of environmental usage/damage created to allow that trip.
In most cases, either the smoke leaves your tail-pipe or the smokestack of the power company. Once the power company is the main source for fueling your car the price of electric energy will go up for all usage.
I understand the HEV MPGe includes a certain percentage use of 'assist' from the engine or the motor. The MPG ratings are B.S. Hype.
>> I see the vehicle in question is not a hybrid but the thought of the power company burning the fuel instead of your vehicle doesn't sound like much of an advancement. The chain between fuel and rotating wheels is now longer. The chances of this combination not having more losses is absurd.
Mags,
I prefer some organic food. It is hard to pick and choose. The vast majority of the "Organic" labeled food simply isn't.
What I've noticed is if the food looks nearly perfect chances are pretty good it hasn't been grown 'organically'. The larger food chain stores all have isle of nothing but 'organic' foods. The prices reflect the label.
What was a great way to identify a potentially better source of food is now a marketing gimmick.
Self-regulation is something created by those with high IQ and allowed by those with low IQ.
All, only my opinion :)
Off topic spooky.
Type 'Illuminati' backwards into a web browser followed by ".com"
http://www.itanimulli.com
wattsup
PS: Guys, get your heads out of your asses and wake up. If you think two Arab furts flew those planes, then you really deserve the next act. If you think them Towers fell on the September 11th, 2001 Free Fall Special - Fake two get one free event, then you have real problems with seeing reality for what it truly is. @PhysicsProf thanks for stepping up to the plate, but may I humbly suggest you not spend any more time on it because it is just wasting precious time.
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.12.19, 14:40:54
Off topic spooky.
Type 'Illuminati' backwards into a web browser followed by ".com"
http://www.itanimulli.com
get your heads out of your asses and wake up.
May I suggest the same....
Registrant:
John Fenley
1985N 360E
Provo, Utah 84604-1803
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ITANIMULLI.COM
Created on: 20-Nov-02
Expires on: 20-Nov-12
Last Updated on: 22-Nov-10
Administrative Contact:
Fenley, John Pontifier@hotmail.com
1985N 360E
Provo, Utah 84604-1803
United States
8014273274 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Fenley, John Pontifier@hotmail.com
1985N 360E
Provo, Utah 84604-1803
United States
8014273274 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS45.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS46.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Just another fruitcake throwing fuel on the fire by forwarding DNS queries to a domain he doesn't control - like NSA.gov.
I'm surprised my old boss hasn't taken care of this. Maybe DIRNSA would appreciate a call.
Let us see how long the B.S. DNS redirect lasts ;D
------------------
That was quick .... An old friend has already been at work for a few hours. He took a quick look and found old notes pertaining to ' it is funny - don't waste time on this idiot ' and 'they feed themselves'(?) -- I have an idea what that means.
He did tell me I should change my surroundings if stuff like this starts to worry me ;D
Had a few to satisfy my curiosity.
While DNS always has a part in web requests of all types when you type in a URL, Pontifier is actually using an HTTP 301 redirect to perform the web spoof to NSA.gov.
It also seems he has a flare for low-end robotics and a history of developing robotic sex toys.
He also has made claims he is on the 'no-fly' list.
Interesting 8)
He isn't a spook. I hold that label in high regard. He is more like a spoof.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.12.19, 18:02:24
Had a few to satisfy my curiosity.
While DNS always has a part in web requests of all types when you type in a URL, Pontifier is actually using an HTTP 301 redirect to perform the web spoof to NSA.gov.
It also seems he has a flare for low-end robotics and a history of developing robotic sex toys.
He also has made claims he is on the 'no-fly' list.
Interesting 8)
He isn't a spook. I hold that label in high regard. He is more like a spoof.
Well, we can at least say his spoof gave me the spooks. But your explanation closes the issue. Thanks.
wattsup
Quote from: WaveWatcher
...
He isn't a spook. I hold that label in high regard. He is more like a spoof.
Do you know which "level" of spookery
you hold in high regard? Real "spooks"
aren't easy to detect unless they're
careless low level talkatives.
Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth
To whom it may concern:
We don't need to believe in a nefarious world wide plot to eliminate people on the earth.
All we need to do is understand human nature and the greed factor, and recognize that the food industry will do it's utmost to lower it's cost of production by using such substances as aspartame and high fructose corn syrup, the latter of which can be found in an extremely wide range of supermarket products.
If you also believe that the FDA will protect you from such greedy endeavors, then great! You will be among those that commit suicide unwittingly.
If you believe that ingesting these things is good for you, then that too is wonderful. Darwinism also includes weeding out the stupid, and I won't miss you. There will be more room on the planet for the intelligent, the kind of people I like to hang out with.
Insecticides that are sprayed on fruits and vegetables can be washed off, but the insecticides produced by the fruit or vegetable itself are an intrinsic part of the genetic makeup of the plant. The outer layers will wash off as seen in this article, but not the deeper insecticide material. Have fun eating it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100928111128.htm
http://www.biotecharticles.com/Genetics-Article/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Genetically-Modified-Food-99.html
Where did snakes come from?
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.12.19, 23:19:53
Where did snakes come from?
Snakes came from other snakes, and its "turtles all the way down"!
Let's see now who do I want to believe? Some of the lightbulbs with opinions on this forum or an ex intercepter pilot Lt. Colonel Bob Bowman, with many combat missions that served in Vietnam?
Wow,! that's a tough one, I'll have to think about that LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RehnN8AyAAM&feature=player_embedded#!
Just some final thoughts on the whole food debate. Certainly if the production of organic food continues to increase over time, then more power to the producers and consumers of organic food. That's the free market doing what it's supposed to do. The larger the industry gets the more chances of a potential down side coming out and being exposed will be. I am referring to the typical things that happen all the time, like warnings about salmonella bacteria, etc. The whole point being that "natural" and "organic" are not some kind of magic panacea that only has a good side.
I suppose what I take issue with is the rhetoric from some people that says that the food you eat every day that sustains you is "bad" for you and is "poisoning" you. I can't recall if anyone said that in this thread but you hear things like that all the time. If you say that you are pro-organic and have some concerns about mainstream food production that's one thing but if you tell someone that the food they eat is "poison" it's just ridiculous. By the same token saying that Aspartame is bad for you as an all-encompassing idea is just as ridiculous.
I can also go back to the apple analogy. If you looked at how an apple is broken down in your digestive system don't be surprised if some of the constituent compounds are poison.
From a bird's eye view, I figure that our bodies have evolved over millions of years into these quite resilient machines. Our bodies can take a little bit of "poison" it's not going to kill us. Perhaps 120 years ago nobody even thought anything about this kind of thing and people lived. Now we have diseases associated with having things too good, it's a no-win situation sometimes. You can eat dirt or insect legs and it's not going to kill you.
I think of my own personal experience. I have never in my life felt a "sugar rush" or a "sugar high" in the way the term is used in the popular media and culture. I eat a chocolate bar and I feel exactly the same. Some people might try to council me on how much fluid I should take in each day. For me that's laughable, we have been around for tens of thousands if not millions of years and it has never been an issue. I drink water if I am thirsty and that's it!
As far as GMOs go I believe in the "system" even though it may be imperfect. I believe that they have looked at GMO foods and looked at the proteins and all the other stuff that the given foodstuff consists of and found no poisons. They did extensive clinical trials, and eventually got various GMO products approved. There are some negative impacts as have already been stated. But at the end of the day I feel that the balance sheet totals up in favour of GMO foodstuffs.
For me personally, I don't worry too much about what I am eating, I am kind of a dog when it comes to food. I try to eat sensibly within reason but I don't worry about which food has more anti-oxidants than another, etc. Just me.
MileHigh
I am somewhat in agreement with MH on the issue of food.
I also don't worry too much about what I eat, as the human body is amazing in it's ability to break down and process identifiable organic compounds. It has had millions of years to perfect the process and all of it's experiments, what worked, what failed is stored on it's hard drive, the DNA.
What I do worry a bit about is the newer compounds we are ingesting that have heretofore not been identified by our cell receptors. These question the DNA via carriers internal to the cell and basically are asking "how do we deal with this"?
The DNA will respond with trials that may result in various cancers or other diseases. The failed test result may mean the end of the organism, but where there is a success, the info is stored on the DNA hard drive for future use and passed on.
I don't want to be part of this type of experimentation, forcing our body to deal with some rather strange compounds introduced in the last hundred years or so, and especially as a lab rat for the food industry.
I do agree that we are all evolving and part of an ongoing bigger experiment anyway, I just don't want to be a part of the formerly defined trial and error process.
We do have a choice.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.19, 23:15:26
Do you know which "level" of spookery
you hold in high regard? Real "spooks"
aren't easy to detect unless they're
careless low level talkatives.
ION,
You are correct. It isn't nice and a completely useless post as it can never be proven to anyone but a few.
I'll just change that to - I know what a spook is and isn't and have high regard for all of the real ones, regardless of which side they worked. Nothing I say here would be considered talkative (at any level) by them.
And--
ALL of the web sites I've visited supporting 911-truther claims need serious work before they will justify another real investigation.
I'm just sick of all the conspiracy talk that degrades the sacrifices made willingly and unwillingly, witless .... stopping there >:(
From WW:
QuoteIf you had a clue of how far out real life was and surely is now you would stop wasting time with the crap information I've seen on nearly all 911-truther web sites.
Now that's not nice. Telling us you have such insider information but not sharing it , and telling us we won't find it on the web.
That's crumb dropping to the max. Superior posturing. Why bother to post what you have posted?
Quote from: WaveWatcher
...
ALL of the web sites I've visited supporting 911-truther claims need serious work before they will justify another real investigation.
I'm just sick of all the conspiracy talk that degrades the sacrifices made willingly and unwillingly, witless .... stopping there >:(
You've satisfactorily identified your level
of access. As well as your mission.
Many thanks.
It should be pointed out that MileHigh and
eatenbyagrue have identified themselves
and their mission satisfactorily also.
ID is understood. [LLSA-MO]
Lowest level.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.12.20, 03:58:24
You've satisfactorily identified your level
of access. As well as your mission.
Many thanks.
It should be pointed out that MileHigh and
eatenbyagrue have identified themselves
and their mission satisfactorily also.
ID is understood. [LLSA-MO]
Lowest level.
Hmmm.... That would place me somewhere in what level? Normal?
Somehow I doubt MileHigh will appreciate me being classified near his level ;D
My instructions self-destructed before I listened to the tape and now my clothes stink with the smell of burnt plastic. I also swallowed my microdot because I thought it was acid. My shoe-phone rang just as I stepped in a turd. I suck at this job!
My alter ego:
(http://wesclark.com/am/matt_mason.jpg)
I feel your pain. The shoe-phone on the turd is a real drag.
Wait a minute!
Your commander issued you a space sled? What did you do to deserve that?
Guys, this should be a very serious topic, thousands lost their lives that day and many more after. Whoever pulled that off, is nothing short of diabolical. I'm wondering why al'qaeda members did't try to claim it as their operation? Such a big event and no bragging? Osama bin Laden has said in an interview shortly after 9 11 that he did not order the attacks, was he afraid to claim it? Do you realize this whole thing is the intelligence community telling us things we can't verify easily? How can you go to war without first doing your due diligence? I firmly believe 9 11 was an inside job to galvanize the nation to go to war to further their interests. These people I'm convinced are not loyal to any one nation, else they could not kill so many people in good conscience, perhaps they have rationalized that it takes a sacrifice to active the "greater" good, what ever that is, regime change, world peace, new world order, you name it. Devil possest people are quite real, and believe it or not there's poor deceived souls out there that make pacts with the Devil in exchange for fame money and power, and the scary thing is, these folks look normal and smile, and you have no clue of the decisions they've made. Read Roger Morneos books, a total eye opener! He was a poor jobless soldier returning home after WWII to Toranto, Canada, and was invited to a meeting with all these powerful and famous people, little did he know what he was getting into. Read his story how God saved this guy from the jaws of the "lion". I read the book in one sitting, that's how captivating it was.
It appears we are living in the "end of time", now where did I put that Bible ?
Merry Xmas
EM
Quote from: EMdevices
...
These people I'm convinced are not loyal to any one nation, else they could not kill so many people in good conscience, perhaps they have rationalized that it takes a sacrifice to active the "greater" good, what ever that is, regime change, world peace, new world order, you name it.
...
It appears we are living in the "end of time", now where did I put that Bible ?
Merry Xmas
EM
Those at the top (capstone) of the pyramid
are very loyal to their brotherhood and to their
families, excepting those who violate the "trust."
What normal people experience as "conscience"
or "remorse" or "empathy" are impediments to their
ambitions; their mindset is much more akin to that
of a psychopath. The death and destruction of others
(cattle) causes them no discomfort.
Not the "end of time" but the end of the present age
or end of the several millennia old worldly system of
nefarious controls and deceptions. What is to follow
promises to be very, very good.
The above mentioned are very much aware of what
is coming and that they have only limited time to achieve
their goals. The near future is going to be very strange.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.12.20, 06:44:51
Guys, this should be a very serious topic, thousands lost their lives that day and many more after. Whoever pulled that off, is nothing short of diabolical. I'm wondering why al'qaeda members did't try to claim it as their operation? Such a big event and no bragging? Osama bin Laden has said in an interview shortly after 9 11 that he did not order the attacks, was he afraid to claim it?
This is simply not true. In a videotaped message, broadcast on the Arabic news network Al Jazera on or about Nov. 1, 2004, Osama Bin Laden takes credit on behalf of Al Queda for the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html)
Long read but the 911 link is there realizing that the 911 events was only a blotch in the string of history.
Part 1
http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny
Part 2
http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1022-lawsuit-end-tyranny-ii
wattsup
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.12.20, 10:52:44
This is simply not true. In a videotaped message, broadcast on the Arabic news network Al Jazera on or about Nov. 1, 2004, Osama Bin Laden takes credit on behalf of Al Queda for the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html)
eatenbyagrue,
This has become like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is there is no end to the fish. The WWW is too big and the number of witless contributors at least one magnitude greater.
Sometimes a massive and world destroying conspiracy theory is just needed to get through the day.
I have other demands upon my time. Don't you?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.12.20, 14:02:29
eatenbyagrue,
This has become like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem is there is no end to the fish. The WWW is too big and the number of witless contributors at least one magnitude greater.
Sometimes a massive and world destroying conspiracy theory is just needed to get through the day.
I have other demands upon my time. Don't you?
You are right, it's just so easy to get drawn in.
Insights into the process:
In Depth Analysis (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=39873)
Truth ultimately rises to the surface:
Interesting Scientific Conclusion (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=39896)
Yes, it was foretold that in these times
many would be so immersed in the pursuit
of their pleasures that they would be disinterested
in observing the "signs of the time."
While they may believe that they are escaping
what seems an unbearable realization with their
"higher priorities" in the end they too will come
to "see" what they've painstakingly tried to avoid.
There is no escape from what is soon to come.
The whole truth will be made known to all.
There will be much unhappiness.
You all exist in your place and time because of the everflowing verdant motion lotion of corrupt finance rubbed on your favorite parts of enlightenment. Without the chaos you play into the Federal Reserve and the IMF would not exist. But we would have a different set of problems.
Orwell called it SOMA. Herbert called it Spice. What do you attach to yourselves that make you better than the next person? That would put you in a place of self anesthetized greater value?
In the statement 'One nation under God' is it a Label, command or a falsehood? We already have the mark and it is capitalism. Everybody speaks the same tongue under this rule. Kill or be killed. Those in power have amassed legions of doped up minions that scurry to and fro of addiction in the [Amassing] game. He who dies with the most toys wins. The very steps taken to aquire something that your brother has not of has already plagued those of lesser ability in the lowest levels of primal gathering.
Utter feebleness behind the mask of terror.
Killer of Giants,
Apparently you too have had
"experiences" within the innards
of The Beast.
You've said it well.
Those who aren't yet able to
"get it" soon will...
@Dumped,
In 2006 I was a daytrader to the tune of moving 12 million dollars, of my own money, in 9 months. I saw way deep, in fact too deep.
I was not fitting to be clad in the asshole suit. When I finally asked the question [Why is this so easy?] I realized what I was dealing with. I had become a global pirate. I raped and pillaged every fund, telecomm, IT company I could get my hands on. It was easy. The beast finally put up firewalls to kill the daytraders. I escaped with the 40k I started with and far more knowledgable about the face behind corruption.
The fortune cookie reads: Where you find death you find corruption. Where you find corruption you find war. Where you find war you find money. And where you find money you find Evil. Enjoy your cookie. Save the fortune. It comes true every moment.
I await a retorte from the bleachers.
Round two isn't so pleasant either.
The peasants have no clue....
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.12.20, 13:23:10
Long read but the 911 link is there realizing that the 911 events was only a blotch in the string of history.
Part 1
http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny
Part 2
http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1022-lawsuit-end-tyranny-ii
wattsup
Aye, excellent links indeed!
Sadly, those who might most benefit from
understanding these things will not get past
the first screen page...
The modern "media-cultivated" attention span
won't permit such "boring" substance to enter
the cranium.
Ah well, those who can make a difference will
study it carefully and will verify with patience.
Many thanks!
42Embedding disabled! It's a conspiracy...
The video "report" is cleverly done
but, as is always the case with dis-
info productions, the "wrong" people
were presented.
The Denver Airport Operation is indeed
separated from and lacks knowledge of
any other operations which may be
located in adjacent areas.
Those who have knowledge would not
be in a position to acknowledge or
otherwise disclose any classified facilities.
In time the truth regarding this and all other
deceptions will rise to the surface into the
light of day.
Patience. Even the unbelievers will be made
to understand...
I see the DIA murials all the time. Its not about pornography. They are about death.
Further Insights (http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/01/british-intelligence-reports/#)
into the planning and execution
of the 9/11 Operation.
With the passage of time more and more
pieces of the puzzle will emerge into
daylight:
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=629680?rss
Numerous people were involved in the
planning and execution of 9/11. Few knew
of the complexity of the plan or of the
purpose of the plan. Slowly and gradually
all of the plan will be exposed.
It is important to seriously consider "who has
benefited most from 9/11 and its outcome?"
Good one Dumped O0
Also, for any interested in GMO and Aspartame, here are 3 documentaries to watch
The future of food
Sweet misery A poisoned world
The world according to Monsanto
And a very good read, Seeds of Destruction
All can be found via torrent, Emule etc.
Mags
@Dumped
QuoteNumerous people were involved in the
planning and execution of 9/11. Few knew
of the complexity of the plan or of the
purpose of the plan. Slowly and gradually
all of the plan will be exposed.
You know there is another 9/11 theory which few want to consider however it is easy to understand. The events of 9/11 happened because of complete incompetence by those in charge and a complete failure of the lines of communication and security. The problem is that on the surface everything usually seems fine and there is a certain amount of trust that those in charge have things under control, that is until something unexpected happens. Like the nuclear meltdown in Japan, everything was fine and most were confident that they could handle any situation however this is delusional because mother nature does not play by our rules we must follow her. This is why we continually see some half-wit experts telling us nothing can ever happen yet apparently it always does which does not give them a great deal of credibility in my opinion.
In any case if we follow the chain of events from the start the only word which comes to mind for me is Fubar.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.01.01, 05:04:37
@Dumped
You know there is another 9/11 theory which few want to consider however it is easy to understand. The events of 9/11 happened because of complete incompetence by those in charge and a complete failure of the lines of communication and security. The problem is that on the surface everything usually seems fine and there is a certain amount of trust that those in charge have things under control, that is until something unexpected happens. Like the nuclear meltdown in Japan, everything was fine and most were confident that they could handle any situation however this is delusional because mother nature does not play by our rules we must follow her. This is why we continually see some half-wit experts telling us nothing can ever happen yet apparently it always does which does not give them a great deal of credibility in my opinion.
In any case if we follow the chain of events from the start the only word which comes to mind for me is Fubar.
Regards
AC
They are so caught up in the lies they cannot see the truth and they believe the lies are the truth!
Islam never ever takes responsibility for it's deadly actions, they are the perennial victims and it is always because of something we (Infidels) did or said that caused them to go berserk and murder many people. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that their god has ordered them to take over the entire world for Islam and authorizes them and blesses them for killing any Kufar or Infidels that stand in their way to do so. It is always our fault no matter how much they have to lie to prove it! Most of the conspiracy theories about the WTC were started and are propagated by Islam and what they like to call Useful Idiots, people that buy their lies and help them out with keeping the deception going. Kufar like 'dumped', aid and abet their agenda without knowing what they are doing (unless they are actually Islamic, working taqquia or dawa). Until people that have bought the big lies from Islam, actually find out what their agenda really is, they cannot see the whole picture of what is happening on Earth! At any rate people like 'dumped' are either unknowingly working for Islam as useful idiots or are actually Islamic plants here to keep the rest of us in the dark about Islam. So in either case AC you will probably never get through to him.
From AC:
QuoteYou know there is another 9/11 theory which few want to consider however it is easy to understand. The events of 9/11 happened because of complete incompetence by those in charge and a complete failure of the lines of communication and security.
As far back as the Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, the "failure of competence and communication" card has been played over and over.
What better cover? If the government agencies are pointing to their own incompetence, you can't argue with that and the idea is firmly planted in the minds of the masses to throw you off the trail.
As long as you believe that the highest levels of government, CIA etc are incompetent, you will buy the "typical government bungling" scenario. Just because you see such actions at the lowest paid drudge jobs of government does not mean it applies to the highest paid very professional levels.
It is very safe for them to keep your mind in that box.
There are numerous things the government agencies have not bungled, and we would be wise to remember them.
e.g. the Manhattan Project.
Some may blow this off, but, anything is possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXeqWx60yy4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2f8aaf1RVAAAAAAAADQ
Kennedy tried to expose them, then was killed. watch vid
Bush used the same scare tactics(911) and quote from Hitler watch vid
If Ron Paul, Big IF, wins, he will be another Kennedy.
Thats just the way the illuminati ball bounces.
Mags
@Ion
QuoteAs far back as the Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, the "failure of competence and communication" card has been played over and over.
What better cover? If the government agencies are pointing to their own incompetence, you can't argue with that and the idea is firmly planted in the minds of the masses to throw you off the trail.
I have worked in numerous government agencies as an engineer and can assure you it is no cover story, the level of incompetence is very real.
QuoteAs long as you believe that the highest levels of government, CIA etc are incompetent, you will buy the "typical government bungling" scenario. Just because you see such actions at the lowest paid drudge jobs of government does not mean it applies to the highest paid very professional levels.
Let's throw a little logic at this statement, do the highest paid professionals have the facts?, No they always rely on others to interpret the facts for them. In the real world the lower levels gather pieces of the facts together then the managers interpret them then the higher levels receive opinion's based on these interpretations, I know this and have seen it in action--- It's Fubar. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that making decisions based on outdated second or third hand information is not an intelligent thing to do and the information is only as good as the person who gave it to them.
Regards
AC
Goodbye USA, here comes USC......
http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/01/the-cfrs-updated-constitution/
Mags
Quote from: allcanadian
I have worked in numerous government agencies as an engineer and can assure you it is no cover story, the level of incompetence is very real.
...
Then the "managed incompetence" has served
its purpose - it has fooled you.
Does anyone find it odd that "government" in the
U.S.A. has become synonymous with "lying" and
"incompetence?"
We've seen it for so long that most have come to
accept it as an inevitability. Those who've created
this less than ideal "reality" are exceedingly clever.
They also possess massive resources.
Money is always available for war or any other
activity which advances the AGENDA.
The People are being bamboozled.
And this:
Quote from: Magluvin on 2012.01.01, 18:46:54
Some may blow this off, but, anything is possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXeqWx60yy4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2f8aaf1RVAAAAAAAADQ
Kennedy tried to expose them, then was killed. watch vid
Bush used the same scare tactics(911) and quote from Hitler watch vid
If Ron Paul, Big IF, wins, he will be another Kennedy.
Thats just the way the illuminati ball bounces.
Mags
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
GL.
@all
Here is the next pages of the Divine Cosmos Articles
http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny
And here is a good read as well going back to 1869.
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1869Freemasonry/freem_preface.htm
@GK
Just to let you know that I am reading your posts with great attention.
wattsup
9/11 in plain view. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He_4IGDNZU4&feature=player_embedded)
Not everyone has been fooled.
Maybe not. But try to make a stand.
On [any street] movement could be a covert ply to circumvent the whole system without becoming a military threat.
Or the movement could be a covert gov operation to stress the boundaries and solidify a Marxist regime with socialist agenda. Ya know, kinda like Mussolini tried.
QuoteMussolini was among the founders of Italian Fascism, which included elements of nationalism, corporatism, national syndicalism, expansionism, social progress, and anti-socialism in combination with censorship of subversives and state propaganda. In the years following his creation of the Fascist ideology, Mussolini influenced, or achieved admiration from, a wide variety of political figures.
History: the process of schedules repeating themselves, ad infinitum.
proof that was nuclear demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8YaFGSPErKU
It's all connected.
The reason 9/11 was made to happen is
but another "step" in the advancement of
the AGENDA.
This is another step. (http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol10/chem/chemtrailinsider.shtml)
Thinking back on the discussions, not only of 911, here in this thread, Im presenting 2 video2 that I would like to see what some of you might say about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRjF3-WGVA&list=FLjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video
This next one is an audio commentary on the video from theintelhub.com along side of the audio from the vid above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7A0vWa_YPcU
Mags
Just goes to prove once again that there are always two laws; one which we all must follow, and one which gives full license to the folks that really run the country.
Look what just happened in Russia.
The world's a friggin' mess.
Are you guys all agents of Islam or something? Don't try to cover up the facts. We all know Allah did it.
Hey Poynt
I agree. The whole ball of wax is melting.
I thought there might be more comments by now, but...
But this kind of thing should be shocking. Well, it should be. But a lot of people Im finding seem to be , "yep, thats how things are today" Well, thats why it gets to this point. Its like a lot of people just give up and just accept the way things are. Not everybody, but many. And of those many, most say, well, we cant do anything about it. Not true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuu7ma4B8wY
Everyone can do something.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HSTb1PyZpo Ron Paul What If speech Gotta love this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMnov4Ae8 Ron Paul commercial(banned) But so possibly true
Ron Paul 2012 The Champion Of The Constitution ;]
Mags
Aye, the World is a friggin' mess and it is
destined to get even more sinister.
Visible (Dog Poet) says it well... (http://zippittydodah.blogspot.com/2012/03/great-schmoo-army-of-mindless-zombie.html)
Ya, you all want to complain about how bad the world is but you really don't want to know the truth.
Whatever you do, do not look at any of the ideology that is driving all the madness around us, all cultures are equal right, might as well give up our own culture as it is only as good as all the rest. There all just as good!! Right
So remember whatever you do be sure it is politically correct and extent your hand in welcome to all cultures no matter what they are really like. Don't study or even look at their way of life. Just assume it is as good or better then your way of life, because all cultures are equal are they not?
How a group of people this smart can be so dumb is way beyond me. :D
To know what is happening and stop the bitching start finding out about Islam, its Idealogy, and Culture. Then come back and tell me whats going on!
Room, what the heck are you talking about?
Mags
Quote from: Room3327
...
To know what is happening and stop the bitching start finding out about Islam, its Idealogy, and Culture. Then come back and tell me whats going on!
Isn't it odd that "Islam" bears an uncanny
resemblance to the Kaballah?
And, it would seem, the Talmud (Babylonian?)
What truly is the source of "Islam?"
Perhaps the same source as modern
"Christianity?"
In any case, all that is presently happening
was long ago foretold...
Dumped,
It isn't odd at all, and if you knew anything about Islam you wouldn't have any of these questions.
Mohammed purchased scripture from the jews to use in his new religion, thats where the resemblance comes from, of course he claims that his revelations came from an angel (Gabriel) to him strait from God. He made such a mess of them relaying them to his people that the Jews couldn't contain themselves and laughed at him. As you know he could not take any ridicule and did what he always did, turn to violence. He made the Jews his and Islams biggest enemy and ordered their slaughter everywhere on earth until no Jews exist anywhere. Sound like a sane man to you?
The source of Islam is Mohammed himself thru Gabriel direct from God. According to Islam.
Yes Christianity has the same roots but that is as far as it goes, if you knew anything about Islam you would know there is very little similarity between them. But then you would have to know something about Islam.
And long ago what did they warn you about, false profets, the beast, false dogma, etc. should I continue?
Anyone who has been raised in the
"Brooklyn Community" is very much
aware! It's a crazy place in many
respects - very heavy into indoctrination
and control...
Quote from: Room3327
...
... As you know he could not take any ridicule and did what he always did, turn to violence. He made the Jews his and Islams biggest enemy and ordered their slaughter everywhere on earth until no Jews exist anywhere. Sound like a sane man to you?
...
Do you appreciate how "Jewish" the above
sounds? Turn it around.
Are you familiar with the essence of the Kaballah
and/or the Talmud?
New York City (Manhattan in particular) has a
very special meaning to the power brokers - it
was essential that 9/11 occur there. It was in
the plans for many years prior to the actual event.
Dumped,
I don't care one iota how Jewish it sounds, If you weren't such a fool you wouldn't care either!
The lies and atrocities that have been committed for 1400 years on the Jewish people by Islam has no equal anywhere or at any time in history.
Islam has lied about the Jews for so long that they believe their own lies and are the most paranoid people on earth. Islam is one big LIE but people like you will never realize it because you've bought into their lies and deception, you think it is actually a religion. A religion with there top 'holy' man being a murderer, liar, thief, rapist and a pedophile. Please show me something about Islam that is actually "HOLY", show me some LOVE in Islam, you can't. Islam is a complete way of life, it is as much political as it is religious, it's a complete package that is absolutely at odds with Democracy but again you would have to know something about Islam to know that.
The restraint shown by Israel to refrain from completely destroying Islam, who are commanded by the Koran to hate and kill Jews forever is nothing short of a Godly feat, but you would never know that because you know absolutely nothing about Islam. (Unless of course, if you are a Muslim and trying to decieve me)
As a Christian I would like to say: God Bless the Jews, and thank you for being a GOOD Religion and the front lines of defense for the rest of us while we sleep in ignorance.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2012.03.11, 16:31:36
Dumped,
I don't care one iota how Jewish it sounds, If you weren't such a fool you wouldn't care either!
I think your words are wasted. Anti-semites like Dumped will never change their minds. They just read jewwatch.com all day and rant against the global jewish cabal that controls everything.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2012.03.11, 16:54:32
I think your words are wasted. Anti-semites like Dumped will never change their minds. They just read jewwatch.com all day and rant against the global jewish cabal that controls everything.
The global Jewish cabal? LOL It sure looks to me like it is the global Islamic cabal that is controlling everything. Who is spreading out, and who is still where they have always been, who is the driving factor in most of the earths 'problems', who runs and controls the UN, who is trying to stop free speech, who limits human rights, I could go on but I think most of us can can come up with many more examples of who the true culprits are.
Sadly you are right.
Quite often, thanks to our "programming,"
we look at something and believe that we
see it; but alas, we do not.
Islam, just as modern Christianity, is a
"creation" of those who need it to further
their agenda.
Fortunately, many American Jews are beginning
to realize that Israel acts like a rogue nation.
Why should we support Israel, financially as
well as idealistically, when it is clearly the
source of trouble in the Middle East?
Why is Israel so busy with making enemies?
You are right about the true message of
Messiah, but it is being grossly twisted by the
religious organizations for the benefit of those
who control them.
It was all foretold. The "money changers" have
gotten what they wanted.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
I think your words are wasted. Anti-semites like Dumped will never change their minds. They just read jewwatch.com all day and rant against the global jewish cabal that controls everything.
Freudian slip?
Isn't it an amazing fact that very, very
many American Jews would be classified
as "Anti-Semite" by ADL and others who
make use of the term as a "weapon?"
Will wonders never cease?
Is it a miracle that increasing numbers of
American Jews are becoming more and more
disenchanted with the Zionist Machine?
Our eyes are being opened!!
That too was foretold...
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.03.11, 20:54:27
Quite often, thanks to our "programming,"
we look at something and believe that we
see it; but alas, we do not.
Islam, just as modern Christianity, is a
"creation" of those who need it to further
their agenda.
Fortunately, many American Jews are beginning
to realize that Israel acts like a rogue nation.
Why should we support Israel, financially as
well as idealistically, when it is clearly the
source of trouble in the Middle East?
Why is Israel so busy with making enemies?
You are right about the true message of
Messiah, but it is being grossly twisted by the
religious organizations for the benefit of those
who control them.
It was all foretold. The "money changers" have
gotten what they wanted.
At this point I don't think Dumped is a real person, most likely a computer program, no one can be that thick sculled.
All of the above quote is BS no reason to even answer it. Or Dumped is a muslim.
Israel is the one with it's hand out in peace, but Islam will never allow it to exist. Anyone who thinks Israel is the problem in the middle east has the brain of a fly and once again, knows absolutely nothing about Islam.
Quote from: Room3327
...
Israel is the one with it's hand out in peace, but Islam will never allow it to exist.
...
Aye, that is indeed how it is hoped that
the peoples of the world will look at it;
but it is all a cunningly conceived and
executed illusion.
Israel has been brought into existence
to be just what it has become. Its true
purpose regarding the New Order to be
implemented worldwide will become ever
more obvious in the coming months.
There will be war. Israel needs war.
It is all part of the plan.
In time all will "see" and will understand.
Ah but the bottom line, aside from all the trifle badgering, is Revelation tells of the trouble there will be in the end times. And behold we are there.
Doesn't matter who is right or wrong. The pattern is playing out regardless of how you think.
Let me put it another way:
The Israelites are God's chosen people. Chaosen for what? Like the slip?
Forget your filters and blinders and look through the glass ever so darkly. Peer deep beyond what you think is real as see the reality of the unfolding.
If you are not Islam or Israelite then don't try to join the fight. It is far too old for us to comprehend the vigil.
Quote from: giantkiller
...
The Israelites are God's chosen people. Chaosen for what? Like the slip?
...
When one examines candidly the whole and
complete history of the Israelites it becomes
apparent. The pattern is undeniable.
Even what may seem to be the most incorrigible
of "stiff necked" of scoundrels can eventually be
turned around. But first they must "hit bottom."
We are all together in this same boat.
What works the best is to not take sides, take a step back instead. This enables exclusion of the emotions which when involved always leads to taking sides. The bigger picture is always the grander lesson.
I'd rather watch the battle than take a bullet. 8)
The hardest thing, in my opinion, is love your enemy.
Evil only obeys ignorance.
Ignorance only obeys men.
Love your enemy.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.03.12, 19:16:39
What works the best is to not take sides, take a step back instead. This enables exclusion of the emotions which when involved always leads to taking sides. The bigger picture is always the grander lesson.
I'd rather watch the battle than take a bullet. 8)
I agree. The puppets can chatter all they want. The important guy is the one holding the strings. Get him and the show is over. Get the puppet and a new one will just take its place. But you can only see the string puller if you are standing behind the scenes. Good one.
wattsup
Aye, the Puppet Masters and their numerous
Propaganda Machines (Media) strive very hard
to assure that the masses "take sides."
It's a form of hypnotic mind control that is
easily capable of arousing emotions as it
deceptively develops an allegience towards
whatever cause appeals to us.
The thought of "breaking free" does not occur
to the vast majority.
The only "side" which is worth taking in reality
is that of Truth; but it must be done cautiously
and with humbleness. In order to avoid becoming
a "Terrorist Target" one must be as meek as the
dove yet as crafty as the serpent.
One may wield the Spotlight of Truth from a standpoint
of political neutrality - after all we are all members of
the same family no matter where we are physically
positioned on planet Earth.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz
The hardest thing, in my opinion, is love your enemy.
Evil only obeys ignorance.
Ignorance only obeys men.
Love your enemy.
Aye, it is hard to love those who do bad.
It is also hard to comprehend what Love truly
is and how it acts.
Our enemies are also greatly deceived and
have no conscious control over what they do
so long as they operate in their "programmed"
mode - blindly following the "orders" of their
Masters.
Things look very ugly in the World at present
and they will certainly get even ugllier. But,
the story will have a happy ending.
In time, All will be made Whole.
Perspective. (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1515/252/On_9_11_A_Small_Pool_Of_Kerosene_Did_What.html)
WhoDunit. (http://www.rense.com/general95/samp.html)
Here's a rough outline of how I think it could have went down on the day.
The hijackers were enabled to take over the planes and kill the pilots by,
the "you know who group", referred to from now on as TPTB.
To ensure success the planes were droned (remote control fitted) re-badged replica's of the real people carriers.
The hijacker terrorists could fly the planes but could be over-ridden to ensure accuracy and no second thoughts.
The buildings were already fitted with explosives and super thermite destruction devices.
The hijackers take over the planes, the planes are remote controlled at the lasts moments or from when need be
to hit the targets. The plane that crashed in the field was probably a back up which was superfluous or the remote control
or it's operator had problems.
After the planes hit the targets the demolitions of the towers and building 7 are allowed to take their own course
owing to the pre-planned and placed beam melting super thermite devices or they are helped by the demolition
charges if necessary as in building 7, there is also the possibility that the plane that crashed in the field was meant
to hit building 7 and that is why building 7 was rigged and had to be taken down to hide the placed charges.
The pentagon was for authenticity, as if to say "we didn't do it we got hit too".
The question I cannot get around is . How did the hijackers know there was going to be a big military exercise
happening that day to add to the confusion ? That fact alone tells me they were "enabled".
Could that really be a coincidence.
Cheers
P.S. I'm a metal fabricator by trade, and while I'm not an engineer I have manufactured structural steel members for
the construction of steel framed buildings, I have a fair idea what it would take to build a building like that and I will
know to my last breath that WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not collapse in their own footprints because they got hit by a
couple of planes. And building #7 definitely didn't self destruct without even being hit by a plane.
And I know that even if a 747 were to crash into a solid cliff face just above the ground at full speed
there would still be enough wreckage to identify it as a people carrier.
..
Quote from: FarmHand...that is why building 7 was rigged and had to be
taken down to hide the placed charges.
Aye.
Quote from: FarmHandThe pentagon was for authenticity, as if to say "we
didn't do it we got hit too".
Aye, that too. Strangely, the area of the Pentagon
which was destroyed just happened to be in the
midst of an investigation into the "Lost Billions"
corruption. All those folks there who were beginning
to see what was really going on conveniently get
blown away, permanently silenced.
You've demonstrated well FarmHand how someone
with experience and knowledge is able to see through
the deceptive charade.
Here's Dr Judy Wood's website, i came across this by accident, opens your eyes a bit when you realize the size of those towers and yet there was little to no rubble.
Very interesting video interview on the page
http://www.drjudywood.com/
Interesting that in this video 11:47 for about 10 seconds after the impact of the second plane a shinny object can be seen flying away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk&feature=related
Yeah Peterae, I've seen that object from a different angle or better footage similar angle in the video below
you can see it come in from the left at about 23 seconds, it goes almost past the towers then goes up into the smoke for
about two minutes before the second plane hits, then just after the second plane hits the building the object moves
out of the smoke plume and heads off to the right, it is very suspicious looking, but is it a real object ? If it is then it is
very strange, i would guess it to be a spotter drone helicopter or some kind of device like that, a real helicopter maybe
trying to rescue people ? Hard to tell I don't think a real helicopter would have attempted to land inside the smoke plume
and end up leaving the way this object did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsUAA1mMBQ
Any thoughts on this object ? In my opinion it doesn't move like a regular helicopter.
Cheers
Although Dr Judy Wood raises some interesting points, having just watched a video compilation of demolished building, there does appear to be loads of smoke, there maybe a much more down to earth reason why the towers disintegrated into dust and that could have been server corrosion of the internal beams, she said she could not understand how easily the alu plane went through the outer sheaf of steel, what if it was so oxidized and weakened it was only luck that was holding it together in the first place, she also mentions that most other building have been rebuilt even ones that were not hit, again suffering from the same server rusting maybe, and then she goes on to say the new building are super insulated and strengthen at their bases, this could to stop server rusting.
Whats with the car engines missing, we had snow here for the first time in a long time 2 years ago, it shut off the road to the remote village i work in, there was a very steep hill that goes down and then up, cars got jammed at the bottom and could not get out so were abandoned, 2 engines went missing then as well.
Did not look like a helicopter in the video i watched, i thought all air traffic was grounded at the time?
WOW look at 44 seconds into the video I linked and you can see another object just to the left of the rear tower
inside the smoke plume. This one clearly looks like a flying saucer and it moves and it's not on the camera lens.
Could this video be doctored ? That is really strange. I will need to watch this video really closely to see if I can see anything else.
You can see it from 44 seconds to 48 seconds, it seems to leave a disturbance trail in the smoke plume.
WOW. :o
Yeah I agree the whole thing was so far out and shocking, a lot of strange stuff happened.
I wouldn't rule out DE stuff or some kind of Exotic device being used. I watched another eyewitness video
last night and the person video taping the event says clearly that the second plane was a military plane.
And the video goes funny at the moment of the impact so it was definitely cut or altered,
probably by the authorities when the video was given to them for evidence. The most important parts are missing.
There is something that flys off to the right in this video too just after the second impact. The objects seem to be in multiple video's.
Something funny happens to the video just as the first collapse begins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIiC7u266Hk&feature=related
..
OK I've looked more closely, there is more, the video seems to have been altered even though it appears to be continuous.
The first strange object that moves from left to right seems to disappear at the top of the right tower,
but it reappears just below the lighthouse to the center right of the screen. Then when it goes off screen to
the right, the second one appears in the smoke plume moving left to right.
The second plane enters the frame about 2:14 in a dive, then disappears by 2:17.
Then the impact then a bit later the white thing fly's off again this time from the area behind the spire of the closest tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsUAA1mMBQ
These objects should have been identified before, I wonder if there is any analysis
of all the video taped aircraft in the area on that day. Does anyone know of a video analysis like that ?
I'll see what I can find.
Judy's web site is an incredible resource for
those who are wondering what really happened
and are searching for answers.
One must use their own powers of discernment
since it is possible that some of the "information"
is disinformation - those who are responsible for
the deed are yet engaged in cover-up and massive
distraction efforts.
But, what is clear is that the event of 9/11 was very
carefully and methodically planned long in advance;
many precautions were in place to assure that it did
occur in a fashion faithfully following the script.
There were some surprises; the buildings didn't respond
to the initial attacks quite as they were planned, particularly
Building 7. And, a number of very strange things were caught
on video tape which reveal how high technology was used to
assure that things happened as they were planned in case
"help" was needed to overcome unexpected difficulties.
9/11 was a necessity to assure that we'd be brought to where
we are just now: America flexing its warmongering muscle
according to the script provided by THE CITY OF LONDON to
Wall Street/District of Columbia. Afghanistan and Iraq were
stepping stones in the "War on Terror" which enabled America
to set the stage for the coming War with Iran.
Actually, it will be much more than war with Iran. America knows
full well that it (The King of the South) is initiating actions which
will ultimately provoke the King of the North to take responsive
actions. America will cease to exist as we now know it - it will
be defeated and subjugated in the coming battle.
Then it will be more apparent to those who survive how Tel Aviv/
Jerusalem fit into the scheme of things.
America is presently controlled by external powers who have
infiltrated the Political System and effectively taken over. The
American Military is in the service of that Power. What is soon to
come is not because the American People want it to happen.
We're living in the foretold "End of the Age" when we'll see things
occur on Planet Earth unlike any which have previously occurred.
It's an exciting and crazy time to be sure, but it will be very
unpleasant and dangerous in the coming months/years.
Fortunately, in the end, the Good Guys do prevail. What will take
place then is... Well, just wait and see - it'll be unbelievable!
There is more, I found a fast mover at 3:04 to 3:06 going from right to left across the top of the closest tower.
It's moving very quick and is visible for only a second or few. It's very fast, white.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsUAA1mMBQ
It's best seen in full screen.
..
Certainly some of those videos have been tampered with, it's so hard to know whats true anymore :'(
If i was clever enough i would take all the videos that are available and time sync them all, it maybe the only way to see if bits are tampered/missing.
The first video i posted has certainly had the important bits cut out, why would they do that unless there was something funny going on, the women filming said in the video something like that was a military plane, but because it was not in view on the camera we only have her word for it. Grrr.
Well Dumped, if something bad does happen i do feel it will be too late for us to really do anything about it, i cannot afford to excavate a bunker under my lawn, Here in the UK unless you are part of the criminal world you just cannot get your hands on anything you could fight back with, most things are outlawed, they even banned Sodium Nitrate one of the best weedkillers you could ever get your hands on and it was cheap, now you have to pay £8.00 for a couple of saches of roundup which the weeds seem come back after a little while, i know years ago they tried adding fireretarding agents to stop it being used for bombs, last i heard that was not very effective, or maybe they banned it because roundup were loosing too much money.
The technology that is available to the elite is amazing, we as normal people would not stand a chance.
I was watching a documentary, there's a bomb that has a 100 sublet bombs, each one looks like a hockey puck, when released they spin, a laser locks onto a target and each hockey puck guides itself to a target and when a certain distance is reached a charge melts a block of copper, another charge then fires this molten copper at the armour of a tank or similar and it penetrates it taking the vehicle out, this can take up to 100 armoured tanks on a battle filed in the blink of an eye.
The only thing i keep thinking is these elite could not survive without the masses to do the work and build the devices that power their lives, it takes a lot of hard work to maintain just the technology they have and feed the troops, if time is shifted by depopulation then we would step back quiet a few 100 years where disease rules, these elite would be very susceptible to new diseases and any other natural disaster, just maintaining things like satellites and new launches would take quiet a work force that needs feeding.
Just an FYI Peter,
I think Roundup was banned in many countries (including Canada) because it is just NASTY harmful stuff.
http://www.safelawns.org/blog/index.php/2009/07/banned-in-canada-why-not-here/
Quote from: Peterae
...they even banned Sodium Nitrate one of the best weedkillers you
could ever get your hands on and it was cheap...
Aye, the substances removed from easy access
will no doubt increase as the New Order becomes
firmly entrenched. In truth, it is quite firmly in place
as we speak...
There are ways to make some of those materials
with electricity and a little bit of ingenuity. Weed Killer
is very easy to make in small quantities.
But, as you've pointed out, it is futile to even think of
mounting a massive resistance to what is coming.
The power they've amassed is phenomenal so there
is scant little that can be done to prevent the AGENDA.
It's just as well; evil tends to destroy itself given enough
time and latitude. Not only that, all of what is happening
now must play out to conclusion before the forces of
Good will enter the fray. The Bad Boys at the core will be
taken down just when they believe they've gotten all there
is to take...
Yes, they do need the "people" to provide their labor and
resources but, as they've said openly many times, they
don't need ALL of us. To them the people are like cattle
to be done with as they please. The thinning of the herd is
coming soon Worldwide...
I think we can look at what has been happening recently in the middle east as an indication of
the lengths TPTB will go to to achieve their goals, things like organizing a protest
then sniping people in both the protesting crowd and the security people (gov)
when they do that both sides think the other is shooting them so it starts a bloodbath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9-E6MpcAc&feature=related
I post this so that we can see what not to fall victim of in the future.
Almost any scenario we can think of, they can put into action. I don't see much of a limit to that.
The people on the ground in the area have no perspective to see it, the media spreads the lies that
are need to keep the violence and confusion going. Peoples heads are being blown apart by snipers rifles
so there is a lot of emotion at the time of the protests.
The people are all hearing who speaks the loudest (media) not who speaks the truth.
The sheer weight of numbers amongst the general populace of almost any country of people who
will believe anything they hear or see on the television news means any good plan will likely succeed.
The ones who can see through it are ignored or called kooks by the majority so TPTB have all those
people working for them for free as dutiful harassers, denouncers and even killers of the awake ones
who try to get people to think for themselves. A lot of people allow conclusions and beliefs to be implanted
into their consciousness without ever having thought them through themselves.
So what hope is there? How can a few thinkers who don't have a will or want to influence other peoples
thinking help millions of unthinking masses who want to be told what to think ?
Seems to me that TPTB will always have a great number gun jockeys to murder who ever they want
because if they have control of their minds they also have control of their bodies and their trigger fingers.
I don't see how it could play out any other way than the way it is playing out now.
Dumped you are spot on correct I think, it has to happen so it can be seen to happen and so it will not be forgotten easily.
The killing is horrendous, but TPTB are using one group to kill another they are not really telling them how to do it.
It's all very very sad to see.
We must study the destabilizing tactics so we know what to look out for.
Cheers
Quote from: FarmHand
...the lengths TPTB will go to to achieve their goals, things like
organizing a protest then sniping people in both the protesting
crowd and the security people (gov) when they do that both sides
think the other is shooting them so it starts a bloodbath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9-E6MpcAc&feature=related
I post this so that we can see what not to fall victim of in the future.
Almost any scenario we can think of, they can put into action. I don't
see much of a limit to that.
...
Indeed! World Events are intricately manipulated.
The MEDIAIn a Nutshell.What 9/11 Made Possible.The Mess.The Mess, Cont'd.The Forces for Good have the powers to
make it ALL good. All those who have died
everywhere will not have died in vain - it
is sad and it is ugly but it must all take place
before the restoration can begin.
Spankings can be very painful but are forgotten
completely when our lessons have been learned.
Article today, front-page Asia Times, re 9/11 insider trading on put options:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
Some more research re put options.
QuoteThe Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
how hard can it be to track this trade down :o
The wall street backup records were in the towers. After the transaction fired the distribution would have occured at the moment of detonation by a finger on the button. Tons of paper were shredded before by the ENRON's brokerage fiasco. Remember it was relatively close in time.
Where the residual accounts are is not trackable due to privacy act or [Who starts the audit?].
Some records point back to building Seven and that Texas confine , and Oklahoma.
Enron was part of the paper trail.
Just Enron's brokerage and look at the links. Its all tied together. J.P. Morgan. & Lehman brothers.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1217-04.htm
And the movie [Enron] and Jim Carey in [Dick and Jane].
And Kenneth Ley has a heart attack and misses sentencing...
You then enter into the money trail with all the doors closing behind you and each room is a little brighter before the darkness closes in.
You do not want to go down this path. Money stops all invaders.
And the true arrogance is [Who you gonna call and who can stop THEM?]
When this comes to light there will be another diversion and then martial law. The end is fast approaching.
Quote from: giantkiller
...
And the true arrogance is [Who you gonna call and who can stop THEM?]
When this comes to light there will be another diversion and then martial law.
The end is fast approaching.
Aye, they've built an incredibly complex system
to exercise their simple plan. They're now in
nearly total control of every aspect of their SYSTEM
and have no fear of being "taken down" by any agency
or government.
But, at the same time, they are well aware that they will
indeed be "taken down." They know they haven't much
time to finish their PLAN and what ultimately awaits them.
Only The Watchers are able to intervene at just the right
moment - and they will. The Forces of Good will accomplish
what the people are not able to. The Meek shall inherit the
Earth.
The coming war has been planned for a long, long time.
How it was accomplished from the beginning...
Insights. (http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/)
The Long Trail. (http://jenniferlake.wordpress.com/)
For further research. (http://johnkaminski.info/)
- - - - - - - - - -
Words of Wisdom from Eric Dollard:
Quote"Historically, the works of J.S. Bach suffered the same fate as the works of Nikola Tesla. Shortly after the death of J.S. Bach (1750) all his important work was thrown into the garbage, this regarded as obsolete junk. If it was not for Herr Forkel, who recovered Bach's work from the garbage and wrote the first book about Bach, all memory of Bach, and his work, would have been lost forever. Today, it is seen by some, that as with N. Tesla, the works of J.S. Bach is inimitable and profound. But it is of no value to modern society. The music of today has degenerated into the gutter sounds of "Hump N' Slap," and "Eubonic Barking Savages", then the Boom....Boom Boom........ Accordingly it is seen that the so called Science has followed a parallel path. This is known as "Quantum Mechanics", the science of delusions. This "Science" in reality is no more than one big "Khazarian Circle Jerk". And finally? Art! What an absolute joke. To criticize it is like slaying the slain. Today one can obtain a grant from the "Sheisenburg Foundation" to express one's "artistic talent" by smearing human fecal matter onto a large canvas. Upon calling it "God" it will be worth millions. This is society today, COMPLETELY DEGENERATE.
"So verily we are lost souls, hence the importance of reconstructing what has been lost to us. And it is to be noted that even Bach and Tesla themselves are only steps on a path, or as said by Heaviside "There is no finality." But who is going to support this effort, or who is even interested at all? Rest assured that no support will be provided by our Babylonian society. This endeavor is more like becoming a Christian in Ancient Rome, a dangerous undertaking. See the movie "Fahrenheit 451" for an excellent portrayal of what awaits."
73 DE N6KPH
Khazarian Circle Jerk. Couldn't have said it better!
@ALL
Tighten up your belts. The forces of normal humans is now starting to move forward for a major World clean-up.
If this was not done now, within a few months it would have been too late or much harder. The Big Shits are about to eat dirt.
http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1035-divineintervention1
wattsup
Wattsup:
QuoteSome of the strongest denial is from people who still believe that the "bad guys" are winning -- and are unwilling or unable to see the obvious signs of how the whole house of cards is coming down.
It sounds like the timing of your "Divine Intervention" might be in conflict with the timing of Dumped's "Demise of the AGENDA."
Looks like we are headed for a "Battle of the Battle of the Overthrowers of the System."
Get your popcorn! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh
It sounds like the timing of your "Divine Intervention" might be in conflict with the timing of Dumped's "Demise of the AGENDA."
It may indeed!
The prophecies provide a general idea of what things
will be like as we enter into the "end of the age." During
that soon to be upon us period of turmoil there will appear
a peacemaker who will deceive virtually the entire world.
It will be quite chaotic and ugly for a time but ultimately
the Forces of Good will gain victory at the final battle.
Then will be established the New World which will bring
about the reconstruction; the healing; and life for all -
including all who have died in times past. Death will be
no more.
Enjoy the popcorn while we are still able - it's gonna be
a show unlike any that has ever occurred upon planet
Earth. I'll have mine with very fine salt and Real Butter...
With a tall cold glass of Pomegranate Juice.
More Strangeness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2vpb79mrd18)
Those Who Know. (http://www.henrymakow.com/morning_post.html)
Unpleasant Thoughts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Znws-GqKyY&feature=player_embedded#!)
Dumped:
That is some sick-ass shit you are linking to you fucking nutcase.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHighThat is some sick-ass shit you are linking to you fucking nutcase.
Could you be a bit more specific?
That sentiment, very unfortunately, reflects the state
of our present world. Those who've made it their
purpose to acquire vast wealth, resources and political
power to achieve The AGENDA are some very "sick-ass"
people.
It does not bode well for the common folk who are
being deceived and exploited at every turn.
It hasn't yet gotten as bad as it's going to get...
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.04.02, 20:47:18
Those Who Know. (http://www.henrymakow.com/morning_post.html)
Unpleasant Thoughts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Znws-GqKyY&feature=player_embedded#!)
Why is this antisemitic bullshit tolerated on this science forum?
Dumped,
Please keep to the 911 topic and refrain from that other stuff, thanks.
ebag,
Henry Makow has explained well the motives of those
who play the "anti-semitic card."
It has become a very powerful weapon to silence
those who expose the truth behind all of the
mayhem in our modern political environment.
Are you saying that 9/11 was really done by
the ill trained and technically incompetent
"hi-jackers?"
Quote from: DeepCutYe Dumped, i just took a look at those two links and i can't
believe you are into that crap.
I guess its always easier to blame someone else for our
troubles rather than embark on years of self-reflection ?
9/11 was a tragic event. All of the wars of the
past century and the ongoing wars of this new
century are incredibly tragic.
It will be very difficult for many to comprehend
why all of this tragedy has been made to take
place and who has really been behind it all.
We have all been deceived and we have all been
participants in these tragedies at some level.
Coming to grips with the truth will be very painful
indeed for many.
The major players who are causing the mayhem
were identified long ago. Their plan has been in the
workings for hundreds of years. It has finally come
to its culmination. They have amassed so much power
that they will not be stopped as they proceed with the
last stages of their plan. "Our troubles" are about to
become far worse than we can possibly imagine.
We will all be faced with making very difficult choices
in the very near future. Will we side with the deceivers
and choose to become part of them; or will we side
with what is true and what is good - even if it means
death at their hands?
Death is only temporary. It will be undone when the
smoke of the final battle clears...
Quote from: poynt99Please keep to the 911 topic and refrain from that other stuff, thanks.
As you wish it shall be done.
9/11 was years in the making. The preparations and
planning were extensive. Thankfully, the truth is
being revealed to those who have suspected from
the onset that something "fishy" has gone down.
The End.
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.04.03, 01:48:44
Are you saying that 9/11 was really done by
the ill trained and technically incompetent
"hi-jackers?"
YES.
They weren't incompetent. They killed the flight crews, and flew the planes into the towers and Pentagon,and the ground in the other case.
What I've come to realize is that for a lot of people, that fact that 19 or so nutcases can do so much harm, so simply, using our own naivete and unpreparedness against us is so disconcerting they have to invent grand conspiracies to explain it all, because it feels safer to them to abstract the power away from those who actually did it.
Then they don't have to worry about more nutcases coming along, because well, it's a conspiracy, and it will be revealed some day. And those other guys, they didn't do it. The puppermasters did it.
Operationally, 9/11 was cake. Because back then, you -could- take over a plane with box cutters and carnage.
Sorry, AG.
I just want a copy of your simple clarity of thought kept for posterity O0
I think I frightened some folks a couple of days ago when they found out that I could (and have) flown a helicopter with absolutely no formal training. Technical incompetence means nothing. If there is enough drive the target will be met.
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2012.04.03, 09:10:31
YES.
They weren't incompetent. They killed the flight crews, and flew the planes into the towers and Pentagon,and the ground in the other case.
What I've come to realize is that for a lot of people, that fact that 19 or so nutcases can do so much harm, so simply, using our own naivete and unpreparedness against us is so disconcerting they have to invent grand conspiracies to explain it all, because it feels safer to them to abstract the power away from those who actually did it.
Then they don't have to worry about more nutcases coming along, because well, it's a conspiracy, and it will be revealed some day. And those other guys, they didn't do it. The puppermasters did it.
Operationally, 9/11 was cake. Because back then, you -could- take over a plane with box cutters and carnage.
Quotethem to abstract the power away from those who actually did it.
The only problem with this is that some of the people that supposedly did it are still alive and were no where near 911 events, I thought this had been proven.
QuoteThat is some sick-ass shit you are linking to you fucking nutcase.
MileHigh
Milehigh there's no need for talk like this.
Does the Jewish bible really have those quotes in it? See it's not hard to dismiss this stuff is it, as i am sure the Jewish bible cannot have such content. So you see all the foul language in the world does not work but a simple sentence like there's no way the Jewish bible has that stuff in it would kill the whole debate and should be easily proven right.
Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.04.03, 11:02:44
And, as Peter says, 6 of those hijackers were proven not to be them at all, their identities had been stolen and used, this is all a matter of public record even though the BBC still has the pictures of the originals on their website saying they are the ones that did it.
I do not think this has been proven at all. The only way you could possibly conclude this has been proven is through severe confirmation bias.
The simplest of rules is only one rule:
Do not associate with the labels or monikers of a described pattern of an event.
Concern yourself not with the actors but with the act and you begin to see the truth.
For any decisive action of thought throws the mind into a side of commadarie or enemy.
And this is where the enemy wants you.
Sifted like wheat from the chaff. Quote from the Bible... Luke 22:31
If any of you choose to get aggitated then you are a weak target and succeptable to derangement.
Easily done by the enemy that finds you emotionally respondent.
If you are to quote ancient texts then provide a link. Otherwise you are part of the derangement process.
Spout is the same as shout. Reveal is likened to truth. Quote by me.
In regards to 911: Where did the Thermite come from? Is this a standard construction material? What burns for weeks?
Where did the gold in the basement vaults go?
Why were the brokerage firm records stored in the same buildings as the brokerage firm?
And what are the odds of building seven demolition being planned on the same day and with no notice?
If any of you know these things then it is just better to watch and enjoy the show. Exercising caloric output of such a large subject is a waste of energy. The corrupt are far greater than your view over the fence.
Quote from: DeepCut
...
And (Dumped), even if Mossad did do it, it doesn't mean its the fault of the
Jewish people at large, you can't blame a people for the actions of their
government, unless we want to go down the road of discussing the fact
that all governments lie and they always have done and why do we still
believe in the political system ?
...
Please do not mis-interpret the evidence.
No one is suggesting the entire Jewish people
are either directly involved or supportive. There
is discord within the greater Judah-ism with its
sects and divisions - only a few are at the core of
Zionism. The vast majority are being deceived and
exploited.
Jews are speaking out plainly and truthfully but
their tiny voices are overpowered by the massive
media. Yet they continue speaking truth.
Please study the evidence carefully to avoid reaching
the wrong conclusions. Propaganda is rampant.
What is the Talmud? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Talmud.html)
The truth about the Talmud. (http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html)
Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.04.03, 19:27:58
We need psychological evolution, how and when that will happen i haven't got a clue !
If only our psychology evolved at a tenth of the rate of CPU's everything would probably be fine.
Quote"Every eye see Him" (Revelation 1:7) and every knee bow (Philippians 2:10)
Told 2000 years ago. There is no escape...
Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.04.03, 18:33:07
Or maybe just by reading quality newspapers of the time :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html
Of course, this doesn't tell us who stole the identities ...
This does not mean the hijackers are alive. Also, it is just one story of many on the subject. Remember confirmation bias.
Peterae:
QuoteProgress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana
Whether you are an extreme left wing wacko or an extreme right wing wacko or a "get ready something big is going to happen" wacko you are still a wacko.
That shit is just one step removed from the "Turner Diaries." If you don't know what that is look it up.
Sometimes the people that are "promising salvation" are actually the evil mob that want to slit your throat to "cleanse" the world.
Sometimes you have to stand up and say what is right. Do you remember that little girl in China that was run over in the street and people walked by and did nothing? Eventually she was run over again and died. You have to think about who is driving the car and who is just walking by.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
Seriously. Do you get your "rocks off" when in
the act of berating others or calling them less
than dignified names?
It has been reported that those who suffer NPD
do in fact derive sexual pleasure from putting
others down.
"Wackos" are easily self-identified by their own
"superiority" conduct.
When it comes to "salvation" all are covered. None will
be left out. Some will have a much more difficult time
than others giving up the badness which produces so
much pleasure for them.
We keep hoping that you'll mature into a well bred man
soon. It's in there somewhere...
Quote from: MileHighSometimes the people that are "promising salvation"
are actually the evil mob that want to slit your
throat to "cleanse" the world.
This is quite true. They essentially "own" the world and
are now in the process of doing just that.
Adieu
And you are just a marginalized little nutcase and every now and then people like you have to be put in their place.
"A well bred man" is just an inadvertent slip of the tongue that shows your true colours.
Aye, we who reside in La La Land are often thought
to be "nutcases." We do not mind.
Soon all of the "wackos" across the globe will be
joining us as they seek refuge. You'll be welcomed.
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.04.04, 06:21:18
Aye, we who reside in La La Land are often thought
to be "nutcases." We do not mind.
Soon all of the "wackos" across the globe will be
joining us as they seek refuge. You'll be welcomed.
In the eternal words of Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
In the eternal words of Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Columbus,
they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Whether Carl's words do indeed prove to be
"eternal" remains to be seen.
Regarding the laughter; of course. Different
times, different locations, different reasons.
People will laugh (and/or mock) due to various
stimuli/beliefs.
As a matter of curiosity - what is the "correctness"
factor of the laughers historically?
As a counterbalance may I offer the following:
Quote from: Immanuel Kant on Enlightenment
"Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity.
Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without
the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused, if it
is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination
and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by
another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] Have the courage to use
your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.04.04, 20:19:49
As a matter of curiosity - what is the "correctness"
factor of the laughers historically?
High 90's. Occasionally, the targets of the laughter are geniuses who are several steps ahead. Mostly, though, they are indeed nutjobs like you who are divorced from reality.
ebag,
I suspected as much - making things up as you
go...
Nutjobs, nutcases, etc.
Whatever... C.C
In time even your eyes will be fully
opened. ^-^
Does anyone realize that at one time history was/is conspiracy?
Aye, the whole shebang.
Those who wish to "control" all things find
conspiracy a most useful and necessary
tool.
Deception goes hand in hand with conspiracy.
WE have found the Enemy, and they are us...
Wow i had never heard of this before.
9/11/01: Truck Full Of Explosives & Two Suspects In Custody Caught on George Washington Bridge
http://www.federaljack.com/?p=92376
WTC buildings nuclear demolition
check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=06NKgMHJNlA
how steal beams like this can turn into dust?:
second picture, there was ice that melted away from the airplane fuel?:
and one more point: why buildings from steal doesn't move (like concrete building) not only inch from impact of 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) (Maximum Takeoff Weight) airplane if the planes wasn't digital created in edited movies?
9/11 nuclear demolition.
The "Ground Zero" manipulation after 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBQuoPi_grw&feature=relmfu
Thank God there are a substantial number of
truthseekers who will not rest until they've
revealed as much as they're able to uncover.
At this moment the masses are not paying much
attention because their time and energies are
devoted to other interests. As conditions worldwide
worsen in coming months/years this situation will
change.
The Truth will ultimately be known by all...
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.11.21, 21:40:35
Thank God...
Thank God for the 9/11.
Don't forget that in a theory of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being, all events are predicted by this being, all events can be prevented by this being and so, all events are the result of the willingness of the being.
So no need of a conspiracy theory, it's obvious that God is the instigator of 9/11.
>:-)
No.
Jesus stated "You have not because you ask not". In the case of 9/11 we used our free will to derive an outcome. God had nothing to do with it. Mankind's free will is the cuplrit. If you believe there is no evil in men's hearts then you are your own best victim. Because that is what you want. At the last supper Mathew leaned over to Jesus asked him 'Teacher, how did you do all these miracles?' Jesus immediately replied 'You can do these and more'.
Imagine the power of using your mind to request/control the universe by not lifting a finger? We have been granted the right to do so by requests. Yes, it confounds the wise because 'they know not what they do' as stated by Jesus himself.
The mind is mightier than the hand. Or does the hand control the mind? Which is it?
How far can you watch this before ignorance and prejudice become your distraction?
Hey GK you seen this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfPMKv2fBM&feature=related
Quote from: exnihiloest
...
So no need of a conspiracy theory, it's obvious
that God is the instigator of 9/11.
>:-)
Well, not entirely, although there are some who
would certainly agree with you.
It is true that Our Father knows what each of us
will do even before we do it; and He knows our
most intimate thoughts. But, He doesn't interfere
with our decisions or our actions - we have the freedom
to do as we please be our desires right or wrong.
Our actions are all observed for future reference when
there will be an accounting and corrective instruction.
Our Father does assume responsibility for all of the
badness in our World and will, in time, show us the
better way of doing good. Our present lifetime is just the
beginning of a very long future of growth and development
as we learn (often painfully) how to overcome our
desires to be mischievous and malevolent. In time
even the Father of the Lie will be made good...
None of us gets away with anything.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.11.23, 19:11:06
No.
Jesus stated "You have not because you ask not".
...
This statement is the result of a mind conditioning by centuries of religious thinking: a model of hypocrisy, rejecting the blame of the mighty onto the weakest for making guilty the humans and yoking them to the religious autorities.
It will be surely easier to free energy than to free minds. :)
Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.23, 22:14:03
Hey GK you seen this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfPMKv2fBM&feature=related
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.24, 11:36:23
This statement is the result of a mind conditioning by centuries of religious thinking: a model of hypocrisy, rejecting the blame of the mighty onto the weakest for making guilty the humans and yoking them to the religious autorities.
It will be surely easier to free energy than to free minds. :)
Have you tried asking or do ye seek affirmation among the wicked?
In less then a month the world is going to "end".
2012.12.21
So December 21st is the last day on the Mayan calendar. Look for all the Mayans to drop dead at midnight! Lol
!
Hold yer' horses:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/guatemala/9259069/The-world-may-not-end-soon-predicts-newly-found-Mayan-calendar.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/guatemala/9259069/The-world-may-not-end-soon-predicts-newly-found-Mayan-calendar.html)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.11.24, 20:17:49
Have you tried asking or do ye seek affirmation among the wicked?
Which "wicked"? The autorities exploit the human credulity for god's glory, sincerely or not, and the humans without critical mind believe what their preachers and other priests told them: it's always the human's fault, never the god's fault. Then they repeat sincerely what they have been teached.
"When a sick person dies, it's the fault of doctors. When he cures, it's thanks to the saints" (Italian proverb).
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.25, 16:51:54
Which "wicked"? The autorities exploit the human credulity for god's glory, sincerely or not, and the humans without critical mind believe what their preachers and other priests told them: it's always the human's fault, never the god's fault. Then they repeat sincerely what they have been teached.
"When a sick person dies, it's the fault of doctors. When he cures, it's thanks to the saints" (Italian proverb).
No truer words spoken. The wicked exist only because there are victims. But those who know the Truth can be a victim no more.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.23, 11:32:23
Thank God for the 9/11.
Don't forget that in a theory of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being, all events are predicted by this being, all events can be prevented by this being and so, all events are the result of the willingness of the being.
So no need of a conspiracy theory, it's obvious that God is the instigator of 9/11.
>:-)
I had a realization several years ago that God was not "all things good and just", but rather "all things: good, bad, and indifferent". "God" is now admonished of his actions. I discussed my "realization" with a good friend of mine and he was quite appalled.
If there is a God-like entity or even a God-like creative force (as I believe), then the source of good/bad is the same, though the the path to each is different.
When I pray to God, believing that good will come of it. Keep in mind, however, that I also believe that a black cloud dwells over my head! So, I pray when I am afraid or wish for something that I cannot control, which sounds really bad.
I consider my wife's beliefs much stronger. She is an atheist, and believes that we are fully responsible for our destiny.
God helps those who help themselves, so I think atheists will always be in his favor. After all, praying to God, was never God's requirement.
If the United Sates is the Universe, then who is God? lol
Very interesting.
If you replace the term 'God' with 'Resonance' and 'Satan' with 'Chaos' then a larger number of things about belief come to light.
the devil makes work for human evil. man must do good works of God. God is not necessary for the World
Without resonance nothing works...
And just where did the towers go?
No takers, huh?
Maybe we can agree on this hyper-reality?
Directed energy weapons...
I've always found the idea of those very interesting. Dr. Wood makes an interesting case.
What if our government does have such weapons? So what? We can't do anything about it. They'll never admit to it, and will continue to to use them to achieve their goals.
Our time and energy is better spent on new technology to help ourselves be more independent.
If you had working TPU's, would you care about the price of oil? or the price of food?
Having your own energy changes things. It gives you much more freedom and with that comes a lot of responsibility.
https://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
I think we should lock this thread, the ideas presented here are highly speculative! :o
just kidding! LOL ;D
or am I? :D
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.12.22, 21:09:03
I think we should lock this thread, the ideas presented here are highly speculative! :o
I think the religious comments are actually speculative. Personal beliefs are subjective, IMHO. C.C
Quote
just kidding! LOL ;D
or am I? :D
9/11? Conspiracy theorists have a 'field day' with that sometimes, I think. To put it very mildly!! :D
--Lee
Just recently on the news they mentioned finding a piece of one of the 9/11 aircraft, it was stuck between two buildings closely spaced.
Anybody follow that story? Any controversy surrounding it?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.05.20, 00:34:40
Just recently on the news they mentioned finding a piece of one of the 9/11 aircraft, it was stuck between two buildings closely spaced.
Anybody follow that story? Any controversy surrounding it?
A piece of wheel or landing gear, as I recall? I suppose it was merely passed off as something they missed earlier and had finally found recently.
--Lee
If you want ABSOLUTE PROOF 911 was an inside job, Click on this Link, & Turn Up Your Volume:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-R_jfUum4
.
"In was no commercial airliner" as the lady said. O0
It was the E-10 military plane. As it was disclosed later, the military was conducting exercises on 9/11 of exactly such nature, so what went wrong? why did a military E-10 plane go straight into the buildings? Who piloted the plane, was it remote controlled? Did hackers take control of the plane and slammed it into the buildings?
This was an "inside job", but I put it in quotes because the ones who did it, even though claiming to be Americans, are not "inside" in their allegiance. Most of the wealthy and powerful in this country may or may not be that loyal to America, which is after all just a melting pot of so many cultures.
For example a lot of Jesuits have infiltrated the government, and they hold a higher allegiance, i.e., to the Vatican, who wants to unify the world under their control, just like back in the dark ages, when princes of every nation would bow down to them. Look how many people went and bowed down to the Pope (John Paul) when he died, you see in that famous picture, the Bush family, Clintons, and others, all bowing down. It's a sign of submission.
But why attack America? because we have the military power and resources to make war on islam. They needed us to go to war, and we did.
We are manipulated to achieve their agendas.
EM
and the oil never topped flowing...
New Studies; Conspiracy Theorists Sane... (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/)
It is gratifying to see that those who
are serious about finding truth just
doggedly keep at it leaving no stones
unturned.
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.07.13, 18:37:59
New Studies; Conspiracy Theorists Sane... (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/)
It is gratifying to see that those who
are serious about finding truth just
doggedly keep at it leaving no stones
unturned.
Thanks for noting this article, Dumped. Agreed. This from the article:
QuoteRecent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories," the study compared "conspiracist" (pro-conspiracy theory) and "conventionalist" (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: "Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist." In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now [becoming] the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: "The research... showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals."
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: "For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account."
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. ...
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.07.13, 18:37:59
New Studies; Conspiracy Theorists Sane... (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/)
It is gratifying to see that those who
are serious about finding truth just
doggedly keep at it leaving no stones
unturned.
So being a conspiracy theorist is now the new normal? sweet, im going to call my uncle and tell him im no longer crazy! ;D :D
EM
Haha ;D
Same here O0
I've just seen a great quote on a video.
Doctors destroy health
Lawyers destroy Justice
psychiatrists destroy minds
scientists destroy truth
major media destroys information
religions destroy spirituality and
governments destroy freedom
See I'm normal now >:-)
Quote from: Peterae on 2013.07.14, 10:06:35
Haha ;D
Same here O0
I've just seen a great quote on a video.
Doctors destroy health
Lawyers destroy Justice
psychiatrists destroy minds
scientists destroy truth
major media destroys information
religions destroy spirituality and
governments destroy freedom
See I'm normal now >:-)
said in music by this group @1975
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9s2hp9i680
lyrics here: http://www.lyricstime.com/procol-harum-as-strong-as-samson-lyrics.html
Wow thanks ION really enjoyed that, never heard it before, although i am well familiar with A Whither shade of pale.
Just shows how far behind most of us are, way behind, who ever wrote those lyrics was way way ahead, almost seems impossible to have so much forsight and understanding of the real world, although i am sure that's just a generation thing and me being not in the right company.
O0
I wish Snowden had shared the more damaging stuff.
Well you never know, he held a news conference in Russia the other day and I've heard nothing since then maybe time to google and see.
Got to give that guy credit, just shows what happens when you go against the grain, let's face it they will do anything to get him and he knows it, although i don't know if they even dare take him out now after all the publicity, they will do everything they can to lock him up i suppose.
It's sort of going down the line of Russia + China against the West
Did you hear about what Europe did to china regarding Solar panel production, they are in the process of slamming a 47% import tax on all China solar imports on the basis that China have been dumping cheap cells in Europe damaging Germany profit C.C
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2272680/eu-imposes-118-per-cent-solar-tariffs-on-chinese-imports
In response China are talking about doing the same to France regarding cheap wine imports to China LOL, France was really angry at this suggestion LOL
Obama is plastering weapons of mass destruction all around Russia's perimeter, i tell ya there's some nasty trouble coming our way if these idiots stay in power.
EDIT
Been listening to Procol Harum all night, some of the best music I've heard, been a dam good night.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.07.14, 20:46:46
I wish Snowden had shared the more damaging stuff.
Snowden just might be the operative for a CIA "modified limited hangout" operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
When something is given so much attention in the media (hung out), it keeps your eye off other more important issues.
Barbara Honegger gave a presentation in Seattle
in January of this year. The video is available for
viewing/download at YouTube:
Behind the Smoke Curtain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk&feature=youtu.be)
It's a comprehensive analysis of what transpired
on 9/11 at the WTC and more importantly, at the
Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. Approximately
three hours but well worth the time spent.
TRUTH marches on...
Quote from: Grumpy on 2012.11.26, 01:51:23
I had a realization several years ago that God was not "all things good and just", but rather "all things: good, bad, and indifferent". "God" is now admonished of his actions. I discussed my "realization" with a good friend of mine and he was quite appalled.
If there is a God-like entity or even a God-like creative force (as I believe), then the source of good/bad is the same, though the the path to each is different.
When I pray to God, believing that good will come of it. Keep in mind, however, that I also believe that a black cloud dwells over my head! So, I pray when I am afraid or wish for something that I cannot control, which sounds really bad.
I consider my wife's beliefs much stronger. She is an atheist, and believes that we are fully responsible for our destiny.
God helps those who help themselves, so I think atheists will always be in his favor. After all, praying to God, was never God's requirement.
I've become an agnostic. I believe in God but not man's fabricated religions. It comes down to the definition of God. Here's mine: everything that exists on all scales whether we know about it or not. In other words, the totality of creation, taken as a whole, is called God.
That does not mean just the physical universe. Emotions and thought exist yet they are not physical but they exist in the totality of creation.
It is humans who put the labels "good" or "bad" on things. God doesn't care, it just is. So when one prays to God, they are beseeching the totality of creation to come together in a way to assist them. Some pray for good things. Some pray for bad things. 9/11 kind of makes that point. There's no doubt that the totality of creation came together in a way that it happened. Some say it's bad and evil. Some were dancing in the streets eith joy.
God is beneficent in that the totality of creation came together in such a way that we exist. God is also destructive to us but is that in some way beneficent to the universe? Don't know. I guess that depends on ones view of life. Some believe life to be good and promoted above all else. Some believe life to be bad and to be controlled or destroyed. And that control, IMO, is the basis of most religions.
When you take the position that the totality of creation is God, it's somewhat difficult to deny the existence of God. How about running that by your wife Grumpy? I truly am interested in her response.
Another answer I would like to hear is about her belief that we are fully responsible for our destiny. When one starts looking at the interplay between the geophysics of the earth and the moon and the sun and the universe at large it seems to be that we actually have very little to do with our destiny other than the next few minutes. Think of the recent ateroid explosion over Russia.
I'm not being facetious and, I hope, not argumentative. I really am interested in her replies because I don't know anyone who is an atheist.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.23, 11:32:23
Thank God for the 9/11.
Don't forget that in a theory of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being, all events are predicted by this being, all events can be prevented by this being and so, all events are the result of the willingness of the being.
Well, what about human free will? Karma? If you have an explanation for that, then what about Isaiah 45:7? Hint(paraphrased):
"God makes good and evil. God does all these things."Quote
So no need of a conspiracy theory, it's obvious that God is the instigator of 9/11.
>:-)
Isaiah 45:7, above. You might be right, but a man can do the work of the devil, too.
Did I mention it yet on this site? A friend, a few years ago, indicated in conjunction with the work he did for the Gov't and his high security clearance, that he
heard there was a
warning that
something was going to happen to the WTC in three days from the date of the warning. THAT could have been anything. He and his associates had nothing to do; nothing to go on. Anything is anything. They waited until the planes hit the buildings.
It didn't bother him too much because there was nothing he could do.
--Lee
If one replaces the term God with resonance then we see the application of man's thinking and what he receives, he deserves. Comradery versus chaos. humans do this every moment of their being. Some just have a nasty affection for discourse while others do not. Whom is the wiser? I ask.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2013.08.17, 17:21:33
If one replaces the term God with resonance then we see the application of man's thinking and what he receives, he deserves.
I don't have a strong liking for a male-oriented, anthropomorphic "God" that might or might not be contained in the observable universe. What lies beyond the blackness of Space is more to my liking as a "God", even if it might be nothing at all, physically.
As for 'w
hat a man receives, he deserves'?
Apparently good people have bad things happen to them. On the other hand, karma for one's negative actions cannot be avoided, I was told by a spiritual teacher I knew years ago.
Quote
Comradery versus chaos. humans do this every moment of their being. Some just have a nasty affection for discourse while others do not. Whom is the wiser? I ask.
I can learn on my own without physical discourse. Here's my answer to,
"Whom is the wiser?" : I don't know. I don't have all the finite and/or infinite answers (assuming infinite
"answers" exist.
--Lee
Well after browsing through youtube video's,i came across Steve's thermite dust particle video's.
I never knew you were that involved with this Steve,and it seemd that it came a great cost to your self.
I am supprised that there was no mention of air preasure,in relation to the collaps speed near G-well not that i seen anyway.This being in reguards to the two towers.We can see the preasure build up floors below as each floor collapsed.So either the preasure build up was the result of air between collapsing floors being compressed,or explosives going off.
If it was air preasure build up,then the towers would not have fallen that close to the speed of G.It would have been more like rideing a whole lot of woopy cushions to the ground.
There is so much hard evidence that it was an inside job,it's not funny.
Steve-you have shown how far you are willing to go ,to get to the truth. And for that,you have my deepest respect.
This video was probably already posted,but i didn't watch all the links to video's throughout the thread.
But it is a pretty good 5 minute summery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzm3bRgrUQ
Watch "9/11 The Great American Psy Opera" by Ace Baker
He is a very talented musician and video production geek.
A few pieces of pertinent info I have not seen before.
Steve Jones has a large segment in one of the chapters.
@ION
Downloading that file now-cheers
I was reading in the thread,that some were saying there were no plane's. I had a laugh at this first of,but as all good researchers would do,i started looking into the possibility. What i found was some very convincing arguments to support this.
I will be putting together some video Short's,to show just how easily this could look real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04LCvk2KYfY
TinMan
No Planes?,well I was not that far away from the events that Day so I did not personally see the Impacts
However I know of hundreds of men {iron workers] all over the city that watched the second plane go thru the Building
As you know I did sructural testing in those towers on a regular basis [For the port authority],And was invited to Run a magnesium Lance after the 93 Bombing [they were afraid of vibrations VERY SCARY STUFF}
As a result of my life experience there I have a different take on what happened and why.
Suffice to Say "follow the money trail ".
Thx
Chet
@Chet
Well the more i look into this,the more interesting it get's. Seems no one (other than obvious plants) has come forward and said they actualy saw the second plane hit.
One guy is offering $100 000 dollars to anyone other than news crews,who have a video of the second plane hitting the tower. To this day,no one has come forward.
Whether or not real planes hit the towers is still open to investigation. The video I referenced by Ace Baker shows that in the case of the TV image shot from the helicopter, the video has normal helicopter vibration, the plane inserted into the video does not. These two can be easily separated out with software available today.
Testimony of many people about planes only occurred after the idea was inserted into their minds by the media. Numerous people that witnessed the explosions did not see or hear any planes.
I was a huge skeptic to the "no planes theory" until I saw Ace Bakers excellent investigative work. A "must watch" for all.
TinMan
100,000.00 Bucks Huh
I had no idea?
I think I would call the Guy offering the money first [a link ?].
Telling some of these guys that sat and watched the second plane hit from the Morgan Stanley Jobsite accross the river in Hoboken New Jersey,that they were telling stories out of school would be a hard thing to do...........
I spoke with Many Men who watched from rooftops all over the city ,However Those fellows in Hoboken had front row seats
they also reported seeing some other fellows on a pier with in their view jumping for joy as the towers collapsed ,I believe a police report was made on those fellows.
However if the money offer is real I'm quite sure they would take it [probably donate it to the victims fund].
Gotta Number??
I must add on the day of the attack ,I was in the truck listening to a fellow who was a regular radio morning host in NYC area being interviewed from his Balcony close to the 1st Burning tower................and right in the middle of his interview he started talking about another aircraft getting very close and then He was stupified as he broadcast another "hit" from a plane...."" live as it happened"" from his penthouse?
He just hung up the phone shortly after .
up until that moment no one knew what was going on at the towers [fire ,Bomb etc etc ]
Thx
Chet
As for how many planes, we have to ask what about the people that died, that were 'suppose' to be on those planes. :-\
If it was a false flag, the passengers could have been made up, and who would know any better. Or if only one plane, I would have to say that there were 'enough witnesses around' at the time after the first plane, we would have heard a lot about that initially.
Mags
@Chet
Take a look at the video clip below. Now if this crash was on the news,and presented as being real-every one would believe it,as it was on the news.But because we know it is only a movie,we also know that it never happened.
But it looks soooo real-dosnt it.Every single video of the second plane crash,was filmed by news crews-no armature video's have ever been forth coming. The offer is $100 000.00 for an armature video of the second plane crash-not talk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THyUerkrBuU
Oh remember the war of the worlds broadcast on the radio in 1938. It was just Orson Welles play that was broadcast on the radio,but many thought that the world was actually under attack by martions lol.
Its so easy to get the people to believe,as that's what they want to believe.
If you figure that our governments technology is 50 years ahead of what we see publicly, then it is easy to see that planes could have been flown remotely, or even autonomously. A big trend in the aircraft industry right now is smaller aircraft that are manned or unmanned, providing the option depending on the mission.
While it is interesting to theorize and even prove that towers fell from controlled demolition, the more pressing questions is "what was gained?".
Side note:
there's been a rash of freak shootings lately
Here is what is suppose to be an unmolested video from a member of the public. But listen very closely from 8 second to 13 seconds(on youtube clock,not video clock)Now how dose an unmolested video recording have edited voice recording,when the video itself keeps on playing smoothly? Also note the guy in front of the camera is staring straight at the incoming plane,but says nothing-just stands there looking. There is no reaction at all from any one,until the explosion. One woman even says she could see the plane coming-but says nothing???.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXgJ40iWAc
Mags
Quote
As for how many planes, we have to ask what about the people that died, that were 'suppose' to be on those planes
------------------------
Mags I thought the same thing for quite some time ,one thing we saw happen recently is the unveiling of the memorial at ground Zero with all the names of the plane crash victims!
I did happen to hear a news clip of the ceremony where families of people lost on the plane that hit the tower were being interviewed [audio only I was listening on the radio ]
Of one thing I am quite certain,The planes and thier passengers would be easy pickings for a true investigation by someone who could interview family members and uncover a scam ,in this day and age that story would be worth a lot of money and hard to suppress.
The family members of the dc site would be interesting ,as no one saw that very unusual "plane crash"
Thx
Chet
Article on who benefited from 9/11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-who-really-benefited/25762
What on earth is burning in those towers, black smoke :o
I'm sure there will be more wonderfully executed events in the future.
The best service we can do for ourselves is to continue to search for answers and to find ways to be self-efficient.
The way i see it is every corporation is in business to make money, profits comes first so forget about the state of the world and the damage being done.
The way around this is that we need people to start non for profit organizations that do the same function, run by the people for the world, cut the huge stealing of wealth and pass it back to the average person.
Forget management, make every person equally responsible within the organization, with a priority for sustainability.
I would start by setting up a Cooperative growing Hemp, start a sustainable paper factory, clothing factory, there's so many things that hemp can be used for, why do you think prohibition was introduced against cannabis, it threatens profits in the large conglomerates.
The importance of doing this has already been shown, prohibition was cancelled during the second world war for very good reason.
If you think about it, large corporations e.g. Microsoft charge outrageous prices for operating systems and software full of bugs. How many iterations did it take for them to get Windows stable?
Then the poor users suffer nervous breakdowns trying to keep the stuff running, it creates tensions etc in many households and businesses.
Then Bill Gates (and the like) puts a halo on his head and becomes a benefactor, giving back some of the pillage he overcharged for in the beginning, software and operating systems only worth about $5 to start with, if that.
Most large corporations, after raping the public, set up foundations to give some of the ill gotten gains back to the victims of their greed.
Why not just charge a very reasonable price for the stuff at the outset, enjoy lower profits and then no need to feel guilty and set up foundations to soothe the wounds of the victims and ease the conscience of the capitalists?
I hope Linux chips away at the megalith.
One of the reasons that the board wants Bill out as CEO is that MS does not give enough back to investors.
Quote from: ION on 2013.10.03, 12:43:46
How many iterations did it take for them to get Windows stable?
WindBlow$ is stable?
When did that happen?
The thing that annoys me most in the uk, you go and buy something at the shop price and a few weeks later it's being sold at 1/3 the price GRRRR times this has happened.
I think a lot of people are getting fed up with this, sales dont mean cheaper, they mean that when a sale is not on you are being ripped off.
Another gripe, large corps get an established company to build inferior products that look like good quality products.
This happened to me, i bought some paving from one place made by a certain company, there's a few large stores selling the same product at the same price, so i found the same product from a nearer store and bought some from them this time at the same price, got them home and found they were 5mm thinner GRRRRR LOL
Now if i had not bought some previously i would not have found this out.
QuoteWindBlow$ is stable?
Why sell a working product that would cost 10 times the $$$ to get 100% working when you can sell a product that works 1/10th and charge the existing customers for fixes
Don't get me wrong.
I think WindBowl$ is a great and very reliable product......
as long as you only run it in a virtual machine on VMWare or some similar free product on top of OpenBSD or some of the better Linux-zes O0
At least then you can protect yourself and your data with the common security tools and remote control (read 'virtual machine re-boot') found for the *Nix's.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.10.03, 14:56:16
WindBlow$ is stable?
When did that happen?
I should have said semi-stable or sorta-stable. There are unofficial stripped and tweaked versions that run fairly well most...but not all apps.
Quote from: ION on 2013.10.03, 19:55:40
I should have said semi-stable or sorta-stable. There are unofficial stripped and tweaked versions that run fairly well most...but not all apps.
It was close enough for Macro$n0t ;)
The IT folks in my organization still think I'm full of it when I tell then a reboot isn't required even when I upgrade the OS in my main home box. The continuous run time is now over four years and none of the apps or kernel is out of date O0
A newly released series of documentaries (http://www.zengardner.com/911-consummate-expose/) in
three parts which comprehensively covers
9-11 in all aspects. Download and duplication
for distribution is encouraged although the
DVDs may be ordered too.
Perhaps even MileHigh will have a look see!
Grumpy asks a very good question below.
I've been using Puppy Linux (http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/) for about 10 years
in several of its derivative forms.
Other distros have followed suit in creating
small versions of Linux which can either be
ran "live" or easily installed/removed as
desired.
Whats a good stable non-MS OS these days?
Make a noise indeed ! you posted this video in support, and the noise aspect is addressed from 2Min onwards .. It makes a good point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related
But in the Archive is the original footage and it tells a very different story . Here is the same footage before very costly sound engineering and doctoring ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOrnEcnRsE and here's the false flag issue again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dYHPGdIzueA
now with the sound, and what is clearly original footage, as you see from natural human reaction, you can also now clearly see the cutter charges synchronized with the sound ... case closed really tptb .... eat their young >:-) yum yum
Welcome to the forum, Duncan. I have appreciated your work through the months.
CNN:
QuoteKerry doubts Warren Commission report
Posted by
CNN's Jason Seher
Washington (CNN) - John Kerry thinks President John F. Kennedy's assassin had help.
As the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination approaches, Kerry made clear that he does not agree with the conclusions of the Warren Commission, which found Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
"To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone," Kerry told NBC's Tom Brokaw, in a report timed to coincide with the anniversary of the tragedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked Kerry to elaborate on the statement.
"I'm not going to do more than say that it's a point of view that I have," Kerry said.
Kerry met Kennedy in 1962, when he was working as a volunteer for his brother Ted Kennedy's senatorial campaign.
Kerry visited the White House and was promptly treated to a sailing trip around the District of Columbia with the leader of the free world.
And one could say similarly about 9/11:
"To this day, I have serious doubts that Al Qaeda acted alone," for instance, in the lack of air defenses on 9/11 and the way WTC 7 came down.
Hi prof .. thanks for the vote O0 yeah JFKs another box of tricks perhaps this ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanUdVvBocg
but again lots of smoke and mirrors still ... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark... I dare say!
kind regards D
The words of JFK in the background were very poignant -- and point to our day. I think there was a big shift or transformation in this country that began with the JFK murder, accelerated by 9/11 - just along the lines warned against in those words by JFK. (Do you have a transcript?)
Also, those who say there was just one marksman (Oswald) don't seem to know much about momentum...
See if you can give a listen to Michael Parenti's lecture "The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State" for an new look at Oswald.
https://archive.org/details/TheGangsterNatureOfTheStateByMichaelParentti1993
http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html
QuoteLee Harvey Oswald spent most of his adult life not as a lone drifter but directly linked to the U.S. intelligence community. All of his IQ tests show that he was above average in intelligence and a quick learner. At the age of eighteen in the U.S. Marines he had secret security clearance and was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed other kinds of covert operations in China. The next year he was assigned to El Toro Air Station in California with security clearance to work radar.
Quote from: Resource Documentation
At the age of eighteen in the U.S. Marines he had secret security clearance and was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan...
Minor correction:
Atsugi was a Naval Air Station (NAS Atsugi) and is now
a joint-operations station with both U.S. Navy and
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force personnel
onboard.
Naval Air Facility Atsugi (NAF Atsugi.)The Marine Corps Air Station in Japan is located
at Iwakuni (
MCAS Iwakuni.)
There were/are several Air Force Bases throughout
Japan, however.
Oswald may have actually been at Iwakuni although a small
number of Marines then were at Atsugi. There was a
regularly scheduled flight several times a week from Atsugi
to Iwakuni and back (MARLOG) which, at the time I was
there, was a military DC3 piloted by a Marine Corps Chief
Warrant Officer Aviator.
JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't by James Fetzer:
http://web.archive.org/web/20131031122308/http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html
JFK assassination film hoax:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index.html
Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza Nov 22 1963:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ATbhCUZxjQ
The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site:
http://www.prouty.org/
JFK Bodyguards Stand Down Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7tt3sYswmI
Former FBI Agent Reveals Who Really Killed JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM
JFK and his Secret Service Detail: Preview of Mark Lane's new film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-7IRJpMZE
The JFK Cover-up: E. Howard Hunt Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsBiVJsgzmI
LBJ's Mistress Blows Whistle On JFK Assassination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y
Les Visible has a talent for cutting right to
the heart and core of the matter. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=84241)
In the greater PLAN or AGENDA for World
domination this is intimately connected. (http://humansarefree.com/2013/10/10-explosive-us-government-secrets.html)
Although its progress has been slow, Truth
is unstoppable as it makes its way into the
light of day.
Focus on the controlled demolition of WTC 7 to expose the official government version of 911 for what it is, a lie. Learn from the JFK smokescreen.
http://wtc7.net/
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished WTC building 7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA
Rumsfeld slips up and admits flight 93 shot down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s
Expert Who Concluded WTC 7 Was A Controlled Demolition Killed In Car Accident:
http://www.infowars.com/expert-who-concluded-wtc-7-was-a-controlled-demolition-killed-in-car-accident/
http://www.dailypaul.com/172140/danny-jowenko-is-dead-3-days-after-sabrosky-interview-implicates-cia-mossad-in-911
Dr Alan Sabrosky; Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgs-82XjGY
http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/sabrosky/
Shock result as David Cameron loses vote on Syria intervention:
http://www.thejournal.ie/david-cameron-syria-vote-1060794-Aug2013/
Blair's reason for war in Afghanistan collapses as opium production in the country reaches its highest ever levels ahead of NATO troops' withdrawal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2505619/Opium-production-Afghanistan-reaches-highest-levels-ahead-NATO-troops-withdrawal.html
JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AesVsRvOEo
If you are monitoring the public comments sections of MSM newspapers you may have noticed the increasingly open call for revolution. Whether this now unstoppable momentous event in human history is peaceful or violent, history will record. One thing I do know is that I am glad I am not rich, living in a nice house in the country, and that I have had nothing to do whatsoever with the manufactured "War on Terror Theatre". Those who have, in all walks of life, may shortly be responsible for a new type of bubble:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_diaper
Well how about that...
Channel 5 program starting right now 9pm:
JFK's Secret Killer: The Evidence
Synopsis reads:
Brand new documentary investigating the events during and directly after the assassination of John F Kennedy. Could the true assassin of JFK gone undetected until now?
Let's see what it has to say...
Oh no no no no no...
Have the spooks read L. Ron Hubbard's 'Battlefield Earth' ? where the key intelligence operative 'Terl' has a motto... "always sweeten every lie with a little bit of truth", it appears so...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380691/President-JFK-documentary-alleges-WAS-second-shooter-assassination--Secret-Service-agent.html
The documentary states that it was secret service agent George Hickey in the following car that fired the kill shot, at close range. However, those of you that have studied this case a bit, or even read the links I posted up earlier will know just how much evidence has been omitted from this documentary so that they can portray the events of that day as an accident, and the following cover up was to hide the agency's embarrassment.
The bottom line delivered right at the end of the documentary and what the makers of that program want you to take away with you is "it was an unfortunate accident, it was all so long ago, now you know the truth, please move along and forget all about it."
Interesting comments below the Daily Mail article, I guess the majority of the public don't buy the accident theory either.
A very Eerie piece of film posted on John Hutchinsons channel regarding ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68pwNOgq_1Q
Be sure to mouse over the picture, boxes appear with the people's names:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bookstreet/2979618503/
Someone worked very hard to tie all this together for you:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgroup8F.htm
Study and understand the principle of controlled opposition:
http://www.dailypaul.com/96132/controlled-opposition-a-must-read-for-everyone-in-the-liberty-movement
http://essential-intelligence-network.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/anatomy-of-controlled-opposition.html
http://www.ukip.org/
The Lessons of 9/11 (http://therebel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=757279:the-lessons-of-9-11&catid=136:editorial&Itemid=2600)
We certainly would like to think that there is
hope.
Many who possess conscience and a love for
truth have risked much to reveal the lies of
9/11. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/03/357016/americans-are-blinded-by-agendas/)
It is truly a tragedy.
Quote from: Dumped on 2014.04.07, 05:57:04
Many who possess conscience and a love for
truth have risked much to reveal the lies of
9/11. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/03/357016/americans-are-blinded-by-agendas/)
It is truly a tragedy.
Agreed (and thanks for this observation). As many of you know, I was pushed into early retirement, at age 57, for my experimental work on 9/11 dust and WTC fall-speeds (etc).
So glad that AE911Truth.org )google it!) is progressing so well; I'm a member and I support this big effort.
Two dreadful websites. Fancy ones always put me off because their fanciness can be an alternative to straightforward journalism.
Does anyone have the nub of the story in 500 words?
With the recent help of Russian Intelligence Services (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/)the
full extent of the 911 deception is being made known.
This also explains how Dr. Jones (PhysicsProf) found so
much evidence of nano-thermite in the debris.
Micro-Nukes have been used in a number of other
false-flag tragedies as well.
Will there be justice at last? Or, does the Hidden
Hand (http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2009/06/secret-world-government.html) possess too much power?
Quote from: Dumped on 2014.05.31, 22:53:57
This also explains how Dr. Jones (PhysicsProf) found so
much evidence of nano-thermite in the debris.
Micro-Nukes have been used in a number of other
false-flag tragedies as well.
Will there be justice at last? Or, does the Hidden
Hand possess too much power?
I thank you very much Dr. Jones for your research and getting the information into people's hands like myself. I now have the desire and ability to see through the lies because of your work. I won't be fooled again.
I do tend to think something highly energetic took those buildings down, something that also vaporized the large antenna on the South tower. Nano-thermate or something even more powerful? Could a micro-nuke actually generate the particulate Dr. Jones found? I don't have the answer and don't have access to any laboratories or test ranges where we could conclusively find out. What I do know is chances are good whatever exactly happened on September 11th, 2001 will be used again. I just hope people have become engaged and aware enough to know it when they see it.
I highly doubt anyone will be brought to justice. The best thing we can do is to not play along. I only hope if we give them enough rope, they will hang themselves.
Sometimes I wonder about 9/11. I wonder if they intentionally threw us a bone to see if we could figure it out. Much like the psychopathic serial killer that actually wants to get caught. These deviant creatures seem to have minds that work very different from ours. Their hubris is becoming more and more pronounced. At some point I truly expect them to publicly announce their intentions, then attempt to carry them out while assessing our response.
Thank you, Matt, and thanks for your insights -- and to others for comments also! O0
It is important for us to be aware and watchful. Importantly, many especially outside the US are awakening to the falsity of the official US govt story of 9ll .. The explanation by NIST (a US govt laboratory) of the collapse of WTC7 is particularly unscientific, as I have been pointing out in hundreds of talks, for years.
Recommended site, with papers and links that may be of interest (and new to many):
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Thanks Prof for that most important research link.
Our good friends in Oz want us to be aware of
how the media (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs1L4nVRWXM&feature=player_embedded) and government manipulate the
discourse.
Dustification. Works every time.
Hi All,
I do believe 9/11 was a inside job (false Flag).
The Pentagon was the real answer to any body question if our own Government would do this.
Let's not forget Waco TX, how our own Government sent tanks to kill woman and children.
The Pentagon:
First of all, every plane crash in history had thousand of parts thrown hundreds if not thousands of yards apart.
Yet all we see is a hole the size of a cruise missile, yet our Government claim the plane vaporized when it hit the building.
Just something to chew on....
Tom...
There were so many cameras around the outside of the Pentagon, and not one showed a plane hitting it that I know of, most strange :o
regards
Mike 8)
Hi Mike,
I agree, not one picture but one photo of a explosion that's it.
You would think that the Government would show the plane going iinto the Pentagon to shut us all up with facts, but they add more conspiracy to 9/11.
Pennsylvania crash was also strange, no plane parts anywhere to be seen. You would think hundreds of parts would be everywhere.
Tom
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.11.30, 03:04:51
A quote from the latest article about Fukushima....
Children over 32 miles from ground zero are suffering fatigue, diarrhea, and nosebleeds, the three most common of eight radiation sickness signs, the three in the earliest stage.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/11/29/fukushima-will-not-go-away/
Mags
Came across this video today.
The Nuclear Scare Scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA
Not sure what to make of it.
Technical description of the nukes (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/18/slam-dunk-most-classified-911-revealed/) that were used to bring down
the World Trade Center towers and buildings on 9-11.
Quote from: Dumped on 2014.07.21, 05:16:50
Technical description of the nukes (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/18/slam-dunk-most-classified-911-revealed/) that were used to bring down
the World Trade Center towers and buildings on 9-11.
@Dumped
Oh yes we all saw and heard the nuclear explosions at the base of the towers that brought them down from the top that day! You and a few others here are the reason I don't post much here anymore. I am firmly convinced that you are a muslim chatbot spewing Islamic propaganda and trying to counter people that can think for themselves.
You have never posted anything of value and everything you say can be easily gleaned off the internet with the exception of a few personal things you throw in to keep the impression that you are a real person, a well written Chatbot Program. Please take your nukes and blow yourself up. This site should dump you!
Why thank you Room3327,
I understand fully where you're coming from.
Waking up to Truth is very, very difficult for some.
The W54 micro-nuke pits when initiated do not
produce the same effects as a full scale multi-
kiloton bomb. They're designed for small scale
relatively clean destruction of targets such as
steel framed skyscrapers. The noise generated
is much more like a "poof" than a "blast." The
very high temperature plasma ball does the
vaporizing and melting of the structure.
Room
QuoteI am firmly convinced that you are a muslim chatbot spewing Islamic propaganda and trying to counter people that can think for themselves.
I find that quiet a bizarre statement, infact Dumped is a very technical person, it just so happens he does not trust his own government, but how you came to the conclusion he's spewing Islamic propaganda baffles me, and anyway it's not exactly hard to avoid 1 thread if it's not to your taste.
My apologies, will avoid.
Just trying to understand your statement Room, i have had much help and chat with Dumped on technical terms in the past, and i had never seen any Islamic side to him apart from he really does not trust his government, and to be honest i am not sure i trust mine either :)
Peterae,
I most emphatically do not trust my government either, nor do I know what governments anywhere on earth can be trusted!
But some things are just too far out there to believe, and believe me I know there are many bazaar things going on all over but come on who believes that the twin towers were nuked except Muslim propagandists. I'm sorry but I did not leave my brains at home.
:D
P.S. They could have been brought down by Alien Technology, or Thermite or other things hid from us by the Government but I would bet my life they were not brought down by nuclear weapons.
All we can all do is look at the evidence and draw our own conclusions, i dread to think about the weapons we don't know about, some of the ones we do know about are scary enough.
I am pretty positive Dumped is not a Robotic Muslin Propagandist ;D
Peterae,
How do you know there aren't any chatbots here, trying to lead the conversation, do you have a way to out the the chatbots and it could be Government chatbots that I am talking about, any kind. Is there software or other security measures that can find chatbots? Have you ever found any previously? It may be something to look into.
I believe they are becoming prevalent on line. O0
I find Dumped at all times to be a perfect gentleman with a cool head, big heart and very technically saavy, both in public and in my private PM's with him.
He has many beliefs which only those with a very good eye for pattern recognition have come to form.
In my opinion, his estimation of events both past and present has been spot on.
I can't say the same for his present adversary, who is actually the one responding like a programmed robot and very predictably like a person that has given up thinking for himself, and runs with the herd.
Only those who have been filled with hatred by the media, those who have been programmed to hate a certain religious sect and engage in such hate speech would make such dastardly claims. We can see who is spewing the hate speech. It is shameful.
I get all the broadcast hate email against Muslims, the Video discs that come in the mail trying to make the case, the subtle and sometimes not so subtle nonsense on the (?) owned media....difference is it doesn't work because critical thinking will make you ask yourself "why are they telling me this, what do they want me to believe, who do they want me to hate, for what reason, and who benefits".
As an example, watch the cartoons circulated by the US demonizing the Japanese during WWII and you will get the idea and free your mind.
"Thou protest too loudly and have given thyself away".
Regards, ION
I'll second that ION.
The one thing I'm sure of, everyone has their own motivation; until you walk in the shoes of both sides, you lack perspective. Do I know what it's like to be an Israeli? No. Do I know what it's like to be an average Ukrainian? No. A Muslim? No. There are thousands of such scenarios, none of which I can speak to with authority. So what do I do? I read and I research to just get a small glimpse and I keep my mouth shut because I can only "think", I cannot "know". And that's how simple it is.
Dustification...
Hey Thanks guys,
I spent 8 years researching Islam and came to my dislike all by myself, it had nothing to do with anything else. If you spent some time researching It, you would change your tune. but believe anything you want.
Don't forget this is the "Enter at your own risk" thread.
If I am wrong about Dumped I apologize to him.
But please don't tell me I don't do my own research on this stuff.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2014.07.22, 03:30:34
Hey Thanks guys,
I spent 8 years researching Islam and came to my dislike all by myself, it had nothing to do with anything else. If you spent some time researching It, you would change your tune. but believe anything you want.
Don't forget this is the "Enter at your own risk" thread.
If I am wrong about Dumped I apologize to him.
But please don't tell me I don't do my own research on this stuff.
When doing research, I may not have to state this, but it is important to remove all bias or the research results will be skewed.
Practically, this is often very difficult to do, as we are more or less biased humans.
Watch the old movie " Twelve Angry Men", it has many lessons in "bias" versus a logical and reasoned approach to evidence.
Even the TV character "Columbo" would not have taken the events of 911 at face value and would have looked much deeper into "motive" and "benefit".
"Occams Razor" of the simplest answer being the most accurate may not universally apply when there is sophisticated and / or concerted intent at obfuscation.
QuoteBut some things are just too far out there to believe, and believe me I know there are many bazaar things going on all over but come on who believes that the twin towers were nuked except Muslim propagandists. I'm sorry but I did not leave my brains at home.
Where is your research data to support this bold statement?
Be careful of what you say to me Ion. You and Dumped and tysb3 and a couple others here destroyed my reputation a couple years ago, I have nothing left to lose.
But I believe now more people have awakened to the horrors of Islam and more will awake everyday, and as time goes on I will be vindicated and you will be the one looking bad.
Cheers
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.07.22, 04:46:28
I don't believe all the wild theories about how the buildings came down. To me it is very clear how they came down. The towers were hit by planes, thus the load bearing structure was compromised somewhat, and due to some of the heat from the fires that started, the steel frame began to change its properties slowly and began to yield. Once the top floors began to fall, a chain reaction ensued and there was no stooping it until everything collapsed. I challenge you guys to put a steel spring in a fire and then go retrieve it after some time and try to stretch it. You will find out how malleable it has become and has no more strength(elasticity). Basic metallurgy.
All these wild theories I believe are diversions to bring ridicule to the conspiracy camp, but I do believe there was a conspiracy.
Ok, fair enough, I disagree with you but you are entitled to your opinion.
You claim to have some basic metallurgy under your belt so please explain why WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed?
No plane hit it, minor structural damage to the exterior and a few small isolated fires..
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html
Maybe 7 just felt lonely with the twins suddenly gone.. 8 hours of shock, contemplating how the future had changed and was heartbroken at the prospect of a future without them.. 7 made its decision.. all choked up it sent the BBC a farewell and 20 minutes later... it jumped..
err no, hold on a minute it didn't jump.. reading the wrong damn script here!
.. it simultaneously lost the ability to bear load along it's entire superstructure.. it
collapsed!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collapse
To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.What is your opinion on 7's plight ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.07.22, 17:56:24
What is your opinion on 7's plight ?
It took weeks and weeks to prepare with demolition devices that apparently no law enforcement agent noticed, because they were too busy running around chasing ghosts.
The good thing though (for a few folks), all those documents concerning the missing two trillion dollars from the Pentagon... We no longer have to concern ourselves with any investigation there anymore. So I guess I can also forget about ever getting a tax refund because someone found the missing cash.
From room3327
QuoteBe careful of what you say to me Ion. You and Dumped and tysb3 and a couple others here destroyed my reputation a couple years ago, I have nothing left to lose.
But I believe now more people have awakened to the horrors of Islam and more will awake everyday, and as time goes on I will be vindicated and you will be the one looking bad.
room3327
If I have directly or indirectly offended you by stating my opinion, then I apologize.
As you said, you may be right, time will tell. There are also many other possible outcomes.
Kind regards
ION
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.07.24, 03:47:37
My question to you or anybody is: How is my opinion going to help you be a beter person?
I try to be a decent person. I think before I act and I try to put myself in someone else's shoes and think how my behavior will be received by others. I'm a bit of loner but I can get along with most anyone as long as they don't have preconceived opinions of me and treat me decency and respect.
What I really dislike most about 9/11, is how so many things were done in my name as an American, that I had no say in, yet I have to accept the repercussions (blow-back as Ron Paul calls it) of those decisions. I'm a human first and an American second. It's not right I'm no longer on equal footing with people from other countries because of what my government decided to do. I'm told they hate me for my freedoms. Hogwash! My freedoms potentially could have improved their lives, they way they want them improved, many levels over. But I'll never get that chance now.
How can discussing this make us better people?
For starters we need to come together as a people inhabiting this little round rock floating through space. If governments and nations aren't helping us, we need to change things so that it does, or eliminate it. We can still have groups where common culture and beliefs settle together. What we really need is more truth and less boundaries. Here's a quote to think over:
"There are seven things that will destroy us: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Religion without sacrifice; Politics without principle; Science without humanity; Business without ethics."
~ Mahatma Gandhi
On page 8 of this thread MileHigh gives a very good explanation for wwtc 7 coming down.
This entire thread is a very good read and a real eyeopener.
Below is some pic's of flight 93,and the a couple of the latest disasyer -flight 17.
Flight 93 came down in one piece when it hit the ground,and light 17 was hit by a surface to air missle,befor falling 10 000 meters to the ground.
Anyone see the difference here?.A plane that hit's the ground in one piece,but no sign of any engine's or any other part that looked like a plane of that size(they were found burried later when the area was blocked from the public.
And yet a plane that was blown apart from a missle,and plumeted to earth in pieces from 10 000 meters above,shows clearly engine's and large pieces of debris that can clearly be seen as plane parts.
The photo's tell a lot, Tinman, but people will only see what they choose and then put their blinders back on, alternately they engage in rather flimsy and uninformed arguments to explain away solid physical evidence.
Here's a picture of Osama Bin laden from the late 60's or early 70's wearing bell bottoms second from the right. Notice also, all the women are forced to wear burka's. ;)
I recently watched the British Pathe series of Iraq in the early 50's that showed many freely adopting western culture and dress without a problem.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ageless-iraq-reel-1
There is always the strict crackpot religious fundamentalists that make life difficult for everyone in every country, in the US we have the religious right.
Western propagandists would have you believe all women in the east are forced to wear burka's and we must free them.
Of course, the US has no interest in the forced genital mutilation of women in Africa since we also engaged in the practice as recently as the early 1900's. We are more concerned with womens fashion in other countries.
It is important to have perspective.
Regarding page 8 "eyeopener"
Yes the eyeopener is that MH has never done any work with steel, he admits. He doesn't know by firsthand experience what it takes to melt it, has never tried different fuels to attempt it., yet has now become an expert with his "limp spaghetti model".
I grew up in a small steel town. I've done all these things I mentioned due to an early fascination with the process of melting steel, did many experiments on my own, and worked in a steel mill before I was 22, so was around the steel melting daily, probably before he was born, firsthand experience !
This steel mill had basic oxygen furnace (BOF) , open hearth, and blast furnaces. One might never imagine what it takes to melt steel until one has seen one of these fired up close and firsthand, it is both impressive and frightening. It cannot be done with kerosene and requires very high grade solid fuels like "coke". Low heat fuels would be used only for warmup.
Also there have been other buildings burning for sometimes weeks before the fires are put out and they have been restored to full functional use afterwards without the steel being replaced, so what made the twin towers steel different.
If you go to google images of high rise fires and yet no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=high+rise+building+fires&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RTvRU-m1LdLy7AaYzoDoDA&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=625&dpr=0.8
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.24, 17:01:48
Also there have been other buildings burning for sometimes weeks before the fires are put out and they have been restored to full functional use afterwards without the steel being replaced, so what made the twin towers steel different.
If you go to google images of high rise fires and yet no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=high+rise+building+fires&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RTvRU-m1LdLy7AaYzoDoDA&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=625&dpr=0.8
The steel was different because it was made out of pasta, per MH's expose'.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
has done a great service to mankind IMHO by presenting the facts and encouraging pursuit of justice/real investigation.
Now over 2200 engineers and architects; and over 19000 other supporters.
Have you joined or signed support? (I have, long ago)
Peter
quote
If you go to google images of high rise fires and yet no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse
-----------------------
I am not sure about that comment , I spent many years testing structures in NYC for integrity and helped to design structural remediation for older buildings in need of reinforcement [ seismic building codes Via Japanese earthquake technologies]
I also spent a decade in highrise demolition in NYC [mostly due to my hands on work with structure]
If a beam has been Corrupted do to fire, shoring will be installed and remediation protocol will be put in place [it gets fixed]
I personally tested the towers on a regular basis [steel and concrete] over a period of 20 years ,every time a floor was rented they would need test data for all connections and make sure that the Data was in line with the actual existing structures condition.
so I tested....[field verification]
My phone rang and I was asked to come down to the towers the first time it was bombed in 1993
{that phone call had more to do with a magnesium Lance I was showing the port authority at Laguardia airports main runway,
a failing expansion joint remediation ,the Cheif Engineer for the Port Authority thought the Lance might help clear some debris with out to much vibration
they were absolutely terrified that the building might come down......[in 1993]
and getting to the point ...they had good reason to be scared it was built like a 100 story shopping mall with lightweight bar joist construction and lightweight concrete floor deck bridged between a perimeter wall[srtucture] and interior elevator core/foundation.
no interior columns anywhere 1 acre free wide open space on every floor
once one floor melted ,"Melted do to no fire sprinklers and no fire coating left on the bar joist [blown off at impact of the plane] and failed [pulled the connections out at the Bar joist ends]
Gravity and inertia took over...
I Must add I was in Building seven and tested there too ...
that thing was built like a structural steel exhibit ....unbelievably strong.
something very very odd there...
thx
Chet
" I Must add I was in Building seven and tested there too ...
that thing was built like a structural steel exhibit ....unbelievably strong.
something very very odd there...
thx
Chet "
Yes indeed, very odd !! The BBC announced it's suicide 20 min's before it jumped !! ;)
I watched the video a number of times, classic demolition, full implosion from the centre out. Collapsed onto its own footprint. Minimal peripheral damage. ;)
I can only feel a great sadness.
Cheers Grum.
Explosions: How We Shook the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01pjt_K-94M
C.C
Actually the interior of the WTC was not one acre of wide open space. The interior core took up a large part of the footprint of each floors acre. It was an extremely rigid core structure. see here:
http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html
Anyone who has studied the blueprints of the WTC or watched the available films of their construction will note the size of the box beams and girders used in the core and the outer walls. They were enormous.
Quote:
QuoteThe detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
and there is also evidence that ACARS tracked the planes after the towers impact ???
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.24, 21:11:38
and there is also evidence that ACARS tracked the planes after the towers impact ???
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
The 911 rabbit hole is very deep indeed, lots of new info keeps emerging. It is difficult to keep up.
I'd stick my head in the sand to avoid it all but it would crinkle my tinfoil hat. ;)
This video shows the construction far better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HvobAp3iD8
ION
At 3, 12 in that video you will see the connection I refer to ,the top cord of the shopping mall bar joist that bridged the perimeter structure to the Core.
on top of that Bar joist was light weight concrete, there was No active fire protection in the building[sprinklers].
I have not followed any of the theories ,nor why they would let it burn for an hour or so after the "strikes" if they were only going to bring it down with charges...?
for the record I was never allowed to test that perimeter wall [forbidden to be touched/ holes drilled etc ]
This topic still gives me the heebee jeebies.... :o
thx
Chet
Quote from: Chet K
they were absolutely terrified that the building might come down......[in 1993]
We must not forget that the 1993 "attack" was an FBI nurtured and
managed event. It was a set-up.
This is where the seeds of possibility were planted. This was no doubt
reported in the various media of the time as well in order to add
legitimacy to the possibility that a collapse was feared.
Are these kinds of "false flag" disasters planned that far ahead? Yes.
Quote from: Chet K
I have not followed any of the theories ,nor why they would let it burn for an hour or so after the "strikes" if they were only going to bring it down with charges...?
Who would be the "they" in your questions? Why would "they" do it
in the fashion that "they" did? To maximize the emotional impact in
the minds of all who saw the tragedy; and to further increase the odds
of the multitudes believing the lies which followed.
As the Truth continues to march forward and gain momentum more
and more are slowly acknowledging how they'd been deceived.
Israel has already stated that they had agents in place in New York
City to "document the event" and that they are grateful for how
they've benefited from the event. In their eyes they've committed
the perfect crime.
Will they in due time be held accountable? Yes.
The same folks who did 9-11 are
now doing this.
Chet:
I could expect the bar joists to break loose from their moorings to the outside huge box columns and to the connection points to inner core columns if there were to be a "pancake style" collapse.
I cannot imagine the outer core and inner core being reduced to rubble by a pancake collapse. My imagination may be limited, but my common sense (Like Columbo) smells something rotten in NY.
The required energy to turn all that concrete into a fine powder pyroclastic flow covering a very large area exceeds by a big margin what is available with a pancake style collapse.
As an experiment, one could weld and bolt together a scale model using square steel box tubing, cement all the floors in and fire a beercan filled with kerosene into the structure at the required speed. What do you think will happen?
(I understand it is incorrect to exactly scale down materials like this, as elasticity and load bearing ability changes with size, but just try to imagine it anyway)
I have tried with all the fuel power I can muster to melt down my cast iron wood stove or my barbecue grill it's impossible, and they are low grade materials. I cannot even melt or sag the unsupported flue pipe which is only 1/32 of an inch thick, though I can get it to glow cherry red. It takes a white hot fire to begin to melt steel. Red hot, and you can hammer it into shapes, but it takes a lot of effort.
In the towers we see a cold, oxygen starved, fuel starved fire, and people waving for help in the openings where the plane entered just a short time earlier.
common sense.
Probably already been discused here,but what of the incorrect engine at ground zero ,that they tried to pass of as one of the 767's engines that hit the south tower(pictured below)
This engine is actually from a 737(modle CFM56) ,not a 767.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2014.07.24, 03:47:37
So building 7 collapsed for almost the same reason the twins collapsed, but it took longer since it did not suffer the same initial structural damage. Load bearing characteristics of almost any material will change when temperature rises. Once again, basic metallurgy.
Can you please explain why your 'basic metallurgy' collapse theory only applied to buildings WTC 1, 2 and 7 on September 11 2001, and not to any other known buildings throughout recorded history ?
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/891-watch-these-raging-infernos-in-steel-framed-structures-around-the-globe.html
A 3 minute video of raging inferno's in tall buildings.. not a single one experienced symmetric failure of all load bearing members at the same moment, none of them
collapsed at freefall speed. Why ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NrASZxGu_o
Why does your theory of 'basic metallurgy' fail in the many above examples ??
Dear All.
My wife and I have just watched this. Some interesting points raised !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec&sns=em
From my own experience working in the Foundry business I too found the fact that molten Steel could be created by simply mixing Kerosene and air was too good to be true !! I wish I had had that sort of technology back then !! :)
Cheers Grum.
Can anyone explain the steel girder that is many stories tall just dissipating into dust?
This is the game changer signal or the white elephant in the room.
And I might add nullifies any scientific explain of the other events to this point.
Unless someone can explain the girder dissipation then all other words spoken are for naught.
Yes, I stood in front of the TV that morning in tears and horror, until I started asking questions. I knew it had to be something greater than the public knew. When I saw Dr Judy Wood's explanation I kicked myself in the ass, real hard. Because I knew Tesla has stated 'With the correct frequency I could split the planet.'
One big friggin' DUH. And if you can not comprehend that, what the hell are ya doing studying free energy.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2014.08.03, 22:27:53
Can anyone explain the steel girder that is many stories tall just dissipating into dust?
Indeed - this is corrected in FAQ#3 by AE911Truth.org -
QuoteWood asserts that the steel "turned to dust." One of the key observations that she uses to support this conclusion is the dust that appeared when a portion of the North Tower's core finally came down about 12 seconds into the destruction of the North Tower, several seconds after the floors that used to surround that core structure had been pulverized or had fallen to the ground. Upon studying the video of the "spire," however, we find that the steel did not "turn to dust" (see for example the next to last segment in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ). The spire clearly simply fell after being "shaken" – most likely by explosive charges, leaving behind, in mid-air, the pulverized concrete that had been resting on, or statically stuck to, the steel. As is well known, air resistance causes dust to fall slower than structural steel (note the final remaining column falling faster than the dust in the third photograph of the sequence).
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html
Note also that last week, AE911Truth's Richard Gage appeared for 40 minutes on C-SPAN, answering questions!
QuoteFrom my own experience working in the Foundry business I too found the fact that molten Steel could be created by simply mixing Kerosene and air was too good to be true !! I wish I had had that sort of technology back then !! Smiley
Cheers Grum.
Could you expand on how this might be done or were you speaking tongue in cheek? How would a newcomer to this thread interpret your statement? From my experience it cannot be done with Kero /air mixture. Maybe Kero / pure oxygen?, don't know, I'm not a chemist or metallurgist, just a guy with common sense and some firsthand experience.
Talking of sulphur, the whole 911 thing smells of bad eggs.
There must have been a huge amount of people involved, the thing is why have there not been any squealers :o
I really do think this was an inside job, the evidence is so great, maybe they bumped off the charge layers etc, what is a few more on top of the thousands that have died :(
In the last 25 years or so I have taken on a different light of this world we live on, it is so corrupt.
regards
Mike 8)
PS. ION I think Grum was talking tongue in cheek, our English way, we both come from the same neck of the woods ;D
Quote from: Centraflow on 2014.08.04, 18:33:04
There must have been a huge amount of people involved, the thing is why have there not been any squealers :o
Compartmentalization solves the problem and not that many were actually required.
Remember the Manhatten Project and how it was kept secret. Tens of thousands of workers, only a handful knew the intent of the project.
Wireless radio detonated explosives eliminates the need for wires. Only need to drill holes, insert and plaster over them. Narrow beamed high power microwave signal from building 7 sweeping from top to bottom of towers insures progressive and properly timed explosions. Building 7 then a normal demolition event to destroy evidence of high power microwave beaming equipment on the 21st floor.
People can get very quiet when their families lives are threatened. Those "hands on" closest to the placing of the explosives can also be eliminated.
Just a wild guess of how high tech it might have been.
Quote from: ION on 2014.08.04, 16:09:51
Could you expand on how this might be done or were you speaking tongue in cheek? How would a newcomer to this thread interpret your statement? From my experience it cannot be done with Kero /air mixture. Maybe Kero / pure oxygen?, don't know, I'm not a chemist or metallurgist, just a guy with common sense and some firsthand experience.
Dear ION.
My apologies, I was being very, very sarcastic. :)
I have a friend in the Midlands ( UK ) who uses Kerosene and air for his Brass foundry that can be coaxed up to the temperature of molten Copper, 1084 deg C or 1981.4 deg F. And when I sat coaxed I mean coaxed !! The furnace can be running flat out for nearly an hour. Oh and this furnace has a suitable Refractory lining to prevent heat loss.
To me and I think many others the statement that burning aviation fuel could have been the cause of the molten Steel was absolutely laughable !! I must temper this statement with the fact that the destruction was
NO laughing matter.
I have watched the videos giantkiller was referring to, where the vertical Steel column literally blew away on the wind. It set me thinking to just what sort of energy weapon could have been used to completely destabilise both Steel and Concrete. I am of course referring to the massive amounts of choking white dust that was spread over the area.
I hope eventually the truth, will out??
Cheers Grum.
Grum, no problem, I was hoping newcomers viewing the thread would not get the wrong idea.
Regarding the schism between the "dustification DEW camp" and the "nano thermite" camp, I don't see why there should be a war between these two camps, as it is possible to allow for each. It should all be treated as just evidence of something bizarre. Either or both might have been used.
Maybe "divide and conquer" is at work by those who would "poison the well".
What caused 9-11 devastation? (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.htm)
An older article - some links have expired. (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm)
Henry Makow's article. (http://www.henrymakow.com/mini-nukes_were_used_on_9-11.html)
Yes, it's very likely that various technologies and devices
were used in the towers. Well organized and executed
plans always utilize diversity in order to assure success.
Christopher Bollyn nails it (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=102151)!
Quote from: Dumped on 2014.08.10, 21:19:01
Christopher Bollyn nails it (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=102151)!
Yes, very much to the point. Left out of this is one thing I would like people to consider:
This kind of non-human behavior towards other humans, may not actually manifest from human origins. We all know about Occam's Razor and in this case it would appear a very straightforward and logical conclusion can be made. For me though, there is a tiny voice in the back of my head saying, "Don't be so quick to decide. Taking the road less travelled might led you to the truth." Call me crazy, but I have a hunch this is more complex than it would appear. What some of us perceive as pure evil probably has the power to induce living creatures into this sort of behavior. Where this source comes from...? I have no idea. I do believe we should be aware of its existence and understand the power it has over life and death. At one level we may think we have determined means, motive and opportunity, but consider that there may be a higher level/power present that also benefits. All I ask is don't get caught playing the game when what you set out to accomplish is understanding the game.
Let us talk about asbestos insulation. The towers were due for a revamp. But oh the cost. Gee, I know. Let's incite terrorism. Yep that'l hide the cover up real clean like.
Oh, and the landlord got paid the insurance claim.
Some interesting history:
Col. L. Fletcher Prouty reveals what he knows about the people behind the assassination of President John. F. Kennedy.
http://www.prouty.org/
Gen. Albert "Bert" Newton Stubblebine III reveals what he believes about 911 and the NWO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMhmxVtzKL0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Uc9Fmt9hc
Dr. Alan Sabrosky discusses 911:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT1AzrKuEtM
Ex U.S. Marine Ken O'Keefe gives his opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNnMvhIThJA
Good stuff EvolvingApe.
In a sense 9-11 was the beginning of the end.
America has been fully Trance-Formed into an
instrument of the New World Order whose strings
are being pulled by a certain Middle East Rogue State.
The so-called War on Terror has been used to justify
all sorts of activities whose goal is to increase chaos
in the world.
The truth about ISIS/ISIL/IL. (http://therebel.org/en/opinion/aangirfan/788282-isis-is-run-by-simon-elliot-a-mossad-agent)
9-11 was an initial phase of the PLAN. (http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/dont-expect-to-live-much-longer/)
What is presently taking place in The Ukraine (http://henrymakow.com/2014/08/Khazars-Re-invade-Ukraine%20.html)is
further development of The PLAN following the
stimulus of 9-11.
The name "War on Terror" is a psychological ploy to
mask its true intent. Terror is being utilized to increase
world chaos with a secondary goal of decreasing the
world's population by a large percentage.
Biological and Chemical Warfare are principal components
of the effort. Geo-Engineering has additionally made
the weather itself into a weapon to be used against the
people.
The New World Order is being implemented with massive
Deception, Corruption and Brutality with an Iron Fist;
precisely as the prophets had written in The Book.
General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw
US general reveals plans for Air Force expansion in Asia:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/02/asia-a02.html
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Unannounced Israel-U.S. missile test fuels jitters over Syria:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-russia-defence-idUSBRE9820AC20130903
Leaked YouTube Tape: Turkey Plotting Pretext for War With Syria?:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2014/03/31/leaked-youtube-tape-turkey-plotting-pretext-war-syria
Obama opened the door to ISIS and is architect of chaos in Iraq, Syria and Libya:
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/obama-opened-the-door-to-isis-and-is-architect-of-the-chaos-in-iraq-syria-and-libya#.U_EXjGPoSR8
NATO's Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion:
http://nsnbc.me/2014/06/13/natos-terror-hordes-iraq-pretext-syria-invasion/
The Lavon Affair: How a false-flag operation led to war and the Israeli bomb:
http://thebulletin.org/2013/julyaugust/lavon-affair-how-false-flag-operation-led-war-and-israeli-bomb
Kurdish fighters reclaim Iraq's largest dam from Islamic State with support from US airstrikes in their biggest victory since the Islamist group began its offensive:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727335/Kurdish-fighters-Iraqs-largest-dam-Jihadists-support-US-airstrikes-Recapture-biggest-prize-Islamist-State-started-offensive.html
Exodus of the Yazidis: Refugee crisis steps up with thousands fleeing into Syria as Obama arms Kurdish forces against ISIS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721686/Now-U-S-sending-weapons-Kurdish-forces-Obama-steps-offensive-against-ISIS.html
Obama welcomes new Iraqi leaders as 'step forward':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2721678/Obama-welcomes-new-Iraqi-leaders-step-forward.html
'All of us were thunderstruck': Missouri Governor Jay Nixon disturbed by 'over-militarization' of police in Ferguson as city gears up for second night of state-imposed curfew after man was shot last night:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727319/All-thunderstruck-Missouri-Governor-Jay-Nixon-disturbed-militarization-police-Ferguson.html
Islamic extremists will come to Britain if nothing is done to stop them, says David Cameron as Church of England slams Prime Minister's 'incoherent' Middle East policy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726956/Islamic-extremists-come-Britain-stop-says-David-Cameron-Church-England-slams-Prime-Minister-s-incoherent-Middle-East-policy.html
An update to my previous post:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727686/David-Cameron-says-We-HAVE-fight-Islamic-State-jihadis-face-mayhem-streets.html
We have to fight 'monstrous' ISIS terrorists or face 'mayhem on our own streets', warns Cameron... as he reveals he is going on holiday AGAIN in the 'next few days'
I briefly skimmed this story when it was first published this morning and was quite shocked by the blatant threat in the headline, I thought to myself.. they are really getting desperate!. When I came back to read it this evening the headline had changed slightly and I think there was no mention of Cameron going on holiday again in the original article, it was an entirely separate article altogether, that has now disappeared. It seems they have rolled two story's into one to soften and distract from the threat that was originally posted.
If I remember correctly the original headline was:
"We HAVE to fight 'monstrous' ISIS terrorists or face 'mayhem on our own streets', warns Cameron..."
Notice how the word "HAVE" is capitalised in the address hyperlink:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727686/David-Cameron-says-We-HAVE-fight-Islamic-State-jihadis-face-mayhem-streets.html
They have slipped up and forgot to remove the evidence that shows the original headline in the address bar.. oops..
Check out the comments to that article, some people are starting to understand and see the big picture..
P.S. I have just realised this page has been edited again:
Published 09:44
1st edit 15:38
2nd edit 18:38
They changed it again while I was writing this post.. the new headline on 18:38 edit:
We have to fight ISIS or face 'mayhem on our streets', warns Cameron... as he defends going on holiday AGAIN because he's always 'within a few feet of a BlackBerry'
"within a few feet of a BlackBerry" line featured prominently in the now disappeared stand alone article about Dave's next holiday.. further proof they have rolled the two articles into one..
Now ask yourself why all this has happened to this article today ?
How "convenient" to those in power that there is a
steady supply of new and ever more ferocious "enemies"
which must be dealt with.
Funny how each of these enemies today is the creation of
U.S./U.K./Israeli/NATO Special Forces. Enemies who are
trained to be exceedingly brutal in their killings of vast
numbers of innocent victims.
A repeating pattern which has been used in the French
Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spanish Revolution,
the Pol Pot Revolution, and all that has transpired since to
our present day with Al Qaeda and now ISIS/ISIL/IL.
Nothing is left to chance...
Yes, I agree.. very 'convenient' indeed..
When we look at recent 'history' we learn that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA in the 70's to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 70's, they funded, armed and trained them. The heroin trade has done very well out of it all..
Later we see the removal of Saddam in Iraq, the CIA's man in the middle east who they put in power with a coup. Failed attempts to demonise Iran, the move on Libya using Al Qaeda as 'boots on the ground' supported by NATO C&C and air strikes.. these same rebels were well armed by the West, and even better armed after acquiring Gaddafi's weapons armoury..
These same 'rebels' now 're-branded' as ISIS and moving into southern Iraq and Syria, 'capturing' hi tech weapons from the New Iraqi Army which fled, the weapons supplied by the Americans of course at tax payer's expense.. very convenient.
The coup in Ukraine designed to create a WW3 pretext has failed, Putin outmaneuvered them at every turn. Putin of course knows that the 'aware' people in the west are watching our leaders with disgust as they wage state sponsored terrorism covertly on the East, while rapidly expanding the police state in the West.. he is no fool. The demonisation of Putin by the Western media has been laughable!
The Petro $ is a dead man walking, usury has had it's day, those involved in these terrible crime's against humanity are shitting bricks right now.. their only option when it all becomes unsustainable is to destroy the electrical grid globally via EMP attack and use continuity of government plans to escape the consequences.. afterwards they can spin whatever story they want..
They better make darn sure I don't survive it then, because if I get my hands on them, they'll learn firsthand a whole new chapter of brutal and ruthless.
Some info on EMP's in the MSM and alternative media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVLIJDXNXoo
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/life-after-an-emp-attack-no-power-no-food-no-transportation-no-banking-and-no-internet
http://www.silverdoctors.com/what-are-you-going-to-do-when-a-massive-emp-blast-fries-the-u-s-electrical-grid/
We cannot say after the event that we were not warned beforehand...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.19, 00:48:10
Some info on EMP's in the MSM and alternative media:
I tend to wonder if the EMP will actually be a CME instead.
Of course now we have Ebola to watch out for:
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/08151401/Ebola_Liberia_Death_Spiral.html
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.08.19, 03:08:06
I tend to wonder if the EMP will actually be a CME instead.
Of course now we have Ebola to watch out for:
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/08151401/Ebola_Liberia_Death_Spiral.html
EBOLA, man made or not?
There are a lot of questions and no answers, it is getting out of hand. We had AIDS and still have got it all over the world, EBOLA has a 95% fatality rate and no cure at the moment.
I wonder how long it will be before it is world wide? very frightening, is this another weapon gone wrong? or maybe not!!! I did hear a political person, also very rich, say that we need to reduce the world population down by at least 50%!!!!!!!!
regards
Mike 8) 8)
Not looking good for the Ukraine 'government' and by extension the USA:
CIA Director John Brennan Visits Ukraine Amid Crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/john-brennan-ukraine_n_5147869.html
Brennan was in the Ukraine about 3 months or so before MH17 was shot down, quite possibly overseeing the coup of a democratically elected government and planning the MH17 false flag attack designed to bring Russia into WW3. Who knows ?
Ukrainian air-traffic control sent doomed flight MH17 over the conflict zone in Donetsk region, says Russia
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728660/Ukrainian-air-traffic-control-sent-doomed-flight-MH17-conflict-zone-Donetsk-region-says-Russia.html
Lord West of Spithead seems aware of what is going on:
Ex-Navy chief warns ministers of dangers of 'mission creep': Former First Sea Lord calls for any attack on jihadists to be fully thought through
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728384/Ex-Navy-chief-warns-ministers-dangers-mission-creep-Former-First-Sea-Lord-calls-attack-jihadists-fully-thought-through.html#comments
Hi All,
William Cooper talked about 9/11 false flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTjPGy2k_U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTjPGy2k_U)
Tom
This story is dropping out of the media very fast:
I fear our panic stricken politicians are leading us into another bloody shambles in Iraq, says GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2729438/I-fear-panic-stricken-politicians-leading-bloody-shambles-Iraq-GENERAL-SIR-MICHAEL-ROSE.html
Council On Foreign Relations: The Ukraine Crisis Is the West's – Not Putin's – Fault
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/council-foreign-relations-ukraine-crisis-wests-putins-fault.html
American Intelligence Officers Who Battled the Soviet Union for Decades Slam the Flimsy "Intelligence" Against Russia
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/obama-release-ukraine-evidence.html
The propaganda coup in Ukraine failed to kick off the war they badly need, hence the rapid pivot to ISIS and the media programming to invade Syria, who are protected by Russia and to a lesser extent China.
Did you note the mention of a steering group ?
This guy's video work is rather interesting to follow. He does tend to make good points and is very articulate.
'It's time to talk to Assad': Ex Army chief Lord Dannatt says West must work with Syrian dictator to defeat ISIS... as France slams UK for blocking air strikes last year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731588/It-s-time-talk-Assad-Former-military-chief-says-West-work-dictator-defeat-ISIS-France-slams-UK-blocking-air-strikes-Syria.html
Quoting Simon from Leeds:
"Sensible comment years too late. Instead we armed the rebels. No wonder William Hague quietly shuffled out the back door."
BBC News Syria crisis UK FM William Hague praises EU arms decision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQbXMKt4Z0s
And for those wondering what this has to do with 911..
General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 TRUTH
http://www.ae911truth.org/#Evidence
Excellent work Matt Watts and Evolving Ape.
Centra Flow and Tommey Reed also.
As the pieces fit into place the picture which
emerges is a very ugly one.
Many are wondering "How much longer until the
end?"
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.22, 11:25:53
'It's time to talk to Assad': Ex Army chief Lord Dannatt says West must work with Syrian dictator to defeat ISIS... as France slams UK for blocking air strikes last year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731588/It-s-time-talk-Assad-Former-military-chief-says-West-work-dictator-defeat-ISIS-France-slams-UK-blocking-air-strikes-Syria.html
The headline on that link has changed:
'We will NOT align ourselves with Assad': Foreign Secretary rejects ex Army chief Lord Dannatt's call for talks with Syrian dictator'
If We Stop Arming, Funding and Training Terrorists, then Maybe We Won't Have to Bomb Them Later
http://investmentwatchblog.com/if-we-stop-arming-funding-and-training-terrorists-then-maybe-we-wont-have-to-bomb-them-later/
Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, How to Ensure a Thriving Caliphate
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175884/
"Think of the new "caliphate" of the Islamic State, formerly the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's gift to the world (with a helping hand from the Saudis and other financiers of extremism in the Persian Gulf). How strange that they get so little credit for its rise, for the fact that the outlines of the Middle East, as set up by Europe's colonial powers in the wake of World War I, are being swept aside in a tide of blood.
Had George and Dick not decided on their "cakewalk" in Iraq, had they not raised the specter of nuclear destruction and claimed that Saddam Hussein's regime was somehow linked to al-Qaeda and so to the 9/11 attacks, had they not sent tens of thousands of American troops into a burning, looted Baghdad ("stuff happens"), disbanded the Iraqi army, built military bases all over that country, and generally indulged their geopolitical fantasies about dominating the oil heartlands of the planet for eternity, ISIS would have been an unlikely possibility, no matter the ethnic and religious tensions in the region. They essentially launched the drive that broke state power there and created the kind of vacuum that a movement like ISIS was so horrifically well suited to fill.
All in all, it's a remarkable accomplishment to look back on. In September 2001, when George and Dick launched their "Global War on Terror" to wipe out -- so they then claimed -- "terrorist networks" in up to 60 countries, or as they preferred to put it, "drain the swamp," there were scattered bands of jihadis globally, while al-Qaeda had a couple of camps in Afghanistan and a sprinkling of supporters elsewhere. Today, in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and an air power intervention in Libya, after years of drone (and non-drone) bombing campaigns across the Greater Middle East, jihadist groups are thriving in Yemen and Pakistan, spreading through Africa (along with the U.S. military), and ISIS has taken significant parts of Iraq and Syria right up to the Lebanese border for its own bailiwick and is still expanding murderously, despite a renewed American bombing campaign that may only strengthen that movement in the long run.
Has anyone covered this nightmare better than the world's least embedded reporter, Patrick Cockburn of the British Independent? Not for my money. He's had the canniest, clearest-eyed view of developments in the region for years now. As it happens, when he publishes a new book on the Middle East (the last time was 2008), he makes one of his rare appearances at TomDispatch. This month, his latest must-read work, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, is out. Today, this website has an excerpt from its first chapter on why the war on terror was such a failure (and why, if Washington was insistent on invading someplace, it probably should have chosen Saudi Arabia). It includes a special introductory section written just for TomDispatch. Thanks go to his publisher, OR Books." Tom
Patrick Cockburn article excerpt follows in next post:
Why Washington's War on Terror Failed
The Underrated Saudi Connection
By Patrick Cockburn
[This essay is excerpted from the first chapter of Patrick Cockburn's new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, with special thanks to his publisher, OR Books. The first section is a new introduction written for TomDispatch.]
There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington's policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.
But U.S., Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a "moderate" Syrian opposition being helped by the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.
The reality of U.S. policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.
By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the U.S. has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.
Using the al-Qa'ida Label
The sharp increase in the strength and reach of jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq has generally been unacknowledged until recently by politicians and media in the West. A primary reason for this is that Western governments and their security forces narrowly define the jihadist threat as those forces directly controlled by al-Qa'ida central or "core" al-Qa'ida. This enables them to present a much more cheerful picture of their successes in the so-called war on terror than the situation on the ground warrants.
In fact, the idea that the only jihadis to be worried about are those with the official blessing of al-Qa'ida is naïve and self-deceiving. It ignores the fact, for instance, that ISIS has been criticized by the al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for its excessive violence and sectarianism. After talking to a range of Syrian jihadi rebels not directly affiliated with al-Qa'ida in southeast Turkey earlier this year, a source told me that "without exception they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S."
Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa'ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of U.S. policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a "Southern Front" based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa'ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa'ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa'ida in Syria.
The name al-Qa'ida has always been applied flexibly when identifying an enemy. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq, as armed Iraqi opposition to the American and British-led occupation mounted, U.S. officials attributed most attacks to al-Qa'ida, though many were carried out by nationalist and Baathist groups. Propaganda like this helped to persuade nearly 60% of U.S. voters prior to the Iraq invasion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and those responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence for this. In Iraq itself, indeed throughout the entire Muslim world, these accusations have benefited al-Qa'ida by exaggerating its role in the resistance to the U.S. and British occupation.
Precisely the opposite PR tactics were employed by Western governments in 2011 in Libya, where any similarity between al-Qa'ida and the NATO-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was played down. Only those jihadis who had a direct operational link to the al-Qa'ida "core" of Osama bin Laden were deemed to be dangerous. The falsity of the pretense that the anti-Gaddafi jihadis in Libya were less threatening than those in direct contact with al-Qa'ida was forcefully, if tragically, exposed when U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by jihadi fighters in Benghazi in September 2012. These were the same fighters lauded by Western governments and media for their role in the anti-Gaddafi uprising.
Imagining al-Qa'ida as the Mafia
Al-Qa'ida is an idea rather than an organization, and this has long been the case. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources, and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa'ida's name became primarily a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs, centering on the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women, and the waging of holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, who are considered heretics worthy of death. At the center of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has resulted in using untrained but fanatical believers as suicide bombers, to devastating effect.
It has always been in the interest of the U.S. and other governments that al-Qa'ida be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or like the mafia in America. This is a comforting image for the public because organized groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and can spring up anywhere.
Osama bin Laden's gathering of militants, which he did not call al-Qa'ida until after 9/11, was just one of many jihadi groups 12 years ago. But today its ideas and methods are predominant among jihadis because of the prestige and publicity it gained through the destruction of the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq, and its demonization by Washington as the source of all anti-American evil. These days, there is a narrowing of differences in the beliefs of jihadis, regardless of whether or not they are formally linked to al-Qa'ida central.
Unsurprisingly, governments prefer the fantasy picture of al-Qa'ida because it enables them to claim victories when it succeeds in killing its better known members and allies. Often, those eliminated are given quasi-military ranks, such as "head of operations," to enhance the significance of their demise. The culmination of this heavily publicized but largely irrelevant aspect of the "war on terror" was the killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad in Pakistan in 2011. This enabled President Obama to grandstand before the American public as the man who had presided over the hunting down of al-Qa'ida's leader. In practical terms, however, his death had little impact on al-Qa'ida-type jihadi groups, whose greatest expansion has occurred subsequently.
Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
The key decisions that enabled al-Qa'ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa'ida relied for its financing on "a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia."
The report's investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.
In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the U.S. and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa'ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: "Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi'ism as Foreign Policy?" Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.
Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of U.S. bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI's sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the U.S. nor NATO has been able to reverse.
The "war on terror" has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.
The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the "war on terror" claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.
In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.
In other words, the "war on terror," the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.
Patrick Cockburn is Middle East correspondent for the Independent and worked previously for the Financial Times. He has written three books on Iraq's recent history as well as a memoir, The Broken Boy, and, with his son, a book on schizophrenia, Henry's Demons. He won the Martha Gellhorn Prize in 2005, the James Cameron Prize in 2006, and the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2009. His forthcoming book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, is now available exclusively from OR Books. This excerpt (with an introductory section written for TomDispatch) is taken from that book.
Copyright 2014 Patrick Cockburn
Wow - insightful and IMO correct! thanks for posting.
QuoteThe spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the "war on terror" claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.
In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.
In other words, the "war on terror," the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.08.23, 15:05:23
Wow - insightful and IMO correct! thanks for posting.
The main question one has to ask themselves is how do these groups acquire power and resources. I doubt very much they just dig it up out of the sand. They're getting help and I would bet it's the same two face monsters telling us how dangerous they are, doing it.
Didn't Uncle Joe tell us the best way to control your opposition is to lead it?
Excellent question. The answer is that what is now occurring
in the Middle East was planned long ago. A plan which does
include elements of seeming chaos to partially mask the
driving force.
The driving force is Israel and the corrupted Islamic States
created by Zionist Agents carrying out the PLAN for the
past two hundred or more years.
It has been a long time in the works, advanced incrementally
little by little, by nations other than Israel which have actually
come under the control of the Zionists.
The U.S., Canada, the U.K., the E.U., Australia, New Zealand and
some nations in South America and Africa are all controlled by
Zionist agents within their governments. The Money Changers
(nowadays known as Central Bankers) have amassed enormous
influence and power and are funding numerous front agencies
as well as politicians to do their bidding and their dirty work.
The near term goal is the fulfillment of Greater Israel and the
Third Temple. It is coming soon.
They have shown us repeatedly in recent history that their methods
are brutal, bloody and result in the slaughter of many, many innocent
civilians.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.23, 21:05:32
It has been a long time in the works, advanced incrementally
little by little, by nations other than Israel which have actually
come under the control of the Zionists.
So today we have a force so powerful that should we attempt to destroy it, this force will take everything down before it would ever surrender its power.
And yet I find the above statement peculiar in the sense that without the enforcers, the brains behind all this would be helpless to defend itself should "We The People" choose to eliminate the danger.
The next questions one has to ponder are: Could it be possible for us to insert ourselves between the monster's head and its claws? How would we do that? Does this monster have a doomsday device strapped around it's neck? Could we starve this monster to death without totally sacrificing ourselves in the process? Could we give this monster a Trojan Horse for it to choke on?
For me, I'm not done until I'm pushing up daisies.
"Three strikes and you are not out. There is always one more thing you can do."
-- General Hal Moore
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/LTG%28R%29_Hal_Moore_at_West_Point_10_May_2010.JPG/220px-LTG%28R%29_Hal_Moore_at_West_Point_10_May_2010.JPG)
http://www.dailypaul.com/81039/inspiring-quote-from-lt-gen-harold-hal-moore-usa-ret
Have the People the ability to reverse the PLAN?
Unfortunately, no. The game is rigged heavily in favor
of those who create "money" and "own" the System.
But, the Forces of Good from off-planet are standing
by to engage all that is Bad on Earth in the final battle.
The Good Guys will win. Then they'll completely re-make
the Planet into what it was intended to be.
A very happy situation leading up to the Ultimate Test
to be conducted in the far future.
All will be there.
Thanks Matt for the above link. It is a short quote and
very important. Very sadly, the vast majority of "American
Citizens" are too brain dead to appreciate its wisdom.
Quote from: Lt. Gen. Harold Moore, USA, Retired
"In a long question-and-answer session following my speech I was asked about Iraq and then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. In this place-where cadets live by a code that says they never lie, cheat, steal, or quibble-I was bound to speak the truth as I knew it.
The war in Iraq, I said, is not worth the life of even one American soldier. As for Secretary Rumsfeld, I told them, I never thought I would live long enough to see someone chosen to preside over the Pentagon who made Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara look good by comparison. The cadets sat in stunned silence; their professors were astonished. Some of these cadets would be leading young soldiers in combat in a matter of a few months. They deserved a straight answer.
The expensive lessons learned in Vietnam have been forgotten and a new generation of young American soldiers and Marines are paying the price today, following the orders of civilian political leaders as they are sworn to do. The soldiers and those who lead them will never fail to do their duty. They never have in our history. This is their burden. But there is another duty, another burden, that rests squarely on the shoulders of the American people. They should, by their vote, always choose a commander in chief who is wise, well read in history, thoughtful, and slow-exceedingly slow-to draw the sword and send young men and women out to fight and die for their country. We should not choose for so powerful an office someone who merely looks good on a television screen, speaks and thinks in sixty-second sound bites, and is adept at raising money for a campaign.
If we can't get that part right then there will never be an end to the insanity that is war and the unending suffering that follows in war's wake-and we must get it right if we are to survive and prosper as free Americans in this land a million Americans gave their lives to protect and defend."
Lt. Gen. Harold "Hal" G. Moore (USA RET.), (From a spring 2005 address he made at West Point to the Corps of Cadets)
Additional information regarding what 9-11 was really all about:
The New World Order.
Those who want the Whole Enchilada.
How the NSA fits in.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.24, 01:29:31
But, the Forces of Good from off-planet are standing
by to engage all that is Bad on Earth in the final battle.
I would like to think so, but I'm not so quick to resign my own resolve. I think far too many have given up--the very ones that still have the actual power to turn things around, if they only knew it.
9/11 should have been a wake-up call for everyone to put down their toys and entertainment and get to work. We let our house go far too long without a thorough cleaning. That was almost 13 years ago and still we let the crap pile to the ceiling. The job simply looks too impossible now. People have convinced themselves it cannot be fixed. There is a German fellow I correspond with quite often; he uses the tag line of:
"If you think you can or you think you can't, either way you are right."
What does that say about will power?
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.24, 01:29:31
The Good Guys will win. Then they'll completely re-make
the Planet into what it was intended to be.
A botanical garden maybe?
Something tells me no higher life form would ever make the mistake of placing human creatures on a planet as its guardian ever again.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.24, 01:29:31
A very happy situation leading up to the Ultimate Test
to be conducted in the far future.
I'm not so sure I can look my son in the eye and say that with much confidence. On the contrary, I've already told him my generation and at least two generations before me are fully responsible for the mess you see all around you. I will do what I can to help, but ultimately this next generation is going to have to dig themselves out of this scrape. Quite literally we may be witnessing the last few generations of this species.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.24, 01:29:31
All will be there.
I would like to retain the right to make that decision for myself when the time comes.
Why Washington's War on Terror Failed
The Underrated Saudi Connection
By Patrick Cockburnhttp://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41149#msg41149
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.23, 09:36:03
Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
The key decisions that enabled al-Qa'ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa'ida relied for its financing on "a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia."
The report's investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the U.S. was facilitated by the U.S. government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.
In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the U.S. and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa'ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: "Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi'ism as Foreign Policy?" Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.
Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of U.S. bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI's sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the U.S. nor NATO has been able to reverse.
The "war on terror" has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The U.S. did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.
The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the U.S., closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the "war on terror" claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.
In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.
In other words, the "war on terror," the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.
Copyright 2014 Patrick Cockburn
Nuclear Program of Saudi Arabiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistanhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops SyriaQuote
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia's naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia's Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord.
"I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us," he allegedly said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
BAE Systems shares soar after UK drops Saudi probehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2006/12/15/us-baesystems-saudi-stock-idUSL1574350720061215
BAE-Saudi Bribery Case Probe to Be Reviewed by Courthttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a925URe6N1RM
BAE forced into the red by probes into sales to Saudi Arabiahttp://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/feb/18/bae-systems-losses-corruption-sfo-us-military
UK fraud agency says lost data from BAE-Saudi deal probehttp://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-fraud-agency-says-lost-data-from-bae-saudi-deal-probe-513036.html
Jim Willie: Syria, Pipeline Politics, OPEC & the USDollar
http://www.silverdoctors.com/jim-willie-syria-pipeline-politics-opec-the-usdollar/
Syria is about the last gasp for the Petro-Dollar, the emergence of energy pipeline geopolitics, the rise of the NatGas Co-op, the new dominance of Russian Gazprom, the eclipse of OPEC, the fall of the house of Saud, and a grand adjustment process in global commerce and banking. The NatGas Co-op eclipses OPEC and ushers in a new era.
By Jim Willie, GoldenJackass.com
Refer to trade settlement outside the USDollar and diversification away from USTreasury Bond reserves management. It took some time to realize it, but the Cyprus bank incident was a misdirected attack against Gazprom. It failed. The entire Arab Spring movement, an ambitious disruptive project waged with foolhardy ambitions, has turned on itself. Egypt fell, its US puppet discharged. The entire North African region will be in flames soon. The USGovt interfered with a grand industrialization project for European industry, to be placed on North Africa intended to take advantage of cheaper labor, available minerals, nearby resources, and easy shipping. The resentment of Europe will show up in the future. The Middle East and Persian Gulf region is shifting its salute to Russia & China, as the noisy sectarian battles have been a common fixture since long ago. Bahrain has erupted. Saudi is clamping down and converting into an Islamic police state to create the Iran-Saudi repressive bobsey twins. Chaos is the longstanding objective of the USGovt in foreign policy infection, no change in decades.
Syria is about a lot of things, most of which are volatile, many unsolvable. To be sure, the naval port of Tartus is valuable for the Russian Military, always eager to wrest a seaport. Like Lebanon, Syria is a hotbed stronghold for HezBollah, never to be taken lightly. They are mortal enemies to Israel, whose nations have exchanged covert violence for years. Syria might have tight relations with the Shiites of Iran, even some in Iraq. However, Syria represents the crossroads of many important shifting geopolitical roadways that pertain to the global financial structure and commercial systems. Syria is the tipping point for a Grand Global Paradigm Shift. It is the last stand for the Anglo Banker world. Syria will not go easily into the Russian camp, into the Gazprom fold, into the European energy market sphere. For if it does, the entire USDollar system of commerce and the USTreasury Bond system of reserves management will fall by the wayside and open a new era with Eastern dominance. But the Western powers cannot stop it. Clouds of whatever type do not halt pipeline flow, nor pipeline geopolitics.
WHAT SYRIA MEANS
Syria stands at the door to the emergence of the Eastern Alliance, the new dominant energy pipelines, a new payment system detached from the USDollar and Anglo banks. Syria stands at the door which controls some incremental European energy supply. Syria stands at the door to Gold Trade Settlement, with a transition step that brings more importance to commodity backed currencies and proper valid systems for trade. Syria means the pipelines strangle the USDollar. Syria means the end of the US system of IOU coupons that pollute the global banking system. Syria means the status quo is coming to an abrupt end. Syria represents a clash of East versus West, which has more commercial and bank significance than anything reported by the lapdog press. Notice the direct line from Iran through Iraq to Syria. The natgas of Iran reaches the Mediterranean Sea through Syria.
RISE OF PIPELINE POLITICS
Syria is the end port for what the Jackass calls the Shiite Gas Pipeline. It begins in Iran and ends at the Mediterranean seaport in Syria. It was designed to terminate at a Shiite friendly nation. Thus my informal name. Ironically, Qatar is fighting against the Syrian Assad loyalists, but the Qatari natural gas will be directed into the same pipeline. In the last year, a giant Persian Gulf gas discovery was made in a joint Iran-Qatar project. Syria is about the last gasp for the Petro-Dollar. It represents a climax in Energy Pipeline Politics. Quietly for the last 15 to 20 years, Russia has been building crude oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines from the Mother Russian lands to points in Europe and China and the Former Soviet Republics. They have been constructing modern LNG gas port facilities. They have been forging contracts to supply energy to countless nations. The US-led plans have been more interference than constructive. They have consistently attempted to obstruct, rather than to build with some justification of common benefit.
The US news networks cannot tell why or how Syria is important relative to the USDollar. Most Americans cannot define money, let alone conceive of a Petro-Dollar defacto standard. They do not comprehend the global banking system having practices as an extension of Saudi crude oil sales in USDollars. They remember nothing of the Kissinger Arab Oil Surplus Recycle Pact into USTreasury Bonds and US big bank stocks. The focus should be on Pipelines and the closely related geopolitics. The focus should be on the eclipse of OPEC. The focus should be on the loss of Western Europe to the Russian fold, where natural gas supply will alter decisions. Notice the UK Parliament did not offer military support for the USGovt in Syria. They might have received a phone call from either Putin at the Kremlin or the CEO of Gazprom. Coming to a world near you is the NatGas Coop led by Gazprom. A regular feature in geopolitical decisions will be the integration of natgas supply to Europe and Great Britain.
ECLIPSE OF OPEC
Clearly heading out is OPEC and its influence. The dirty secret for ten years has been the depletion and decline in Saudi oil reserves. The water cut has surpassed 80% on a regular basis at Saudi oilfields. It is the percentage of water in produced "oil" wells. The interior pressures are dissipated. The Saudis are suffering from lost oil surplus, rising government debt, higher domestic energy costs, higher food costs, internal strife, fascist islamic rule, rising political prisoner population, and geriatrics at the throne. It sure would be good to know how King Abdullah returned from a coma after a few months, where his organs were declared defunct. Maybe like Saddam Hussein, he has some handy doubles. The OPEC nations in the last several years have become a loud disorganized gaggle of devious dealers who discount prices and lie on output on a regular basis. The cartel has no unity anymore. Their honorable Saudi core is disintegrating. The Saudi OPEC core is precisely the foundation to the Petro-Dollar and the justification for global banking systems being based in USTreasury Bonds. Coming online is the NatGas Coop. Coming online is gold trade settlement. Coming online is the BRICS Bank. Coming into prominent view is Gazprom, the leader of the NatGas Coop. It has some powerful strange bedfellows who deal in one currency, natural gas.
CYPRUS INDIRECT ATTACK
The news networks told of Cyprus being the site of bank crisis, account confiscations, the bail-in procedures creating a Western model, and resolutions. It took a while to realize, but the Jackass back in the March Hat Trick Letter noted the Gazprom angle and potential motive. The Jackass mapped out a Prima Facie case for motive on the Cyprus bank attack. It was a challenge to Gazprom and the Russian banking system, more than a Bail-in Model. It was an attempt to cut off the Russian encroachment into Europe with their Gazprom weapon, the most disruptive economic weapon seen in decades.
Cyprus used to serve as the primary window for the entire Russian banking system, and the central bank too. All bank transactions from Russia went through Cyprus. The conclusion could be that the Bail-in procedure is a suicide pact for the West. It is a declaration that if accounting rules are to be enforced, and capital requirements enforced, then the big Western banks would slit their throats and force the vanish of private bank accounts. Ditto if the legal prosecution of big bank were to begin in earnest. They cannot pull that switch unless major banks are all dead gone, from grotesque contagion. Since Lehman failed, all the big Western banks are lashed together, much like sailors at sea on deck during a nasty storm. If one goes, all go. The banker elite needed to disguise their attack of Gazprom in Cyprus. They wanted to interrupt the progress made by Russia in Pipeline Politics. The public bought the false story, again, like they always do. They do not think beyond the first visible layer.
FAILED USGOVT POLICY
The USGovt lost on disruptions to Iran internet and undersea communication lines between 2004 and 2007. To be sure, the planned Iranian island center for trade processing never occurred, a success of sorts. The USGovt lost on Iranian sanctions. The rise of Turkey, India, and Chinese deals with unique payment systems have come to the table. Even the Japanese and South Koreans refused to play along. The entire workaround process served as a training ground for gold trade settlement. It will have a certain blossom, with the full weight of the BRICS nations behind the current initiatives. The US lost on Iran-Pakistan Pipeline, since China stepped forward, guaranteed funding for its completion, and even worked to extend the connected pipelines to the Western border of China for supply. The USGovt lost with its puppet named Mohammed Morsi, who was ousted in Egypt. The unspoken cause was food price inflation, not political discord as reported by the US news network minions. The USGovt won the Qaddafi's gold (144 tons) but with a grand backfire on the Libyan Embassy controversy. The Pentagon does not appreciate the sacrifice of Navy SEALS to deceit and hidden motives. The biggest failure by the USGovt could be the monetary policy at work by the US Federal Reserve. The QE bond purchase program has produced massive broad price inflation globally, in addition to rising energy costs, rising material costs, and rising related follow-on costs. It is difficult to find any USGovt or USFed policy of value, other than to serve the bank syndicate.
NATGAS COOP
The key to the future is seen on the margin of new power. It is the Natural Gas Coop. To date, it has no name. Curiously, its power might lie in the fact that it has no name, no central nexus. It is a de-centralized cooperative. But more accurately, it has a Russian core, a brain trust at Gazprom. It has a certain Kremlin command center, since a newfound strategic weapon. It is their greatest global weapon in decades. The strange bedfellows consist of Russia (home HQ of Gazprom), Turkmenistan (#2 natgas global producer), Iran (giant renegade producer), Qatar (biggest LNG star), and Israel (from Tamar Platform). The presence of Sunni Qatar from the Persian Gulf and US Fascist Ally Israel make for the odd mix. In June, the Israel Govt signed a deal with Russian Gazprom. It called for directing all surplus natgas output from Tamar to the Gazprom pipeline system, and the European market. The Israeli Economy will greatly benefit from the surplus revenue.
Game over for OPEC and a guaranteed demise of the Petro-Dollar. Simply stated, Saudi Arabia is to OPEC, what Russia is to NatGas Coop. The phase out of OPEC is in progress, without much recognition. The emergence of the NatGas Coop is to be better understood in the near future. A tremendously important shift is taking place in energy geopolitics. The consequences will be rapid diversification out of the USTreasury Bond, colossal Indirect Exchange in asset deals, and broad abandonment (aka dumping). In the process, almost no buyers of USGovt debt will be visible, and the USFed will be leaned upon more fully for bond purchases. The Weimar machinery will strain to the limit. The USGovt debt default will occur, as the event has become more visible, a 2008 Hat Trick Letter forecast.
DEMISE OF PETRO-DOLLAR
Not 5% of Americans comprehend the defacto Petro-Dollar standard. They will when the Saudis must step aside and permit OPEC to be eclipsed by the NatGas Coop with its expansive global network of pipelines. The great USDollar devaluation will occur when the Petro-Dollar falls by the wayside. The result will be profound price inflation in the USEconomy. The fall of the Saudi regime is guaranteed eventually, and likely soon. The Saudis cannot play both sides (US & Russia) successfully. They will fail with both partners. The NatGas Pipelines are critical, as they wield enormous economic leverage and power. Together, the NatGas Coop phases out OPEC and assures the end of the USDollar as it is currently known and structured. Watch the Saudis soon indicate that non-USDollar payments are accepted for crude oil sales, like accepting GBPounds, Euros, Japanese Yen, even Swiss Francs. Watch the Saudis closely for various signals of impending doom, death signals. As energy sales move gradually, then rapidly, away from the USD settlement, the world will go through a transformation. The banking system will change in their foundations, one nation at a time, with diversification away from USTBonds. It is Game Over!!
Syria is the last line of defense for the USDollar and the exalted position of OPEC. Syria is the potential recognized debut of the NatGas Coop in significance. It is all hidden, except to the Hat Trick Letter. In the new era emerging, Gold will prevail as the Gold Trade Standard is put in place. It will not be done with a stake in the ground from the banking system of the FOREX currency trading arenas. Therefore it is so dangerous to the status quo. My full expectation is that the USGovt will back off in Syria. The retreat will not be seen as a magnanimous gesture, but rather more like a bully backing down. Revelations will be very damaging on chemical weapons and the roles played. Roots to Saddam Hussein will be reviewed. Iran already has tens of thousands killed by chemical weapons over 20 years ago in a war waged with Iraq, with a hand from the Bushes. The United States leadership is in for some cold water in the face. The United States is due for some extreme isolation. The NatGas Coop will change the global map. It will open the door to the Eurasian Trade Zone for commerce, and open the door to the Gold Trade Settlement for finance. Some quantum leaps are in store and soon. Gold will emerge with a new Gold Trade Standard, whose price will shock most observers. Think multiples higher. Syria is a seminal event for gold.
Saudi Arabia warns it will act against West's policy in Middle East
"Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London has claimed the country is determined to independently arm Syria rebels after rejecting the diplomatic tactics of its Western allies"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/10524721/Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-act-against-Wests-policy-in-Middle-East.html
and in the comments we find an interesting link:
The Yinon Thesis Vindicated: Neocons, Israel, and the Fragmentation of Syria
"EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a piece on how the Oded Yinon plan is succeeding with the fragmentation of Syria and the intensification of Sunni-Shiite violence throughout the Middle East. This internecine conflict and state fragmentation only weakens those who oppose Israel, which perfectly fits the scheme articulated by Yinon (but was desired in a less formal and comprehensive way prior to his work), which, as Sniegoski points out in his book "The Transparent Cabal," has been picked up by the neocons. In this article, he indicates that the neocons might have picked up this view from Bernard Lewis, one of their scholarly gurus. It seeks the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel's enemies.
Yes. This is also a theory that ticks all the boxes for the imperial set, until you factor in the global economic crisis about to hit the fan. Forget the Middle East – much of the west can become statelets just as easily. Frankly, without the financial crisis this scenario would have been a shoo-in. Today though, it is altogether possible that if Syria, and Iran - with the aid of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) — manage to weather the short-term storms, they are likely to be the ones deciding where these new borders will be drawn in the region."
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/08/the-yinon-thesis-vindicated-neocons-israel-and-the-fragmentation-of-syria/
Playing the "Get into Saudi Arabia free card"
"Recent developments among supporters of the US government's version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world's greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/playing-the-%E2%80%9Cget-into-saudi-arabia-free-card%E2%80%9D.html
Questionable Foley Beheading Video Results in More Tyranny: British Government to Further Restrict Free Speech
"The UK is merely the first country to exploit the alleged beheading of James Foley for domestic political purposes. Others, including the United States, will undoubtedly follow suit. The U.S. is using the questionable incident to announce it will soon begin military operations against ISIS in Syria.
On Saturday a former Toronto Sun journalist, Eric Margolis, questioned the Foley incident.
"Was Foley's head really cut off? Hard to tell. We have been fed so much fake government war propaganda in recent decades – from Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators to Saddam's hidden nukes – that we must be very cautious," Margolis writes.
The journalist asks if "the orchestrated outrage over Foley [is a] media prelude to direct US intervention in Syria where the jihadists backed by Washington are losing. It's all very confusing. In Iraq, ISIS are demon terrorists. But across the border in Syria, they are on our side, fighting against the 'terrorist' regime of Basher Assad."
Margolis' former colleagues, however, are dutifully pushing the government narrative that Foley was in fact beheaded, despite a nearly complete lack of evidence, and paving the way for yet another U.S. military intervention in the Middle East."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/questionable-foley-beheading-video-results-in-more-tyranny-british-government-to-further-restrict-free-speech/5397254
and lest we forget..
Friday 15 April 2011 Libya , UK
Does Nato want regime change in Libya?
With leaders of the UK, the US and France calling on Colonel Gaddafi to step down, a British Conservative MP wants a recall of parliament amid fears that Nato is set on regime change in Libya.
"But Lord (Mark) Malloch-Brown, interviewed for Channel 4 News, said he believed the text of today's newspaper article made it clear that military activity was limited to the protection of civilians. They're right to say their continued presence is going to contribute to the weakening of the regime, but they are careful not to say that they're going to go over the line of the resolution and use military means to displace him," the former UN Deputy Secretary General and Foreign Office minister told Alex Thomson."
http://www.channel4.com/news/does-nato-want-regime-change-in-libya
Libya: Coalition bombing may be in breach of UN resolution's legal limits
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/28/libya-bombing-un-resolution-law
"Concern over the legality of the military action in Libya reignited on Monday as rebel forces surged into the space created by the international bombardment of Colonel Gaddafi's military.
Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, warned that coalition forces were facing a "major problem" to justify their latest strikes on legal grounds and Lord Ashdown, the former high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the coalition forces led by Britain, France and the US were facing "a moment of danger" over the legality of their actions. He said "continued support for this looks as though it is leading to support for regime change, which legally is beyond the [United Nations] security council resolution"."
Iraq inquiry: Britain rejected regime change as illegal in 2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6645270/Iraq-inquiry-Britain-rejected-regime-change-as-illegal-in-2001.html
"On its opening day of public hearings, Sir John Chilcot's public inquiry into the invasion heard that British diplomats heard the "drumbeat" of war emanating from Washington even before the September 11 terrorist attacks."
""We had at the end the regime-change option," he said, "We dismissed that at the time as having no basis in law."
Sir William said that the UK knew that some in the new US administration wanted to topple Saddam. "We were aware of the drum beats from Washington. Our policy was to stay away from that," he said.
The inquiry heard that in 2001, the settled view of the UK government was that attacking Iraq would have been illegal under international law.
Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, told the inquiry: "We quite clearly distanced our self from regime change. It was clear that was something there would not be any legal base for.""
=====
The use of "rebel's" as ground troops for illegal regime change appears now to be established policy amongst the Western Establishment and it's Allies.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/408151/Britain-MUST-protect-Syrian-rebels-William-Hague-hits-back-at-Boris-Johnson
UK threatens to ignore Syrian embargo, fortify rebels
Hague discussed the Syrian debacle with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov at a meeting in London last week. Speaking to the media after the talks, the Russian foreign minister said arming the Syrian opposition would be illegal.
"As for the possibility of arming the opposition, as far as I understand, it is not allowed by international law, that's why arming of the opposition directly or indirectly will be the violation of the international law," Lavrov said.
He added that when a UN arms embargo was issued during the Libyan conflict in 2011, it was violated by European and Arab supporters of the forces trying to oust then-leader Muammar Gaddafi.
http://rt.com/news/uk-syria-arms-hague-933/
ISIS weapons windfall may alter balance in Iraq, Syria conflicts
Six months ago, Sunni Arab militants faced a daunting firepower imbalance in their uprising against the U.S.-equipped Iraqi army west of Baghdad.
But once their campaign for the city of Fallouja was launched in January, their lethal capabilities were bolstered from the stockpiles of the Iraqi armed forces.
Many soldiers fled, throwing down their weapons, which were picked up by the insurgents. Police stations and security posts overrun by Sunni militants yielded more martial booty to be turned against the forces of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shiite Muslim-led government.
"Praise God, we soon had enough weapons to fight for one or two years," said Ahmad Dabaash, spokesman for the Islamic Army, a Sunni rebel faction, who spoke in a hotel lobby here in Iraq's northern Kurdistan region. "And now? Don't even ask!"
Iraqi Shiite Turkmens in the Iraqi town of Tuz Khurmatu prepare to head out in mid-June to defend their homes in the nearby town of Basheer after it was seized by Sunni militants.
By "now," he was referring to the current ground assault by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the Al Qaeda breakaway group that in the last two weeks has seized large swaths of northern and western Iraq, including Mosul, Iraq's second-most populous city. Fighting alongside ISIS formations are other Iraqi Sunni Arab factions such as the Islamic Army, which rose against the U.S. occupation a decade ago.
As the Iraqi government mobilizes to halt the insurgents' advance toward Baghdad, the capital, there is no full accounting of the stocks of plundered arms, ordnance and gear. But experts agree that the haul is massive, with implications for the merging wars in Iraq and neighboring Syria.
Rival Syrian rebel factions already report seeing U.S.-built, ISIS-commandeered Humvees almost as far west as the vicinity of Aleppo, some 250 miles from Iraq. The influx of arms and fighters from Iraq could shift the balance of power among fractious groups fighting for supremacy in Syria.
ISIS, which also reportedly snatched the equivalent of close to $500 million in cash from a Mosul bank, has been catapulted to the position of the world's wealthiest and best-equipped militant group, analysts say. Its riches easily eclipse those of Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden, despite his personal fortune. The group, which has attracted thousands of fighters from the Arab world, Europe and elsewhere, also holds sway over a broad swath of contiguous territory in the heart of the Middle East.
"ISIS are well-trained, very capable, and have advanced weapons systems that they know how to use," said Michael Stephens, researcher at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies.
In the current ISIS-led thrust, the scenario played out earlier by Sunni insurgents in western Iraq has been replicated on a monumental scale.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-isis-arms-20140629-story.html#page=1
US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Weaponry, said to be light arms and ammunition, to be brokered though CIA who are better positioned to supply militia
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis
Interesting four-part article on the petrodollar:
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80′s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
What made this revealing commentary so explosive was the fact that Cook was a respected former high-ranking British government official. Within one month of the publication of the article, the healthy and fit Cook died of a "heart attack" while on vacation with his wife. The mystery surrounding his death still raises more questions than answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook
and lest we forget..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_David_Kelly
More on the petrodollar:
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-us-energy-boom-will-end-the-dollars-world-reserve-status/
interesting articles on the petrodollar on new Voice of Russia site (they merged with RIA Novosti):
http://en.ria.ru/search/?query=petrodollar&x=0&y=0
http://en.ria.ru/columnists/20110223/162721505.html
Much of the articles about the petrodollar are aimed at increasing speculation and selling guides, reports, etc.
Apparently, the world couldn't come to an agreement to switch currency back in July:
http://voteforjaime.com/2014/08/23/janet-yellen-rose-mary-woods/
Revolution or WWIII? The Petrodollar Scam
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/01/13/petrodollar-scam/
"When the present gun control dance concludes, America could soon be doing a waltz with a different partner, World War III, as the globalists completely condition us to be absolutely submissive to their desires. If we surrender our guns and capitulate to the globalists, tens of millions of Americans will die from starvation, targeted genocide and world war. There is, however, another alternative, we could decide to enter into the tried and true "three stage plan" of revolution. These two bipolar choices do not provide America with much of a middle ground. As this article will demonstrate, our future will be one alternative or the other. You may be wondering if this potential revolution will be violent? My answer to that question is that it depends of the actions of the bankers who have hijacked our government."
The Globalist Plan
America is so focused on the gun control issue, that we are failing to see the end game and this could lead us to not prepare accordingly. History shows that any nation that permits gun confiscation, in any form, invites genocide. However, the Second Amendment debate is a preliminary round to the world-wide conflict that will follow gun confiscation and the imposition of martial law.
1 Gun Confiscation The false flag attacks on America's schools are being used as a pretext to seize the guns. And why does Obama and his puppetiers so desperately want our guns? Because America would never accept the brutal form of martial law and selective genocide which will be needed to subjugate the country and bend it to the will of the globalists.
2 Martial Law This is why DHS has ordered 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. They know that at least some of us will not willingly submit to the coming conscription and the seizure of our assets. This is also why Obama signed into the law the NDAA so he could eliminate the leadership of the coming resistance movements without the negative attention and publicity of a trial. I believe step two will consist of house to house gun confiscation and the rounding up of perceived dissidents, the new terrorists if you will.
3 World War III will be staged following a series of false flag attacks in order to save the Petrodollar. This will be described in the following paragraphs.
Remember when Turkey shut down YouTube ? You heard about that from the MSM, however briefly ? Well here is the real reason:
Scandal: Mass Media Censors Shocking Admission of Turkish False Flag
http://www.prisonplanet.com/scandal-mass-media-censors-shocking-admission-of-turkish-false-flag.html
Leaks Reveal Turkey using ALQaeda for False flag in Syria
http://www.syrianews.cc/leaks-reveal-turkey-using-alqaeda-false-flag-syria/
A leaked conversation between Turkey's intelligence chief and the war room reveals plot to create a casus belli for war with Syria by using ISIL, an alQaeda offshoot, to threaten a turkish shrine Suleiman Shah Tomb. Turkey has blocked youtube in order to cover up the leaks. Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed the recording of planning for a military incursion into Syria adding that a 'network of treason' was responsible for leak. Part two of the leaked conversation implicates John Kerry US secretary of state in the plot.
I wonder why Alex Jones does not mention in his article that Kerry was directly implicated by name in the tape ? Surely it deserved at least a line or two..
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.26, 16:52:58
I wonder why Alex Jones does not mention in his article that Kerry was directly implicated by name in the tape ? Surely it deserved at least a line or two..
Much of the alternate media is just as corrupt as the mainstream media. Your best bet is to use your own logic and reasoning, always ascertaining means, motive and opportunity. And lest we not forget, follow the money, cui bono.
I have also found it reasonable to assume education and media serve two main goals:
1. To tell the populace what TPTB want them to know.
2. To prevent the populace from learning anything TPTB do not want them to know.
A formidable obstacle to honest reporting about the
mayhem taking place in the Middle East is that the
flow of information is tightly controlled. Any story
which would point the finger at Israeli Operatives or
Neocon Israeli-American dual citizens is stuffed.
Any story which would reveal the true nature of Saudi
Arabia and its origin and the Israeli connection to
Turkey and Egypt is always denied.
Without the internet and those 'warriors for Truth' who
fearlessly dig out the nitty gritty we'd not have a clue
about who is causing what.
It would seem that the State of Israel is becoming very
desperate and reckless in its machinations to brutally
bring about what it seeks.
Islamic Extremism and the Money Trail. (http://therebel.org/en/?option=com_content&view=article&id=791013:islamic-extremism-and-the-money-trail&catid=136:editorial&Itemid=2244&utm_source=newsletter_2223&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-editorial-islamic-extremism-and-the-money-trail)
Doublespeak: Ten Illuminati Buzzwords. (http://henrymakow.com/2014/08/Ten-examples-of-illuminati-doublespeak.html)
ISIS and the New Middle East
http://therebel.org/en/editorial/777053-isis-and-the-new-middle-east
It is obvious who benefits from ISIS, is it not ?
"I can see the picture now, US is behind ISIS, as I see this thing unfold."
Andrew Slone from Prestonsburg, Kentucky.. get's it! But who is the hidden hand behind the US ? Figureheads change regularly, Foreign Policy does not..
The "Hidden Hand" is in reality a vertical structure
of power patterned after the pyramid symbol which
has been revealed on the U.S. One Dollar bill.
The very top of the pyramid is a power off-planet.
More clues. (http://www.zengardner.com/flipping-script/)
The Plan. (http://www.zengardner.com/israels-lying-front-cracking-top-judge-admits-israel-broke-ceasefire/)
How Venice Rigged
The First, and Worst, Global Financial Collapse
by Paul B. Gallagher
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/954_Gallagher_Venice_rig.html
Six hundred and fifty years ago came the climax of the worst financial collapse in history to date. The 1930's Great Depression was a mild and brief episode, compared to the bank crash of the 1340's, which decimated the human population.
The crash, which peaked in A.C.E. 1345 when the world's biggest banks went under, "led" by the Bardi and Peruzzi companies of Florence, Italy, was more than a bank crash—it was a financial disintegration. Like the disaster which looms now, projected in Lyndon LaRouche's "Ninth Economic Forecast" of July 1994, that one was a blowup of all major banks and markets in Europe, in which, chroniclers reported, "all credit vanished together," most trade and exchange stopped, and a catastrophic drop of the world's population by famine and disease loomed.
Like the financial disintegration hanging over us in 1995 with the collapse of Mexico, Orange County, British merchant banks, etc., that one of the 1340's was the result of thirty to forty years of disastrous financial practices, by which the banks built up huge fictitious "financial bubbles," parasitizing production and real trade in goods. These speculative cancers destroyed the real wealth they were monopolizing, and caused these banks to be effectively bankrupt long before they finally went under.
The critical difference between 1345 and 1995, was that in the Fourteenth century there were as yet no nations. No governments had the national sovereignty to control the banks and the creation of credit; or, to force these banks into bankruptcy in an orderly way, and replace fictitious bank credit and money with national credit. Nor was the Papacy, the world leadership of the Church, fighting against the debt-looting of the international banks then as it is today; in fact, at that time it was allied with, aiding, and abetting them.
The result was a disaster for the human population, which fell worldwide by something like 25 percent between 1300 and 1450 (in Europe, by somewhere between 35 percent and 50 percent from the 1340's collapse to the 1440's).
The Greatest Economic Collapses In History
War and politics have been the focal point of the downfall of many dominant nations over the course of world history, but poor economic decisions have also led to countries falling, people dying from hunger, and revolutions changing the course of world history.
Niall Ferguson's book, "The Ascent of Money" details the course of economic collapses. The further back the collapse, the less detail there is on the decisions made, the decision makers, and issues surrounding the decisions. But Ferguson does a great job of explaining in detail the effects the collapses had on each particular nation and the global economy.
The development of economic principles and financial methods of accounting for money throughout time are also detailed in "The Ascent of Money", as Ferguson paints a timeline of how economies developed and crashed, and what was learned afterwards.
Ferguson's book was the primary source for the information in this article.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greatest-economic-collapses-in-world-history-2012-7?op=1#ixzz3BXVUn1y2
(http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/I-have-a-dream-too.jpg)
http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNHyXG3pUsWr_i5OI2O_JdxfhQXREA&cid=52778592593641&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2FUSA%2FLatest-News-Wires%2F2014%2F0827%2FNine-year-old-with-Uzi-shoots-instructor-by-mistake&ei=v9z9U5jyAcGOggepkYDoCw&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-7129505183010476843&ssid=h
Expect more gun controls from the Liberals...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.26, 21:41:37
ISIS and the New Middle East
http://therebel.org/en/editorial/777053-isis-and-the-new-middle-east
It is obvious who benefits from ISIS, is it not ?
"I can see the picture now, US is behind ISIS, as I see this thing unfold."
Andrew Slone from Prestonsburg, Kentucky.. get's it! But who is the hidden hand behind the US ? Figureheads change regularly, Foreign Policy does not..
My view of ISIS is that they are a tool to flush out individuals inclined to participate in Middle East aggression.
@Grumpy
QuoteMy view of ISIS is that they are a tool to flush out individuals inclined to participate in Middle East aggression.
My view of ISIS is that they are people who have had quite enough of egomanics meddling in their affairs. I mean people can only put up will others pillaging all their natural resources and carpet bombing their families for so long until a breaking point is reached.
Now if someone carpet bombed your family and stole all that has value to you would you 1 )give them a big old sloppy kiss or 2)seek retribution?. nuf said
I guess the real difference is that here in North America someone can steal everything you own with a piece of paper while over there they simply wack off the head of the imbecile holding the paper which puts a new spin on the term "justice" doesn't it?. Which is why our supposed rule of law will never work over there because they still believe someone must always be held accountable for an injustice.... there is no time limit on justice for them.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian
My view of ISIS is that they are people who have had quite enough of egomanics meddling in their affairs. I mean people can only put up will others pillaging all their natural resources and carpet bombing their families for so long until a breaking point is reached.
...
American Neocon provoked war policy has done just that
as the first stage in "recruitment" for Extremist Islam
terror organizations.
It is the culmination of a very long range PLAN devised by
those who now occupy the State of Israel - infiltration of
governments and especially religions with Crypto Pretenders
to corrupt and introduce brutal terrorist tactics into the
actions of Intelligence Service Created Extremist Groups.
The war-mongering which is now characteristic of all major
religions is not consistent with their beliefs, but is rather
the result of corruption brought in by infiltration.
Follow the money trail and it always leads to the Money
Changers through their front organizations and controlled
governments: The Rothschild Banking Family.
Zionism Inc.
I think the real truth is much more disturbing and relates to the American way... screw them all over and make them pay.
You know it is much easier to start pointing fingers and fabricating BS stories but in my opinion the root cause here is basic human nature which has reached a new level of stupidity. That is the checks and balances and accountability have been thrown out the window and replaced with clever PR campaigns to disguise the fact that we now live in a screw or be screwed world where unaccountability reigns. Personally I don't buy it and neither do most of our children and when they grow up and all the boomers are six feet under I think we will all be a lot better off. Our children are much more responsible people than we are...go figure.
AC
How it has been done. (http://henrymakow.com/anti-semitism_is_the_bread_and.html)
The pattern is well established and will continue into the
near future.
The U.S. is Zionist controlled. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103085)
Quote from: AllCanadian
...in my opinion the root cause here is basic human nature which has reached a new level of stupidity.
Precisely. It has been too easily accomplished.
"Dumbing Down" as a program of control was greatly
accelerated by the advent of Television (aka The Boob
Tube.)
War as a tool.Canada too.
@Dumped
QuoteThe pattern is well established and will continue into the near future.
Evolution is a blind giant who rolls a snowball down a hill. The ball is made of flakes—circumstances. They contribute to the mass without knowing it. They adhere without intention, and without foreseeing what is to result. When they see the result they marvel at the monster ball and wonder how the contriving of it came to be originally thought out and planned. Whereas there was no such planning, there was only a law: the ball once started, all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path would help to build it, in spite of themselves.
Mark Twain
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.28, 16:19:20
..., there was only a law: the ball once started, all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path would help to build it, in spite of themselves.
And the
law he speaks of looks much like this:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-alS1tlc9WXM/TaXMha9Y6SI/AAAAAAAABaA/BPXNTwTUpnU/s320/Ordo+ab+Chao.jpg)
Think of divide and conquer, put into resonance--much like a fractal. All that will be left in the end are the ones that orchestrated it, or should I say, removed themselves from it; all the actors will have met their blind fate.
There are occurrences such as described by Mark Twain in
the quote provided by AllCanadian, unguided by the human
hand. But in the world of Politics and Government such
occurrences are very rare and are of little consequence.
I suppose it is difficult for some to grasp the depth of
the Political and Governmental Control System and the
power of The Hidden Hand. No matter, shortly all will be
revealed such that even those who have yet to open their
eyes will finally "see." The level of deception is more than
stunning.
Each day brings more and more Chaos - by design.
Good find Matt!
In the world of the blind,
(http://dillsnapcogitation.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/all-seeing-eye.jpg)
The one eyed man is king.
Eagles listen not to the chirping of sparrows.
ISIS: US-made Monster Running Amok in Middle East
http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-us-made-monster-running-amok-in-middle-east/5398119
In its desire to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, the US channeled arms and funds to the Syrian rebels, many of whom splintered off and formed the Islamic State, which is now giving the US far more problems than it had bargained for.
One year ago, it seemed certain that Washington would launch a military strike on Syria, bringing to its knees yet another undesirable government in the Middle East. However, at the eleventh hour, an incredible thing happened: President Barack Obama requested approval from Congress before using military force in Syria. While some were tempted to applaud the Democratic leader for doing something as radical as upholding the US Constitution, other factors played a role in the decision.
One of the most convincing reasons for Obama balking on war (aside from Britain politely excusing itself from the expedition) could be summed up by damning comments by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who famously remarked that the US military should not be serving as "Al-Qaeda's air force."
"We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That's why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al-Qaeda's air force."
Suddenly, the American public was forced to fathom the unfathomable: In Syria the US was lending support to the rebels that were getting help from the same terrorist organization that attacked Manhattan and Washington on Sept. 11, killing some 3,000 citizens.
Needless to say, the political stakes involved in advocating on behalf of the Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels suddenly got a lot riskier.
The Texas Senator said that of nine militant groups fighting against Syrian government forces "at least seven had direct connections to Al-Qaeda." Arming and funding known terrorists in Syria "makes no sense whatsoever," he said.
Cruz then reminded his colleagues on the basic rules of foreign policy.
"I'll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don't give weapons to people who hate you. Don't give weapons to people who want to kill you."
Cruz's comments attracted the wrath of American hawks, most notably from Republican Sen. John McCain, who last May secretly flew to Syria to meet with rebel leaders, including General Salem Idriss of the Free Syrian Army. McCain, suddenly characterized in the same league as Al-Qaeda, slammed Cruz's claims as "totally uninformed."
However, it was not only the Republicans, of course, beating the war drum for military action in Syria. Last year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on record as saying: "We will work with like-minded states to support the Syrian opposition to hasten the day when Assad falls."
Ultimately, critics of America's activities in Syria proved right. Supporting the Syrian rebels without understanding the true nature and character of these individuals marked yet another US foreign policy setback in the region.
Islamic State rising
Almost overnight, many of the Syrian rebels – some of them Al-Qaeda members – working to overthrow the Assad regime broke away and formed what has come to be known as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, or Islamic State (IS) for short.
The dramatic rise of this group almost defies belief, but apparently its willingness to use extreme forms of violence explains part of their sudden popularity.
On the other hand, IS is said to be so cruel and vicious that it managed to get disavowed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, the very same group of terrorists that thought nothing of flying commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The latest victim of IS' cruelty was James Foley, a freelance journalist who disappeared in Syria in November 2012. On August 19, a video briefly surfaced entitled, "A Message to America" that showed Foley kneeling at an unknown desert location. After delivering a brief statement that is critical of the United States government, the video fades out as an alleged IS militant is seen dragging a knife across Foley's neck.
It should be mentioned that some analysts have questioned the legitimacy of the IS video on several accounts, namely the apparent censorship of the beheading: If IS is indeed so cruel and vicious why was the actual moment of the beheading concealed? Also, no Arabic is spoken in the video. Foley's captor and apparent executioner delivers a brief address in the English language, which might be understandable since some IS members hail from Britain. And why is the video not of the grainy, shaky sort usually put out; why is it so polished? It is questions like these that have caused some to believe the video was a carefully staged event, although few doubt that Foley was indeed executed.
However, such questions are not hurting the membership drive of IS: according to one of Iraq's most respected security experts the number of Islamic State recruits is much higher than that estimated by foreign observers – around 100,000. Foreign estimates put the figure between 20,000 and 50,000.
Meanwhile, the US government is tracking as many as 300 Americans reportedly in the ranks of Islamic State. Washington has expressed concern that these radicalized civilians could become a risk to the US if they return home with skills learned overseas to carry out attacks, anonymous US officials said, according to the Washington Times.
"We know that there are several hundred American passport holders running around with ISIS in Syria or Iraq," a senior US official said. "It's hard to tell whether or not they're in Syria or moved to Iraq."
"ISIS now presents itself as an ideologically superior alternative to Al-Qaeda within the jihadi community and it has publicly challenged the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri," said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a paper last month. "As such it has increasingly become a transnational movement with immediate objectives far beyond Iraq and Syria."
The reason for the surge is that IS is quite effective at swallowing up other insurgent groups.
"[The] Islamic State didn't come from nowhere," according to Hisham al-Hashimi, who advises Iraq's intelligence services and analyzes information gathered on the ground. The organization "is an extension of groups that existed before – historically and ideologically," al-Hashimi told Mashable.
If the Islamic State's sensational rise to power sounds familiar, that's because it is. Back in the 1970s, the United States armed and trained the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to help fight against Soviet troops in the decade-long Afghanistan War (Dec. 1979 to Feb. 1989). Those fierce fighters, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, eventually morphed into Al-Qaeda, which turned out to be the first foreign adversary of the United States to launch a successful attack on the US mainland.
Now IS too has threatened to bring the war to America's front door.
A backdoor to war into Syria?
Ironically, the explosive rise of IS across a wide swath of Iraq and Syria is handing the Obama administration an opportunity for doing what it could not do one year earlier: Open a military offensive in Syria. Following the reports of decapitated Christian babies, and the beheading of the American James Foley, it will be harder for critics like Ted Cruz to question a military operation against IS – even in Syria.
In fact, the US media seems to be priming the American public for yet another Syrian showdown: "The Pentagon began preparing options for an assault on Islamic State fighters after the militants last week posted a gruesome video showing the beheading of American photojournalist James Foley. Deliberations by Obama's national security team on expanding the campaign against Islamic State from Iraq into neighboring Syria gathered pace in recent days," Reuters reported on Thursday, quoting unnamed officials.
"From unmanned armed drones to powerful Stealth bombers, a wide range of U.S. airpower is at Obama's disposal, including possible missiles fired from warships at sea or from aircraft flying outside Syria's borders."
The obvious question is: Will a US military attack on IS positions in northern Syria eventually snowball into a full-blown war with Syria? President Assad has already warned that any foreign military actions on the territory of his country will be considered an act of war.
And that may be exactly what the hawks in Washington want to hear.
Robert Bridge is author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.
"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend": How the U.S. is Using ISIS as a Pretext for War Against Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-how-the-u-s-is-using-isis-as-a-pretext-for-war-against-syria/5398104
Absurdity beyond comprehension.
Washington supported the Free Syria rebels who aligned themselves with the terrorist group called Al-Nusra to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad,
Then the Syrian rebels and other groups in Iraq form another terrorist organization who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The consequences of Washington's policies of aiding the Syrian rebels including ISIS have served a purpose. ISIS has spread to both Syria and Iraq gaining territory.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41211#msg41211
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.08.26, 16:52:58
Remember when Turkey shut down YouTube ? You heard about that from the MSM, however briefly ? Well here is the real reason:
Scandal: Mass Media Censors Shocking Admission of Turkish False Flag
http://www.prisonplanet.com/scandal-mass-media-censors-shocking-admission-of-turkish-false-flag.html
Leaks Reveal Turkey using ALQaeda for False flag in Syria
http://www.syrianews.cc/leaks-reveal-turkey-using-alqaeda-false-flag-syria/
A leaked conversation between Turkey's intelligence chief and the war room reveals plot to create a casus belli for war with Syria by using ISIL, an alQaeda offshoot, to threaten a turkish shrine Suleiman Shah Tomb. Turkey has blocked youtube in order to cover up the leaks. Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed the recording of planning for a military incursion into Syria adding that a 'network of treason' was responsible for leak. Part two of the leaked conversation implicates John Kerry US secretary of state in the plot.
I wonder why Alex Jones does not mention in his article that Kerry was directly implicated by name in the tape ? Surely it deserved at least a line or two..
@evape
I think all the finger pointing needs to end then the killing.
pretty simple concept
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.29, 03:52:07
@evape
I think all the finger pointing needs to end then the killing.
pretty simple concept
AC
Dear AC.
Tis a pity you edited your post !! I found your original text far more enlightening !! ;)
Cheers Grum.
@Grumage
Yes I wrote it then rewrote it, then deleted it and rewrote it then rewrote it once again... it was enlightening for me as well. As I said in the post I deleted, I'm a canadian and about as passive as they come and am always the first to help anyone in need but the BS comments made here really got under my skin.
To be honest I find the conversation here distrubing and that so many would have such a complete lack of compassion for the millions killed over "there", the pain and suffering inflicted by gun crazed egomaniacs on both sides of the conflict. I have decided I am done commenting because most seem uninterested in the real humanity of the conflict and would rather quote news acticles and other propaganda.
AC
Quote from: AllCanadian
To be honest I find the conversation here distrubing and that so many would have such a complete lack of compassion for the millions killed over "there", the pain and suffering inflicted by gun crazed egomaniacs on both sides of the conflict. I have decided I am done commenting because most seem uninterested in the real humanity of the conflict and would rather quote news acticles and other propaganda.
The propaganda, the outright lies, the fanning of the embers
for war and the threats have really ramped up in the past
several months from the political machine known as "The
West." Those who are in power in The West have shown that
they have absolutely no concern about spilling blood of innocent
victims. Israel conducts the worst sort of brutal genocide and
is given a "pass" by The West. The new U.S. installed regime in
The Ukraine employs brutality against the Russian inhabitants of
those regions which were formerly Russia and is given a "pass"
by The West.
The West, which is tightly controlled by the Banking families
who created THE CITY OF LONDON, is being used to further
the cause of Zionism and the creation of Greater Israel
with bloody hands in its rush to formalize the New World Order.
The West acts as if intoxicated with its power to use great
military and financial might in order to force others to do as
it wishes. The bloodshed, very unfortunately, will intensify as
the "War on Terror" uses its agents of terror to accomplish its
PLAN.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.29, 14:01:36
@Grumage
Yes I wrote it then rewrote it, then deleted it and rewrote it then rewrote it once again... it was enlightening for me as well. As I said in the post I deleted, I'm a canadian and about as passive as they come and am always the first to help anyone in need but the BS comments made here really got under my skin.
To be honest I find the conversation here distrubing and that so many would have such a complete lack of compassion for the millions killed over "there", the pain and suffering inflicted by gun crazed egomaniacs on both sides of the conflict. I have decided I am done commenting because most seem uninterested in the real humanity of the conflict and would rather quote news acticles and other propaganda.
AC
Dear AC.
You should not tar everyone with the same brush !!Lack of compassion ?? I lost a Nephew in 2005, killed in Iraq, by the very people he was sent to protect !! He was a bright, young, 21 year old with the rest of his life ahead of him !!
For the most part it is a minority that controls the majority, but the majority seems to be waking up to the deceit peddled by that minority !!
Cheers Grum.
The U.S., according to Paul Craig Roberts, (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103254) is nothing more than
a "two-bit punk puppet of the Israel Lobby."
In truth, it is much more extensive than that; Canada,
the U.K., Ireland and Australia are in the same boat...
So, who is it that controls virtually all wealth in the
Western World? A "control" which enables them to
effectively "extort" whatever action they want from
the governments in question.
Quote from: Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Infamous Quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.08.29, 19:45:49
Lack of compassion ?? I lost a Nephew in 2005, killed in Iraq, by the very people he was sent to protect !! He was a bright, young, 21 year old with the rest of his life ahead of him !!
For the most part it is a minority that controls the majority, but the majority seems to be waking up to the deceit peddled by that minority !!
I feel your pain Grum. I too have a nephew that had many close calls in Iraq participating in uniform with a U.S. Army Striker Team. Only luck brought him home safely alive. He described to me many events that could have easily been his last and was the last for many innocent Iraq civilians. Fortunately he saw enough and chose not to reenlist. I suspect to some degree I had a hand in that.
Our generation has the duty to educate these younger men and women. We have lost control of our governments and if we lose control of our children, these wars will quickly spiral out of control and take all of us with it.
In the U.S. we have the Department of Defense. On the surface it would seem this establishment is concerned with offense, not defense. But I will assure you it is for defensive purposes, the goal of which is to make the world safe and profitable for business--big business; big money. It defends the interest of those muDped speaks of, plain and simple. If we can reach the younger generation and show them there is no honor in being a part of this establishment, maybe we can defer the bloodshed. And I say defer, because a day will come when there will be serious bloodshed and that will be when we finally put our will together and punish the minority that started all this. And when that minority has been shed of its mortal coil, it can stand in front of all those souls it needlessly killed, make amends and repent for its sins.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.29, 03:52:07
@evape
I think all the finger pointing needs to end then the killing.
pretty simple concept
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.08.29, 14:01:36
@Grumage
Yes I wrote it then rewrote it, then deleted it and rewrote it then rewrote it once again...
AC
All that effort over many hours and you have but 15 words to show for it. nuf said. good riddance.
EMP Attack On Power Grid Could Kill 9-In-10
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050914-700375-electric-grid-vulnerable-to-emp-attack.htm
Vulnerability: Expert testimony before Congress on Thursday warned that an electromagnetic pulse attack on our power grid and electronic infrastructure could leave most Americans dead and the U.S. in another century.
That dire warning came from Peter Vincent Pry, a member of the Congressional EMP Commission and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security.
He testified in front of the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) event could wipe out 90% of America's population.
Most people's eyes might glaze over upon mention of the committee name, the title of the hearing — "Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Threat to Critical Infrastructure" — and the general subject of EMP. But it is a real threat and not the stuff of science fiction.
Some attention has been paid to the potential cataclysmic effects of a natural phenomenon such as a massive solar storm, an event that has occurred in America's horse-and-buggy era when it did not matter.
Today an electromagnetic pulse event would be devastating. It wouldn't need a solar storm, just a solitary nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the American heartland. We would envy the horse-and-buggy era.
"Natural EMP from a geomagnetic superstorm, like the 1859 Carrington Event or 1921 Railroad Storm, and nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states, as practiced by North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 2013, are both existential threats that could kill 9-of-10 Americans through starvation, disease and societal collapse," the Washington Free Beacon quoted Pry as saying.
As we reported early last year, Pry, a former CIA nuclear weapons analyst, believes that North Korea's recent seemingly low-yield nuclear tests and launch of a low-orbit satellite may in fact be preparations for a future electromagnetic pulse attack.
A copy of a report prepared by the Department of Homeland Security for the Defense Department, obtained by Pry from sources within DHS, finds North Korea could use its Unha-3 space launch vehicle to deliver a nuclear warhead as a satellite over the South Pole to attack America from the south.
As the Heritage Foundation has reported, an EMP attack with a warhead detonated 25 to 300 miles above the U.S. mainland "would fundamentally change the world:"
"Airplanes would fall from the sky; most cars would be inoperable; electrical devices would fail. Water, sewer and electrical networks would fail simultaneously. Systems of banking, energy, transportation, food production and delivery, water, emergency services and even cyberspace would collapse."
The electrical grid could be hardened for less than we spend on foreign aid every year.. why is it not being done ?
Your Achilles heel must remain exposed and unprotected for a quick kill, is the reason.
http://www.infowars.com/what-are-you-going-to-do-when-a-massive-emp-blast-fries-the-u-s-electrical-grid/
So what is the federal government doing to protect us against such a horrific disaster?
Absolutely nothing.
In fact, according to a recent WND article, ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden says that the Obama administration has no plans to defend us against an EMP blast...
Contrary to the findings of a 2008 commission mandated by Congress to consider a defense against an electromagnetic pulse attack and its effects on the national grid, a retired Air Force general who also headed the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency says that there isn't a solution to an EMP attack.
Speaking before the Bipartisan Policy Center at a conference on the threats to the U.S. electrical grid, Michael Hayden also said the Obama administration has no plan to defend against an EMP.
In fact, Hayden says that "there really aren't any solutions" to this problem...
"I don't mean to be so flippant, but there really aren't any solutions to this, so I would just leave it at that," Hayden said.
Of course that is a complete and total lie. It would take less than a billion dollars to protect the largest transformers in our electrical grid. But the Obama administration refuses to do it.
Since the Obama administration is doing nothing, some state government officials are now considering taking action...
At the National Council of State Legislatures last week in Atlanta, a number of lawmakers said they're preparing legislation similar to a bill introduced in Maine recently did under the leadership of Rep. Andrea Boland.
Efforts are under way to press the membership of the NCSL to address the EMP issue, since the federal government has failed to take action to mitigate the potential for a catastrophic event, whether natural or man-made. An EMP event could knock out the U.S. electrical grid system and the critical infrastructures that rely on it.
Along with the national electrical grid, other critical infrastructures include telecommunications, banking and financial transactions, oil and natural gas pipelines, transportation, food and water delivery, emergency services and space systems.
In short, an EMP event could cause the collapse of society.
http://www.livescience.com/32320-how-long-can-a-person-survive-without-water.html
If you're ever stuck out in the wilderness, remember what survival experts call 'the Rule of Threes'.
You can live 3 minutes without air, though we don't recommend trying. In a harsh environment — it's snowing, say — you have 3 hours to survive without shelter. After 3 days, you need water or you'll perish. You can make it 3 weeks without food, though we promise you that won't be fun.
Despite this possibly helpful rule, some people have survived 8 to 10 days without water. Again, leave such shenanigans to the truly desperate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737724/Terror-attack-UK-highly-likely-warns-Home-Secretary-Theresa-May-threat-level-raised-severe.html#comments
The rhetoric in the UK has reached fever pitch, an attack is now 'highly likely' according to the Prime Minister, which means it is coming and soon.
After Hungerford and Dunblane the UK elders gave up their right to own and bear arms in defence of the self and the realm, with barely a whimper of protest. A disgrace that will echo through eternity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others. In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.
http://concealednation.org/2014/08/chicago-crime-rates-drop-across-the-board-since-allowing-concealed-carry/
In the UK we have been effectively disarmed, only agents of the government and criminals have access to firearms. When the axe comes down most will perish, unable to exercise their right to self defence and defence of the realm, due to legislation imposed in the horrific aftermath of two mass shootings, events about which many questions remain.
Prepare as best you can because time is not on your side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ejga4kJUts
Doesn't anyone think it's odd that things are playing out very close to the interpretation of the "Nostradamus" "writings". The ISIS guy a few weeks back said they would expand into Europe, Nostradamus supposed predicted the Islamic invasion of Europe. Now even the media is reporting that some western folks believe if something isn't done then they will do just that. Nostradamus supposedly predicted WW3 would include an invasion of Europe by Islamic forces who would then use Nukes captured to wreak havoc. Also that the two main Superpowers would join forces to defeat the Islamic forces.
It's almost as if through history these things are engineered to happen in similar ways even before the time of Nostradamus. The Persians and the Greeks ect. The crusades and whatever else. seems like a pattern to me.
The way things are happening seems very odd and engineered. Also kinda Biblical. One thing is for sure, Evil is spreading like wild fire.
..
Crap they just said that Ukraine is at war with Russia on the BBC news, and because Ukraine is part of Europe then Europe is in effect at war with Russia :o
Quote from: FarmHand
The way things are happening seems very odd and engineered. Also kinda Biblical. One thing is for sure, Evil is spreading like wild fire.
Albert Pike predicted the coming war in the name of
FreeMasonry. Manly P. Hall, another great player for
the PLAN did his part too.
It has been their job to make it happen.
Quote from: Peterae
Crap they just said that Ukraine is at war with Russia on the BBC news, and because Ukraine is part of Europe then Europe is in effect at war with Russia :o
That is perzactly what the U.S. and The West have been itchin'
for. Russia, for its part, is not crazy with bloodlust as are the
Israeli-American NeoCons who are calling the shots in The Ukraine.
It would be nice to see Russia re-claim its territories which were
illegally placed into The Ukraine about 60 years ago and to afford
protection for the Russian People who live there.
I dunno how Obongo is gonna lie his way out of this fiasco.
QuoteThe way things are happening seems very odd and engineered. Also kinda Biblical. One thing is for sure, Evil is spreading like wild fire.
Subversion by Islam, the AntiChrist.
Unfortunately, Dr. Bill is not up to speed on the
operations of Babylon the Great to infiltrate and
destroy Islam, Christendom, Buddhism and all
other religions save Judah-ism.
It appears that Dr. Bill is comfortable with the
possibility that Islam really did 9-11 and seems not
to be aware of the true perpetrators who false-flagged
Islam.
Today, many so-called Islam nations are actually ruled
by Zionist Crypto-Jews whose families long ago infiltrated
the nations in order to work their way into positions of power
as "native sons."
Easier targets for them were the so-called "christian" nations of
europe and america. Virtually every european nation is ruled by
a Crypto-Jew. Their control of the Central Banks for centuries
worldwide has made their take-overs exceedingly easy.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.08.30, 21:08:09
Crap they just said that Ukraine is at war with Russia on the BBC news, and because Ukraine is part of Europe then Europe is in effect at war with Russia :o
Everyone sanctions Russia, yet there are no sanctions against Israel for destroying Gaza
Quote from: giantkiller on 2014.08.31, 01:47:45
Subversion by Islam, the AntiChrist.
The truth is becoming evident by the brutality of the Jihadists, they speak for themselves by their actions.
The propaganda is also becoming evident itself now.
Here is a Brit saying what I would like to say to most of you, but he says it much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
Quote from: Room3327 on 2014.08.31, 18:22:01
The truth is becoming evident by the brutality of the Jihadists, they speak for themselves by their actions.
The propaganda is also becoming evident itself now.
Here is a Brit saying what I would like to say to most of you, but he says it much better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
:) O0
Quote from: Brother Nathanael Kapner
IT'S GOING TO BE a long, cold winter for DC's puppet regime in Ukraine. And Putin can sit back and watch the snow fly.
With winter approaching and the Novorossiyans winning in East Ukraine, the stooges who run Ukraine's dysfunctional government are in a panic attempting to bring Europe into "full scale war" with Russia.
And the Jew-ruled idiots who are leading Europe into ruin, namely Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, and Tusk are touting the Jewish script: More sanctions. More Nato troops on Russia's western border.
It's right out of the playbook of the Jew-run US Treasury and Jew-ridden US State Department where Christ-hating Jews: Jacob Lew, David Cohen, Victoria Nuland, (born Nudelman), and Robert Kagan find life not worth living unless they make life miserable for Christian Russia.
...
Web Page Here.Comments down the page very interesting!
As an insider Bro. Nat. understands what is going on with a
clarity not to be found in media propaganda.
Regarding the "Muslim Extremists" or "Jihadists;" they're a
creation of The West and are well paid for the mayhem
and brutal terror they've unleashed in the Middle East.
It is all according to the PLAN for Greater Israel.
I have a prediction. I predict that by 2020 the "AXIS of Underhandedness", [i'll use initials] =The W.B., The U.N., The I.M.F., The Central Bankers, The Elitist Families that own most of the money, The Western War Criminal countries offending heads of State, and all those who have actively supported and helped or "facilitated", most all of the Evil, Murder mayhem and Terror will be facing very tough times. Far too many young people understand that everything is a farce in the international diplomacy game and in the banking and issuance of currency fraud. I think by 2020 things will be so bad for most that the system will self destruct, (with help). It looks like War will intensify for a few years yet and that will mean things will be quite bad. Bad enough already.
To hope for long term peace with all the psychopaths in the world today is just a fantasy. Unfortunately society and a lust for "more than other have" has desensitized a lot of people in the west almost to the point of psychopathy unwittingly. Where is the Love ? :(
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2014.09.01, 04:02:38
Far too many young people understand that everything is a farce in the international diplomacy game and in the banking and issuance of currency fraud.
That is really good sign if it turns out to be true. Maybe I'm not the only parent that is talking to their kids and explaining how the world really works.
I do know if this next generation doesn't get it right, it will be game, set, match.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2014.09.01, 04:02:38
I have a prediction. I predict that by 2020 the "AXIS of Underhandedness", [i'll use initials] =The W.B., The U.N., The I.M.F., The Central Bankers, The Elitist Families that own most of the money, The Western War Criminal countries offending heads of State, and all those who have actively supported and helped or "facilitated", most all of the Evil, Murder mayhem and Terror will be facing very tough times. Far too many young people understand that everything is a farce in the international diplomacy game and in the banking and issuance of currency fraud. I think by 2020 things will be so bad for most that the system will self destruct, (with help). It looks like War will intensify for a few years yet and that will mean things will be quite bad. Bad enough already.
To hope for long term peace with all the psychopaths in the world today is just a fantasy. Unfortunately society and a lust for "more than other have" has desensitized a lot of people in the west almost to the point of psychopathy unwittingly. Where is the Love ? :(
..
Hi X,
Your last almost silly question: Where is the LOVE?
The problem with the most similar people: The know how they want to be respected, only not in giving, mirror mirror!
Example: We are still waiting for your promised Lawyer invitation / intimidation from OU.com, don't pee in public on other people like Hope-Girl, Lindemann or Bedini.
But GO to your own government like we did do, demonstrate your solutions, with the results you can or could predict in front!
Regards, Johan
I make heap big claim here:
This will be the last Easter.
Chaos in all realms of activity is progressing at a mean clip. Asteroid storms in our orbit. Cracks and holes appearing all around the planet, Radiation at devastating levels, large numbers of colony collapses in animal kingdom, border abandonment and crashing in all countries, geophysical anomalies(Yes Yellowstone park is closed due to a soupy landscape), Politicians spouting uselessly, barbarianism rampart across the whole planet, financial markets a total sham, well to do societies have succumb to self medicating(did ya see the game this weekend?), starving societies growing enmasse beyond support levels, women and children being abused and or annihilated planet wide, orangutangs being used as prostitutes and porn stars(dont laugh), cities crumbling in utter despair all the while the world leaders are letting us eat cake.
For it has been written...
Quote from: muDped on 2014.08.31, 23:38:46
Web Page Here. (http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=960)
Comments down the page very interesting!
As an insider Bro. Nat. understands what is going on with a
clarity not to be found in media propaganda.
Regarding the "Muslim Extremists" or "Jihadists;" they're a
creation of The West and are well paid for the mayhem
and brutal terror they've unleashed in the Middle East.
It is all according to the PLAN for Greater Israel.
Is this not blatant enough for everyone to see the propaganda. This is absolute rubbish, Muslims never stand up and take credit for the atrocities they commit. The blame is put on everything and everyone except Islam. If they are so ashamed of the things they do then why don't they quit and end Islam, but no just blame someone else, anyone else especially the "Great Satan" America. How about you Muslims become men and start standing up for what you do, all the brutality, barbarity, murder, rapes all the general mayhem you cause in this world and then you blame it on someone or something else, your far less then men in my book.
Quote from: Johan_1955 on 2014.09.01, 14:41:15
Hi X,
Your last almost silly question: Where is the LOVE?
The problem with the most similar people: The know how they want to be respected, only not in giving, mirror mirror!
Example: We are still waiting for your promised Lawyer invitation / intimidation from OU.com, don't pee in public on other people like Hope-Girl, Lindemann or ######.
But GO to your own government like we did do, demonstrate your solutions, with the results you can or could predict in front!
Regards, Johan
Show me where I "
promised Lawyer / intimidation from OU,com" ! If you cannot show it then retract the statement or be a liar for all to see.
I can bad mouth any scammer I want and they can do nothing about it if it is truth. ;D It's only Libel if it's not true. ;)
I can make whatever predictions I want, and have no reason or want to justify any prediction I make to you or anyone else.
..
P.S. I'm not "X" either. :P And I have no intention of appealing to a morally corrupted and lying government or presenting anything to them. That would be pointless.
And I don;t think they would like my solutions when those solutions involve them being jailed or otherwise punished for their crimes. Like asking an executioner to put his own head on the block. ;D
..
Here's a video that I think ties a lot of the "facts" of the (Libya-Syria-ISIS) situation together. The actual facts should be put to an international court ( a real one).
The Covert Origins of ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2014.09.01, 23:35:31
Here's a video that I think ties a lot of the "facts" of the (Libya-Syria-ISIS) situation together. The actual facts should be put to an international court ( a real one).
The Covert Origins of ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI
..
No one is saying that our dumb ass governments didn't arm these idiots, but what they DO is PURE ISLAM. The be headings, lining people up at the edge of holes and machine gunning them and then burying them, some alive, the ethnic cleansing, the murder and torture of Christians, Jews, Buddhists basically anyone who is not Muslim. The forced conversions to Islam, the looting, robing, raping, destruction of people, cities, heritage sites, churches, synagogues and I could keep on going. This is all
Islam, but most of you do not want to look at the Ideology that is driving all this, you would rather believe the propaganda coming from Islam, which is all over the world now. They are turning us against each other with it (divide and conquer), they have infiltrated all of our institutions, government, military, school systems, all major media, they
are the new world order people and they plan on Islam running it all. They have everyone blaming America for all their BS, but they control America with their Muslim president, their Muslim president is the one who did all the arming of them, don't you see how they have everything all turned around, they have everyone blaming the wrong people. All the blame is squarely on the shoulders of Islam and anyone who says anything else is a liar and a pimp for Islam.
America has a long history of employing terrorism and
genocide when it seems convenient.
Philippine American War (http://pinoy-culture.tumblr.com/post/43502662836/the-philippine-american-war-the-concentration)
Philippine-American War photos (http://espressostalinist.com/genocide/philippine-american-war/)
Philippine-American War genocide, torture (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-philippine-american-war.html)
America has descended far down into the pit:
Peace = War (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103440)
Police State (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103421)
People are getting Stupider (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103425)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2014.09.02, 16:42:02
No one is saying that our dumb ass governments didn't arm these idiots, but what they DO is PURE ISLAM. The be headings, lining people up at the edge of holes and machine gunning them and then burying them, some alive, the ethnic cleansing, the murder and torture of Christians, Jews, Buddhists basically anyone who is not Muslim. The forced conversions to Islam, the looting, robing, raping, destruction of people, cities, heritage sites, churches, synagogues and I could keep on going. This is all Islam, but most of you do not want to look at the Ideology that is driving all this, you would rather believe the propaganda coming from Islam, which is all over the world now. They are turning us against each other with it (divide and conquer), they have infiltrated all of our institutions, government, military, school systems, all major media, they are the new world order people and they plan on Islam running it all. They have everyone blaming America for all their BS, but they control America with their Muslim president, their Muslim president is the one who did all the arming of them, don't you see how they have everything all turned around, they have everyone blaming the wrong people. All the blame is squarely on the shoulders of Islam and anyone who says anything else is a liar and a pimp for Islam.
You need to understand that I'm not blaming America or Australia which is where I live or any country for any actions of any Islamic extremists.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that certain western governments have supplied and armed these "people/animals" and condoned their actions with one face and then when things go sour they deny and or spend more money taking action against the people they supply and arm, as well they then try to paint Russia as being evil when Russia is only doing similar or less criminal things, I'm not saying that Russia is all good and correct either.
I am against our tax dollars being used to fund any other fighters or wars or insurgencies anywhere. We should not have supplied anyone with weapons of war. It is OK to sell Arms to Valid countries with regular armies, because we can make treaties and pacts with them for just one reason. And be paid a fair price for the hardware for a second reason. Making weapons and handing them out for free seems a bit reckless to me/if not highly criminal and immoral.
If we had not Armed and supplied these scumbags then Libya would not have fallen to them and that country would still be thriving, Assad would have crushed them in no time if the terrorists had not been supplied advanced Arms by certain Western countries.
To put it bluntly, if in general domestic cases of crime any active associates are guilty of the same crimes as the actual perpetrator by association, that is a valid concept and should apply to those who took the actions to facilitate the illegal and immoral Arming of known terrorist groups or affiliates. And I mean the actual individuals/government or government parties, not the countries.
We as the people have lost control of our governments and cannot change the status quo by the current election process as it is stacked full of the same ilk of men and corrupted by political bribery, which is open for all to see.
Federal police are tasked with the protection of the politicians here, so we can;t expect them to arrest any criminal politicians. What I think would need to happen is the "state police" in a given state would need to announce that they have evidence enough to arrest, charge and put to trial any particular federal politician, and will arrest and charge the person should that individual be found within the state borders.
The evidence is there, all that is needed is the police with the know how about the law and the position (commissioner) to gather the evidence and make the arrest orders.
Seems a crazy concept to prosecute criminals for their actions ? Not in my opinion.
..
P.S. I want to make one thing clear about my stance, I do not condone violence in politics, things should be done by the law and with high moral standards. I want peace for everyone but I realize some people like to fight, I say leave them to it and stay out of it unless they come HERE and start trouble.
I am Australian and I will defend Australia to my last breath I will also defend my friends if i can, but I have no desire to go overseas and interfere in others affairs, if I did that I would deserve everything I got for it. Which is how it should be if the tables were turned about.
I do not appreciate my government indirectly involving me in all this BS over seas, I've never left Australia and never intend to leave. But I must face the terrorists as well.
They might blow up a train I'm on or whatever, I'm not scared, but I have family too. I'm just- Not happy about it all. >:( It stinks and the smell is on us as well.
..
Quote from: muDped on 2014.09.02, 18:42:43
People are getting Stupider (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=103425)
See:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
For complete details--who is doing it and why.
The Gaza Bombardment - What You're Not Being Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRO1YFreNA
Vladimir Putin Traitor to the New World Order. Part 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W85OnL4xtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBfIA98ieRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QV_GNMt3Q
Anonymous is back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpITUBX0FV4
Interesting take on current events:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_06_10/Russian-gas-NWO-and-US-energy-mafia-5346/
Quote from: Farmhand on 2014.09.02, 22:40:23
You need to understand that I'm not blaming America or Australia which is where I live or any country for any actions of any Islamic extremists.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that certain western governments have supplied and armed these "people/animals" and condoned their actions with one face and then when things go sour they deny and or spend more money taking action against the people they supply and arm, as well they then try to paint Russia as being evil when Russia is only doing similar or less criminal things, I'm not saying that Russia is all good and correct either.
I am against our tax dollars being used to fund any other fighters or wars or insurgencies anywhere. We should not have supplied anyone with weapons of war. It is OK to sell Arms to Valid countries with regular armies, because we can make treaties and pacts with them for just one reason. And be paid a fair price for the hardware for a second reason. Making weapons and handing them out for free seems a bit reckless to me/if not highly criminal and immoral.
If we had not Armed and supplied these scumbags then Libya would not have fallen to them and that country would still be thriving, Assad would have crushed them in no time if the terrorists had not been supplied advanced Arms by certain Western countries.
To put it bluntly, if in general domestic cases of crime any active associates are guilty of the same crimes as the actual perpetrator by association, that is a valid concept and should apply to those who took the actions to facilitate the illegal and immoral Arming of known terrorist groups or affiliates. And I mean the actual individuals/government or government parties, not the countries.
We as the people have lost control of our governments and cannot change the status quo by the current election process as it is stacked full of the same ilk of men and corrupted by political bribery, which is open for all to see.
Federal police are tasked with the protection of the politicians here, so we can;t expect them to arrest any criminal politicians. What I think would need to happen is the "state police" in a given state would need to announce that they have evidence enough to arrest, charge and put to trial any particular federal politician, and will arrest and charge the person should that individual be found within the state borders.
The evidence is there, all that is needed is the police with the know how about the law and the position (commissioner) to gather the evidence and make the arrest orders.
Seems a crazy concept to prosecute criminals for their actions ? Not in my opinion.
..
P.S. I want to make one thing clear about my stance, I do not condone violence in politics, things should be done by the law and with high moral standards. I want peace for everyone but I realize some people like to fight, I say leave them to it and stay out of it unless they come HERE and start trouble.
I am Australian and I will defend Australia to my last breath I will also defend my friends if i can, but I have no desire to go overseas and interfere in others affairs, if I did that I would deserve everything I got for it. Which is how it should be if the tables were turned about.
I do not appreciate my government indirectly involving me in all this BS over seas, I've never left Australia and never intend to leave. But I must face the terrorists as well.
They might blow up a train I'm on or whatever, I'm not scared, but I have family too. I'm just- Not happy about it all. >:( It stinks and the smell is on us as well.
..
I agree mostly, I don't like your head in the sand till they get there though, Islam isn't going to go away by itself, and I worry about my grand children's world and whats going to happen to them. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you, I didn't know where you were coming from with that video. I thought you were backing Muppethead.
NATO Poland base may be prepared for blitz against Russia
http://rt.com/news/175292-nato-poland-supply-base/
Insightful analysis of mass mind control techniques (http://www.zengardner.com/mind-control-orwell-huxley-todays-reality/)
and why "public opinion" is so screwy.
The die was cast long before 9-11.
ISIS is well-armed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-savagery-of-isisis-shocking--and-so-too-is-its-weaponry-9700476.html
The elephant at the party:
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/7-Party-(R).jpg)
Islamic State: 'US failure to look into Saudi role in 9/11 has helped Isis'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html
The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has been aided by the continuing failure of the US Government to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks and its support of jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda in the years since, says former Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11.
Senator Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that successive administrations in Washington had turned a blind eye to Saudi support for Sunni extremists. He added: "I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the US – and in particular their support for Isis."
Senator Graham, a distinguished elder statesmen who was twice Democratic governor of Florida before spending 18 years in the US Senate, believes that ignoring what Saudi Arabia was doing and treating it as a reliable American ally contributed to the US intelligence services' failure to identify Isis as a rising power until after it captured Mosul on 10 June. He says that "one reason I think that our intelligence has been less than stellar" is that not enough attention was given to Saudi Arabia's fostering of al-Qaeda-type jihadi movements, of which Isis is the most notorious and successful. So far the CIA and other intelligence services have faced little criticism in the US for their apparent failure to foresee the explosive expansion of Isis, which now controls an area larger than Great Britain in northern Iraq and eastern Syria.
Senator Graham's criticism of the US policy towards Saudi Arabia is important because it comes amidst growing doubts in the US about the wisdom of President Barack Obama's plan announced on Wednesday to look to the Gulf monarchs as crucial allies in the US campaign to contain and, if possible, push back Isis after its victories in Iraq and Syria during the summer.
Saudi Arabia is to host a special training facility for "moderate" Syrian opposition which is to fight both Isis and the government of President Bashar al-Assad. A problem is that Saudi Arabia dislikes Isis today, whatever its role in its creation, but it gives priority to regime change in Damascus.
Senator Graham thinks it is wise to engage with Saudi Arabia because, despite Saudi denials, he says it has been "a central figure in financing Isis and extremist groups". But he is cautious about success from the US point of view because of the Saudi monarchy's long-term alliance with the Wahhabi clergy and its commitment to spread Wahhabism, the intolerant variant of Islam which denounces Shia as heretics and treats women as chattels under male control. The Senator says that Saudi Arabia not only gives support to Sunni communities worldwide "but the most extreme elements among the Sunni".
The Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 has long been public knowledge since 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was a member of the Saudi ruling elite. The 9/11 inquiry found that, for financing, al-Qaeda relied on a core group of private donors and charities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
Despite the Saudi connections of the 9/11 conspirators, Saudi Arabia and its citizens were treated with extraordinary leniency in the wake of the attacks. Some 144 individuals, mostly from the Saudi aristocracy, were permitted to fly back to Saudi Arabia within days of the attacks without being questioned by the FBI. The influential Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was pictured in cheerful conversation with President Bush on the White House balcony a few days after 9/11. Senator Graham recalls that "there were several incidents [in which US officials] were inexplicably solicitous to Saudis". US officials who went to Saudi Arabia to investigate links to 9/11 found their Saudi counterparts to be persistently obstructive.
Saudi obstructionism continued during the decade after 9/11: in 2007, Stuart Levey, the Under Secretary of the US Treasury in charge of monitoring and impeding the financing of terrorism, told ABC News that when it came to al-Qaeda, "if I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia". He added that at that stage not one person identified by the US or the UN as funding terrorism had been prosecuted by the Saudis. Eight years after 9/11, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wrote in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups."
As al-Qaeda in Iraq began to reorganise and turn itself into Isis in the years after 2010, politicians and security officials in Baghdad were convinced of the complicity of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies in funding jihadis in Iraq. They generally avoided public criticism of these states as allies of the US, but in March 2014 Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki identified Saudi Arabia and Qatar as the two countries "primarily responsible for the sectarian, terrorist and security crisis in Iraq". He said that Riyadh and Doha were "buying weapons for the benefit of these terrorist organisations". Mr Maliki had his own share of blame for persecuting the Sunni community in Iraq so it gave support to armed resistance by Isis, but Iraqi leaders all believed that the monarchs of the Gulf were bankrolling Sunni opposition in Iraq and would never accept a Shia-dominated government.
The most striking example of Washington's willingness to protect the Kingdom over complicity in 9/11 is the 28 pages of the official inquiry that were censored and have yet to be published. Senator Graham is not allowed to reveal what is in the chapter that was redacted, but other sources say that they are about connections between Saudi government officials and the 9/11 attacks. Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, in their book The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11, quote a senior American official, who saw the 28 pages before they were excised, apparently on the initiative of President Bush, as saying: "If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight."
Senator Graham has long campaigned to have the 28 pages of the 9/11 inquiry and other documents released. He says, knowing their content, that there is no national security justification for keeping them a secret 13 years after 9/11. He says that some government agencies, notably the FBI, have a motive in keeping information from the public about "their actions and their competence at the time of 9/11". In Sarasota, Florida, the FBI initially denied having any documents relating to hijackers who were based there but has now handed over 80,000 pages that might be relevant under the Freedom of Information Act, according to Tom Julin, the Miami-based attorney handling the FoI application.
Asked why the US government has been so eager since 2001 to cover up for the Saudis, Senator Graham says that one explanation is the long-term US strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, going back to the Second World War. There is also the close personal relationship between the Bush family and the Kingdom. But what he finds more difficult to explain is why the "policy of covering up Saudi involvement [in 9/11] persisted under the Obama administration". Though Mr Obama had pledged to the families of the 9/11 victims during the 2008 presidential election campaign to release the 28 censored pages, it has failed to do so six years later.
Senator Graham does not suggest that the Saudis are directly running Isis, but that their support for Sunni extremists in Iraq and Syria opened the door to jihadis including Isis. Similar points were made by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, and MI6, who said in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute in London in July that the Saudi government is "deeply attracted towards any militancy which effectively challenges Shiadom". He said that rulers of the Kingdom tended to oppose jihadis at home as enemies of the House of Saud, but promote them abroad in the interests of Saudi foreign policy. Anti-Shi'ism has always been at the centre of the Saudi world view, and he quoted Prince Bandar, the ambassador in Washington at the time of 9/11 and later head of Saudi intelligence, as saying to him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunni have simply had enough of them."
In allying itself with Saudi Arabia, the US automatically plugs itself into an anti-Shia agenda and limits its ability to monitor and take action against Sunni jihadis who are promoted by Riyadh. In Syria this has led to parts of a jihadi-dominated military opposition being relabelled as "moderate". President Obama intends to support this group, who scarcely exist on the map, to fight both Isis and the Assad government.
Senator Graham maintains that there is a "dark side" to Saudi Arabia exemplified by 9/11 and its aftermath that the American public need to know about and which has hitherto been concealed. The US and other Western governments have yet to explain why their "war on terror" has so demonstrably failed with the rise of Isis, but tolerance of Saudi complicity in 9/11 will surely be part of the answer.
Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi Sect of extremist Islam has
been a very useful tool of the West (principally the U.S.)
since the advent of the Petro-Dollar and OPEC.
Saudi participation in the 9-11 False Flag was not extensive
but the Saudis have served as a most convenient scapegoat
whose purpose has been to enhance the orchestrated
Conflicting Data.
Everything that happened within the several days just prior to 9-11
until the present has been manipulated and controlled in order to
further deepen the 9-11 psychological programming in the minds
of the global masses.
During the event itself the Media played an important role in amplifying
the fear through repetition and sensory overload. The fact that the U.S.
Government seemed paralyzed and unable to respond (according to plan)
deepened the fear. Conflicting reports (many of which were true) during
the first 48 hours which then disappeared from any coverage were carefully
controlled in order to maximize both the fear factor and the confusion.
The period of no-fly nationwide following the event was calculated to drive
the sense of fear very deeply into the subconscious mind of the vulnerable
global masses.
Psychological warfare at its very best.
Learn more here. (http://lenonhonor.com/911mindcontrol/)
Why "Fear" has become such an important component
of U.S. Foreign Policy and Warfare. (http://henrymakow.com/2014/09/frozen-in-fear-Hiroshima.html)
World War 2, the war that radically changed how the civilian
populace became targets of destruction.
The roles of the players are often different to how they are portrayed, an interesting and brief summary of the psy-op in play is copy pasted for you below.
"ISIS" is Merely a Backdoor to Ousting Assad. Here's WHY & HOW...
http://investmentwatchblog.com/isis-is-merely-a-backdoor-to-ousting-assad-heres-why-how/
"ISIS" is obviously an excuse to bomb Syria, as a back door attempt to oust Assad by providing air support for the faltering Free Syrian Army. Russian diplomacy foiled the first neoconservative push to bomb Syria last year.
We're told by our government and media that we've been shown "beheading" videos. That's not true. If you look hard enough online, you can find the RAW "beheading" videos. But in NONE of the three "beheading" videos (Foley, Sotloff, and Haines) does it show a head being cut off. As "Jihad John" ostensibly starts to saw their necks with his knife, the video fades to black. When the video comes back on, it shows a "headless body" with the purported head of the victim resting on the back.
It reminds me of the alleged Saddam Hussein "hanging" video. NOWHERE did it ever show Saddam hanging. It showed him with the noose around his neck, then the trap door opens and he falls through. BUT THEN THE VIDEO AGAIN GOES BLACK! When the video comes back, we see the ostensibly lifeless body of Saddam laying on the floor with the noose around his neck.
Seeing a pattern?
And where's the video of the raid that allegedly killed Bin Laden?
It's amazing that we can be TOLD what we are actually SEEING with our own eyes, and have our own observation be "overridden" by what our government & media tell us.
Edward Bernays would be proud.
The purpose of the fake beheadings is to sway public opinion to support action in Syria — a back door to overthrowing Assad; the first effort being thwarted by clever Russian diplomacy last year.
And don't assume that the President or Congress are behind this. It's much deeper. Powerful interests (whose bidding our politicians do; namely Israel & Saudi Arabia) want Assad removed.
Incidentally, the war in the Middle East is against SHI'A Islam, the House of Saud's mortal enemy. Look whom ISIS is attacking — Shi'a-ruled countries — Syria & Iraq, with Iran being the ultimate prize, eventually; especially since the American public wasn't buying the neocons' lies and push to directly bomb Iran over the last 7 or 8 years. So Syria is a back door to Iran, as "ISIS" is a back door to Syria (Assad).
America doesn't get its oil from Saudi Arabia, but much of the rest of the world does. And where do the Saudis invest their massive oil profits? Not in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia invests its oil fortune in the U.S. economy. And currently we're more desperate than ever for that investment. THAT's the "relationship" between the U.S. & KSA. As with China, the U.S. desperately needs that massive Saudi investment into our debt-ridden, non-producing (except the Defense industry), faltering economy.
Remember a little over a year ago, the media said the U.S. was going to train the FSA (Free Syrian Army) in Jordan? It's my contention that we armed and trained "ISIS" in the eastern desert of Jordan. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was Blackwater/ Xe/ Academi (whatever they've changed their name to this week) who did the training.
How is ISIS funded? Where do they get their oil? Their arms? How do they manage logistically? Supply lines, etc.?
Of course we're told they stole U.S. weaponry from Iraqi Army bases in northern Iraq, and that they robbed banks in Mosul (lol). How convenient. Now no one will raise an eyebrow when they see "ISIS" in humvees and shooting M-16s, and not question their funding.
If "ISIS" is as we've been told, why didn't we bomb the holy hell out of them as they drove south from Mosul along the highway toward Baghdad in one, long convoy. We've been shown those photos by the media. I'm sure those photos were meant to elicit a feeling of desperation and fear in the American public, but to any thinking, rational, logical person it begged the question: Why aren't we bombing that "ISIS" convoy like we bombed the retreating Iraqi Army in 1991 on the highway from Kuwait back to Iraq?!
Why? For the same reason "Pentagon lawyers" shut down Able Danger after Lt. Col. Shaffer's team identified Mohammed Atta and several other "terrorists" in 2000. For the same reason western intelligence knew of Bin Laden's 10-day stay for medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001.
And that reason is: Why would the U.S. eliminate the very boogeyman it created? That boogeyman is needed to serve it's psychological purpose as scapegoat.
Here's Why
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.09.17, 17:12:56
Of course we're told they stole U.S. weaponry from Iraqi Army bases in northern Iraq, and that they robbed banks in Mosul (lol). How convenient. Now no one will raise an eyebrow when they see "ISIS" in humvees and shooting M-16s, and not question their funding.
Any while no one is looking, the State Department is shedding all the documents connected with Benghazi.
By the time the smoke clears, no one will be the wiser how this was all masterminded. Oh, except for a few insiders turned whistleblowers that mysteriously end up dead.
What still amazes me is how much the world could be improved (for everyone) by all the energy put into destruction and these deceitful ploys.
"Beam them out of there, Scotty." -- Star Trek Generations
Jim Willie interview part 1:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=316857
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1647093461&feature=iv&list=PLNwUWnJgSq_LsSyEjjIZEtrdUQFhgWWbN&src_vid=BKuvvEdqEV0&v=rqz0Cnnk_hE
Well worth a listen if you want to know what is going on..
While not directly connected to 9-11, there is a video
of a mysterious building collapse which is eerily similar
to WTC-7 going down. It is feared that a U.S. Navy
aircraft with a secret weapon may have caused the
collapse.
Here's the video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHJfGVmuYHg)
Here's the article which explains it. (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1805.htm)
The game is getting weirdly serious.
Remote Viewers (whether you believe in them or not) know what happened on that day.
The Geopolitics of World War III
http://scgnews.com/the-geopolitics-of-world-war-iii
At 16:40 in the video you will see a map, a very important map.
Anyone remember the 2008 Russia - Georgia war ?
http://www.historyguy.com/georgia-russia-war.htm#.VCCB2xaF0Tg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dew/StarWarsBeam7.html
The weapon that Dr Judy Wood describes sounds like a larger version of the beam that Dr Marinov discovered with his MAGVID device. Rather than projecting a beam of particles, it creates a beam from the particles already there by rotating the space they are in. Marinov claimed that anything in the beam area would be rotated and heated. The MAGVID was nicknamed the "desktop pulsar".
was this sort of weapon used in Iraq? http://www.rainews.it/ran24/inchieste/video/guerre_stellari_english.wmv
Some sort of "invisible ray" weapon was certainly used.
One of the main reasons for promoting wars and warfare
in numerous places across the globe is the testing of new
technology weapons. Those who are the "Hidden Hand of
Power" behind the governments of The West are absolutely
ruthless and conscienceless as they rush to implement their
New World Order - One World Government.
Essential to that Plan is the construction of the Third Temple
in Jerusalem and the re-institution of animal sacrifice. Once
that has been accomplished the End will be very near.
There will be incredible "signs and wonders" as the Bad Boys
make use of very advanced devices and technologies in the
wars to come. Unfortunately, most are not yet able to recognize
that war has already been declared upon "the people" through
the programs of geo-engineering, genetic modifications of food-
stuffs, electromagnetic saturation (cell phones and other alleged
conveniences), biological man-made disease and weather control.
The Ebola Program has been designed to depopulate vast areas of
Africa and South America. All "useless eaters" or "human cattle"
will be eliminated in great numbers.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.09.10, 01:59:58
The elephant at the party:
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/7-Party-(R).jpg)
Insightful picture, Matt.
I would invite you guys to sign up as Supporters (if not as Engineers) at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Note in the upper-left corner, 19,793 "other supporters" -- almost 20,000! That's where you click to read the petition and sign it also.
I've been watching the number of supporters slowly grow and I think we can surpass 20K by the end of the month, but it will take a little push...
Things are hotting up in Australia, seems like a lot of Federal Police actions, "Terror" related Raids and arrests, alleged plots of kidnap and beheading of government employees.
And all since Aus. Gov. only just recently announced our SAS, planners and warplanes would take part in bombing and other actions in Iraq. Other odd things are going on as well, one guy attacked a Fed and a Victorian Policeman with some kind of edged weapon and was shot dead with one bullet. Since when do the police fire a single shot at an attacker like that, would seem to me any officer with a legal weapon under that threat would fire at least two rounds in very quick succession maybe a third or a third if necessary. Bit odd that one. The guy that shot him was stabbed twice, the Fed multiple times before that, then one shot, bang you're dead. Wow. Maybe point blank to the nut !
..
Gordon Duff reveals newly received information (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yeSX-PBnAE&list=UUEUavynKuvP44ZHBt0SrFhg&feature=player_detailpage) from
Russia (Snowden) regarding 9-11 which names names.
The video (audio recording) of the interview is the first
video listed on the playlist (9-22-14). The extremely
interesting portion of the conversation begins at approx.
30 minutes into the audio.
It would be a very good idea to use a downloader to obtain
a personal copy of the interview. It is invaluable.
To make the conversation much more intelligible to my
explosive damaged hearing I used my graphic equalizer
adjustments on my media player set to minimize bass
and maximize treble. I do this often with audio playbacks.
9-11 is most definitely an "inside job" involving CIA (FBI),
Mossad and Saudi Intelligence operatives. Highly placed
Israeli Mossad assets and agents within the U.S. government
and numerous state/city governments are/were involved
in the planning and execution of 9-11.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.09.24, 21:02:02
Gordon Duff reveals newly received information (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yeSX-PBnAE) from
Russia (Snowden) regarding 9-11 which names names.
Nothing like a good ol' fire side chat with Uncle Gordy. So he's sitting on the Able Danger documents he got from Snowden via Moscow. That guy is into everything isn't he. Now revealed the Oklahoma City Bombing was also nuclear. And Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent. The Pentagon was hit with a Tomahawk cruise missile. It just keeps getting better and better doesn't it. Is that what they mean by the truth being stranger than fiction?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cemJVoR3ABU/UWnfPz_pG1I/AAAAAAAAIss/GEZ446x13GA/s400/Spy+Vs.+Spy.jpg)
Rumormillnews website server was hacked a few days ago and the entire 300,000+ post archive was deleted.
This video of Cameron's speech at the UN has been posted today. It is certainly an eye opener... If you believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were staged inside job's then you are classified as a "non violent extremist".. and "peddler of lies"..
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=153
He accuses the truth movement of peddling lies... Can you believe that!
ISIS Beheadings on Cue from Washington and London?
The question is this: are these shocking executions, with their highly stylized graphic videos, being used to manipulate public consent for Western military intervention in Syria? In that case, ISIS is not acting in some apparent rogue fashion, turning on its Western intelligence masters, but rather it is obeying orders as usual as part of a macabre charade to facilitate Western military intervention.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/09/17/isis-beheadings-on-cue-from-washington-and-london/
by Finian Cunningham
The gruesome beheading of a British aid worker by the ISIS terror group in Syria over the weekend provoked a stern warning from Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron who vowed to "hunt down the murderers" for their "act of pure evil".
The British victim was named as David Haines, a 44-year-old aid worker, who had been held hostage in Syria for many months. A graphic video released by his killers shows Haines kneeling on the ground dressed in an orange jumpsuit as a masked executioner severs his throat with a knife. The dead man's prone body is then filmed with a decapitated, bloody head placed on the corpse's back.
Some analysts have disputed the veracity of the video, saying it is a fake. But Haine's foreboding demeanor and his final words spoken to the camera tend to verify the recording as genuine. The British government has also stated that it believes the footage to be authentic.
Haines was the third Westerner to be apparently murdered by the ISIS militants in the past four weeks using the same macabre ritual.Earlier this month, on September 3, a video showed American journalist Steven Sotloff also being decapitated in the same grisly manner. Two weeks before that, another abducted American citizen, James Foley, also a journalist, met the same grim fate at the hands of his captors.
A fourth man, another British national named as Alan Hemming, is feared to be the next ISIS victim, with unconfirmed video footage of his execution also posted this weekend.
The shocking scenes of brutality have sparked public outrage in the US and around the world. President Barack Obama addressed the nation in a prime-time television broadcast last week in which he declared that American forces would track down and destroy the ISIS terrorists. The group is also known by the alternative acronyms IS or ISIL, referring ostensibly to an aspired fundamentalist Islamic caliphate that incorporates Iraq and Syria. At the same time that Obama was addressing the nation, US secretary of state John Kerry was in the Middle East drumming up support for an American-led international coalition to launch military strikes against ISIS, whose strongholds are in northern Iraq straddling the border with eastern Syria.
ISIS has been a prominent force among a myriad of militant cohorts that have been waging war against the Syrian state since March 2011. There is substantial evidence that Western governments have been covertly supporting ISIS and other extremists under the guise of assisting the "moderate rebels" for the ultimate purpose of destabilizing the Assad government of Syria and regime change. Assad is a staunch ally of Russia and Iran, and therefore is in the Western crosshairs for regime change.
But latterly ISIS has gained notoriety for its kidnapping and murder of Western citizens.
The newly formed US-led coalition against ISIS includes 10 Arab countries comprising Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan as well as the Persian Gulf kingdoms of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Paradoxically, it may seem, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been accused of being leading financial sponsors of the extremist groups fighting in Syria, including ISIS. But this link is not so paradoxical when the covert Western-designated role of the terror group is understood, as we shall see.
Washington has also, not surprisingly, garnered the support of Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Australia for its supposed anti-ISIS coalition.
A meeting this week in Paris will allegedly firm up military tactics on how the US-led coalition will carry out its putative strikes. So far, Washington has said that it will not be committing ground troops as in the previous Iraq War (2003-2012) and the ongoing US-led campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama said the modus operandi against ISIS would be like its "counter-terror operations in Yemen and Somalia", where US air power is assisted by "partners on the ground".
The fledgling Iraqi government of Prime Minister Haider al Abadi has welcomed the US air strikes. Since last month, American warplanes have launched nearly 150 bombing raids on suspected ISIS positions in northern Iraq. Last week saw the widening of these US air strikes to include western Iraq near Haditha. Because of Baghdad's approval, the US-led coalition has legal cover to operate in Iraq. But this is not the case in neighboring Syria. The Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad has not given its consent to the American plans, nor has it been consulted. Washington claims that Assad has no legitimacy or right to sovereignty because it alleges his "regime" has been repressing the civilian population – a claim that is contradicted by the re-election of Assad as president in June with a massive 88.7 per cent majority based on a voter turnout of 73.4 per cent.
Damascus has pointed out that any US military action in its territory – even if that action is against the enemy ISIS network – will amount to aggression against the Syrian state.
The objective legal position was also stipulated by the Russian government this week. Moscow said that, without Syrian government consent or a United Nations Security Council mandate, any US-led air strikes inside Syria would be "a gross violation of international law".
Nevertheless, Obama has unequivocally stated that his proposed military coalition will conduct attacks on ISIS bases inside Syria. The legal implications of that contingency, however, appear to be unnerving the main US NATO allies – Britain, France and Germany.
In Berlin last week both the German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his British counterpart Philip Hammond issued categorical statements saying that their countries would not be carrying out air strikes in Syria.
Hammond, like Steinmeier, gave full backing to US strikes against ISIS in Iraq, but he told the Reuters news agency: "Let me be clear: Britain will not be taking part in any air strikes in Syria. We have already had that discussion in our parliament last year and we won't be revisiting that position." Britain's top diplomat added that the "legal permissiveness" of military operations in Iraq and Syria was completely different.
Hammond was referring to the vote in the British parliament last year in which MPs voted overwhelmingly against Britain joining a proposed American military intervention in Syria, following the deadly chemical weapons attack near Damascus on August 21. Washington was lining up air strikes on Syria to purportedly avenge the killing of hundreds of civilians from poisonous gas. That incident was blamed on the armed forces of the Assad government but it was subsequently shown to be the covert work of anti-government militants, aimed at contriving as a false flag outrage to elicit Western military intervention.
The British parliament was therefore vindicated in its vote against military intervention in Syria, and that vote put paid to Washington's plans back then. It signaled a rare British dissent in the "special relationship" with Washington, where Britain is usually a reliable junior partner for American militarism overseas. At the time of the Westminster vote at the end of August 2013, British leader David Cameron was visibly downcast at the rejection of the proposed intervention in Syria. Given that the British government is a major player in the US-led regime-change conspiracy in Syria, Cameron's dismay was understandable.
This week on the day after Hammond made the announcement in Berlin of non-intervention in Syria, he appeared to be over-ruled by his boss in 10 Downing Street. David Cameron contradicted his foreign minister by telling British media that "nothing had been ruled out" for Britain's participation in the American-led anti-ISIS coalition. Cameron was clearly indicating that British fighter jets might indeed launch air strikes inside Syria. Such a move would over-turn the British parliament's landmark vote outlawing military intervention in Syria. It would also negate the majority sentiment of the British public, which has been trending strong opposition to their government becoming embroiled militarily in Syria.
However, graphic videos of extremists slicing off the head of a British aid worker could be a decisive turning point. It's hard to imagine a more repugnant act of cruel depravity to turn public opinion away from its erstwhile opposition to war toward giving consent for military action to, as Cameron put it, "hunt down this pure evil".
Note too that in recent weeks Western governments and their mass media have been raising security concerns about Western "jihadists" returning to their home countries to carry out terror missions. Australia's government of Tony Abbott is the latest to put its country on "high alert". Abbott told media this weekend that his government was also sending a 600-man military force to the Middle East to join the US-led coalition, and he cited the barbaric beheading of the British national as part of the reasoning for the Australian deployment.
The macabre video executions have also overturned anti-war public feeling in the US. When Obama was planning to launch air strikes in Syria last year following the chemical weapons incident, polls showed that a big majority – 70 per cent – of Americans were opposed to any intervention. That opposition, plus the British parliament's rejection, was a major factor in why Obama backed down then on his proposed military strikes during September 2013.
But after the latest videos showing two American journalists being brutally slain, US public opinion, according to recent polls, is now strongly in favour of Obama's anti-ISIS bombing coalition; not just operating in Iraq, but more significantly, the American public wants the coalition to go after ISIS inside Syria too. Thus, where the chemical weapons horror last year failed to convince the American public to give its approval for US air strikes in Syria, the beheading of American hostages has succeeded.
For Washington and its close London ally, the British public is a crucial constituency to also win over. It seems more than a coincidence that ISIS has now carried out the same sickening execution of a British national as it did with the two Americans. President Obama said after the videoed slaying of Briton David Haines that the US "stands shoulder-to-shoulder" with the British people.
The question is this: are these shocking executions, with their highly stylised graphic videos, being used to manipulate public consent for Western military intervention in Syria? In that case, ISIS is not acting in some apparent rogue fashion, turning on its Western intelligence masters, but rather it is obeying orders as usual as part of a macabre charade to facilitate Western military intervention.
Once again, what we are seeing is a variation of "humanitarian pretext" to pave the way for the covert, ulterior agenda of Western-orchestrated regime change in foreign countries. That ploy was used previously by NATO forces in former Yugoslavia at the end of the 1990s and more recently in Libya during 2011.
It is well documented that ISIS, IS or ISIL, is a terror network created by US, British and Saudi military intelligence going back to the early years of the Iraq War beginning in 2003, when the group played a vital role in fomenting sectarian strife in Iraq to the advantage of the Western occupying armies.The network has antecedents in Western collusion with radical Islamist mercenaries in Afghanistan during the 1980s against the former Soviet Union, which led to the formation of Al Qaeda, and also in Chechnya in the mid-1990s.
ISIS leader Abu Bakr Baghdadi is known to be a US intelligence asset, according to a former senior Al Qaeda operative, Nabil Naim, among other sources. Former CIA personnel have also disclosed that ISIS, like Al Qaeda, was set up to further geopolitical goals for Washington and its allies in the Middle East. These goals include regime change in target countries, such as Syria, and perpetuating the money-spinning American military-industrial complex by creating an endless security threat. Officially, the network may be a proscribed terror organization and "an enemy of the state". But in the underworld of black operations, ISIS is a covert instrument of US government and corporate interests.
Given the strategic importance of the US-led regime-change objective in Syria – and in particular the importance of obtaining public support for military intervention in that country – it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the ISIS network is carrying out beheadings of Western citizens on the orders of its handlers in the CIA and Britain's MI6. Perhaps even, the outward political leadership in Washington and London, Obama and Cameron, are unaware of their own dark forces at work, which gives their public reactions of indignation an air of authenticity and credibility.
Indeed, the evident political consequences from the latest execution of Briton David Haines and Americans Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff are strongly indicative of a Western psychological operation. That makes Washington and London culpable of murdering their own citizens for geopolitical expediency. These victims are sacrificial lambs in the foulest sense.
Targeting Iraq and Syria, 2003 and 2013
The New Superpower of Global Public Opinion.
Is It Finally Coming of Age?
Social Media, Public Perceptions, and the Changing Mental Environment of War Politics.
The people of the world have reached a critical mass of intolerance towards the rogue terror states of the US, Britain, France, Israel and a few other accomplices. We have watched their relentless mass murder and exploitation of fellow humans in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. We have witnessed how this tiny group of state terrorists imposes on the vast majority of humanity their vile criminality and in the process then insult us with grotesque lies and justifications. We have seen how these rogue states have stolen land, poisoned people's water, burnt their crops, dispossessed their homes, assassinated families with aerial drones and ground drones in the form of death squads. They have committed all these shocking crimes with lies and impunity to the point where now these state terrorists are operating in more than one country simultaneously in a permanent state of relentless war, pushing the very future of humanity to the brink.
Finian Cunningham, "US Revealed as the Enemy of the World," 31 August, 2013
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/03/targeting-iraq-and-syria-2003-and-2013/
A Global Spotlight is Being Placed on the Whole Phenomenon of False Flag Terrorism
The broadly-based rejection of US accusations concerning the identity of guilty parties responsible for chemical-warfare in Syria is drawing the whole subject of false flag terrorism into worldwide prominence. False flag terrorism is a major tactic for justifying illegal aggressive warfare. This trend of international attention on false flag terrorism should be encouraged. The subject should be brought from the margins of political debate to the center of international attention.
nato-och-al-qaida-1This emphasis on the deployment of false flag terrorism can be finessed to kick start various forms of juridical investigations. This emphasis can lead to long overdue reckonings on the part of governments, but particularly those of Israel and the United States, with their own histories of covertly initiating and manipulating many violent episodes followed by the dissemination of well-calculated lies such as those that came in the wake of the Saudi-backed chemical attacks on Syrian civilians. Aided and abetted by compliant media cartels often owned by big military contractors like Westinghouse and GE, false flag terrorism has become standard procedure in cultivating popular support from home constituencies for aggressive warfare.
It seems, therefore, that it is imperative for the new superpower of global public opinion to draw our own red lines on the political careers of our elected officials. An exit from the repeated pattern of military madness requires that we end the war machine's misrepresentation of its own manufactured violence with the hidden goal of shaping public opinion to pursue a predetermined course of action.
Alternative Media Success Panics NeoCons
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/25/alt-media/
A funny thing happened on the way to dystopia.
As Western mainstream media fall into the hands of lying billionaires, Zionists, and intelligence agencies (three categories with significant overlap) – and as neoconservatives script big media's ignoble lies – a surging internet-based alternative media has arisen to challenge the elite's false narratives. Thanks to alt-media, fewer and fewer people are buying the simplistic feel-good myths peddled by the mainstream.
While most old people still cling to the corporate media worldview, the young are skewing ever-harder toward alternative perspectives. In Thursday's Scottish independence referendum, for example, the London Daily Mirror reported that 71% of 16-17 year olds voted "yes" while those over 65 voted "no" by a 73%-27% margin.
Why does the vast majority of Scottish young people favor independence, while an equally crushing majority of old people opposes it?
Short answer: Old people still believe BBC propaganda, while the young do not.
During the run-up to the referendum, huge crowds of young people gathered to protest the BBC's biased coverage of the campaign. John Robertson, Professor of Media Studies at the University of the West of Scotland, said: "My research indicates that our public broadcaster, funded as much by Yes as by No voters, has betrayed its charter on impartiality."
Older Scots grew up inside the bubble of the mainstream media monopoly. Most do not understand how the BBC and other mainstream outlets used subliminal cues as well as blatant bias to push for a "no" vote; nor do they realize how utterly corrupt their government and media have become.
Younger Scots, by contrast, grew up in the internet era and follow alternative media. Many know that the BBC covered up the Jimmy Saville pedophilia scandal in order to protect Tony Blair and other leading politicians. They know that the BBC reported the "collapse" of World Trade Center 7 twenty minutes before it happened. They know the BBC has worked overtime covering up not only 9/11-anthrax, but also follow-up false flag attacks including the 7/7/2005 London bombings. They know the BBC mis-portrays conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. And they realize that the Western "democracies" are rotten with election fraud – which makes the mainstream's refusal to sponsor the usual exit polls in the Scottish referendum highly suspicious.
"Lies", says Cameron, as he launches another war
by Ian Fantom, UK
(2014-09-25) – Britain is again on the verge of war. Every time they say it's different this time, and it never is. They say the first casualty of war is truth, but it's not true; the truth is dead before the war even begins. War is the result of lies, and this war is no exception.
A 93-year-old said to me: "I'm getting confused on who's fighting who". I replied, "We're all confused. It's ludicrous". Who is ISIS? No-one seems to know. Has a war ever been won by bombing alone? No-one seems to know. "What could be the purpose of posting videos of beheadings?" No-one seems to know. What is the long-term strategy for winning this war? No-one seems to know. It's as if the political establishment together with mainstream political journalists have gone into premature dementure.
Clearly, the purpose of the public beheadings can only be to enrage public opinion in the West to such an extent that they will allow their governments to send in their armed forces into the areas said to be controlled by ISIS. Who would want to do that? Would Middle-Eastern Islamicists intent on setting up an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq want to provoke and enable the mightiest military force the world has ever known to move in and obliterate them? Of course not.
Many people now think that ISIS is in all probability a creation of the US, or at least of the Neoconservative-Likud-CIA-MI6 alliance that seems to be running the Military Industrial Complex. It is said to be an offshoot of Al Qaeda, which originated as a US database of fighters opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The case for war is being fabricated, and David Cameron is every bit as bad as Tony Blair, when he fabricated the myth of Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to give a pretext to invade Iraq. He is every bit as bad as Tony Blair when he told the House of Commons that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, but that he wasn't going to tell them what that proof was, but would deposit it in the House of Commons Library; he didn't. David Cameron is every bit as bad as Adolf Hitler when his men burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists. Mercifully we haven't yet had a Kristallnacht in the UK, but I fear that's where we're heading.
On 24 September David Cameron made a speech to the UN Security Council, which was posted on the Prime Minister's website under the title: "Only a coherent, coordinated response can tackle what is a truly global and indiscriminate threat". It's a rehash of the Policy Exchange stuff, in which he links Islam with terrorism through constant use of the word "extremism". What, I wonder, is the "poisonous ideology of extremism" he refers to? Is it not extremist to go to war? Then he spews out the Policy Exchange stuff about non-violent extremism: "But as the evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist of offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it". What evidence? After his Munich speech, saying that multiculturalism had failed, I gave a talk to our Keep Talking group in London, tracing his speech to Policy Exchange. I listed all those convicted of terrorist offences. I could see no evidence of these people being influenced by preachers. Look at the wording, "convicted of terrorist offences". That has to exclude all alleged suicide bombers, the most notorious of which would be the four alleged Muslim terrorists behind 7/7 – the terrorist attacks on the London transport system of 7 July 2005. They were just declared guilty by the coroner before the inquest opened, and because they were guilty they were excluded from the inquest. Were they fanatical Muslim extremists? Well, no. This is pure deception on David Cameron's part.
But then he accuses the truth movement of telling lies: "And we know what this worldview is–the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or the 7/7 London attacks were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy; the concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. That means banning preachers of hate from coming to our countries. It means proscribing organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. It means stopping extremists whether violent or non-violent from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, in our universities and even sometimes in our prisons. In other words, firm, decisive action – to protect and uphold the values of our free and democratic societies".
Who is making the allegation that 9/11 was a Jewish plot? Certainly evidence has been appearing that extremist Israeli nationalists were involved, but I have been at pains to point out in my newsletters, that it's not "the Jews"; most British Jews were against the setting up of a Jewish state in Palestine, and many have been protesting more recently about the genocide in Gaza. David Cameron is putting out a straw man argument, in order to deflect from the blatent lies in the 9/11 cover-up. He is now maliciously using 9/11 in order to justify yet another post-9/11 war.
He accuses us of telling lies about 7/7. How could 7/7 not have been staged? Note the careful use of language here. The plain fact is that the government's version of events just does not tie up. They even took a year to acknowledge that the train from Luton to London by which MI5 claimed the terrorists had travelled had in fact been cancelled that day. Are MI5 seriously incompetent, or was that blatent deception? How could the government simply dismiss that as a mistake, with no consequences?
Having gone to the UN Security Council to tell them that some of his own citizens are liars, when all they want is to know the truth about 9/11 and 7/7, he is now recalling Parliament on Friday 27 September, in order to get the go-ahead for war – or at least to pacify Parliament, because he doesn't formally need Parliament's approval; in the case of 9/11 there was just an adjournment debate, in which there was no substantive motion. Only the Prime Minister and the Queen can decide to take Britain into war. On the Prime Minister's website there is no motion, but just a statement that the purpose of the recall is "to debate the UK's response to the request from the Iraqi government for air strikes to support operations against ISIL in Iraq".
I should have thought that any political journalist in the UK would be able to understand such elementary points. One has to wonder who their paymasters are.
911 2nd plane Pinocchio's NOSE emerges undamaged on the other side of Tower.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1GYKimWHdM
I stood in the NAFFI at around 10am ish on September 11th 2001 amongst a large crowd of soldiers watching this clip play over and over again on the big screen. I had just finished morning class of the Airframes and Engines course, studying to become an Aircraft Technician in the British Army. This was the very first image of the terrorist attacks that I saw and remains with me vividly until this day.
An airplane nose cone structure would never penetrate through that building, it is a crumple zone filled with magic black boxes. Therefore the image I was being shown repetitively, almost hypnotically, must be false as it violates the known laws of physics. That is when I knew something was wrong with the information I was being presented with, and the collapse of WTC7 via controlled demolition later that evening, became the icing on the cake. I knew I was being lied to, and that that lie was prepared well in advance of it's delivery.
And not for a minute would anyone suspect this guy of having bad intentions:
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/zbigsplash.jpg)
http://www.theburningplatform.com/tag/syria/
Interesting explanation of the global resources war...
more:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-25/look-inside-secret-deal-saudi-arabia-unleashed-syrian-bombing
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.09.27, 22:08:59
911 2nd plane Pinocchio's NOSE emerges undamaged on the other side of Tower.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1GYKimWHdM
I stood in the NAFFI at around 10am ish on September 11th 2001 amongst a large crowd of soldiers watching this clip play over and over again on the big screen. I had just finished morning class of the Airframes and Engines course, studying to become an Aircraft Technician in the British Army. This was the very first image of the terrorist attacks that I saw and remains with me vividly until this day.
An airplane nose cone structure would never penetrate through that building, it is a crumple zone filled with magic black boxes. Therefore the image I was being shown repetitively, almost hypnotically, must be false as it violates the known laws of physics. That is when I knew something was wrong with the information I was being presented with, and the collapse of WTC7 via controlled demolition later that evening, became the icing on the cake. I knew I was being lied to, and that that lie was prepared well in advance of it's delivery.
Those were my two big questions at the end of day one, Pinocchio's NOSE and WTC7's collapse, they were the things that stood out that forced me to question how I was interpreting what I was seeing and hearing that day.
Thirteen years on enough time has passed for the momentary shock trauma to dissipate from my mind, I see those events clearly now.
Pinocchio's NOSE event:It is impossible for an airplane nosecone to penetrate completely through WTC2, intact and with no elastic or plastic deformation.
It is possible for a CGI overlay of the Pinocchio's NOSE event to be offset in human error, working under extreme pressure.
Conclusion:
Unclear.
Weak proof.
Probability of accuracy 0%.WTC7 event:It is impossible for WTC7 to collapse into it's own footprint at freefall speed if the prime mover of the event is a small localised regular fire.
It is possible for WTC7 to collapse into it's own footprint at freefall speed if the prime mover of the event is controlled demolition technology, timed to sever all super-structure load bearing members simultaneously, therefore insuring an implosion event occurs.
Conclusion:
Clear.
Incontestable proof.
Probability of accuracy 100%.
The nose cone has the radar antenna inside, here is a report of a 757 collision with the nose cone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339139/Was-bird-A-Plane-Or-UFO--Chinese-passenger-jet-hits-mysterious-object-26-000ft-lands-severely-dented-nose-cone.html
regards
Mike 8)
more ties to Zionist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTe50UUgM
and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
Linda Rivera, New York, USA, 3 years ago
America is broke. We have no money to fight ANY wars. Trillions of dollars are being printed out of thin air guaranteeing out of control inflation. Experts warn we face a Depression greater than the Great Depression. Al-Qaeda are part of the rebels in Libya. Why is US/NATO waging war to bring Al-Qaeda to power?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001778/Libya-war-costs-US-taxpayers-2m-day-Gaddafi.html#ixzz3Ejns21Vo
Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html
Obama says US 'underestimated' rise of ISIS, admits 'contradictory' Syria policy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/29/us-misjudged-iraqi-army-isis-threat-obama-says/
You Do Realize that the U.S. Funded and Trained ISIS, Right?
http://www.dailypaul.com/324900/you-do-realize-that-the-us-funded-and-trained-isis-right
Creating a State of Perpetual War: 'US Funded and Trained Jihadists in Syria – and Now it Wants to Fight Them'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/creating-a-state-of-perpetual-war-us-funded-and-trained-jihadists-in-syria-and-now-it-wants-to-fight-them/5404813
I just realised why the need is only for 6 Tornado's, flushing game requires no more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770171/Six-RAF-Tornados-lead-blitz-against-ISIS-just-hours-Parliamentary-vote-got-war-militants.html
Gaddafi's last words were 'Do you know right from wrong?'
France announces end of Nato airstrikes as 'mission is complete'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051361/GADDAFI-DEAD-VIDEO-Dictator-begs-life-summary-execution.html
I can only see the Google cache of this article, but it mentions that war in Europe is an option:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HJazvTu53WYJ:www.4thmedia.org/2014/08/russia-iran-syria-ukraine-china-etc-its-all-about-the-collapse-of-us-dollar-dominance/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK's political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe".
Nice explanation of the petrodollar too.
Grumpy,
Your quotation demonstrates very poignantly the level
of ruthlessness in the minds of those who are in control
of the Western World. It may be that those of the Eastern
World are in cahoots; we'll find out soon enough.
The people of the Continent mean nothing to those elites
who crave power over all. Bloodshed and destruction to
them are like game. The 'grand chess match.'
Prophecy tells us that the Great City will come down very
quickly, shockingly quickly, in its due time. The CITY OF
LONDON is the headquarters of great evil.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.09.30, 03:33:48
Grumpy,
Your quotation demonstrates very poignantly the level
of ruthlessness in the minds of those who are in control
of the Western World. It may be that those of the Eastern
World are in cahoots; we'll find out soon enough.
The people of the Continent mean nothing to those elites
who crave power over all. Bloodshed and destruction to
them are like game. The 'grand chess match.'
Prophecy tells us that the Great City will come down very
quickly, shockingly quickly, in its due time. The CITY OF
LONDON is the headquarters of great evil.
Yes. Power over all is their goal, and I think that rabbit hole is far deeper and more sinister than we realize.
I've always taken references the the "great city" to mean "New York City". I have found predictions/prophecies that say an asteroid will hit in the Atlantic Ocean, and wipe out the city, and others that say a nuke does the trick. Either way, NY is supposed to be wiped out.
Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police
Theresa May to announce new Extremist Disruption Orders to strengthen counter-terrorism if the Tories win the next general election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11129474/Extremists-to-have-Facebook-and-Twitter-vetted-by-anti-terror-police.html
The new orders will be part of the Government's "Prevent" strategy, which tackles the ideology behind the terrorist threat. So-called hate preachers, who currently stay just within terrorism legislation, will be one of the targets of banning orders and Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs).
EDOs would apply if a judge is convinced that an individual is carrying out their activities for "the purpose of overthrowing democracy".
It appears that freedom of speech used to point out the establishment's many previous and current war crimes, is soon to be a terrorist offence in the UK.
Saudi Prince: War Against ISIS Really About Removing al-Assad
http://www.arabworld360.info/2014/09/saudi-prince-war-against-isis-really.html
An interesting current events video with relevant facts.
Quote from: Grumpy
I've always taken references the the "great city" to mean "New York City". I have found predictions/prophecies that say an asteroid will hit in the Atlantic Ocean, and wipe out the city, and others that say a nuke does the trick. Either way, NY is supposed to be wiped out.
New York City certainly has become an appendage of THE
CITY OF LONDON and is clearly under its control. The Square
Mile has a much longer history of mischief and devised the
method of state control much used today through the CITY
OF LONDON Parish Fictions. This critical knowledge has nearly
been totally excised from the record - very hard to find any-
thing about it.
The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/
As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the "homeland." A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.
The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded "The Khorasan Group." After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.
How Obama came to launch strikes in Syria
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/obama-syria-strikes-policy/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
New York (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's policy toward Syria -- three years of red lines and calls for regime change -- culminated Monday in a barrage of airstrikes on terror targets there, marking a turning point for the conflict and thrusting the President further into it.
The U.S. said Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan had joined in the attack on ISIS targets near Raqqa in Syria. The U.S. also launched airstrikes against another terrorist organization, the Khorasan Group. Obama described its members as "seasoned al Qaeda operatives in Syria," and U.S. officials said the group was plotting attacks against the United States and other Western targets.
Initially hesitant to become involved in the Syrian conflict, which pits an authoritarian regime led by President Bashar al-Assad against a patchwork of rebel groups, Obama has moved from sending weapons to opposition fighters last year, to backing away from airstrikes against al-Assad, to ordering Monday¹s campaign to take out ISIS terrorists who have used the Syrian unrest to gain a foothold.
Regime change is illegal: end of debate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3616571/Regime-change-is-illegal-end-of-debate.html
'I would never do anything against the advice of the Attorney General," the Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted. Yet he did do something against the Attorney General's advice. He helped the Americans invade Iraq and replace its Ba'athist regime.
Lord Goldsmith's confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, revealed for the first time last week, was equivocal about almost everything. It was clear about one point and one point only: "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.
As everyone knows now, and knew perfectly well then, the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was regime change. President Bush said so with Tony Blair standing by his side. At the joint press conference the two leaders gave at George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 6, 2002, he helpfully summed up the purpose of the military action against Iraq in a single sentence: "We support regime change." For George Bush, no further elaboration was necessary.
Despite Mr Blair's statement that "If I had not taken the action I did, Saddam would still be in power," it was not he, but President Bush who removed Saddam. Tony Blair was an accessory to the American invasion - but British forces were so small a part of it that they were not critical to its success. As President Bush emphasised, the Americans were prepared to go it alone without Tony Blair and Britain's armed forces. Two weeks before the invasion started, he offered to do precisely that, as he saw the enormous political difficulties the Prime Minister faced in getting Parliamentary approval for the war. Tony Blair rejected the offer. "I said I'm with you and I mean it," he insisted.
Last week, most of the discussion of the Attorney General's advice centred on whether it was "arguable" that the invasion would be legal without a second UN resolution explicitly authorising it. Yet when compared with the glaring illegality of an invasion whose explicit purpose was regime change, this is a non-issue. The Prime Minister knew it, the Attorney General knew it, the Cabinet knew it, and so did anyone who bothered to think about it. What, then, was Tony Blair doing when he stated: "What is important is that whatever action we take is done in accordance with international law"?
President Bush never wavered in his conviction that regime change was the main purpose of the invasion. He was not interested in a second resolution from the UN - he was not really interested in the question of whether America's action was in accordance with "international law". It was the Prime Minister who persuaded him to try to get a second resolution from the Security Council explicitly authorising war. President Bush made the effort as a favour to Tony Blair, despite the very evident scepticism of Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Their scepticism was understandable. Returning to the UN was a gesture whose only point was to keep up a charade for the benefit of the Labour backbenchers. Tony Blair knew that if he were honest with them he would fail to get them to vote for the war. The pretence, however, did not fool the members of the Security Council, which never came close to approving that second resolution. They shared the Attorney General's original view that an invasion whose purpose was regime change could not be legal under international law.
Mr Blair's attempt to claim that the aim of the invasion was really only to disarm Saddam - if it happened to topple him from power, that was an unexpected side-effect - was pathetically unpersuasive. Tony Blair was like a man who offers as his defence to a charge of being an accessory to murder that, although he had joined a group of men whose ring-leader had expressly stated as they set out together that their joint purpose was to bludgeon a rival to death, he had gone along only because he wanted to disarm the guy: bludgeoning him to death was simply a means to that quite separate goal.
The repeated insistence of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and, indeed, the whole Cabinet, that the invasion of Iraq was compatible with international law seems simply to have been a pose to try to fool people who genuinely wanted the invasion to be legal - but were too stupid to see for themselves that it wasn't.
Of course, a number of the people in that category include the Labour MPs who voted for it after hearing the Prime Minister and the Attorney General assure them that it was in line with what international law required. Many of those MPs are now very angry at their own stupidity. They have deflected their anger on to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for not sharing the confidential advice that was released last week.
This is simply a further demonstration of their own idiocy, for there was nothing in that confidential advice that was not obvious at the time of the Commons vote. It was extremely easy to work out that the invasion was incompatible with international law. If that law has a guiding principle, it is that the invasion of one country by another in order to replace its ruler is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty.
The Prime Minister's actions show that he has never regarded "conformity with international law" as critically important. He has, in the past, been quite willing to get involved in military expeditions that did not have explicit UN approval - the test for their acceptability under international law. The toppling of the regime in Sierra Leone, the bombing of Kosovo and the bombing of Saddam in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 are all examples, and ones of which he insists he is proud.
Clare Short and Robin Cook, two ministers who resigned over the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2003, were enthusiasts for the equally illegal Desert Fox in 1998. But in that case, a Democrat - good old Bill Cinton - was in the White House. In 2003, its occupant was a Republican. To get over Labour MPs' qualms about associating themselves with George W. Bush, Tony Blair had to pretend that international law licensed America's military action.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister cynically exploited his MPs' stupidity by his pretence: the first person he fooled by his sophistry was himself. A self-deluding sophist is not an ideal character to have as the leader of our country: it is what we will get if we re-elect Tony Blair and Labour next week.
David Cameron and Theresa May - Dangerous Nonsense
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-dangerous-nonsense
If your wondering why the Prime Minister of the UK and the Home Secretary Theresa May have taken the surprising step of attempting to portray "9/11 Truther's" as "Non-Violent Terror Extremists" it is because of WTC7, which provides incontestable proof of conspiracy to commit mass murder. The illusion has collapsed and the entire establishment is worried about the upcoming Nuremberg Trials 2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the Allied forces after World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany. The first, and best known of these trials, described as "the greatest trial in history" by Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over it, was the trial of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, the Tribunal was given the task of trying 23 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich, though one of the defendants, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia, while another, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement. Not included were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels, all of whom had committed suicide several months before the indictment was signed. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among these included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on those trials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
The principles
Principle I
Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle II
Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III
Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV
Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V
Principle V states, "Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Principle VI
Principle VI states,
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."
Principle VII
Principle VII states, "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."
Time for a re-post:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18400#msg18400
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.26, 21:52:51
To a few that have recently posted some revealing points of view, which speak volumes of themselves.
Perhaps you never read the predictions of George Orwell in "1984". You would have learned that wars are not to be won, but to be continued. Remember "War is peace".
Wars are extremely profitable for those who wage them and those who collect the debt of the population forced to fight them, not so profitable for the boots on the ground who pay the price in blood and loss of life.
Reasons for war are always needed, when not available they are "created" Now we have the "faceless" boogey man of terrorism.
If you watch too much TV and listen to all the talking heads, you will believe all this nonsense. If so, I suggest you sign up now to go fight in foreign lands. The future gene pool wil not miss those with such a continued ignorance of history.
A good blog to dip into daily where a lot of the important news censored by the MSM is covered:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
And a word from George Monbiot:
Bomb Everyone
Humanitarian arguments, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis-bomb-muslim-world-air-strikes-saudi-arabia
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st October 2014
Let's bomb the Muslim world – all of it – to save the lives of its people. Surely this is the only consistent moral course? Why stop at blowing up Islamic State, when the Syrian government has murdered and tortured so many? This, after all, was last year's moral imperative. What's changed?
How about blasting the Shia militias in Iraq? One of them selected 40 people from the streets of Baghdad in June and murdered them for being Sunnis(1). Another massacred 68 people at a mosque in August(2). They now talk openly of "cleansing" and "erasure"(3), once Islamic State has been defeated. As a senior Shia politician warns, "we are in the process of creating Shia al-Qaida radical groups equal in their radicalisation to the Sunni Qaida."(4)
What humanitarian principle instructs you to stop there? In Gaza this year, 2,100 Palestinians were massacred: including people taking shelter in schools and hospitals. Surely these atrocities demand an air war against Israel? And what's the moral basis for refusing to liquidate Iran? Mohsen Amir-Aslani was hanged there last week for making "innovations in the religion" (suggesting that the story of Jonah in the Qu'ran was symbolic rather than literal)(5). Surely that should inspire humanitarian action from above? Pakistan is crying out for friendly bombs: an elderly British man, Mohammed Asghar, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, is, like other blasphemers, awaiting execution there after claiming to be a holy prophet(6). One of his prison guards has already shot him in the back.
Is there not an urgent duty to blow up Saudi Arabia? It has beheaded 59 people so far this year, for offences that include adultery, sorcery and witchcraft(7). It has long presented a far greater threat to the west than Isis now poses. In 2009 Hillary Clinton warned in a secret memo that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban ... and other terrorist groups."(8 ) In July, the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, revealed that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, until recently the head of Saudi intelligence, told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."(9) Saudi support for extreme Sunni militias in Syria during Bandar's tenure is widely blamed for the rapid rise of Isis(10,11). Why take out the subsidiary and spare the headquarters?
The humanitarian arguments aired in parliament last week(12), if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East and West Asia. By this means you could end all human suffering, liberating the people of these regions from the vale of tears in which they live.
Perhaps this is the plan: Barack Obama has now bombed seven largely-Muslim countries(13), in each case citing a moral imperative. The result, as you can see in Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan,Yemen, Somalia and Syria, has been the eradication of jihadi groups, of conflict, chaos, murder, oppression and torture. Evil has been driven from the face of the earth by the destroying angels of the west.
Now we have a new target, and a new reason to dispense mercy from the sky, with similar prospects of success. Yes, the agenda and practices of Isis are disgusting. It murders and tortures, terrorises and threatens. As Obama says, it is a "network of death"(14). But it's one of many networks of death. Worse still, a western crusade appears to be exactly what it wants(15).
Already Obama's bombings have brought Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, a rival militia affiliated to Al Qaeda, together(16). More than 6,000 fighters have joined Isis since the bombardment began(17). They dangled the heads of their victims in front of the cameras as bait for war planes. And our governments were stupid enough to take it.
And if the bombing succeeds? If – and it's a big if – it manages to tilt the balance against Isis, what then? Then we'll start hearing once more about Shia death squads and the moral imperative to destroy them too – and any civilians who happen to get in the way. The targets change; the policy doesn't. Never mind the question, the answer is bombs. In the name of peace and the preservation of life, our governments wage perpetual war.
While the bombs fall, our states befriend and defend other networks of death. The US government still refuses – despite Obama's promise – to release the 28 redacted pages from the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, which document Saudi Arabian complicity in the attack on America(18). In the UK, in 2004 the Serious Fraud Office began investigating allegations of massive bribes paid by the British weapons company BAE to Saudi ministers and middlemen. Just as the crucial evidence was about to be released, Tony Blair intervened to stop the investigation(19). The biggest alleged beneficiary was Prince Bandar, mentioned above. The Serious Fraud Office was investigating a claim that, with the approval of the British government, he received £1bn in secret payments from BAE(20).
And still it goes on. Last week's Private Eye, drawing on a dossier of recordings and emails, alleges that a British company has paid £300m in bribes to facilitate weapons sales to the Saudi National Guard(21). When a whistleblower in the company reported these payments to the British ministry of defence, instead of taking action it alerted his bosses. He had to flee the country to avoid being thrown into a Saudi jail. Smirking, lying, two-faced bastards – this scarcely begins to touch it.
There are no good solutions that military intervention by the UK or the US can engineer. There are political solutions in which our governments could play a minor role: supporting the development of effective states that don't rely on murder and militias, building civic institutions that don't depend on terror, helping to create safe passage and aid for people at risk. Oh, and ceasing to protect and sponsor and arm selected networks of death. Whenever our armed forces have bombed or invaded Muslims nations, they have made life worse for those who live there. The regions in which our governments have intervened most are those which suffer most from terrorism and war. That is neither coincidental nor surprising.
Yet our politicians affect to learn nothing. Insisting that more killing will magically resolve deep-rooted conflicts, they scatter bombs like fairy dust.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. http://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,,1818778,00.html
2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/shia-attack-sunni-mosque-iraq
3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/24/iraq-frontline-shia-fighters-war-isis
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/24/iraq-frontline-shia-fighters-war-isis
5. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/iran-executes-man-heresy-mohsen-amir-aslani
6. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/stand-up-for-blasphemers-like-mohammed-asghar-frankie-boyle
7. http://www.amnesty.se/upload/apps/webactions/urgentaction/2014/09/23/52302414.pdf
8. http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073
9. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html
10. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/
11. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html
12. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140926/debtext/140926-0001.htm#1409266000001
13. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/
14. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140926/debtext/140926-0001.htm#1409266000001
15. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/west-isis-crusade-britain-iraq-syria
16. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/28/isis-al-qaida-air-strikes-syria
17. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.616730
18. http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
19. http://www.theguardian.com/world/bae
20. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/bae-saudi-yamamah-deal-background
21. Richard Brooks and Andrew Bousfield, 19th September 2014. Shady Arabia and the Desert Fix. Private Eye.
In Reference 19 of Monbiot's article we find this interesting paragraph:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/bae-saudi-yamamah-deal-background
"Behind the scenes, the Saudis were issuing their own threats. They claimed they would stop supplying vital intelligence about al-Qaida terrorists to Britain if the investigation was allowed to continue. SFO investigators were told dramatically that they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they carried on."
Well that's pretty clear.. is it not ?
Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia
http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2013/nov/07/pakistan-saudi-nuclear-proliferation
Yeah, I was reading about the Saudi Nukes yesterday!
I thought I had posted Cameron's comments made at the UN but I cannot see them on this page..
So here is an update:
WOW! 9/11 Activist Surrenders To Police After Camerons UN Speech Deemed Truthers as EXTREMISTS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TGgL6cAyKg
I do not agree with the conclusion at the end of the video that it is only Muslim's being targeted, it is all of us that demand the TRUTH, irrespective of race or religion. Selective Muslim groups are however the continual target's of "Allied bombardment", which suits Wahhabism just fine..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-dangerous-nonsense
The PM did not offer a definition but he said non-violent extremism is characterised by "the peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations".
Quote from: Grumpy on 2014.10.01, 23:11:58
Yeah, I was reading about the Saudi Nukes yesterday!
I don't know if the Saudi's have nuclear weapon capability or not, but the odds are good that they do, why bother to build missile pads aimed at Israel and Iran otherwise ?
Conventional warheads just won't cut the mustard against either of those enemies.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@26.0195845,53.5714094,4254499m/data=!3m1!1e3
TRUTHERS THIS WILL BLOW THE LIES OPEN ..HUGE PRO GADDAFI RALLY in Tripoli_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpFTCyNxOfY
I don't remember hearing about this on the MSM news in the UK.
I don't speak that language so no way of telling if the translation is accurate or not, or even the voice of Gaddafi himself.
Is it true that 1/3 the population of Libya turned up to protest the illegal NATO bombing of their country ?
What really did happen at Benghazi ?
BENGHAZI – THE BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY? – WAS BENGHAZI A CIA GUN-RUNNING OPERATION FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD & OTHER INSURGENTS FIGHTING IN SYRIA?
http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/benghazi-the-biggest-cover-up-scandal-in-u-s-history-was-benghazi-a-cia-gun-running-operation-for-muslim-brotherhood-other-insurgents-fighting-in-syria/
Saudi Arabia threatens Russia with Olympic Terror
Posted on August 28, 2013 by M. Klostermayr
http://www.syrianews.cc/saudi-arabia-threatens-russia-olympic-terror/
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, met with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow three weeks ago and in this meeting, he uttered a number of incentives and threats to persuade Russia to drop its support for Assad and Syria.
He offered an alliance with OPEC as an incentive to Putin and he also made the offer of a joint monopoly over the global oil and gas business. Prince Bandar has also used a threat and said that otherwise terrorist attacks will happen during the Olympic Games in Sochi next February.
As a reminder, Prince Bandar was the long-time Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington, and he is also known under the name "Bandar Bush" because he is a very close friend of the satanic Bush-family.
He is also one of the main masterminds behind the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 because 16 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudi nationals – as scapegoats of an operation that was carried out by the intelligence services of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. These three terrorist states represent the only real "axis of evil" in the world.
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
12:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia's gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. "We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think," said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. "Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets," he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin's dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.
"We understand Russia's great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area," he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
Syria: Russia 'astonished' by 'illegal' Western war plans
By Roland Oliphant in Moscow
5:00PM BST 26 Aug 2013
Russia is "extremely concerned" by Western moves toward military action in Syria and wants the results of the gas attack investigation by United Nations inspectors to be presented to the security council before any action is considered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10266567/Syria-Russia-astonished-by-illegal-Western-war-plans.html
In an apparent last ditch attempt to forestall United States, British and French preparations to strike targets in Syria, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister insisted that it is so far "impossible" to know who was behind the attacks and said he was "astonished" by the rhetoric coming from Western capitals.
"We are especially concerned to hear talk coming from London and Paris suggesting that Nato could take the lead in bombing in Syria without Security Council approval. This is a very slippery slope," said Mr Lavrov.
"Any military action without Security Council approval would be a grave violation of international law."
"Such actions [would contradict] the accord signed by the G8 leaders earlier this year, which says in black and white that any information on the use of chemical weapons in Syria should be thoroughly investigated and submitted to the United Nations Security Council."
Mr Lavrov, who said he had a "lengthy" telephone conversation with John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, on the matter yesterday, refused to be drawn on what action Russia might take should strikes take place.
Syria: As the bombs fall, the people of Damascus rally round Bashar al-Assad
By Peter Oborne
6:40AM BST 17 Apr 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10770311/Syria-As-the-bombs-fall-the-people-of-Damascus-rally-round-Bashar-al-Assad.html
Over the past few days, I have talked to shopkeepers, students, soldiers, doctors, a dentist, MPs and government ministers (including the minister for tourism, who must have the most thankless job in the world). On the basis of these conversations, I would judge not just that support for the regime is holding up, but that President Assad could very well win a popular election, even if carried out on a free and fair basis. Such elections are in fact due: the president must hold a poll before July 17 if he is not to exceed his constitutional term of office. An announcement is expected soon.
Discussing this vote, I found – to my surprise – that even people outside the governing Ba'ath party, including some of Assad's political opponents, said they would support him. Maria Saadah, an independent MP for Damascus, told me that her career as an architect had suffered because she did not belong to the Ba'ath, and that she had entered politics at the beginning of the crisis because she wanted to reform the system. But she added that the middle of a war against what she described as foreign-backed insurgents – which is how the regime ceaselessly depicts its opponents – was not the time for that. Syrian sovereignty, she said, had to come first.
This argument is very common. People here see their country as being threatened by foreign powers (above all Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all backed by the West) who are sponsoring the jihadist groups that make up the opposition. I was struck by the fact that this argument is not made only by the Alawite coterie around the president. I also heard it from Sunni Muslims, Christians and members of the various other cultural and religious groups that abound in Syria.
How can this square with the Western narrative that President Assad's government, with the aid of a handful of tribal followers, is hell-bent on the destruction of the rest of the country? Consider the facts. Only a handful of members of Assad's 30-strong cabinet (I was told two) are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defence minister. The delegation that travelled to Geneva for the failed peace talks several months ago was also almost entirely composed of Sunni Muslims (though they would probably reject sectarian terms, and prefer to think of themselves just as Syrians).
Nor is it merely the political class that thinks in this way.
Debunking the "The Saudis did 9-11" nonsense!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/debunksaudis.php
The official story of 9-11 is collapsing almost as fast as the Obamacare website. Most Americans are now well aware of the strange collapse of WTC Building 7, the video that captures the sound of the actual explosion that initiates the collapse of WTC7, the very strange behavior of the Secret Service as President Bush read about goats at Booker Elementary School. We have all seen the photographs that confirm the remains of demolition "cutter charges" in the remains of the towers. And we all know how the BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed 26 minutes before it actually happened. indicating a script was being followed (but alas, not carefully enough).
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
There is a great deal of evidence that implicates the nation of Israel as a co-conspirator with the Bush administration. First, there was the massive Israeli spy ring uncovered in the United States just before 9-11, and how some of the "Dancing Israelis" arrested after being seen cheering and dancing as the World Trade Towers collapsed turned out to be Mossad spies! Then there was the strange case of Odigo, an Israeli-owned company whose New York offices received a warning about the attacks before the planes used in the attacks had even left the ground! All four of the hijacked planes departed from airport gates whose security was provided by the same Israeli security company. Israel has a long track record of playing dirty tricks against the United States and other countries, including the Lavon affair (framed on Egypt), Israel's attack on the USS Liberty (initially framed on Egypt), and Israel's smuggling a radio transmitter into Libya that was used to send fake messages that tricked President Reagan into bombing Libya.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel's numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel's "useful idiots" launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims, and a secret report that Representatives Stephen F. Lynch and Walter B. Jones are demanding be made public; a report that purportedly claims Saudi arabia was behind 9-11. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. Likewise, the report the Representatives wish to make public appears to be the US Government's attempt to "get ahead of the ball" and craft a new lie to replace the one that has failed. At the very least these two pieces of propaganda are intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just as Saddam's nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria's government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn't. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn't is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
George Bush had a motive to do 9-11. He needed that "new Pearl Harbor" to enrage Americans into the century of war called for by the Project For The New American Century. Israel certainly had a motive to do 9-11 and frame Muslims for it, to trick Americans into siding with Israel's continued land grabs and wars against Israel's enemies, with Israel's agenda being (as it was with the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty, and the Libyan radio hoax) that Americans fight those wars for them!
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The "useful idiots" trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, was still alive after 9-11 and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don't need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a "one size fits all" excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
At the very least, even if you accept the new claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, then it means the US Government was lying when they claimed Afghanistan and then Iraq were behind it! So why would you trust them now?
[many supporting reference links at original article source]
Biden: Turks, Saudis, UAE funded and armed Al Nusra and Al Qaeda
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/10/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-armed-al-nusra-al-qaeda/
Washington's partners in fighting extremism – and trampling all over international laws to do it – are the same ones who have fueled it. The Vice President of the United States just said so. And Americans are snickering over the B-word. Leaders of the free world indeed.
by Sharmine Narwani
When Joe Biden gets candid, he really lets rip. The US vice president, speaking at the John F. Kennedy Jr Forum at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, on Thursday told his audience – point blank – that America's Sunni allies are responsible for funding and arming Al Qaeda-type extremists in Syria.
And he named names: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, specifically. Others – like Qatar – are undoubtedly complicit too, but Biden's comments were made off-the-cuff during the question and answer period following his prepared statement.
Of course, much of what Biden said has been suspected for years by Syria watchers, but to acknowledge this outright during the early days of President Barack Obama's much-vaunted ISIL-busting Coalition – featuring these very same Sunni Arab partners – is a jaw-dropping concession.
But that's not all. Biden also managed to fundamentally undermine his administration's efforts to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebels today, by claiming there is no "moderate middle (in Syria) because the moderate middle are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers."
Keep in mind now that just two weeks ago Congress approved – at the request of this White House – $500 million dollars to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebels. Obama's second-in-command is saying there are none of those, so who exactly are US forces teaching to fight with heavy weapons in Saudi training camps today?
michael mazur October 4, 2014 at 9:34 am
It's a lengthy revelation of what we all knew anyway. It's not a foot in mouth oopsie, as he goes on like this for a minute. He knows what he's doing, and would have been with the prior knowledge of the Pres himself.
Why?
Syria's off the agenda.
Why?
Iran is becoming more powerful by the month, and not exhausted neither materially nor morally by years of debilitating deployments, and will intervene as Bashar al Assad's govt will fall, as after three and half years of this constant warfare against it, it is too depleted to withstand a joint air and ground assault by US and other western allies forces.
Obama wanted to be put into a too conflicted situation publicly, accidentally on purpose, but actually to shelve what really is this disastrous ME misadventure started way back, in terms of recent history, in late July 1990 when April Glaspie said to Saddam Hussein, that America saw it as an inter Arab matter, Iraq's dispute with Kuwait.
We see that the British are in discussions with the Iranians, we can read into this that were the Americans to be bombing the Syrians and attacking with ground forces, the British would not want to be attacking advancing Iranian ground forces using attack aircraft in support of American aircraft doing the same thing.
Pres. Obama would rather play golf right now, which is a better option than bombing Syria.
Biden blames US allies in Middle East for rise of ISIS
http://rt.com/news/192880-biden-isis-us-allies/
US Vice-President Joe Biden has accused America's key allies in the Middle East of allowing the rise of the Islamic State (IS), saying they supported extremists with money and weapons in their eagerness to oust the Assad regime in Syria.
America's "biggest problem" in Syria is its regional allies, Biden told students at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University on Thursday.
"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria," he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were "so determined to take down Assad," that in a sense they started a "proxy Sunni-Shia war" by pouring "hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons" towards anyone who would fight against Assad.
"And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them," said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.
"The outcome of such a policy now is more visible," he said, as it turned out they supplied extremists from Al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda.
All of a sudden the regional powers that sponsored anti-Assad rebels awakened to the dawn of a major international security threat in the face of ISIS – now called Islamic State. After being essentially thrown out of Iraq it found open space and territory in eastern Syria and established close ties with the Al-Nusra Front which the US had earlier declared a terrorist group.
Now Washington needs a coalition of Sunni states to fight the Islamic State because "America can't once again go in to Muslim nation and be the aggressor, it has to be led by Sunnis, to attack a Sunni organization [the IS]," Biden said, acknowledging that it is for the first time that the US uses a geopolitical strategy.
"Even if we wanted it to be, it cannot be our fight alone," Biden said. "This cannot be turned into a US ground war against another Arab nation in the Middle East."
"But of what I'm more astonished is of his apparent amnesia about what America and Britain were trying to ferment in Syria only a year ago. They were not only putting staff intelligence personnel on the ground, and providing logistical support to the rebels in Syria; they were spearheading the campaign to try to oust Assad," former MI5 agent Annie Machon told RT.
She added that "Perhaps, the Vice President is finally learning some lessons from history. It does not matter who you think your friends are going to be in the region. Very often they will be taken over or subsumed into a more radical group."
Pentagon War Plans in 2001: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/09/29/pentagon-war-plans-in-2001-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/
"Everything is going according to plan. The military industrial complex must feed continuously like a shark, or it will die. When there are no real enemies, we just create them out of thin air (ISIS, Russia). It's all part of the game plan. We don't need no stinkin Constitution."
U.S. General Wesley Clark (ret.) revealed that he was informed following 9/11 of a dramatic plan of aggressive war.
British PM David Cameron: "Non-Violent Extremists" Including "9/11 Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists" are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extremists-including-911-truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isil-terrorists/5405059
Dear Mr Cameron
I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL. In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed 'non-violent extremists', including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible. It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable. Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level. Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as 'non-violent extremists', are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?
Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the 'High Rise Safety Initiative'?
Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers? This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now. How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?
Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?
But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be 'non-violent extremists' and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.
I repeat my previous point. To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.
Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be 'non-violent extremists' who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:
· Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released
· 100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11
· Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation 'Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth'
· More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth'
· Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record
· Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11
· Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11
The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as 'non-violent extremists' and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward. According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation. That to me sounds like extremist behaviour. In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.
It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war. It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11. So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?
You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat. Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be 'non-violent extremists'.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.
9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East. It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11. Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror. For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as 'non-violent extremists' simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.
The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak. It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label. It is far too late for that. For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Drew – MSc
UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/
As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the "homeland." A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.
The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded "The Khorasan Group." After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.
The unveiling of this new group was performed in a September 13 article by the Associated Press, who cited unnamed U.S. officials to warn of this new shadowy, worse-than-ISIS terror group:
While the Islamic State group [ISIS] is getting the most attention now, another band of extremists in Syria — a mix of hardened jihadis from Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Europe — poses a more direct and imminent threat to the United States, working with Yemeni bomb-makers to target U.S. aviation, American officials say.
At the center is a cell known as the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan who traveled to Syria to link up with the al-Qaida affiliate there, the Nusra Front.
But the Khorasan militants did not go to Syria principally to fight the government of President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials say. Instead, they were sent by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner with less scrutiny from security officials.
AP warned Americans that "the fear is that the Khorasan militants will provide these sophisticated explosives to their Western recruits who could sneak them onto U.S.-bound flights." It explained that although ISIS has received most of the attention, the Khorasan Group "is considered the more immediate threat."
The genesis of the name was itself scary: "Khorasan refers to a province under the Islamic caliphate, or religious empire, of old that included parts of Afghanistan." AP depicted the U.S. officials who were feeding them the narrative as engaging in some sort of act of brave, unauthorized truth-telling: "Many U.S. officials interviewed for this story would not be quoted by name talking about what they said was highly classified intelligence."
On the morning of September 18, CBS News broadcast a segment that is as pure war propaganda as it gets: directly linking the soon-to-arrive U.S. bombing campaign in Syria to the need to protect Americans from being exploded in civilian jets by Khorasan. With ominous voice tones, the host narrated:
This morning we are learning of a new and growing terror threat coming out of Syria. It's an Al Qaeda cell you probably never heard of. Nearly everything about them is classified. Bob Orr is in Washington with new information on a group some consider more dangerous than ISIS.
Orr then announced that while ISIS is "dominating headlines and terrorist propaganda," Orr's "sources" warn of "a more immediate threat to the U.S. Homeland." As Orr spoke, CBS flashed alternating video showing scary Muslims in Syria and innocent westerners waiting in line at airports, as he intoned that U.S. officials have ordered "enhanced screening" for "hidden explosives." This is all coming, Orr explained, from "an emerging threat in Syria" where "hardened terrorists" are building "hard to detect bombs."
The U.S. government, Orr explained, is trying to keep this all a secret; they won't even mention the group's name in public out of security concerns! But Orr was there to reveal the truth, as his "sources confirm the Al Qaeda cell goes by the name Khorasan." And they're "developing fresh plots to attack U.S. aviation."
Later that day, Obama administration officials began publicly touting the group, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned starkly: "In terms of threat to the homeland, Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State." Then followed an avalanche of uncritical media reports detailing this Supreme Threat, excitingly citing anonymous officials as though they had uncovered a big secret the government was trying to conceal.
On September 20, The New York Times devoted a long article to strongly hyping the Khorasan Group. Headlined "U.S. Suspects More Direct Threats Beyond ISIS," the article began by announcing that U.S. officials believe a different group other than ISIS "posed a more direct threat to America and Europe." Specifically:
American officials said that the group called Khorasan had emerged in the past year as the cell in Syria that may be the most intent on hitting the United States or its installations overseas with a terror attack. The officials said that the group is led by Muhsin al-Fadhli, a senior Qaeda operative who, according to the State Department, was so close to Bin Laden that he was among a small group of people who knew about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks before they were launched.
Again, the threat they posed reached all the way to the U.S.: "Members of the cell are said to be particularly interested in devising terror plots using concealed explosives."
This Khorasan-attacking-Americans alarm spread quickly and explosively in the landscape of U.S. national security reporting. The Daily Beast's Eli Lake warned on September 23 — the day after the first U.S. bombs fell in Syria — that "American analysts had pieced together detailed information on a pending attack from an outfit that informally called itself 'the Khorasan Group' to use hard-to-detect explosives on American and European airliners." He added even more ominously: "The planning from the Khorasan Group ... suggests at least an aspiration to launch more-coordinated and larger attacks on the West in the style of the 9/11 attacks from 2001″ (days later, Lake, along with Josh Rogin, actually claimed that "Iran has long been harboring senior al Qaeda, al Nusra, and so-called Khorasan Group leaders as part of its complicated strategy to influence the region").
On the day of the bombing campaign, NBC News' Richard Engel tweeted this:
That tweet linked to an NBC Nightly News report in which anchor Brian Williams introduced Khorasan with a graphic declaring it "The New Enemy," and Engel went on to explain that the group is "considered a threat to the U.S. because, U.S. intelligence officials say, it wants to bring down airplanes with explosives."
Once the bombing campaign was underway, ISIS — the original theme of the attack — largely faded into the background, as Obama officials and media allies aggressively touted attacks on Khorasan leaders and the disruption of its American-targeting plots. On the first day of the bombing, The Washington Post announced that "the United States also pounded a little-known but well-resourced al-Qaeda cell that some American officials fear could pose a direct threat to the United States." It explained:
The Pentagon said in a statement early Tuesday that the United States conducted eight strikes west of Aleppo against the cell, called the Khorasan Group, targeting its "training camps, an explosives and munitions production facility, a communications building and command and control facilities."
The same day, CNN claimed that "among the targets of U.S. strikes across Syria early Tuesday was the Khorasan Group." The bombing campaign in Syria was thus magically transformed into an act of pure self-defense, given that "the group was actively plotting against a U.S. homeland target and Western targets, a senior U.S. official told CNN on Tuesday." The bevy of anonymous sources cited by CNN had a hard time keep their stories straight:
The official said the group posed an "imminent" threat. Another U.S. official later said the threat was not imminent in the sense that there were no known targets or attacks expected in the next few weeks.
The plots were believed to be in an advanced stage, the second U.S. official said. There were indications that the militants had obtained materials and were working on new improvised explosive devices that would be hard to detect, including common hand-held electronic devices and airplane carry-on items such as toiletries.
Nonetheless, what was clear was that this group had to be bombed in Syria to save American lives, as the terrorist group even planned to conceal explosive devices in toothpaste or flammable clothing as a means to target U.S. airliners. The day following the first bombings, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed: "We hit them last night out of a concern that they were getting close to an execution date of some of the plans that we have seen."
CNN's supremely stenographic Pentagon reporter, Barbara Starr, went on air as videos of shiny new American fighter jets and the Syria bombing were shown and explained that this was all necessary to stop a Khorasan attack very close to being carried out against the west:
What we are hearing from a senior US official is the reason they struck Khorasan right now is they had intelligence that the group — of Al Qaeda veterans — was in the stages of planning an attack against the US homeland and/or an attack against a target in Europe, and the information indicated Khorasan was well on its way — perhaps in its final stages — of planning that attack.
All of that laid the fear-producing groundwork for President Obama to claim self-defense when he announced the bombing campaign on September 23 with this boast: "Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people."
The very next day, a Pentagon official claimed a U.S. airstrike killed "the Khorasan leader," and just a few days after that, U.S. media outlets celebrated what they said was the admission by jihadi social media accounts that "the leader of the al Qaeda-linked Khorasan group was killed in a U.S. air strike in Syria."
But once it served its purpose of justifying the start of the bombing campaign in Syria, the Khorasan narrative simply evaporated as quickly as it materialized. Foreign Policy's Shane Harris, with two other writers, was one of the first to question whether the "threat" was anywhere near what it had been depicted to be:
But according to the top U.S. counterterrorism official, as well as Obama himself, there is "no credible information" that the militants of the Islamic State were planning to attack inside the United States. Although the group could pose a domestic terrorism threat if left unchecked, any plot it tried launching today would be "limited in scope" and "nothing like a 9/11-scale attack," Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in remarks at the Brookings Institution earlier this month. That would suggest that Khorasan doesn't have the capability either, even if it's working to develop it.
"Khorasan has the desire to attack, though we're not sure their capabilities match their desire," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official told Foreign Policy.
On September 25, The New York Times — just days after hyping the Khorasan threat to the homeland — wrote that "the group's evolution from obscurity to infamy has been sudden." And the paper of record began, for the first time, to note how little evidence actually existed for all those claims about the imminent threats posed to the homeland:
American officials have given differing accounts about just how close the group was to mounting an attack, and about what chance any plot had of success. One senior American official on Wednesday described the Khorasan plotting as "aspirational" and said that there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works.
Literally within a matter of days, we went from "perhaps in its final stages of planning its attack" (CNN) to "plotting as 'aspirational'" and "there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works" (NYT).
Late last week, Associated Press' Ken Dilanian — the first to unveil the new Khorasan Product in mid-September — published a new story explaining that just days after bombing "Khorasan" targets in Syria, high-ranking U.S. officials seemingly backed off all their previous claims of an "imminent" threat from the group. Headlined "U.S. Officials Offer More Nuanced Take on Khorasan Threat," it noted that "several U.S. officials told reporters this week that the group was in the final stages of planning an attack on the West, leaving the impression that such an attack was about to happen." But now:
Senior U.S. officials offered a more nuanced picture Thursday of the threat they believe is posed by an al-Qaida cell in Syria targeted in military strikes this week, even as they defended the decision to attack the militants.
James Comey, the FBI director, and Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, each acknowledged that the U.S. did not have precise intelligence about where or when the cell, known as the Khorasan Group, would attempt to strike a Western target. . . .
Kirby, briefing reporters at the Pentagon, said, "I don't know that we can pin that down to a day or month or week or six months....We can have this debate about whether it was valid to hit them or not, or whether it was too soon or too late...We hit them. And I don't think we need to throw up a dossier here to prove that these are bad dudes."
Regarding claims that an attack was "imminent," Comey said: "I don't know exactly what that word means...'imminent'" — a rather consequential admission given that said imminence was used as the justification for launching military action in the first place.
Even more remarkable, it turns out the very existence of an actual "Khorasan Group" was to some degree an invention of the American government. NBC's Engel, the day after he reported on the U.S. government's claims about the group for Nightly News, seemed to have serious second thoughts about the group's existence, tweeting:
Indeed, a Nexis search for the group found almost no mentions of its name prior to the September 13 AP article based on anonymous officials. There was one oblique reference to it in a July 31 CNN op-ed by Peter Bergen. The other mention was an article in the LA Times from two weeks earlier about Pakistan which mentioned the group's name as something quite different than how it's being used now: as "the intelligence wing of the powerful Pakistani Taliban faction led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur." Tim Shorrock noted that the name appears in a 2011 hacked Stratfor email published by WikiLeaks, referencing a Dawn article that depicts them as a Pakistan-based group which was fighting against and "expelled by" (not "led by") Bahadur.
There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner. Aki Peritz, a CIA counterterrorism official until 2009, told Time: "I'd certainly never heard of this group while working at the agency," while Obama's former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said: "We used the term [Khorasan] inside the government, we don't know where it came from....All I know is that they don't call themselves that." As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: "You haven't heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn't one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan ... had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it."
What happened here is all-too-familiar. The Obama administration needed propagandistic and legal rationale for bombing yet another predominantly Muslim country. While emotions over the ISIS beheading videos were high, they were not enough to sustain a lengthy new war.
So after spending weeks promoting ISIS as Worse Than Al Qaeda™, they unveiled a new, never-before-heard-of group that was Worse Than ISIS™. Overnight, as the first bombs on Syria fell, the endlessly helpful U.S. media mindlessly circulated the script they were given: this new group was composed of "hardened terrorists," posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S. homeland, was in the "final stages" of plots to take down U.S. civilian aircraft, and could "launch more-coordinated and larger attacks on the West in the style of the 9/11 attacks from 2001.""
As usual, anonymity was granted to U.S. officials to make these claims. As usual, there was almost no evidence for any of this. Nonetheless, American media outlets — eager, as always, to justify American wars — spewed all of this with very little skepticism. Worse, they did it by pretending that the U.S. government was trying not to talk about all of this — too secret! — but they, as intrepid, digging journalists, managed to unearth it from their courageous "sources." Once the damage was done, the evidence quickly emerged about what a sham this all was. But, as always with these government/media propaganda campaigns, the truth emerges only when it's impotent.
Blair's Iraq WMD admission: did he mislead Parliament?
James Cusick, Westminster Editor
Sunday 13 December 2009
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/blair-s-iraq-wmd-admission-did-he-mislead-parliament-1.991811
Tony Blair's confession that he would have taken Britain to war in Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading international lawyer warned yesterday.
Professor Philippe Sands QC, director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London, and a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix law chambers, said the former prime minister's admission that he would have deployed "different arguments" besides the weapons to justify the war and the removal of Saddam, means "he fixed on the policy first and then found the justification".
Prof Sands, who claims Mr Blair and the former US president George Bush violated international law in the 2003 invasion, said: "The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties."
Mr Blair had, until an interview with the BBC to be broadcast today, maintained he waited until almost the eve of the March 2003 invasion before making a final decision to commit British forces to war in Iraq. Only weeks before the invasion, he stated that if Saddam handed over his stock of WMD, there would be no war. Critics of the war's legality, such as Prof Sands, now believe Mr Blair can no longer sustain this assurance.
Hans Blix, who headed the UN inspection team prior to the invasion, said there was a "lack of sincerity" in Mr Blair's statement.
Mr Blix said the war was "sold" on the issue of WMD, which were not found after the invasion.
He said: "Now we hear it was only a question of deployment of arguments. It sounds a bit like a fig leaf was held up and if that didn't work they'd put another fig leaf there."
One of the immediate legal problems for Mr Blair will include his appearance before the Iraq Inquiry early next year.
The inquiry team headed by Sir John Chilcott already has a number of legal documents about the war which have not been disclosed in the public sessions.
Among them is a letter from the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, sent in July 2002 to Mr Blair, informing him that deposing Saddam Hussein by force would breach international law.
At that time Mr Blair had already held private discussions with George Bush on "regime change" in Iraq.
Goldsmith's written advice is believed to point out that military intervention on the grounds of self defence did not apply as the UK was under no imminent threat from Iraq; that humanitarian intervention was irrelevant; and that earlier United Nations resolutions on Saddam did not hold a legal authority beyond the UN itself.
Lord Goldsmith continued to question the legality of the invasion throughout 2002 and early 2003. This eventually led Number 10, close to the invasion date, to seek backing from the international law professor at the London School of Economics, Christopher Greenwood, one of the only lawyers in the UK who felt long-standing UN resolutions against Iraq made invasion legal.
Only a few members of Mr Blair's so-called war cabinet are said to have known of Goldsmith's doubts.
However Mr Blair's confession to the BBC's Fern Britton – where he says "I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat" – means his concern for international law effectively played no part in his decision to send UK forces against Saddam.
For Mr Blair's critics, there is suspicion that he understands the importance the Goldsmith letter now holds, and how much it can damage his reputation. Prof Sands, however, believes Mr Blair may only have increased the difficulties he faces in front of the inquiry and beyond, by choosing to effectively confess now.
Had Mr Blair been as dismissive about the importance he gave to WMD in the Commons during the pre-invasion debate on Iraq, many MPs now doubt the government would have won. Had he lost, Mr Blair has privately told his closest colleagues he would have immediately resigned as prime minister.
Sir Menzies Campbell said that Mr Blair would not have obtained the support of parliament for the war if he had been so open about his views on the right of regime change.
He added: "I have no doubt whatsoever that if Blair had told his cabinet what he's saying now, he would have found it difficult to keep all of them."
Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP in Westminster, said Mr Blair was trying to "rewrite history" ahead of appearing before the Iraq Inquiry.
If you can stomach listening to Blair making the case for Gulf War 2, pay attention to 1:30 to 1:40 when Blair said:
"We take our freedom for granted, but imagine not to be able to speak, or discuss, or debate or even question the society you live in."
Now fast forward to today and what situation do we find ourselves in?
British PM David Cameron: "Non-Violent Extremists" Including "9/11 Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists" are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg42224#msg42224
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/
Welcome
This website seeks to make available in a single location a broad array of information about Iran's nuclear program, from current news and assessments of this program, to ongoing diplomatic activity aimed at halting its uranium enrichment activity, to commercial satellite imagery and ground photos of nuclear-related sites, and information about Iran's illicit nuclear trade.
This site was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation.
http://www.carnegie.org/
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/sites/detail/khorasan-metallurgy-industries/
Khorasan is identified in Annex III of UN Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) as a firm involved in the "production of centrifuge components" and subsidiary of the Ammunition Industries Group (AMIG) and Defense Industries Organization (DIO).
Kaveh Cutting Tools Complex, a part of Khorasan Metallurgy Industries, northeast of Tehran near the city of Mashhad, made the P1 centrifuges scoops, molecular pumps and other components. These are all stationary components in a centrifuge and easier to make than the rotating ones. For other companies involved in manufacturing centrifuge components, see this page.
Do you believe in coincidence ?
U.S. hits Khorasan Group - A favor to Iran?
http://laymangeopolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/us-hits-khorasan-group-favor-to-iran.html
Khorasan makes Case FOR Iran's Involvement in 9/11 Attacks Stronger
http://shoebat.com/2014/09/25/khorasiran-911-connection/
Biography of Walid Shoebat
http://shoebat.com/shoebat-foundation/who-is-walid/
'Biden tries to distance US from the mess in the Mideast'
http://rt.com/op-edge/192908-biden-speech-isis-us-allies/
Twisted Ivy: Harvard students say US bigger threat to world peace than ISIS
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/08/twisted-ivy-harvard-students-say-us-bigger-threat-to-world-peace-than-isis/
That fig leaf moving or what ?
(http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/zionists-650x483.jpg)
Have a look at this article from the New York Times Jan 2012:
Will Israel attack Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It is quite revealing in many ways and even mentions the Mossad assassination team being caught on camera during the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253437/More-British-passports-used-Mahmoud-al-Mabhouh-Hamas-assassination.html
The recent comments from British Prime Minister Cameron who attempted to portray people who question the official state version of terrorist atrocities as 'extremists', reveals the desperation of the establishment to hide their many crimes.
The Nuremberg Trials 2 is on the horizon and I expect tens of thousands of people globally to be investigated in the coming decades for their link to perpetual terrorism and mass murder, amongst many other serious crimes.
Overt WW3 will probably come first though, as the planned destruction of the dollar via debasing the currency to build a war machine, leaves the warmongers no other options for escape as the economy's of the west will self destruct soon anyway.
C'est Masterplan: Surreal, Sadistic Syrian Subterfuge
http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/03/cest-masterplan-surreal-sadistic-syrian-subterfuge/
Cut and paste from point (3) however the entire article is worth reading for perspective.
3. Petro-Dollar: During this entire surreal Syrian Sarin spectacle, with all of its grave global implications, one of the most incomprehensible episodes which really set me off, had to be when I watched the entire live debate in the British House of Commons regarding the ratification of the UK's previously announced military involvement. After a conference call from President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron impulsively made the stunning decision to immediately strike Syria, in response to Assad's alleged gas attack, even while the uncertain situation was still unfolding on the ground. The whole dreadfully disappointing affair lasted about two and half hours, with one "distinguished honorable gentleman" after another rising up to soundly articulate or in most cases persuasively pontificate their supposedly informed views and opinions on the very serious matter at hand. What both struck me and disgusted me, was that out of all the so called "distinguished honorable gentleman and women", not a bloody single one of these duly elected parliamentarians would level with their citizenry regarding the western powers obvious real and actual aims here. It was as if I were a 2nd grader in a class room, and the terrified principal had told the teachers to keep all the children in the dark about the weirdo with an Uzi stalking the cafeteria.
The entire debate centered around the heavy burden, moral obligation and distinct responsibility which the United Kingdom would shoulder, as a leading, exceptional and exemplary world power, in response to a flagrant violation of the acceptable "rules of war" resulting in crimes against humanity. Some members wanted to strike immediately to send an unequivocally strong message to Assad, others wanted to wait for further clarification of the facts on the ground before commencing military action, and still others insisted that a political solution remained the best option. Not once did the real reasons and goals behind the West's current and direct involvement in the Syrian conflict come up, not even one time! About hundred of these UK parliamentarian clowns rose up and sat down to spew their moral outrage for the apparent gas attack, yet not one single one of them had the honest integrity to educate the people regarding the West's obvious geopolitical aims and impending grave risks involved. Real leaders stand as teachers, not deceptive oligarchs, and rarely do they take on the role without considerable reservations. These petty puffed up pikers were a joke. One would have thought we were in the U.S. Congress. In the end, they ended up making the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
Courtesy of Michael Snyder, below is a sobering litany of crucial circumstances and critical considerations directly involved in the deadly serious Syrian situation, that went completely missing, utterly ignored and categorically disregarded during the pompous House of Commons' dubious debutante deliberations. Take a hard look:
#1 The UK, France and the United States do not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it.
#2 Syria has said that it will use "all means available" to defend itself against attacks. Would that include terror attacks in the United States, France and the UK itself?
#3 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday...
"We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves"
#4 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria. What do you think would happen if images of sinking allied naval vessels were to come flashing across our television screens?
#5 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that Syria will attack Israel. Just check out what one Syrian official said recently...
"A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the U.S. and its allies
In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."
Al-Muftah stressed that the US's threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that "If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area's security, but the world's."
#6 If Syria attacks Israel, the consequences could be absolutely catastrophic. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising that any attack will be responded to "forcefully"...
"We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully"
#7 Hezbollah will likely do whatever it can to fight for the survival of the Assad regime. That could include striking targets inside the United States, UK, France and Israel.
#8 Iran's closest ally is Syria. Will Iran sit idly by as their closest ally is removed from the chessboard? They have previously stated that they would send Iranian troops into the conflict, and can disrupt the flow of oil tankers through the Straights of Hormuz.
#9 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with Russia. On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the West is acting like a "monkey with a hand grenade".
#10 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with China. And what will happen if the Chinese decide to start dumping the massive amount of U.S. debt that it is holding? Interest rates would absolutely skyrocket and we would rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.
#11 Dr. Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat have compiled some startling evidence that it was actually the Syrian rebels that the U.S. is supporting that were responsible for the chemical weapons attack that is being used as justification to go to war with Syria...
"With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week's attack."
You can examine the evidence for yourself right here.
#12 As Pat Buchanan recently noted, it would have made absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons on defenseless women and children. The only people who would benefit from such an attack would be the rebels...
"The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad's, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."
#13 If the Saudis really want to topple the Assad regime, they should do it themselves. They should not expect the United States, UK and France to do their dirty work for them.
#14 A former commander of U.S. Central Command has said that a U.S. attack on Syria would result in "a full-throated, very, very serious war".
#15 A war in the Middle East will cause the price of oil to sky rocket. On Tuesday, the price of U.S. oil rose to about $110 a barrel.
#16 A lot of innocent civilians inside Syria will end up getting killed. Already, a lot of Syrians are expressing concern about what "foreign intervention" will mean for them and their families...
"I've always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I've been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed," said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. "I'm afraid of a military strike now."
"The big fear is that they'll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq," said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. "They'll hit civilian targets, and then they'll cry that it was by mistake, but we'll get killed in the thousands."
house-of-commonsNow ask yourselves this; why would one of the worlds most venerable and esteemed political governing bodies, spend two and a half hours debating the moral imperative of a Tomahawk cruise missile strike against another Sovereign Nation for an alleged unconfirmed gas attack, but not give even a second thought to the grave considerations and ominous consequences directly involved in such a serious military action. To go so far as to not even once outline the extremely perilous dangers that are clearly involved here, to the very people that you supposedly represent, is an unbelievable outrage of incredulous proportion. I don't know about you, but my bs antennas have gone up swiftly here. Talk about deliberate misdirection. Lose the disingenuous narrative you duplicitous douche-bags.
Moral imperative my ass! Where were you for the 1.7 million Cambodians neatly slaughter by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. Where were you for the 1/4 million victims of the atrocities in East Timor. Where were you in Darfur for the 1/2 million lives viciously terminated by the PLA. Where were you for the nearly 1 million Tutsis that perished in the overt Rwanda genocide? Where were you in Bosnia Herzegovina when 1/4 million people were brutally butchered? Now You suddenly show moral outrage over a couple of unaccounted for canisters of mustard gas that may simply have gone off in the heat of battle, and you are so morally incensed that your ready to strike the match that could well set the world on fire, because of this mishap????
Please tell me you have another valid reason for your insane reaction, otherwise I may have to set off some fireworks of my own. I'm just about ready to get medieval on you lamentable lunatics.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the current leaders of the western world are either grossly incompetent cretins or dangerous duplicitous megalomaniacs. Judging by the deliberate deception being openly displayed throughout this Syrian subterfuge, I fear it's the later. My good friends, take a good hard look behind the curtain. We are clearly not in Kansas anymore, in fact, we're not even in the United States. Something seriously significant, sinister and sensational is taking hold here. The two elephants in the room are Money and Petroleum! Ignore all else. This is about hard core geopolitics, resource wars and monetary control, period. Those controlling the ultimate levers of power have overtly showed their hand. They are dead set on making a play to defend the Petrodollar hegemony at all costs, and above all else. They must have come to the stark calculated realization that the entire western world's monetary banking system, which has dominated global trade and finance over the past 100 years, is rapidly coming to a point of critical recognition.
The massive, unsustainable and decidedly unhealthy debt loads, carried both publicly and privately by all our seriously sick western societies (+Japan), will soon metastasize the malignant experiment of free flowing money induced by the carcinogen of incessant debt financing, which we all boorishly feasted and overindulged on, into a colossal carnivorous cancer on mankind, causing a caustic calamity of epidemic proportions. Make no mistake. One thing you can count on is that the grand masters playing this global chess game are very well aware of this unequivocal and salient fact. They are well prepared and setting up to make their geopolitical counter moves. The pending tomahawk missile strike at Syria is the most telling, overt and obvious move to date. Why else would they be prepared to take such an inane, insane and absolutely absurd risk over a couple of opened canisters of bad gas, ask yourselves deep in your psyche. When things make zero sense with this much at stake, you can be sure something else is a foot. Make no mistake! They now have deliberately and boldly showed their hand, and there can no longer be any doubt about their future plans, as to the dangerous destructive direction they have nefariously determined to take us.
First the U.S. dollar was backed by gold, then the U.S. dollar was backed by oil, today, since the greatly increased demands on petroleum and its many derivatives, have become central to the continued expansive growth of the powerful emerging economic challengers to the United Sates, the US has no choice but to play its last remaining trump card. Let us be honest with ourselves, we have already cashed out our gold cards and debt financing cards, the final trump card we have is the most lethal, and we are about to use it to secure all the remaining oil. Make no mistake.
The previous Petrodollar paradigm we have enjoyed over the past 50 years is in the process of degenerating into the Bombacked Dollar. Keep in mind, that our European partners in crime are are desperately in need of an economic booster shot. Cheap natural gas pumped directly in from Qatar would be a Godsend for them, but China, Iran, Russia and Putin's client Sate Syria stand firmly in the way. Europe is in the midst of a financially driven depression, their money's no good, like the U.S., they too must use their final military trump card as well. As my cousins warned me during my recent visit, why else do you think the major western power which is currently in the most feeble financial condition, namely la belle France, is the one which is most adamantly beating the dreaded dastardly drums of war. The international mega banksters require it!
Our pathetic place holder politicians subservient to the faltering global financial oligarchs and the crony multinational corporate syndicates, are about to command our bought & paid for military industrial complex to launch yet another aggressive assault on a Sovereign State. They are clearly hell bent on taking us to war in order to maintain their flailing global hegemony, whichever way they see fit and no matter what the human costs. The chaotic catastrophic capital clusterfuck about to be unleashed on the rest of us will be legendary. Whether it happens overtly in a fortnight or covertly down the road, it's coming. Make no mistake. God help us all... they will release the Kraken!
Britain and America to hold 'war games' to test reaction to bank collapse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2788613/britain-america-hold-war-games-test-reaction-bank-crisis-atlantic.html
How many $Billions spent on protecting us from imaginary 'imminent threats' ?
How many $Billions spent on protecting the national electricity grid's from attack ?
I told you recently that the electrical grid is the Achilles heal of modern society, and it is... without it virtually all of us will die... this is not fear mongering, it is a fact.
So expect a false flag that is serious at some point within the next year or two, depends how quickly the establishment can kick overt WW3 off.
Highest probability based on current information is a bio-weapon event such as an Ebola pandemic, dirty bombs one each for the major nations of the West, or Nuclear power station meltdowns (ie Fukushima, Stuxnet Iran)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stuxnet-computer-worm-opens-new-era-of-warfare-04-06-2012/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Martial law will be implemented and the TV will tell you it was Russia, or China, or Iran etc... once you are sure who the enemy is that attacked you, and you 'know' your under Martial Law, they will break the grid...
All the 'wealth' in the digital system will evaporate, the hard assets have already been stolen.
All that remains is to crash the system irrevocably and get away with the crime... ready to birth the 7th iteration of the Matrix... (You probably won't be around for that one, you and most everyone else will be dead within a year of the grid going down)
Jihadist threat not as big as you think
By Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider
September 29, 2014
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html?iref=obnetwork
Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at New America and Professor of Practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad." Emily Schneider is a research associate at New America.
(CNN) -- Most Americans had never heard of the Khorasan group until this week, when President Barack Obama announced that U.S. airstrikes in Syria had targeted the "seasoned al-Qaeda operatives." U.S. officials said that the Khorasan group was actively plotting to conduct an attack in the United States or Europe.
"We can't say that we definitely disrupted their plots" against the West with the U.S. airstrikes, a senior Obama administration official told one of us, but "there is a decent chance we have" because "their communications are interrupted" and members of the group were killed in the strikes.
The sudden public emergence of the Khorasan group as a threat underlines the fact that the global jihadist movement, which at the time of the 9/11 attacks was largely concentrated in Afghanistan, has morphed and metastasized a great deal since then.
Which raises the question: What are the dimensions of the overall global jihadist threat today?
During the Cold War the U.S. intelligence community knew in detail the size of the Soviet military and the disposition of its forces across Eastern Europe and Russia.
In the long, twilight struggle against al Qaeda, its affiliates, splinter groups, and like-minded organizations -- armed forces that fight without uniforms and often in secret -- such an accounting is harder to do.
A good example of this is the shifting estimates of ISIS's strength. ISIS, which split off from al Qaeda earlier this year, "can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria," a CIA spokesman told CNN last week.
This is as much as three times previous estimate of ISIS's strength; U.S. officials initially estimated ISIS had around 10,000 fighters.
To see if we could come up with some kind of estimate for the total number of militants fighting with jihadist groups around the world, we asked a range of experts to estimate the number of fighters belonging to various al Qaeda-affiliated or like-minded groups. These estimates appear in a report, which we helped to author, that was released this week by the Bipartisan Policy Center's Homeland Security Project, a successor to the 9/11 Commission.
If we tally up the low and high estimates for all these groups, we can begin to have a sense of the total number of jihadist militants that are part of formal organizations around the globe. We found that on the low end, an estimated 85,000 men are fighting in jihadist groups around the world; on the high end, 106,000.
How did we arrive at those numbers?
-- We assess that core al Qaeda, whose members are largely located in the Pakistani tribal regions along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, has been devastated in recent years by CIA drone strikes and now numbers only in the low hundreds of militants.
-- Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which operates out of Yemen, poses perhaps the most immediate threat to the U.S. homeland. AQAP had 300 original members in 2010, expanding to around 1,000 by 2012, and membership has remained steady since then, according to Gregory Johnsen, whose book "The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America's War in Arabia," is the authoritative history of AQAP.
-- Jabhat al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria and northern Iraq, is estimated to be smaller than ISIS, with which it is presently at war. Aaron Zelin, who tracks Nusra for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, estimates that Nusra has 5,000 to 10,000 fighters. (The Khorasan group is only a small subset of Nusra).
-- Al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's Somalia affiliate, once controlled much of that country, but it has suffered a number of battlefield losses over the past three years. Ken Munkaus, a professor of political science at Davidson College and a specialist on Somalia, believes that the most reliable estimates for the group put the number of fighters between 3,000 and 5,000.
-- French military intervention in Mali in 2013 largely defeated the forces of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its splinter groups, which had taken over half of the country, but AQIM countinues to operate in Algeria, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. AQIM's main appeal is its wealth, as its focus on kidnappings for ransom has brought in an estimated $90 million. Hannah Armstrong, who studies North African militant groups for New America's International Security Program, estimates the total number of AQIM-associated fighters in the Sahel region of North Africa at about 3,000.
-- Counterterrorism operations in 2009 and 2010 have reduced Jemaah Islamiya (JI), al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate. In the period after 2010, "JI was severely crippled and could only stage small-scale attacks" according to Zachary Abuza, a leading JI expert at the National Defense University. The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) assesses: "Southeast Asian governments since 2002 have arrested more than 300 suspected terrorists, significantly degrading JI's network." About 100 Southeast Asians have reportedly traveled to fight with ISIS, which could reinvigorate Southeast Asian extremist networks.
The threat to Western interests, of course, doesn't just come from those groups that are formally affiliated with al Qaeda.
-- Though the Pakistani Taliban is predominantly focused on fighting in Pakistan, the group has repeatedly threatened the United States. The group was responsible for Faisal Shahzad's failed car bomb attack in Times Square on May 1, 2010. According to National Defense University Professor Hassan Abbas, who has written extensively on the Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban have anywhere from 17,000 to 22,000 foot soldiers.
--The influx of Pakistani Taliban militants into Afghanistan --under the leadership of Pakistani Taliban commander Mullah Maulana Fazullah, who currently resides in Afghanistan --adds more fighters to an already robust Taliban force: U.S. government officials estimate the number of Afghan Taliban members at around 35,000.
-- Since 2011, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) has lost several senior leaders, yet the group continues to pose a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The IMU claimed responsibility for the June 2014 attack on Karachi's Jinnah International Airport, which killed 28 people. The U.S. State Department estimated that as of April 2014, the IMU had about 200 to 300 members and that its splinter, the Islamic Jihad Union, has 100 to 200 members.
-- Since its creation in 2002, Boko Haram has only attacked Western interests once, when it bombed the U.N. office in Abuja, Nigeria, in August 2011. The group has consistently shown little inclination for attacking Western targets and is principally interested in putting Nigeria under its version of Sharia law. Dr. Peter Lewis, the director of African Studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies has estimated that Boko Haram had several thousand supporters and at least 300 armed men.
(We excluded from our overall account the armed forces of Hezbollah and Hamas, because these organizations also engage in conventional politics and governing and also do not attack American targets -- all facts that make them at odds with al Qaeda and its affiliates and splinter groups).
The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.
By historical standards this is hardly a major threat. At the end of the Cold War, Soviet and other Warsaw Pact countries could muster around 6 million men to fight in a war against the West, a number that is some 60 times greater than the total number of militants estimated to be fighting for jihadist organizations today.
And, of course, the Soviets had a vast supply of nuclear-armed, land-based missiles, nuclear-armed submarines and nuclear-armed bombers and many other highly sophisticated weapons systems that jihadist organizations have never acquired and are quite unlikely to.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the threat posed by jihadist organizations around the globe is quite inconsequential when compared with what the West faced in the past century.
ISIS, WW3 & THE NWO'S GRAND CHESSBOARD OF LIES — Gerald Celente
October 12th, 2014
http://investmentwatchblog.com/isis-ww3-the-nwos-grand-chessboard-of-lies-gerald-celente/
As the false flag terror sponsor Saudi Arabia threatens the West with the claim that "ISIS Will Be Here Soon" and warns of an "imminent threat" from which the U.S. and Europe "can't hide", Gerald Celente of the Trends Journal joins us to dissect the despicable, sinister plans of the New World Order and the madness of the 'Grand Chessboard'.
The pieces are all lining up to take the world directly in to World War III if the maniacs in power are not stopped.
Putin Makes New Chess-Move
Russia says it's pulling 17,000 troops from near Ukrainian border
From Matthew Chance and Holly Yan, CNN
October 13, 2014
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Moscow (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered 17,600 troops near the Ukrainian border to return to their bases, state-run media reported.
The reason? The Russian troops' training exercises in the southern Rostov region have ended, according to the RIA Novosti news agency.
'The 12 Labors of Putin'
New NATO chief touts Russia relationship
But many did not believe such exercises were taking place. The troop buildup near the Ukrainian border has been widely interpreted as a threat to invade eastern Ukraine.
If the troops do indeed leave the border area, the withdrawal could mark a removal of that threat. So far, NATO has not confirmed whether the troops have actually began to withdraw.
Tensions in the region have flared since April, when separatist leaders in Ukraine declared independence from Kiev and violence broke out in two Ukrainian regions that border Russia.
The conflict between the pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian military has cost more than 2,500 lives, according to the United Nations.
War: What is it good for?
Russia's announcement of the troop pullback comes as Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko prepare to meet in Milan on sidelines of the Asia-Europe Meeting later this month.
In another sign that tensions have cooled somewhat, Ukrainian emergency services will be granted passage Monday to the site in rebel-controlled eastern Ukraine where Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed in July.
After negotiations led by the Organization for the Security and Co-operation in Europe, Ukrainian teams will be allowed to gather belongings of crash victims at the site and from locals in the area, Dutch Security and Justice Ministry Spokesman Jean Fransman told CNN.
Ukraine and Russia have been under a shaky cease-fire since last month, when government officials from the two countries as well as rebel leaders from eastern Ukraine hashed out a deal in Belarus.
Yet the bloodshed continued.
Ten civilians were killed when a school in the city of Donetsk was shelled, according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
And one day later, Swiss Red Cross worker Laurent DuPasquier was killed when a shell landed near an International Committee of the Red Cross building in Donetsk.
The Pitchforks Are Coming... For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER
July/August 2014
Politco Magazine
http://templetonwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us.html
Memo: From Nick Hanauer
To: My Fellow Zillionaires
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#ixzz35zShPyWX
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries—from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough—and that time wasn't far off—people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff—Bezos—called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality—Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all—I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.
If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time.
Any student of history knows that's not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.
Any student of history knows that's not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts.
What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.
It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas—by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines—and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." Forbes labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?
It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers—and need more employees. We reminded them that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of likely Seattle voters in a recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?
"The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. "
Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years of complaints from big business—when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing our city to kick your city's ass.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.
Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please, please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer, it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's bad for the economy.
I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system, with its speed limits and stop signs.
Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages—not just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people, one that could appeal to the right as well as left—to libertarians as well as liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance. They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right. Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans in Congress.
One thing we can agree on—I'm sure of this—is that the change isn't going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On both sides.
But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act—Obamacare—would have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead the way.
Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats say fairness—and lose every time.
But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.
It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.
Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter. That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake in that than zillionaires like us.
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.
What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?
My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows. They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances, are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made us, rather than the other way around.
Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.
Nick Hanauer is a Seattle-based entrepreneur.
Communism.
Raise the wages really raises inflation. The amount of dollars it takes still went up and that is the failure. Because the holder of the bucket would not lower the bucket the donkey in the well has to wait for more dirt to pile up to walk out. The donkey keeps crying for more dirt because the quality of where is at doesn't change.
One big duh. I grew up at the bottom of a very deep well and spent my youth crying out for more dirt. I bided my time as a young adult in work and school. I now own the well.
It doesn't take more 'Give' by the rich and 'Take' by the poor. It takes more application by everybody to create and work an environment to make the machine work smoothly for everybody. The Henry Ford example worked because there was still a large difference between those that worked in that industry and the other citizens else where. Once the ripples smooth out the same old problem arises.
Money plays its own game at it's own speed. It affords isolation. And that is a 2 edged sword of injustice.
Good comment, like the thinking..
I have previously stated that it is my belief that the Universe (this reality you experience) is a potential difference engine. Any machine or process without a significant potential difference will stall.. if it starts at all..
How we manipulate that potential difference determines the power or velocity or.. etc..
Are any of the possible '..ism's' suitable for a stable global society ?
Must there be different '..ism's' in different locations, that are related through a common energy exchange in order for the machine to work ?
How does a debt based monetary system and a non-debt based monetary system differ in practice for each of the various '..ism's' ?
Do we know ? Have all of the possible combinations been tried already ?
One thing we do know for sure is that if a machine with a huge momentum, and huge potential energy get's out of synchronisation with the feedback mechanism.. it destroys itself very rapidly with a huge release of energy.. devastating to anything within the blast range.
This is what Nick Hanauer has recognised, an imbalance in the system and his own potential exposure to that imbalance. He is trying to raise awareness of the problem and I respect him for that. Will it save him and his fellow Zillionaire's ? I don't have that answer but time will tell.
What is critical at this point in time is to recognise the pure evil that resides at the heart of government in the west, and even more so in the hidden hand that steers it. The human population of this planet, at this time, will no longer accept perpetual terrorism and the brutal murder of innocents by the power structures that believe they control this reality.
Timing is critical in any movement..
How Adolf Hitler changed the economy of Germany in five years
http://lovkap.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/how-adolf-hitler-changed-economy-of.html
Quote from: EvolvingApe
How does a debt based monetary system and a non-debt based monetary system differ in practice for each of the various '..ism's' ?
Good question.
Think "Usury." Without "usury" (which amounts to free
energy to the recipient) things would be much different.
But there's more to the story. Honesty and Ethics are
a necessity. Our World today is corrupt beyond belief.
QuoteHonesty and Ethics are
a necessity.
The wicked believe these are a choice.
Quoteand even more so in the hidden hand that steers it.
'nuff sed...
Jesus stated 'Every eye shall see and every knee shall bow'.
A county sheriff in my church's men group, who is 62, stated ' What used to happen once in a career is not happening multiple times a day.'
I have achieved my life long dreams and at the finish line have seen the futility of the struggle, except for the fact that my wisdom now ring true.
Watch and goodbye. I hope you believe.
http://www.hallindsey.com/ (http://www.hallindsey.com/)
Firefly Clip: The Negotiator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPRlHwwVIug
Any questions ?
Into the bowels ye will go...
should thy lips spread open the vacuous orifice.
I know. This sounds really, really bad. But I am in a rank mood and it is my desire to consume servers.
Is David Cameron The Terrorist? Russell Brand The Trews (E164)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C2nkGiVytQ
Published on 9 Oct 2014
Russell Brand The Trews (E164).
In this Trews special I'm joined by actor ALEC BALDWIN, plus Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert of 'The Keiser Report', discussing the Ebola crisis and Isis terror threat.
@evolvingape
I see it this way, now let's say we are rats on a ship in the middle of the ocean and the ship is called "Earth". So we as rats knaw on the wood hull to eat and multiply but then the head political rat tells us we must eat more and have more offspring. He explains that this is logical, if we eat more and have more offspring then we will crap more and tree's may grow in our crap giving us more to eat. You see it is all very logical and common sense which is why everyone is so concerned with economic growth. One little problem...tree's don't grow in the middle of the ocean and it should be obvious that the ship must sink at some point.
We truly are rats because the economy is not sustainable, our economic growth is not sustainable nor is the population growth. Which is why the well written article by NICK HANAUER seems very logical and common sense but is absolutely pointless long term. It is like saying yes let's give the middle class more money so they can buy more useless crap from us and consume more resources so we can make more money and do the same only on a larger scale. You see the reason this person and most like him are fools is because in their future we have no future. In their future we will consume everything for profit to impress others with all our possessions and destroy the planet in the process... it is a fools game. No offense but I know many millionares personally and most have an IQ equal to their shoe size and their only purpose in life is to make money which doesn't actually qualify as a purpose. To be honest just listening to these boffoon's talk is comical, imagine looking up into the universe on a clear calm night at the edge of the grand canyon and only one thought occupies your mind...how can I make more money?, lol, that is why they will always be fools no matter how much money they make or what they own... in a nutshell. They are completely lacking in real intelligence and insight in my opinion.
The real problem is that we have replaced intelligence and evolution with a pointless numbers game. Let's put it this way I figured out what the fundamental fields (E,B,G) and inertia are, what they are, why they are, what they do which dictates the actions of the whole damn universe as we know it and I didn't use a single number in the whole process. Nor do I need one single equation to describe it and I simply use words to describe simple known processes...think about that. It is not a matter of numbers, math or equations it is a simple matter of putting what we know and have already proven in the proper context, the problem is the way everyone has been taught to think.
It is no damn wonder nobody can make any headway because the whole of their existence which has no real purpose revolves around simple numbers. How much do I have, How much do I need, How can I get more, Where can I get more, How much does he have relative to me?. Personally one thought occupies my mind 24/7, How can I learn and understand more...period.
@GK
QuoteI have achieved my life long dreams and at the finish line have seen the futility of the struggle, except for the fact that my wisdom now ring true.
Right, join the club
You throw a life line to the people in a sinking ship and they try to eat the rope, such is life
AC
The earths magnetic field has ncreased substantially lately.
If any of you has a neo disk magnet, stand it on edge on a table and notice what happens. Aleady been replicated in NY and im in FL.
Try it. Look up my vid on yt. "its a compass" just a few down on search list.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2014.10.15, 05:28:55
The earths magnetic field has ncreased substantially lately.
If any of you has a neo disk magnet, stand it on edge on a table and notice what happens. Aleady been replicated in NY and im in FL.
Try it. Look up my vid on yt. "its a compass" just a few down on search list.
Mags
Dear Mag's.
I noticed the very same thing a few weeks back !! :)
Video proof !!?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4
Cheers Grum.
Hey Grum
Thanks for showing. Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.
Tk says its always been this way.. He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.
Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.
Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth slowly till finally resting N n S. I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.
Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you. Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.
Thanks Grum. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2014.10.15, 21:58:45
Hey Grum
Thanks for showing. Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.
Tk says its always been this way.. He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.
Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.
Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth slowly till finally resting N n S. I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.
Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you. Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.
Thanks Grum. ;)
Mags
Dear Mag's.
I feel the same way as you, I never noticed such heavy attraction a few years back.
Perhaps this is not the thread we should be using, apologies, I have nothing more to say here on this topic. :)
Cheers Grum.
@Grum
With your square magnet, can you please try this.
Find a small piece of metal that can be stuck to the magnet on one of the four non polarized sides and put that side on the table. I would like to know if your magnet not only swings left/right but if it will tip over to one side of the poles. Right now with the magnet on the table or on your little platform, you cannot see if there is a tilt as well.
Technically, if the small metal piece is well centred the magnet should stay flat on the table but if it tilts and the reason is not because the metal pieces is not centred, this would be a good effect to know about and also if it is always the same polarity that tilts.
wattsup
PS: Yes, me too, sorry for off topic.
PS: The Cabal is in its last throws of power. If they ever try to push WW3, this time we know who, what, where, when and why the Cabal exists and unlike WW2 and WW1 where nobody really knew their game plan, this time around there will be such a quick and concise clean-up of these guys that the Cabal will be a thing of the past in a few months. Just let them push WW3 and they will see what will happen.
Also, Obama signed the NDAA on Dec 31st 2013 making it legal for the government to detain anyone for any reason or without reason for as long as they deem necessary. Well these numbskulls did not think that this same law can now be used against them as well. hahahahaha How stupid can you be?
Quote from: WattsUp
Well these numbskulls did not think that this same law can now be used against them as well. hahahahaha How stupid can you be?
Their Zionist Masters have assured them that as
"chosenites" they are above the laws.
When the People finally gather their pitchforks and
chase them down they'll retire to their deep underground
havens. So they think...
Sorry Guys !!
Just for Wattsup !! O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4pvOe3ijF0
Cheers Grum.
Russia's $50 Billion Repo Pledge Fails to Halt Ruble Drop on Oil...IF THE WORLD DROPS THE PETRODOLLAR WE'LL HAVE A HOT WAR IN A WEEK
http://investmentwatchblog.com/russias-50-billion-repo-pledge-fails-to-halt-ruble-drop-on-oil-if-the-world-drops-the-petrodollar-well-have-a-hot-war-in-a-week/
Putin Has Economic Nuclear Bomb
I honestly believe sanctioning Russia is the same as shooting yourself in the foot." Sinclair goes on to say, "When you think you can push an ex-colonel of the KGB, you are not making a proper analysis of the personality of the person. The whole idea that Russia is only a regional power–where in the world did that come from? Anybody that is nuclear capable to the degree that Russia is with its delivery systems is a world power. We hear constantly Russia is only a regional power. We hear lies. We hear untruths. We don't have a clear picture to what is taking place."
On Russia countering Western sanctions, Sinclair says watch the "struggling dollar" and Russia accepting any currency for oil and natural gas. Sinclair explains, "It's struggling . . . because it smells the real teeth of retaliation for sanctions being in the simple acceptance of any currency whatsoever for payment for gas to Europe. Believe me, they will settle in other currencies. . . . It makes energy cheaper. Why in the world would anyone want to pay in dollars if they can pay in their own currency? Russia could retaliate in a way that would have phenomenal impact on the U.S. dollar. . . . Russia has the upper hand.They have it in their ability to turn the U.S. economy upside down and into collapse. There is no question whatsoever.Putin doesn't need a nuclear bomb. He has a nuclear economic bomb that he can set off at any time."
"We're in a hell of a mess. If the world drops the 'Petrodollar,' we'll have a hot war in a week.
Revealed: why Gordon Brown sold Britain's gold at a knock-down price
By Thomas Pascoe Economics Last updated: July 5th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/
Britain's gold reserves were sold at a ludicrously low price
A great deal of Gordon Brown's economic strategy would strike a sane man as troubling. Not a great deal was mysterious. The orgy of consumption spending, frequent extensions of the cycle over which he would "borrow to invest", proclamations of the "end of boom and bust": these are part of the armoury of modern politicians, of all political hues.
One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain's gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.
When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.
First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of "open government", but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.
Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon "fix" between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.
The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10c less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.
It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public's gold. It was.
One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.
In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.
Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.
At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.
This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.
This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.
Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown's private office.
Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain's gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.
I spoke with Peter Hambro, chairman of Petroplavosk and a leading figure in the London gold market, late last year and asked him about the rumours above.
"I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position," he said.
"He was facing a problem that was a world scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done."
While the market manipulation which occurred when the gold reserves were sold was not illegal as the abuse at Barclays may have been, the moral atmosphere in which it took place was identical.
The crash which began in 2007 and endures still was the result of an abdication of responsibility across the financial sector. This abdication ranged from the consumer whose thirst for goods pushed him beyond into grave debt to a government whose lust for popularity encouraged it to do the same.
Responsibility is evaded by all bar those on whose shoulders it ought to rest. The gold panic of 1999 was expensively paid for by the British public. The one thing politicians ought to have bought with that money was a lesson in the structural restraints which needed to be placed on banks now that the principle that they were ultimately public liabilities had been established.
It was a lesson which could have acted to restrain all players in the credit market boom of the 2000s. It was a lesson which nobody learnt.
Tungsten Filled 1 kilo Gold Bar Discovered in UK
In the biggest news we've broke since the JP Morgan whistle-blower stepped forward,
Australian Bullion Dealer ABC Bullion has contacted SD to advise that one of its suppliers has provided them photographic evidence of a tungsten filled 1 kilo gold bar discovered this week. The bar passed a hand-held xrf scan which showed 99.98% pure AU. The tungsten was only discovered when the bar was physically cut in half.
After numerous reports of 400oz tungsten filled bars being discovered in Hong Kong, this is the first documented and verified report with photographic evidence that has been made public.
10 More Tungsten-Filled Gold Bars Discovered In Manhattan
Posted on September 23, 2012 by The Doc
http://www.silverdoctors.com/10-more-tungsten-filled-gold-bars-discovered-in-manhattan/
The Genesis of the Gold-Tungsten: The Rest of the Story:
Back in October, 2009 I penned an article titled, A Blight on Humanity, where I reported that, in an Asian depository there had been found 60 metric tonnes of "Good Delivery"gold bricks that had been gutted and filled with tungsten. That article was followed up with, On Doing God's Work, where additional information on the fake gold bricks was presented. This lengthy report has been written to provide the background and genesis of who was involved, why the fake gold was produced and how it was fed into the international gold market.
Background of the London Gold Pool: Cause and Effect
Germany repatriating its US gold reserves in mini-shipments
http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/germany-repatriating-its-us-gold-reserves-in-mini-shipments_316572.html
Germany gives up plan to repatriate gold from US
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_06_24/Germany-gives-up-its-gold-repatriation-plan-7743/
China Moves To Dominate Gold Market With Physical Exchange
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-23/china-moves-dominate-gold-market-physical-exchange
Where has all the world's gold gone?
7:25 PM 10/26/2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/26/where-has-all-the-worlds-gold-gone/
For many years only gold bugs and conspiracy theorists discussed whether Fort Knox had gold in it. Of course, with the help of GATA and other whistleblowers, coupled with a greater realization that the Fed isn't the all-beneficent guardian that many once perceived it to be, a more critical eye is being cast on gold reserves.
Perhaps one of the most helpful discussions came when The History Channel attempted to check it out. The following video is anything but conclusive. But why? Shouldn't any investigation be very conclusive? Shouldn't there be full disclosure?
One of the voices of reason that may have influenced a more mainstream investigation is that of Senator Ron Paul. In the description of the following (very long) video, it is apparent that CNBC has also sought permission to film the gold. With the last audit having taken place almost 40 years ago, much remains unknowable today.
Such doubt has now clearly grown among Western nations. In fact, the wave of articles questioning the whereabouts of German gold over the past couple of weeks has been huge.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that much of the gold is regularly leased through the bullion banking system. This is a common, if unethical, practice, providing banks with an "excuse" to refuse to allow audits of gold reserves.
Swiss banks came under fire in recent years as it came to light that sovereign gold had been sold or transferred to other countries. Many have decried the U.K. central bank's decision to sell roughly half of its gold reserves about a decade ago.
Concerns continue to grow among European countries. Just recently citizens in the Netherlands voiced concerns regarding sovereign gold.
Is it possible that central banks have consolidated wealth in gold in exchange for their fiat currencies? Again, speculation abounds. But, until full disclosure is given, we can hardly give them the benefit of the doubt.
Meanwhile, Eastern countries are openly increasing their gold holdings. This isn't speculative. It's open knowledge. As to the extent, there is room for debate. Bottom line? It appears that Western wealth may very well be moving east.
From China to Iran to India to Russia, gold reserves continue to increase. Don't expect them to give it up nearly as easily as we do.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.10.16, 19:12:49
Their Zionist Masters have assured them that as
"chosenites" they are above the laws.
When the People finally gather their pitchforks and
chase them down they'll retire to their deep underground
havens. So the thinky ...
Many of those hide outs are already blown up. One near Washington (Capital) was blown up causing an earthquake that was so strong it cracked the Washington Monument. Once all countries adopt a Zero Tolerance for Freemasons, the Jesuits and other secret societies and thus remove all those at 26th degree and higher from any public or private office, the world will start to breath again. Until then, these guys are like the plague and only bad things will happen.
Back in the 1830s, many people in the USA knew very well about the Masons and what was required to get rid of them.
A guy called William Morgan wrote a book about the Masons and was murdered for it and that is what caused a major political shift during those years were the Masons went from 40,000 to 5,000 but they did not disappear completely and today, it is estimated there is 1 million in the USA today, the majority are low ranking so once the heads are removed, the others will just fall.
@Grum
That was not quite what I had in mind so I did a small diagram to show you that by just putting a small piece of metal stuck to one side of the non polarized ends, the magnet should still be able to stay standing straight unless there is also a downward force on the magnet and not only a left/right force. If the magnet tilts, will it always tilt from the same polarity? You may need to draw two diagonal lines on the magnet to ensure the metal is smack on the center point.
wattsup
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.10.16, 17:05:54
Dear Mag's.
I feel the same way as you, I never noticed such heavy attraction a few years back.
Perhaps this is not the thread we should be using, apologies, I have nothing more to say here on this topic. :)
Cheers Grum.
Yeah. When I posted it, I dont know why really I chose this thread. Maybe conspiracy came to mind. If any new developments then we should open an new thread.
I did a test today setting an identical disk mag on edge S facing N using masking tape to hold it in place. Then I set another magnet free standing on edge between the fixed mag and Earth N. 8 inches away from the fixed mag was the free standing mag able to stand facing E/W. 8 inches???? A few years back, I know that the free standing mag would be facing the fixed mag at 8 inches away, not stand in a perpendicular position to the fixed mag. What is going on right now I 'would' have noticed and recognized long ago. I know the problems in projects concerning moving or spinning magnets when other magnets are nearby. This just does not add up for me yet. ;)
Mags
@evolvingape
QuoteFor many years only gold bugs and conspiracy theorists discussed whether Fort Knox had gold in it. Of course, with the help of GATA and other whistleblowers, coupled with a greater realization that the Fed isn't the all-beneficent guardian that many once perceived it to be, a more critical eye is being cast on gold reserves.
It is very strange isn't it, that people just let governments do as they please?. We should remember that we pay their wage and that they are public servants and took an oath to serve us and act in our best interests. Now if I went to a bank and asked to see my balance and they said no I would fire them on the spot...period. Yet when we ask our government to verify our investment as gold reserves they refuse. At which point one has to ask, why is it people always talk so tough behind closed doors but most are basically spineless and unwilling to stand up for their rights?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.10.17, 05:23:19At which point one has to ask, why is it people always talk so tough behind closed doors but most are basically spineless and unwilling to stand up for their rights?.
There are a lot of factors involved in answering this. Most people haven't drawn their line in the sand, to which if ever crossed, they will go all the way, risking everything including their own life. We also have many examples of individuals that did stick their neck out, but nobody had their back and were summarily crushed.
Hopefully the tough talk shows what they would do given some odds of success. Going it alone is suicide and most people know that much.
Dear Allcanadian.
Spineless, spineless you say ??
Over the last thirty or so years I have seen the systematic de construction, vertebra by vertebra of the British spine !!
When I joined with my local supply industry C 1979 we had a 38 hour week, our Union went on to reduce that to 37 hours and then, BOOM, privatisation. I left my job at that point, I was totally against having a public service industry run privately.
But as time has gone by our Trades Unions have been hammered, the working person now does not even have the right to withdraw his or her labour, his/her only weapon !! The working week is now longer than it was 25 years ago with zero hour contracts becoming very fashionable !! They have even raised the retirement age !! Oh, and don't get me started with the present trend of hitting out at the sick and disabled !!
The fact is, our governments, democratically elected dictatorships, have slowly but surely chipped away at the peoples rights and as Matt rightly stated one man can't do it alone !! Perhaps the French had the right idea 300+ years ago ?? :)
Ok, rant over !!
Cheers Grum.
This article (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26817-henry-a-giroux-beyond-orwellian-nightmares-and-neoliberal-authoritarianism)will help to understand how the People
have been deceived and subdued.
Why do those in power always seek more and more
power and control?
Saudi Arabia represents the lowest form of evil tyranny. (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/10/15/saudi_court_sentences_highprofile_shiite_cleric_to_death.html)
The Wahabi sect of Islam is in truth a Jewish invention
and the Saud Family are themselves Crypto-Jews.
The State of Israel and Saudi Arabia are two sides
of the same coin.
Yes, the U.S. is evil. (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/15/vladimir-putin-reminds-obama-sowing-discord-nuclear-powers-can-undermine-strategic-security/)
AllCanadian, Matt Watts and Grumage,
You've made good points about our present sad state
of affairs.
All governments of 'the West' have been stealthily
transformed to Corporations and have created
Private Voluntary Jurisdictions based upon Contract
to wield power over their 'subjects.' All of those governments
are beholden to their Central Banks (Rothschild) who
actually control both the politicians and the policies.
Since they (The Central Banks) create the 'money'
they care not who makes the laws.
The People have been supplanted by LEGAL NAME
FICTIONS created by the Corporation Governments
using the Birth Name of each human within their borders.
The created LEGAL NAME ACCOUNT PERSON has no 'rights'
within the Private Corporation Jurisdiction; only 'privileges'
which are bestowed by the 'state' in order to conduct
'business' within the jurisdiction.
All 'business' is controlled by government (license) and is
conducted in the LEGAL NAME/TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NO.
of each CONSUMER/SUBJECT/TAXPAYER/VOTER/DRIVER, etc.
Same have awakened to this deception and are discovering
how to assert their Natural Born Flesh and Blood Citizenship
of the Original Jurisdiction in order to re-claim their Rights.
The Servitude demanded by the State is Voluntary. Use of the
LEGAL NAME when conducting 'business' is construed to mean
'consent' to abuse within the Private Jurisdiction. It effectively
signals to the 'authorities' that you have volunteered to be
their CREATED LEGAL NAME PERSON.
Those who worship Satan are very, very clever.
French had the right idea 300+ years ago ?? Smiley
O0 off with their heads.
The latest thing here in Spain is the BLACK VISA CARD, as in black money. Those well looked after in the banks have a visa card which they can use with no limit and does not have to be paid at the end of the month, it is invisable money.
Well an investigative reporter found this out and now the shit is hitting the fan O0 15million euros in one bank alone between the higher rankings and certain government parties
And so the corruption goes on
regards
Mike
@muDped
QuoteThe People have been supplanted by LEGAL NAME
FICTIONS created by the Corporation Governments
using the Birth Name of each human within their borders.
The created LEGAL NAME ACCOUNT PERSON has no 'rights'
within the Private Corporation Jurisdiction; only 'privileges'
which are bestowed by the 'state' in order to conduct
'business' within the jurisdiction.
I think you nailed it down perfectly and individual rights are only for those who can afford to pay for them in a court of supposed law.
QuoteThe People have been supplanted by LEGAL NAME
FICTIONS created by the Corporation Governments
using the Birth Name of each human within their borders.
The created LEGAL NAME ACCOUNT PERSON has no 'rights'
within the Private Corporation Jurisdiction; only 'privileges'
which are bestowed by the 'state' in order to conduct
'business' within the jurisdiction.
Again you nailed it and for some reason I have become the business consultant for family and friends. I tell them in the eye's of the corporation you have zero rights and they have zero obligation to listen to anything we have to say or take any action. I have urged most to incorporate and most have as a means of protection.
For instance as an individual I must pay a total tax rate of 60% in Canada but my corporations pay almost nothing as they are always expanding and diversifying. As an individual I can be sued and lose everything however as an employee of my own corporation I am not liable for anything my corporation is and all legal expenses are a 100% write off. I can do damn near anything and the worst case scenario is that one of my corporations goes bankrupt and I walk away unscathed business as usual. Which is why we see so many people on the news doing insane things with no accountability, few if any are ever held accountable such as an individual is. This is because they are not liable as an employee their employer is and justice is served by those who can afford the best lawyers.
As I said most people are spineless and refuse to challenge any corporation because they are trying to fight an imaginary entity they do not understand. however we do have a very powerful weapon...social media. So when I have been screwed over I simply say sure I will pay however I have been programming computers since they were invented and I am going to take my story global. It will go viral around the world and millions upon millions of people will know what you did, they will judge you and it won't cost me a dime but you will pay.
A corporation has no obligation other than to generate a profit which is mandated in their charter. As such if they think their profits may be effected they will pay, they will back down and pay every time. Corporations don't like the light of day and prefer warm dark places out of sight to conduct their business.
it is kind of strange when we think about it, I can pay $1000 for a numbered company and the next day I am no longer an individual but an entity. I and my personal assets are now protected as an individual outside the corporation and I assume little if any liability for my actions. It is the perfect scam in my opinion.
Wasn't it Orwell who predicted this was coming so many years ago?. When we think about it a government is simply another corporation who's figure heads are replaced every now and then. The faces on the news may change every now and then but the unaccountable entity remains.
AC
@Matt
QuoteWe also have many examples of individuals that did stick their neck out, but nobody had their back and were summarily crushed.
Hopefully the tough talk shows what they would do given some odds of success. Going it alone is suicide and most people know that much.
That's a real SOB isn't it?, some people go out on a limb to help us and make things better and the first thing most do is distance themselves from it. Kind of like the whistle blowers and I have nothing but respect for these people despite the sheeples opinions. You know it's funny that the whistle blowers are almost identical to the government a couple hundred years ago. People of integrity who had enough of pseudo democracy and wanted a better life for their children and yet....here we are again.
I can only think another revolution may be just around the corner given our circumstances, the cycle repeating.
AC
RT George Galloway 18 Oct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI43rNIYqQk
About
http://investmentwatchblog.com/about/
This is the place for people who are pro-capitalism, pro-business, pro-market, truth seeker, and anti-MSM.
The mainstream media is great at pointing readers in the direction they want them to go, reporting what they want people to focus on and downplaying, hiding, burying the information they don't want you to know, or to rephrase, information they are being told to bury.....
As long as you keep liking, sharing, commenting, clicking on the articles and supporting the blog, we'll keep standing up, speaking out and fighting back!
Quote from: evolvingape
RT George Galloway 18 Oct
Excellent link! George Galloway is something!
Dick Cheney who has a high position in the elite
power structure reveals that 9/11 is to be followed
by more of the same (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=105683).
But bigger and more devastating.
Sadly, another warrior for TRUTH has been lost (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=105712)
in suspicious circumstances.
9/11 In Perspective:
The World Trade Center
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_911_perspective.html
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction
manager for the World Trade Center
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
As noted, 9/11 was not the last of "government orchestrated crises."
I put together clips from two vids this morning... Thought is that:
1. Ebola / contagion scare is being PROMOTED to prepare the public for
2. Medical martial law - and probably mandatory vaccinations.
Pls watch the 2-minute vid and let us know what you think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl6qOBJ4aTs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl6qOBJ4aTs&feature=youtu.be)
(PS -- not yet a public video... should I make it public?)
NIST Lawsuit Underway
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=2625884318&e=[UNIQID]
Congratulations, fellow AE911Truth activists! You have again successfully raised the required funding to support our lawsuit against NIST, which compels them to release the complete set of documents that they have been stalling making public for years.
As we told you already,releases Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests very reluctantly — and only when sued. But they have been forced to concede EVERY TIME. So prepare for a flood of great information after we file. Thanks to you, we should be able to file next week!
The Expected Documents
We will obtain the WTC records that were gathered by FEMA during its 2001-2002 WTC investigation — text and images that go above and beyond the selective records FEMA chose to put in its May 2002 report. The complete record includes all evidence gathered by the various contractors that FEMA employed as part of its investigation. David Cole, the AE911Truth instigator of the FOIA request, estimates that the total exceeds 490,000 documents, videos, photographs, and any other format that FEMA or its contractors used.
So.... again.... THANK YOU! AND.... STANDBY!
Richard Gage, AIA
Founder / Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Long read but very very important. Everything tied together:
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/03/01/nikola-tesla-deathbed-confessions-photos-support-claims-george-h-scherff-jr-was-41s (http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/03/01/nikola-tesla-deathbed-confessions-photos-support-claims-george-h-scherff-jr-was-41s)
And this is why:
QuoteTESLA'S FREE ENERGY SUPPRESSION
Free energy suppression is a conspiracy theory claiming that certain special interest groups are suppressing, or have suppressed in the past, technologies that would or could provide energy at reduced costs, reduced pollution output, or would or could reduce the energy consumption of various devices. Groups most often implicated in such activity are the oil industry, petroleum, national governments and, additionally, automakers. The most common perceived motive is preservation of the economic status quo and sustained increase of fuel prices. Dependence upon expensive energy is perpetuated by governments in order to control the populace by means of hydraulic despotism.
The principal belief is that electric companies, gas heating companies and oil companies would lose half or more of their profits with free energy available. Therefore, these companies donate millions to governments (bribing them) to make sure that free energy devices stay out of the public market. Tactics and means of suppression include buying the patent of the free energy device from the inventor or his family, suing the inventor or patent holder and even murdering the inventor in some cases.
Based on the principles of capitalism, free energy cannot be allowed. The traditional economic system contains three aspects: capital, goods and services. Within the aspects of capital are three subcomponents: currency, credit, and natural capital. Natural capital comprises raw material and energy. This differs considerably from the orthodox definition of capital in economics.
By reviewing history it is understandable why some inventions are not commercialized. It is economics, not science, that is the main factor. It will be remembered that alternating current was opposed by powerful financiers in Tesla's time. Westinghouse promoted his DC, Tesla his AC. Thankfully Tesla won that battle. Tesla is the key player in Free Energy Theories. Below is his proposal.
Tesla was fascinated by radiant energy and its free energy possibilities. He called the Crooke's radiometer, a device which has vanes that spin in a vacuum when exposed to radiant energy "a beautiful invention." He believed that it would become possible to harness energy directly by "connecting to the very wheel-work of nature." Tesla announced a plan for a "cosmic-ray motor" when asked if it was more powerful than the Crooke's radiometer, he answered, "thousands of times more powerful."
In 1901 Tesla Tesla believed that neutron particles were responsible for all radioactive reactions. Radiant matter is in tune with these neutron particles. Radiant matter is simply a re-transmitter of energy from one state to another.
Tesla's free-energy concept was patented in 1901 as an "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy." The patent refers to "the sun, as well as other sources of radiant energy, like cosmic rays," that the device works at night is explained in terms of the night-time availability of cosmic rays. Tesla also refers to the ground as "a vast reservoir of negative electricity."
How his radiant energy receiver worked:
From the electric Potential that exists between the elevated plate (plus) and the ground (minus), energy builds up in the capacitor, and, after "a suitable time interval," the accumulated energy will "manifest itself in a powerful discharge" that can do work. The capacitor, says Tesla, should be "of considerable electrostatic capacity," and its dielectric made of "the best quality mica, for it has to withstand potentials that could rupture a weaker dielectric."
Tesla received two patents for this radiant energy device; U.S. Patent No. 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy and U.S. Patent No. 685,958 - Method of Utilizing Radiant Energy. Both these patents were filed on March 21, 1901 and granted on November 5, 1901. In these patents he explains:
The Earth's Electrostatic Charge
Tesla's intent was to condense the energy trapped between the earth and its upper atmosphere and to transform it into an electric current. He pictured the sun as an immense ball of electricity, positively charged with a potential of some 200 billion volts. The earth, on the other hand, is charged with negative electricity. The tremendous electrical force between these two bodies constituted, at least in part, what he called cosmic energy. It varied from night to day and from season to season but it is always present.
The positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground, a distance of 60 miles, there is a large difference of voltage - something on the order of 360,000 volts. With the gases of the atmosphere acting as an insulator between these two opposite stores of electrical charges, the region between the ground and the edge of space traps a great deal of energy. Despite the large size of the planet, it is electrically like a capacitor which keeps positive and negative charges apart by using the air as a non-conducting material as an insulator.
The earth has a charge of 96,500 coulombs. With a potential of 360,000 volts, the earth constitutes a capacitor of .25 farads (farads = coulombs/volts). If the formula for calculating the energy stored in a capacitor (E =1/2CV2) is applied to the earth, it turns out that the ambient medium contains 1.6 x 1011 joules or 4.5 megawatt-hours of electrical energy. In order to utilize this high-voltage energy you must do two things -- make an energy sink and then devise a way of making the "sink" oscillate.
"Zero-Point Energy?"
Such a "sink" has to be at a lower energy state than the surrounding medium and, for the energy to continually flow into it, the energy must be continually pumped out. Additionally, this "sink" must maintain a lower energy state while meeting the power requirements of the load attached to it. Electrical energy, watt-seconds, is a product of volts x amps x seconds. Because the period of oscillation does not change, either voltage or current has to be the variable in this system's energy equation. Bifilar wound coils are used in the system because a bifilar wound coil maximizes the voltage difference between its turns, the current is then minimized.
Set into oscillation at its resonant frequency by an external power source. During the "zero-point" cycle the coil will appear as one plate of a capacitor. As voltage across the coil increases, the amount of charge it can siphon will increase. The energy that is taken into the coil through the small energy window (zero-point), appears to be the key to the success of this system. It is at this zero-point where energy is condensed into positive and negative. When energy escapes from the "sink" the magnetic field collapses and a strong magnetic quake is created. Facilitated by a spark gap.
The radiant energy system is a self-oscillating capacitive system. Very little power is expended keeping it going. A small amount of charge moves through the system per cycle, that is, the coulomb per seconds = amps are low. If the charge is used at a low rate, the energy stored in the system will be turned into heat at a slow rate enabling the oscillations to continue for a long period of time.
Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO MAGNETS," patent #512,340 is a very special coil design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. In this patent Tesla explains that the double coil will store many times the energy of a conventional coil. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter - electromotive force (e.m.f.) normal to coils, inductive reactance. Because of the electrical activity, a bifilar coil does not work against itself and the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value. The difference between the turns becomes great enough that the energy is practically all potential, at this point, the system becomes an electrostatic oscillator.
A standard coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts will have a difference of .1 volt between turns. A similar bifilar coil will have a potential of 50 volts between turns. Stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages the energy. That equates to 502/.12 = 2500/.01 = 250,000 times greater than the standard coil.
1932 Nikola Tesla stated:
I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device...The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours...it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight...They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light...the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor.
1933 Device to Harness Cosmic Energy:
Tesla's first radiant energy receiver stored static electricity obtained from the air and converted it to a usable form. Tesla's invention is a simple version of T.H. Moray's device. Moray's device used a unique rectifier (RE-valve) to efficiently capture the static electricity from the surrounding air. Moray's oscillator tubes (magnetron transducers) utilized this high-voltage energy to generate an internal secondary "cold" fusion reaction. Stick an antenna up in the air, the higher the better, and wire it to one side of a capacitor, the other going to a good earth ground, and the potential difference will then charge the capacitor. Connect across the capacitor some sort of switching device so that it can be discharged at rhythmic intervals, and you have an oscillating electric output. T.H. Moray simply expanded on Tesla's idea to use high-voltage to create ionic oscillation. He is directly converting ionized particles generated by radiant matter. Radiant Energy is directly converted to electrical power! It is this transfer of energy that could be used for practical purposes.
Tesla was once a household word, sixty or seventy years ago. Why were his acheivements virtually stricken from history almost the day after his death. What did Tesla discover which threatened the powers that be? Since we already know about the many patented inventions, the assumption has always been that the unknown, still classified works were far in advance of the published ones, and were in realization of projects about which Tesla had announced he was working on, or had already tested and developed, but had not yet given to the world.
There have been countless speculations as to what Tesla's most secret discoveries were. At the time of his death, there were in all, the approximate equivalent of a railroad boxcar load of Tesla materials confiscated by the FBI, from around four different storage locations and Tesla's hotel storage and hotel room and safe. Of this, a total of only about 150,000 documents were released to Tesla's Yugoslavian relatives, now held by the Tesla Institute in Belgrade. The remainder of Tesla's papers are still classified, literally tons of notes, documents, drawings, and plans. The government distributed false rumors that "Tesla never kept notes", which was a blatant lie.
Odd behaviour given Tesla's repeatedly unsuccessful efforts to get the attention of the war department, met with ignorance and shoddy treatment. It was not until after it came to their attention in 1942, that the Nazis were building flying saucers and other 'fantasy' weapons based on Tesla's inventions, that the U. S. Government became so concerned. So why hide something from the American public today which the Nazis stole before 1934? In the case of (flying saucer) electro-propulsion, this invention is not only classified, but the very existence of it is categorically denied by the government, while its covert agents in the UFOlogy community attribute it to extraterrestrial, "alien" origins. What better way to deter civilian scientific investigation into the obvious?
Link to this posting: http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/nikolatesla.htm or http://proliberty.com/observer//20070405.htm or http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_bush19.htm
Torrent Available Here: http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/index.php?s=3e555ed47ba8b0f2602... - Who_Murdered_Nikola_Tesla_and_Why__ConspiracyResearch.org_.torrent ( 3.29K )- includes the Unauthorized Biography of George Bush & a Richard Styrett interview with Don Nicoloff (the author of the above article)
Deleted Daily Mail Online Article: "US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria to Be Blamed on Assad"
Global Research, June 15, 2013
http://globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178
In January 29, 2013, Britain's most popular Daily Newspaper, in its online version Dailymail.co.uk published an article titled:
U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime'
A few days later they pulled the article.
What the reason was for the deletion remains unclear. The article was published at this URL:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html
There exists a cached version of the article which can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html
Syria no-fly zone: Russia's Sergei Lavrov opposed
15 June 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22919322
The US has pledged to support the Syrian opposition with military aid
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria using US fighter jets and missiles operating from Jordan would violate international law.
The US has moved Patriot missiles and F-16 fighter jets to Jordan, officially as part of an annual exercise.
Russia opposes any foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict.
The uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, which began in 2011, has left an estimated 93,000 people dead.
"You don't have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law"
"There have been leaks from Western media regarding the serious consideration to create a no-fly zone over Syria through the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles and F-16 jets in Jordan," said Mr Lavrov, speaking at a joint news conference in Moscow with his Italian counterpart.
"You don't have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law," he said.
Mr Lavrov also said evidence presented by the US of chemical weapons use in Syria apparently did not meet reliability criteria set out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Despite demands, Syria no-fly zone a no-go for US
Published October 12, 2014
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/12/despite-demands-syria-no-fly-zone-no-go-for-us/
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's promise to limit U.S. military engagement against Islamic State militants makes it difficult to accept Turkey's terms for joining the fight in neighboring Syria.
Turkey and other American allies want the U.S. to create a no-fly zone inside Syrian territory. Yet doing that would mean embracing one of two options President Barack Obama long has resisted: cooperating with Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or taking out its air defenses, an action tantamount to war.
There are increasing demands for the creation of a secure buffer on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey.
The U.S. and others in the coalition fighting the militants are pleading with Turkey, a NATO ally, to prevent the fall of Kobani, a border town where the United Nations is warning of mass casualties.
A "safe zone" would require Americans and their partners to protect ground territory and patrol the sky, meaning enforcement of a no-fly area.
Syria destroys two warplanes used by ISIS to train fighter pilots for terrorist 'air force'
Published: 16:06, 22 October 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803457/Syria-destroys-two-warplanes-used-ISIS-train-fighter-pilots-terrorist-airforce.html#comments
The Syrian Air Force has destroyed two fighter jets belonging to the Islamic State just days after observers claimed to have witnessed the terror group training fighters to use them.
Monitoring groups in the war-ravaged country last week claimed to have seen the fanatics flying three captured warplanes over short distances from an airbase in Aleppo - understood to be the first time ISIS has taken to the sky.
This morning Syria's Information Minister Omran Zoabi told state news agency SANA that the air force had already destroyed two of the planes and is continuing to search for the third jet.
In order for a no-fly zone to be created there has to be a credible threat from an ISIS air force in the region. A no-fly zone would justify the shooting down of Syrian aircraft that have violated their own sovereign air space.. well at least ISIS have 1 plane! There you go.. mission accomplished!! Full steam ahead boys..
Don't forget our wise Canadian politicians are also sending our F16's over to bomb civilians er I mean terrorists.
I can just imagine them firing up on the tarmac in all their glory!
RRRRRR------RRRRRR------RRRRRR, give er a kick Eh, I did give er a kick, well give er another
RRRRRR------RRRRRR------RRRRRR---------chugga chugga chugga chugga pssss
Ya she don't work Eh, well screw er then let's go have a beer I don't need this shit.
Were also towing our destroyer the USS Pineapple over followed by our fleet of used second hand submarines. They don't actually submerge yet and if they do they may not ever resurface but make no mistake they are a threat to someone....to who i'm not sure.
AC
Glenn Greenwald of 'The Intercept' mentions the CF18 attack aircraft in his latest article on the Canadian "terror attacks", be sure to click the link to the article where Greenwald has hyper-linked his sources:
Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That 'A Terrorist' Attacked Its Soldiers
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/
TORONTO – In Quebec on Monday, two Canadian soldiers were hit by a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau, a 25-year-old Canadian who, as The Globe and Mail reported, "converted to Islam recently and called himself Ahmad Rouleau." One of the soldiers died, as did Couture-Rouleau when he was shot by police upon apprehension after allegedly brandishing a large knife. Police speculated that the incident was deliberate, alleging the driver waited for two hours before hitting the soldiers, one of whom was wearing a uniform. The incident took place in the parking lot of a shopping mall 30 miles southeast of Montreal, "a few kilometres from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the military academy operated by the Department of National Defence."
The right-wing Canadian government wasted no time in seizing on the incident to promote its fear-mongering agenda over terrorism, which includes pending legislation to vest its intelligence agency, CSIS, with more spying and secrecy powers in the name of fighting ISIS. A government spokesperson asserted "clear indications" that the driver "had become radicalized."
In a "clearly prearranged exchange," a conservative MP, during parliamentary question time, asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pictured above) whether this was considered a "terrorist attack"; in reply, the prime minister gravely opined that the incident was "obviously extremely troubling." Canada's Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney pronounced the incident "clearly linked to terrorist ideology," while newspapers predictably followed suit, calling it a "suspected terrorist attack" and "homegrown terrorism." CSIS spokesperson Tahera Mufti said "the event was the violent expression of an extremist ideology promoted by terrorist groups with global followings" and added: "That something like this would happen in a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu shows the long reach of these ideologies."
In sum, the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country ("a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu"), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the "terrorist ideology" of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:
First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed, with the support of a large majority of Canadians, that "Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq, as [he] announced plans in Parliament [] to send CF-18 fighter jets for up to six months to battle Islamic extremists." Just yesterday, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson flamboyantly appeared at the airfield in Alberta from which the fighter jets left for Iraq and stood tall as he issued the standard Churchillian war rhetoric about the noble fight against evil.
It is always stunning when a country that has brought violence and military force to numerous countries acts shocked and bewildered when someone brings a tiny fraction of that violence back to that country. Regardless of one's views on the justifiability of Canada's lengthy military actions, it's not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.
That's the nature of war. A country doesn't get to run around for years wallowing in war glory, invading, rendering and bombing others, without the risk of having violence brought back to it. Rather than being baffling or shocking, that reaction is completely natural and predictable. The only surprising thing about any of it is that it doesn't happen more often.
The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly "senseless" act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms.
Those fairy tales are pure deceit. Except in the rarest of cases, the violence has clearly identifiable and easy-to-understand causes: namely, anger over the violence that the country's government has spent years directing at others. The statements of those accused by the west of terrorism, and even the Pentagon's own commissioned research, have made conclusively clear what motivates these acts: namely, anger over the violence, abuse and interference by Western countries in that part of the world, with the world's Muslims overwhelmingly the targets and victims. The very policies of militarism and civil liberties erosions justified in the name of stopping terrorism are actually what fuels terrorism and ensures its endless continuation.
If you want to be a country that spends more than a decade proclaiming itself at war and bringing violence to others, then one should expect that violence will sometimes be directed at you as well. Far from being the by-product of primitive and inscrutable religions, that behavior is the natural reaction of human beings targeted with violence. Anyone who doubts that should review the 13-year orgy of violence the U.S. has unleashed on the world since the 9/11 attack, as well as the decades of violence and interference from the U.S. in that region prior to that.
Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a "terrorist" attack? As I have written many times over the last several years, and as some of the best scholarship proves, "terrorism" is a word utterly devoid of objective or consistent meaning. It is little more than a totally malleable, propagandistic fear-mongering term used by Western governments (and non-Western ones) to justify whatever actions they undertake. As Professor Tomis Kapitan wrote in a brilliant essay in The New York Times on Monday: "Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of 'terrorism.'"
But to the extent the term has any common understanding, it includes the deliberate (or wholly reckless) targeting of civilians with violence for political ends. But in this case in Canada, it wasn't civilians who were targeted. If one believes the government's accounts of the incident, the driver waited two hours until he saw a soldier in uniform. In other words, he seems to have deliberately avoided attacking civilians, and targeted a soldier instead – a member of a military that is currently fighting a war.
Again, the point isn't justifiability. There is a compelling argument to make that undeployed soldiers engaged in normal civilian activities at home are not valid targets under the laws of war (although the U.S. and its closest allies use extremely broad and permissive standards for what constitutes legitimate military targets when it comes to their own violence). The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word "terrorism," and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).
That's because the most common functional definition of "terrorism" in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: "violence directed at Westerners by Muslims" (when not used to mean "violence by Muslims," it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term "terrorism" has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called "terrorism" is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.
This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the "terrorism" term lies at heart of that. As Professor Kapitan wrote yesterday in The New York Times:
Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of "terror" is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the "terrorist" label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by "contra" rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.
Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away from their own acts of terror.
At this point, "terrorism" is the term that means nothing, but justifies everything. It is long past time that media outlets begin skeptically questioning its usage by political officials rather than mindlessly parroting it.
Photo: AP/The Canadian Press, Adrian Wyld
UPDATE: Multiple conservative commentators have claimed that this article and my subsequent discussion of it are about this morning's shooting of a solider in Ottawa. Aside from the fact that what I wrote is expressly about a completely different incident – one that took place in Quebec on Monday – this article and my comments were published before this morning's shooting spree was reported. So unless someone believes I possess powers of clairvoyance, the claim that I was commenting on the Ottawa shooting – about which virtually nothing is known, including the identity and motive of the shooter(s) – is obviously false.
Then there's also the extremely predictable accusation that I was justifying the attack on the soldiers. I know from prior experience in discussing these questions that no matter how clear you make it that you are writing about causation and not justification, many will still distort what you write to claim you've justified the attack. That's true even if one makes as clear as the English language permits that you're not writing about justification: "The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation." If there's a way to make that any clearer, please let me know.
One more time: the difference between "causation" and "justification" is so obvious that it should require no explanation. If one observes that someone who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day can expect to develop emphysema, that's an observation about causation, not a celebration of the person's illness. Only a willful desire to distort, or some deep confusion, can account for a failure to process this most basic point.
UPDATE II: In that brilliant essay I referenced above, published just three days ago in The New York Times, Professor Tomis Kaptian made this point:
Obviously, to point out the causes and objectives of particular terrorist actions is to imply nothing about their legitimacy — that is an independent matter....
That point is so simple and, as he said, "obvious" that I have a hard time understanding what could account for some commentators conflating the two other than a willful desire to mislead.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/canadian-parliament-shooting/ottawa-shootings-day-canada-lost-its-innocence-n232056
regards
Mike 8)
MI5 and Scotland Yard hold emergency talks over terror threat against Britain in the wake of lone wolf gun attack in Canada
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805335/MI5-Scotland-Yard-hold-emergency-talks-terror-threat-against-Britain-wake-lone-wolf-gun-attack-Canada.html
If you do not engage in the mass murder, rape and pillage of other sovereign nations, justified by false flag pretexts and lies to expand and control an empire; such protection would likely be unnecessary..
Shock and Awe! Bill Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ielhT_VrqiM
One of history's great truth tellers. The relevancy of the opening segment is frightening and sad and, most importantly, funny. The patron saint of HEAD MEDICINE. required listening... and as relevant today as it was back then.
(Warning kiddies.. extreme language on link)
@evolvingape
QuoteCanada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That 'A Terrorist' Attacked Its Soldiers
Excellent article and I would have to agree with it. One lone fanatic walks onto parliament hill with a gun and the whole nation is in lock down, high alert because of one single man. Apparently they couldn't afford actual security because he just waltzed right in. Then those who proclaimed "we will not be intimidated, we will not live in fear" were apparently hiding under their desk or in the nearest closet.
So into the quagmire we will go, down the rabbit hole, into the abyss of insanity we call normalcy. You can be sure Canada will be throwing all there antiquated second hand weaponry bought from America at the supposed enemy now that they have a common goal and they over there will respond in kind. The cycle of stupidity and ignorance on all sides coming full circle. You know some days I just feel like opting out of the human race because it's so god damn embarrassing to even be associated with these people, such is life.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2014.10.24, 03:28:58
You know some days I just feel like opting out of the human race because it's so god damn embarrassing to even be associated with these people, such is life.
I hear your pain.
@Matt
Thank you for that inspiration... that we are not alone. Mr.Carlin was a poet wasn't he?, I mean I have read many of the greatest works of our greatest minds and yet they all pale in comparison to the heart felt wisdom displayed by Mr.Carlin concerning the human condition.
It was also pretty comical in the video when George said " I will be gone, I welcome it" and the interviewer said 'is it depression?' at which point George responded "No it lifts me up"...priceless. I think you may understand however I suppose 99% of the people here just don't get it. The problem is no matter what we do, no matter our understanding of the universe we we will always be bound to the beliefs of what we know as a hairless ape, the common man. We can dress them up but we cannot take them anywhere they refuse to go.
So yes as George said were literally screwed because there is no reasoning with a monkey in a three piece suit. We should talk, I will explain the universe for you and I think you will be surprised how simple it is, I think George was right #$%& the monkeys, let them eat cake.
AC
@ALL
I have been mustering around with an idea........ for a Day of Worldwide Strike and have worked out how to neutralize any pitfalls.
Call it "The Stay at Home Day to Save the World", where anyone willing to strike on that day for the worldly cause just needs to stay home. No one involved in organizing regional, national or worldwide events as spoke persons can go on TV or make any public stance on that strike day. Not even by phone or e-mail or text or twitter or facebook or any other form of public communication should occur on that day by organizing officials. Silence will be the arms of change. People just need to stay indoors and remain determined during that day to show the level of determination globally. This means all those who are already staying at home will be counted in the effort automatically unless they decide to go outdoors and challenge the effort that way. This means all the sick, the retired, the aged, those already confined indoors will know this day is for them as well and in their normal day will become our day of strike in which they also will participate.
This way, the stay at home strike would permit everyone to participate and eliminate any public demonstrations that are usually spiked by the oppositions with their own Goon Squads Incorporated to foment violence and create distractions that the media will play on and explode into disinformation.
IMAGINE if on that one day organized around the world, that most major cities were rendered ghost towns. No one outside, no one working except those in essential fields, who can simply elect to wear a participating strike pin showing a world and a home. Whatever is OK....
The object of the strike would be to initiate in every country certain general rules of Minimal Base Governance, like;
Article 1: Removal of the Cabal from Power (start)
1) Any person.....
a) who is presently a member of the Freemasons and holding an 18th degree or higher, or,
b) who is presently a member of any other secret society, or,
c) who, since the last 20 years was present at Bohemian Grove or the annual Bilderberg Meetings,
d) and who, regardless of their present societal stature, position, private, religious, corporate, public or military...
must resign immediately from their post and remain available should there be legal charges of gangsterism or other felony charges that could be pending. All resignations are to be without any departure payments such as Severence or Golden Parachutes or other agreements of such kind are all rendered null and void. Those who have resigned will see their assets frozen (less subsistence) as per their country laws on gangsterism or organised crime, until they have been cleared by the proper authorities.
The premise for this Article 1 is very simple. It is a fact that anyone member in any of the above organisations have taken continuous Oaths that supplant their Sworn Allegiance to their particular Nation. This one fact renders all their acts thereafter as being organised and undertaken with subversive intent. This in all countries on Earth is considered Grand Treason and so, the simple fact of being a member is enough to render that person both suspect and guilty of Acts that go against the interests of the Individual Nation or the World. Being a member, but not partaking while knowing the partakings are taking place, is not an excuse for immunity. In this year 2014, given the extremely precarious situation of the Earth and its inhabitants and with the level of danger that has permeated all areas of the World where these people hold prominent motivating powers, it is the opinion of the grand majority of human beings that the main cause of all such events and circumstances are those identified above. It is therefore crucial that for the common interests of mankind, that these people be stopped immediately should they not resign and volunteer their implications.
Let this be the starting point for Earth and the Earthborn to clean up malicious intent and stop playing war.
Article 1: (stop)
Considering all the other pitfalls of more direct societal interventions that can be done by all without any violence, besides the four year ritual brainwashed vote count, I have come to realize that just this one simple Article, would change the world in 90 days. If such a public movement was successful and Strikers (that's you and me and everyone else) were observed to be the grand majority, this would smash the money mongers and send them to hell were they belong. Normal people would thereafter take over all the vacant positions who would then quickly realize the strangleholds maintained by their predecessor and release them one by one so as not to create any undue major shift in country policies that touch the people directly. We WILL have a Normal World were in general, people do in fact care about others more then the grand old buckeroo. There will be no New World Order, just a Normal World with normal people.
This would be another potential clause.
Article 2: National Powers Act
Where........
1) Should the Head of Nation survive Article 1, he must still remain on standby during an interim switch where....
a) All members of representatives who have been elected and have survived Article 1 or have been designated to replace anyone dismissed by Article 1, are now declared to be Independent Representatives who are non-aligned to any party name or belief.
b) Those of "a" will then convene to vote for the head of nation to be among them or vote for the standby Head of Nation.
Since it would be a DAY of WORLDWIDE STRIKE, the global force of the movement would render it impossible for those money mongers to counter and it would give the real law abiding individuals with positions close to those in immoral power, the moral backbone to take their respective stances in their individual countries. You see, anyone countering this movement would automatically stand out and become suspect as working for the Cabal. More importantly it would provide the Alliance with such public support to go ahead and clean up the store.
This would also provide an immediate understanding for everyone to actually see the level at which the media is controlled by these same money mongers as you would expect not one word would be in the news because the subject matter would be The Elimination of the Freemason Grip, a Major Taboo Subject for the Press. This is their weakness man. The media would not be able to attack this movement because it only has one Article 1 - Removal of the Cabal from Power. The media could never talk about this so they could never create any credible threat of disinformation. It would create great internet momentum and people would soon realize that the media silence on the matter is a sign that the forces at play are indeed true. hahaha
Then the many world freedom internet sites could work on something in tandem, a common goal to publicize this one date as being a peaceful day of silence to portray worldwide displeasure and demand for SPECIFIC change.
There has to be a way of neutralizing the acidic world we have inherited from these perverts. Make it a Unified Theory of World Peace Event. The Elephant does not know, but those monsters are only mice.
Just trying to apply some logic to the problem, the answer is not rocket science.
wattsup
PS: Another simple but potent solution is have everyone possible repeat this phrase 3 times a day for one month.
"Thank you All Mighty for this World Free of Freemasonry, Secret Societies and their members, in a just and perfect manner."
Just this one line affirmation of thanks to the Universal Power could stop them faster and faster with more and more affirmers. You formulate Thanks as it being already realized, for it to be reality. By ending with "in a just and perfect manner", this provides universal assurances that their demise will not be to the detriment of others. This means anyone targeted in the affirmation will not meet their demise in a way that will endanger others. Example: Heart attack while flying a private jet could result in the plane crashing on homes. Most of the targeted would wind up dead in their sleep. The majority verb is so powerful that all religions using prayer have designed their prayers as negative reinforcement so when the majority of the public recites regular prayers, they are reinforcing their universal thanks to be kept in the state they are asking.
Example 1: Instead of saying "Thank you for this daily bread" we say "Give us this day our daily bread". The first will always provide you with your daily bread, the second will keep you in a state that makes sure you will never have enough in order for you to keep asking for more. Prayers are the most destructive verbs because they are usually recited with human emotion (the power increases), fear, guilt, despair and without any actual knowledge of the after effects being in majority counter productive to the actual intent of the person praying.
Exampe 2: You have a problem? Gives thanks for it being already solved and the universe will solve it and keep it in a state of being solved. If you ask or plead for help in solving the problem, that same problem will always persist so you can keep asking for help. The Universe sees you asking for help and thinks "Hey, this guy likes always asking for help so let's just keep those conditions alive that keep him asking for help and by doing so we are making sure he continues doing what he likes and that is - asking for help".
What if I told you this reality is an echo chamber made of a house of mirrors. It is voice commanded and action operated.
I gained this insight from my life after death and multiple near death experience. When I started to function in this new playing field I was astounded that it 'Pays' attention and rewards its operator.
Really. You have what you perceive you should have. Change your perception and change your reality. Pretty simple.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2014.10.15, 05:28:55
The earths magnetic field has ncreased substantially lately.
If any of you has a neo disk magnet, stand it on edge on a table and notice what happens. Aleady been replicated in NY and im in FL.
Try it. Look up my vid on yt. "its a compass" just a few down on search list.
Mags
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.10.16, 17:05:54
Perhaps this is not the thread we should be using, apologies, I have nothing more to say here on this topic. :)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: wattsup on 2014.10.16, 18:14:53
@Grum
wattsup
PS: Yes, me too, sorry for off topic.
Out of the three of you, only one came out with any honour.
and a word to a RAT.. you would be naive to think I did not notice the timing..
wattsup.. word of advice fella.. around here we do not organise 'movements', we are not figurehead leaders of men. We are mostly old souls who spend our last remaining time on this planet attempting to circumvent technological suppression and to teach people to fish. What we do not do is set ourselves up for assassination via organising global strikes that would achieve the square root of fuck all on the big picture.. think before you speak as in the current climate you endanger all of us with such a reckless act!
Truthers as Terrorists: Who are the terrorists today?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/28/truthers-as-terrorists-who-are-the-terrorists-today/
A Canadian reporter has introduced a new phrase, "terrorist truthers", as the initial stage in creating a new semantic club to use against critics of government ops and of false flag attacks.
The reporter, Brian Lilley, has used the occasion of the alleged attack on the Canadian Parliament–almost certainly itself an arranged event–to assail those who do not condemn it as "terrorism".
While that sounds like typical politics, where right-wingers are eager to politicize such events and left-wingers more cautious and hesitant, a bit more appears to be going on here than that.
Joshua Blakeney, for example, has observed that this event appears tailor-made to be used as a justification to silence critics of Israel. And it also looks as though the phrase, once introduced, will then gradually be extended in meaning to include 9/11 Truthers and 7/7 Truthers, as David Cameron, the UK PM, recently proposed.
In a bizarre performance, Cameron recommended that those who are skeptical of the "official accounts" of 9/11 and of 7/7 should be dealt with has harshly as members of ISIS, which seems rather extreme, considering that ISIS is being bombed and strafed by US and British fighters and bombers. It conjures up the image of having these intellectuals being lined up against the wall and shot for the "thought crimes" of questioning stories the public has been fed by their own governments that are unable to withstand critical scrutiny. So, are we now required to accept fanciful theories that are provably false just because the government supports them or face a firing squad?
British PM David Cameron: "Non-Violent Extremists" Including "9/11 Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists" are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extremists-including-911-truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isil-terrorists/5405059
Dear Mr Cameron
I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL. In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed 'non-violent extremists', including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible. It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable. Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level. Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as 'non-violent extremists', are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?
Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the 'High Rise Safety Initiative'?
Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers? This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now. How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?
Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?
But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be 'non-violent extremists' and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.
I repeat my previous point. To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.
Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be 'non-violent extremists' who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:
· Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released
· 100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11
· Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation 'Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth'
· More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth'
· Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record
· Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11
· Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11
The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as 'non-violent extremists' and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward. According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation. That to me sounds like extremist behaviour. In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.
It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war. It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11. So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?
You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat. Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be 'non-violent extremists'.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.
9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East. It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11. Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror. For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as 'non-violent extremists' simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.
The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak. It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label. It is far too late for that. For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Drew – MSc
UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
The Fun of Empire: Fighting on All Sides of a War in Syria
08/26/2014
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/26/fun-empire-fighting-sides-war/
CBS News, August 18, 2011:
President Barack Obama officially demanded that Syrian President Bashar Assad resign for the sake of his own people, saying he was no longer fit to lead after "imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people" during a crackdown on pro-reform protesters.
New York Times, October 24, 2012:
Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.
Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.
New York Times, today:
President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad. . . . The flights are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria, an intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation's three-year civil war. . . .
On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an "act of aggression." But it signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated campaign against the militants.
It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. The standard cast of "liberal interventionists" – Tony Blair, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Nicholas Kristof and Samantha Power - issued stirring sermons on the duties of war against Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry actually compared Assad to (guess who?) Hitler, instructing the nation that "this is our Munich moment." Striking Assad, he argued, "is a matter of national security. It's a matter of the credibility of the United States of America. It's a matter of upholding the interests of our allies and friends in the region."
U.S. military action against the Assad regime was thwarted only by overwhelming American public opinion which opposed it and by a resounding rejection by the UK Parliament of Prime Minister David Cameron's desire to assume the usual subservient British role in support of American wars.
Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed "Bomb Assad!" campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.
It's as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and "Jihadists", only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.
Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. To begin with, the U.S. not only ignores, but actively supports, all sorts of brutal and extreme parties in the region.
More important, what are air strikes going to accomplish? All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya - the Successful Humanitarian Intervention™ - to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If one really wants to advocate that the U.S. should destroy or at least seriously degrade ISIS, then one should honestly face what that actually entails, as detailed by the New America Foundation's Brian Fishman:
No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. . . .
Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it. . . . [W]ar makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats.
The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. . .
Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state. . . . This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won't happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. . . .
The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to "defeat ISIL" that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.
If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance.
It seems pretty clear at this point that U.S. military action in the Middle East is the end in itself, and the particular form it takes – even including the side for which the U.S. fights – is an ancillary consideration. That's how the U.S., in less than a year, can get away with depicting involvement in the war in Syria – on opposite sides – as a national imperative. Ironically, just as was true of Al Qaeda, provoking the U.S. into military action would, for the reasons Fishman explained, help ISIS as well.
But the only clear lesson from all of this is that no matter the propagandistic script used, U.S. military action in that region virtually never fulfills the stated goals (nor is it intended to do so), and achieves little other than justifying endless military action for its own sake. How long before we hear that U.S. military action is needed (again) in Libya to restrain the chaos and extremism unleashed by the NATO intervention in Libya? Does anyone really believe that "limited" bombing of Syria and Iraq in a rage against ISIS will result in anything other than more justifications for military action in that region?
UPDATE: The U.S. "is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels," the Agence France-Presse reports today, citing one source as saying: "The cooperation has already begun."
From The New Hitler (back) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.
Quote
Barack Obama, August 31, 2013:
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. . . . [W]e are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.
Yes, the 'blind eye' of the U.S. is reserved exclusively for the
State of Israel when it conducts its ethnic cleansing of Gaza
and other areas of Palestine.
Wake Up, Europe
George Soros
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/wake-up-europe/?insrc=hpss
Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.
The fiscal rules that currently prevail in Europe have aroused a lot of popular resentment. Anti-Europe parties captured nearly 30 percent of the seats in the latest elections for the European Parliament but they had no realistic alternative to the EU to point to until recently. Now Russia is presenting an alternative that poses a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. It is based on the use of force that manifests itself in repression at home and aggression abroad, as opposed to the rule of law. What is shocking is that Vladimir Putin's Russia has proved to be in some ways superior to the European Union—more flexible and constantly springing surprises. That has given it a tactical advantage, at least in the near term.
Europe and the United States—each for its own reasons—are determined to avoid any direct military confrontation with Russia. Russia is taking advantage of their reluctance. Violating its treaty obligations, Russia has annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. In August, when the recently installed government in Kiev threatened to win the low-level war in eastern Ukraine against separatist forces backed by Russia, President Putin invaded Ukraine with regular armed forces in violation of the Russian law that exempts conscripts from foreign service without their consent.
In seventy-two hours these forces destroyed several hundred of Ukraine's armored vehicles, a substantial portion of its fighting force. According to General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, the Russians used multiple launch rocket systems armed with cluster munitions and thermobaric warheads (an even more inhumane weapon that ought to be outlawed) with devastating effect.* The local militia from the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk suffered the brunt of the losses because they were communicating by cell phones and could thus easily be located and targeted by the Russians. President Putin has, so far, abided by a cease-fire agreement he concluded with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on September 5, but Putin retains the choice to continue the cease-fire as long as he finds it advantageous or to resume a full-scale assault.
In September, President Poroshenko visited Washington where he received an enthusiastic welcome from a joint session of Congress. He asked for "both lethal and nonlethal" defensive weapons in his speech. However, President Obama refused his request for Javelin hand-held missiles that could be used against advancing tanks. Poroshenko was given radar, but what use is it without missiles? European countries are equally reluctant to provide military assistance to Ukraine, fearing Russian retaliation. The Washington visit gave President Poroshenko a façade of support with little substance behind it.
Equally disturbing has been the determination of official international leaders to withhold new financial commitments to Ukraine until after the October 26 election there (which will take place just after this issue goes to press). This has led to an avoidable pressure on Ukrainian currency reserves and raised the specter of a full-blown financial crisis in the country.
There is now pressure from donors, whether in Europe or the US, to "bail in" the bondholders of Ukrainian sovereign debt, i.e., for bondholders to take losses on their investments as a precondition for further official assistance to Ukraine that would put more taxpayers' money at risk. That would be an egregious error. The Ukrainian government strenuously opposes the proposal because it would put Ukraine into a technical default that would make it practically impossible for the private sector to refinance its debt. Bailing in private creditors would save very little money and it would make Ukraine entirely dependent on the official donors.
To complicate matters, Russia is simultaneously dangling carrots and wielding sticks. It is offering—but failing to sign—a deal for gas supplies that would take care of Ukraine's needs for the winter. At the same time Russia is trying to prevent the delivery of gas that Ukraine secured from the European market through Slovakia. Similarly, Russia is negotiating for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the borders while continuing to attack the Donetsk airport and the port city of Mariupol.
It is easy to foresee what lies ahead. Putin will await the results of the elections on October 26 and then offer Poroshenko the gas and other benefits he has been dangling on condition that he appoint a prime minister acceptable to Putin. That would exclude anybody associated with the victory of the forces that brought down the Viktor Yanukovych government by resisting it for months on the Maidan—Independence Square. I consider it highly unlikely that Poroshenko would accept such an offer. If he did, he would be disowned by the defenders of the Maidan; the resistance forces would then be revived.
Putin may then revert to the smaller victory that would still be within his reach: he could open by force a land route from Russia to Crimea and Transnistria before winter. Alternatively, he could simply sit back and await the economic and financial collapse of Ukraine. I suspect that he may be holding out the prospect of a grand bargain in which Russia would help the United States against ISIS—for instance by not supplying to Syria the S300 missiles it has promised, thus in effect preserving US air domination—and Russia would be allowed to have its way in the "near abroad," as many of the nations adjoining Russia are called. What is worse, President Obama may accept such a deal.
That would be a tragic mistake, with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. Without underestimating the threat from ISIS, I would argue that preserving the independence of Ukraine should take precedence; without it, even the alliance against ISIS would fall apart. The collapse of Ukraine would be a tremendous loss for NATO, the European Union, and the United States. A victorious Russia would become much more influential within the EU and pose a potent threat to the Baltic states with their large ethnic Russian populations. Instead of supporting Ukraine, NATO would have to defend itself on its own soil. This would expose both the EU and the US to the danger they have been so eager to avoid: a direct military confrontation with Russia. The European Union would become even more divided and ungovernable. Why should the US and other NATO nations allow this to happen?
The argument that has prevailed in both Europe and the United States is that Putin is no Hitler; by giving him everything he can reasonably ask for, he can be prevented from resorting to further use of force. In the meantime, the sanctions against Russia—which include, for example, restrictions on business transactions, finance, and trade—will have their effect and in the long run Russia will have to retreat in order to earn some relief from them.
These are false hopes derived from a false argument with no factual evidence to support it. Putin has repeatedly resorted to force and he is liable to do so again unless he faces strong resistance. Even if it is possible that the hypothesis could turn out to be valid, it is extremely irresponsible not to prepare a Plan B.
There are two counterarguments that are less obvious but even more important. First, Western authorities have ignored the importance of what I call the "new Ukraine" that was born in the successful resistance on the Maidan. Many officials with a history of dealing with Ukraine have difficulty adjusting to the revolutionary change that has taken place there. The recently signed Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine was originally negotiated with the Yanukovych government. This detailed road map now needs adjustment to a totally different situation. For instance, the road map calls for the gradual replacement and retraining of the judiciary over five years whereas the public is clamoring for immediate and radical renewal. As the new mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, put it, "If you put fresh cucumbers into a barrel of pickles, they will soon turn into pickles."
Contrary to some widely circulated accounts, the resistance on the Maidan was led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom had studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. (Nationalists and anti-Semitic extremists made up only a minority of the anti-Yanukovych protesters.) They are the leaders of the new Ukraine and they are adamantly opposed to a return of the "old Ukraine," with its endemic corruption and ineffective government.
The new Ukraine has to contend with Russian aggression, bureaucratic resistance both at home and abroad, and confusion in the general population. Surprisingly, it has the support of many oligarchs, President Poroshenko foremost among them, and the population at large. There are of course profound differences in history, language, and outlook between the eastern and western parts of the country, but Ukraine is more united and more European-minded than ever before. That unity, however, is extremely fragile.
The new Ukraine has remained largely unrecognized because it took time before it could make its influence felt. It had practically no security forces at its disposal when it was born. The security forces of the old Ukraine were actively engaged in suppressing the Maidan rebellion and they were disoriented this summer when they had to take orders from a government formed by the supporters of the rebellion. No wonder that the new government was at first unable to put up an effective resistance to the establishment of the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine. It is all the more remarkable that President Poroshenko was able, within a few months of his election, to mount an attack that threatened to reclaim those enclaves.
To appreciate the merits of the new Ukraine you need to have had some personal experience with it. I can speak from personal experience although I must also confess to a bias in its favor. I established a foundation in Ukraine in 1990 even before the country became independent. Its board and staff are composed entirely of Ukrainians and it has deep roots in civil society. I visited the country often, especially in the early years, but not between 2004 and early 2014, when I returned to witness the birth of the new Ukraine.
I was immediately impressed by the tremendous improvement in maturity and expertise during that time both in my foundation and in civil society at large. Currently, civic and political engagement is probably higher than anywhere else in Europe. People have proven their willingness to sacrifice their lives for their country. These are the hidden strengths of the new Ukraine that have been overlooked by the West.
The other deficiency of the current European attitude toward Ukraine is that it fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do. All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits. The fragility of the new Ukraine makes the ambivalence of the West all the more perilous. Not only the survival of the new Ukraine but the future of NATO and the European Union itself is at risk. In the absence of unified resistance it is unrealistic to expect that Putin will stop pushing beyond Ukraine when the division of Europe and its domination by Russia is in sight.
Having identified some of the shortcomings of the current approach, I will try to spell out the course that Europe ought to follow. Sanctions against Russia are necessary but they are a necessary evil. They have a depressive effect not only on Russia but also on the European economies, including Germany. This aggravates the recessionary and deflationary forces that are already at work. By contrast, assisting Ukraine in defending itself against Russian aggression would have a stimulative effect not only on Ukraine but also on Europe. That is the principle that ought to guide European assistance to Ukraine.
Germany, as the main advocate of fiscal austerity, needs to understand the internal contradiction involved. Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved as a true European with regard to the threat posed by Russia. She has been the foremost advocate of sanctions on Russia, and she has been more willing to defy German public opinion and business interests on this than on any other issue. Only after the Malaysian civilian airliner was shot down in July did German public opinion catch up with her. Yet on fiscal austerity she has recently reaffirmed her allegiance to the orthodoxy of the Bundesbank—probably in response to the electoral inroads made by the Alternative for Germany, the anti-euro party. She does not seem to realize how inconsistent that is. She ought to be even more committed to helping Ukraine than to imposing sanctions on Russia.
The new Ukraine has the political will both to defend Europe against Russian aggression and to engage in radical structural reforms. To preserve and reinforce that will, Ukraine needs to receive adequate assistance from its supporters. Without it, the results will be disappointing and hope will turn into despair. Disenchantment already started to set in after Ukraine suffered a military defeat and did not receive the weapons it needs to defend itself.
It is high time for the members of the European Union to wake up and behave as countries indirectly at war. They are better off helping Ukraine to defend itself than having to fight for themselves. One way or another, the internal contradiction between being at war and remaining committed to fiscal austerity has to be eliminated. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Let me be specific. In its last progress report, issued in early September, the IMF estimated that in a worst-case scenario Ukraine would need additional support of $19 billion. Conditions have deteriorated further since then. After the Ukrainian elections the IMF will need to reassess its baseline forecast in consultation with the Ukrainian government. It should provide an immediate cash injection of at least $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. Ukraine's partners should provide additional financing conditional on implementation of the IMF-supported program, at their own risk, in line with standard practice.
The spending of borrowed funds is controlled by the agreement between the IMF and the Ukrainian government. Four billion dollars would go to make up the shortfall in Ukrainian payments to date; $2 billion would be assigned to repairing the coal mines in eastern Ukraine that remain under the control of the central government; and $2 billion would be earmarked for the purchase of additional gas for the winter. The rest would replenish the currency reserves of the central bank.
The new assistance package would include a debt exchange that would transform Ukraine's hard currency Eurobond debt (which totals almost $18 billion) into long-term, less risky bonds. This would lighten Ukraine's debt burden and bring down its risk premium. By participating in the exchange, bondholders would agree to accept a lower interest rate and wait longer to get their money back. The exchange would be voluntary and market-based so that it could not be mischaracterized as a default. Bondholders would participate willingly because the new long-term bonds would be guaranteed—but only partially—by the US or Europe, much as the US helped Latin America emerge from its debt crisis in the 1980s with so-called Brady bonds (named for US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady).
Such an exchange would have a few important benefits. One is that, over the next two or three critical years, the government could use considerably less of its scarce hard currency reserves to pay off bondholders. The money could be used for other urgent needs.
By trimming Ukraine debt payments in the next few years, the exchange would also reduce the chance of a sovereign default, discouraging capital flight and arresting the incipient run on the banks. This would make it easier to persuade owners of Ukraine's banks (many of them foreign) to inject urgently needed new capital into them. The banks desperately need bigger capital cushions if Ukraine is to avoid a full-blown banking crisis, but shareholders know that a debt crisis could cause a banking crisis that wipes out their equity.
Finally, Ukraine would keep bondholders engaged rather than watch them cash out at 100 cents on the dollar as existing debt comes due in the next few years. This would make it easier for Ukraine to reenter the international bond markets once the crisis has passed. Under the current conditions it would be more practical and cost-efficient for the US and Europe not to use their own credit directly to guarantee part of Ukraine's debt, but to employ intermediaries such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank and its subsidiaries.
The Ukrainian state-owned company Naftogaz is a black hole in the budget and a major source of corruption. Naftogaz currently sells gas to households for $47 per thousand cubic meters (TCM), for which it pays $380 per TCM. At present people cannot control the temperature in their apartments. A radical restructuring of Naftogaz's entire system could reduce household consumption at least by half and totally eliminate Ukraine's dependence on Russia for gas. That would involve charging households the market price for gas. The first step would be to install meters in apartments and the second to distribute a cash subsidy to needy households.
The will to make these reforms is strong both in the new management and in the incoming government but the task is extremely complicated (how do you define who is needy?) and the expertise is inadequate. The World Bank and its subsidiaries could sponsor a project development team that would bring together international and domestic experts to convert the existing political will into bankable projects. The initial cost would exceed $10 billion but it could be financed by project bonds issued by the European Investment Bank and it would produce very high returns.
It is also high time for the European Union to take a critical look at itself. There must be something wrong with the EU if Putin's Russia can be so successful even in the short term. The bureaucracy of the EU no longer has a monopoly of power and it has little to be proud of. It should learn to be more united, flexible, and efficient. And Europeans themselves need to take a close look at the new Ukraine. That could help them recapture the original spirit that led to the creation of the European Union. The European Union would save itself by saving Ukraine.
—October 23, 2014
Some interesting comments about this article over at zerohedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-23/george-soros-slams-putin-warns-existential-threat-russia
Can you smell the desperation ?
Christopher Bollyn on meaning of Israeli cartoon depicting Netanyahu as 9/11 pilot
Israeli Cartoon Depicts Netanyahu as 9-11 Pilot
October 31, 2014
http://12160.info/page/christopher-bollyn-on-meaning-of-israeli-cartoon-depicting-netany
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
- Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted in Ha'aretz, "Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel", April 16, 2008
Source: "Controversial cartoon depicts Netanyahu as 9/11 pilot"
by J.C. Sevcik, UPI, October 30, 2014
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/10/30/Controversial-cartoon-depicts-Netanyahu-as-911-pilot/9201414700027/
Ha'aretz, one of Israel's leading newspapers, published a cartoon by Amos Biderman on October 30, 2014, depicting the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as a terrorist pilot flying a plane into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.
Taken at face value, the cartoon indicates that Israeli intellectuals like Biderman are well aware of the findings of my 9-11 research, published in the Solving 9-11 set of books, i.e. that Netanyahu was one of the architects of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. It is well known that political cartoonists are able to broach difficult subjects before they can be openly discussed in the mainstream media.
The controversial Biderman cartoon showing Netanyahu as a terrorist pilot on 9-11 reminds me of the quotation of Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
It seems to me that we have now reached the third stage of 9-11 truth: it is now self-evident that Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Michael Chertoff, and a host of senior members of Israeli intelligence were the real architects and perpetrators of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.10.30, 01:01:28
Out of the three of you, only one came out with any honour.
and a word to a RAT.. you would be naive to think I did not notice the timing..
wattsup.. word of advice fella.. around here we do not organise 'movements', we are not figurehead leaders of men. We are mostly old souls who spend our last remaining time on this planet attempting to circumvent technological suppression and to teach people to fish. What we do not do is set ourselves up for assassination via organising global strikes that would achieve the square root of fuck all on the big picture.. think before you speak as in the current climate you endanger all of us with such a reckless act!
@evolvingape
Sorry you feel that way. It was simply an analysis of the worlds main problem and how to deal with it for the regular Joe or Jane. For me, it's simply another problem looking for a solution. Dangerous or not never crossed my mind as I am just as an observer doing a cold analysis of an Earthly viral disease called "Cabalism". Find an antidote and a vaccine (without the mercury) and you will save the world, or, at least buy it a few more centuries.
One question: What do you mean by "came out with any honor and the word RAT?
wattsup
Thousands of people died on 9/11, more than a million people have died since 9/11, and many are still dying now today because of 9/11.
Having a random and irrelevant off topic discussion in this thread is hard to imagine let alone participate in. Grumage recognised this and said so, retaining honour, you did not wattsup.
The RAT knows who he is and so do a lot of people, leave it at that for now.
Protests lead to violence, violence leads to death. I do not think you want that on your conscience.
No more discussion off topic from me, if you want to talk about other stuff start another thread ok.
A little history on Bonfire Night, the human race is at a turning point; be careful what you wish for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot
The British government is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy
This bill of corporate rights threatens to blow the sovereignty of parliament unless it can be stopped
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/british-government-leading-gunpowder-plot-democracy-eu-us-trade
On this day a year ago, I was in despair. A dark cloud was rising over the Atlantic, threatening to blot out some of the freedoms our ancestors lost their lives to secure. The ability of parliaments on both sides of the ocean to legislate on behalf of their people was at risk from an astonishing treaty that would grant corporations special powers to sue governments. I could not see a way of stopping it.
Almost no one had heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US, except those who were quietly negotiating it. And I suspected that almost no one ever would. Even the name seemed perfectly designed to repel public interest. I wrote about it for one reason: to be able to tell my children that I had not done nothing.
To my amazement, the article went viral. As a result of the public reaction and the involvement of remarkable campaigners, the European commission and the British government responded. The Stop TTIP petition now carries more than 750,000 signatures; the 38 Degrees petition has 910,000. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states. The commission was forced to hold a public consultation about the most controversial aspect, and 150,000 people responded. Never let it be said that people cannot engage with complex issues.
Nothing has yet been won. Corporations and governments – led by the UK – are mobilising to thwart this uprising. But their position slips a little every month. When the British minister responsible at the time, Ken Clarke, responded to my first articles, he insisted that "nothing could be more foolish" than making the European negotiating position public, as I'd proposed. But last month the commission was obliged to do just this. It's beginning to look as if the fight against TTIP could become a historic victory for people against corporate power.
The central problem is what the negotiators call investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The treaty would allow corporations to sue governments before an arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers, at which other people have no representation, and which is not subject to judicial review.
Already, thanks to the insertion of ISDS into much smaller trade treaties, big business is engaged in an orgy of litigation, whose purpose is to strike down any law that might impinge on its anticipated future profits. The tobacco firm Philip Morris is suing governments in Uruguay and Australia for trying to discourage people from smoking. The oil firm Occidental was awarded $2.3bn in compensation from Ecuador, which terminated the company's drilling concession in the Amazon after finding that Occidental had broken Ecuadorean law. The Swedish company Vattenfall is suing the German government for shutting down nuclear power. An Australian firm is suing El Salvador's government for $300m for refusing permission for a goldmine over concerns it would poison the drinking water.
The same mechanism, under TTIP, could be used to prevent UK governments from reversing the privatisation of the railways and the NHS, or from defending public health and the natural world against corporate greed. The corporate lawyers who sit on these panels are beholden only to the companies whose cases they adjudicate, who at other times are their employers.
As one of these people commented: "When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all ... Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament."
So outrageous is this arrangement that even the Economist, usually the champion of corporate power and trade treaties, has now come out against it. It calls investor-state dispute settlement "a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people".
When David Cameron and the corporate press launched their campaign against the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for president of the European commission, they claimed that he threatened British sovereignty. It was a perfect inversion of reality. Juncker, seeing the way the public debate was going, promised in his manifesto that "I will not sacrifice Europe's safety, health, social and data protection standards ... on the altar of free trade ... Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU member states is limited by special regimes for investor disputes." Juncker's crime was that he had pledged not to give away as much of our sovereignty to corporate lawyers as Cameron and the media barons demanded.
Juncker is now coming under extreme pressure. Last month 14 states wrote to him, privately and without consulting their parliaments, demanding the inclusion of ISDS (the letter was leaked a few days ago). And who is leading this campaign? The British government. It's hard to get your head around the duplicity involved. While claiming to be so exercised about our sovereignty that it is prepared to leave the EU, our government is secretly insisting that the European commission slaughter our sovereignty on behalf of corporate profits. Cameron is leading a gunpowder plot against democracy.
He and his ministers have failed to answer the howlingly obvious question: what's wrong with the courts? If corporations want to sue governments, they already have a right to do so, through the courts, like anyone else. It's not as if, with their vast budgets, they are disadvantaged in this arena. Why should they be allowed to use a separate legal system, to which the rest of us have no access? What happened to the principle of equality before the law?
If our courts are fit to deprive citizens of their liberty, why are they unfit to deprive corporations of anticipated future profits? Let's not hear another word from the defenders of TTIP until they have answered this question.
It cannot be ducked for much longer. Unlike previous treaties, this one is being dragged by campaigners into the open, where its justifications shrivel on exposure to the light. There's a tough struggle to come, and the outcome is by no means certain, but my sense is that we will win.
George Monbiot
The Guardian, Tuesday 4 November 2014 20.16 GMT
25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/926-25-points-of-specific-concern-in-the-nist-wtc-reports.html
The End of the Road for NIST
By Tony Szamboti
Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled "Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports." Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.
It is now well known by most "Truthers" that 9/11
symbolized continuation of the occult plan long
in progress.
Quote from: John Kaminski - The Rebel.Org
You must know by now that Arabs living in caves in Afghanistan did not knock down the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, murdering three thousand people in the process. You must know that all the subsequent USA wars since that have murdered millions of innocent people were total frauds meant to rob defenseless countries of their wealth based on the false pretext of 9/11 and the phony terror hysteria it precipitated.
You must know by now that the U.S. government and mainstream media continue to insist the 9/11 Arab hijacker story is true, and that this false fact is being taught in public schools, creating the unfortunate situation in which the government echoed by the media is foisting a deliberately false view of history on the people it pretends to govern, inform and protect.
You must know by now that Osama bin Laden died ten years before Barack Obama said he did. You must know that Obama ordered the murders of Seal Team 6 before any of those principled individuals could reveal the lie the president told to boost his election chances.
You must know by now that Saddam Hussein didn't have the weapons of mass destruction which led to the United States "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq that murdered more than a million innocent people. You must know that the deal was about stealing Iraqi oil, which has been accomplished.
You must know by now that the invasion of Afghanistan was a giant hoax to protect poppy production so the CIA could sell more heroin on the streets of the world. You must know that all those American soldiers who have come home and committed suicide have done it out of shame for the needless atrocities they were involved in.
You must know by now that Muammar Qaddafi wasn't cruel to his Libyan people like Barack Obama said he was, that he provided free houses to newlyweds and free college for everyone and had a notion to make all of Africa independent of white exploitation with its own currency. You must know that he was unjustly murdered and raped in the street after Obama declared a no fly zone over Libya in order to steal billions of dollars in gold he possessed.
You must know by now that no children died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The school had been closed for years because of asbestos problems, and dozens of people in town got their houses bought for them for participating in the colossal charade. You must know that this is the most bizarre event in American history, even more bizarre than the false flag 9/11 demolition.
You must know by now that no Jews were gassed by Germans during World War II, and that the so-called Jewish Holocaust was a colossal hoax. You must know that the Associated Press reported in 1947 that only 271,000 or so people died in all the work camps, and those deaths were caused by starvation when Allied bombings cut off the supply lines to the camps.
You must know by know that Adolf Hitler put forth nine different peace proposals prior to World War II and that the so-called allies — the U.S., Britain and the USSR — were all run by Jews intent on stamping out the greatest threat to Jewish world financial hegemony that the world has ever known.
You must know by now that Hellstorm, the greatest book on what America did to the Germans AFTER World War II, is now available in its entirety at:
http://therebel.org/en/books/history/809699-thomas-goodrich-hellstorm
You must know by now that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill John F. Kennedy, and that the job was orchestrated by Lyndon Johnson, David Ben Gurion, Sam Giancana, George H. W. Bush and many other familiar names on the American political scene who couldn't stand the idea that JFK was trying to be an honest president and ruin the financial scam of the Jews who owned the Federal Reserve.
You must know by now that no American president has ever been honest — and lived.
You must know by now that the FBI has fabricated virtually all the so-called terror events since 9/11.
You must know by now that Russia didn't start the massacres in the Ukraine, the U.S. backed Mossad hit team that hijacked the Ukrainian government did.
You must know by now that the Bolshevik Revolution was a completely Jewish operation and wound up murdering 100 million non Jewish individuals during the course of the 20th century. Why the U.S. chose Stalin rather than Hitler to support is one of the key questions in American history.
You must know by now that we didn't go to the moon, because humans can't survive the radiation above the Van Allen belt.
You must know by now that anybody who talks about ETs or beings from other dimensions is, knowingly or unknowingly, helping the Jewish world conquerors remain invisible by deflecting attention from their criminal activities and misdirecting it toward these constructed fantasies.
You must know by now that Iran never intended to possess nuclear weapons; their chief ayatollah wouldn't permit them. You must know that Israel has always wanted all its neighbors in a state of convulsed disarray so that they can't focus their wrath on the criminal Israeli state, the racist hideaway of criminals from all over the world.
You must know by now that the United States broke every treaty it ever made with the American Indian tribes, and pretty much has broken every treaty it has made with countries around the world.
You must know by now that all American elections are fixed by various computer program shenanigans.
You must know by know that your current president, an outright homosexual, is married to a man.
You must know by know that your previous president had overnight visits from an ex-Marine male escort bodybuilder.
You must know by now that Richard Nixon had a homosexual lover named Bebe Rebozo.
You must know by now that Lyndon Johnson supervised the murder of John F. Kennedy and had a lover named Mathilde Krim, who was also a Mossad agent.
You must know by now that Martin Luther King was murdered by an Army sniper, and that James Earl Ray took the fall for something he didn't do.
You must know by now that Bobby Kennedy was killed by a shot from a bodyguard from behind and that Sirhan Sirhan never knew what happened that night.
You must know by now that cigarettes contain radioactive polonium for the purpose of population control.
You must know by now that genetically modified wheat is a poison meant to reduce the human population.
You must know by now that the weather is no longer natural and that Hurricane Sandy was a deliberately engineered storm.
You must know by now that the IRS is a private company, funneling all its profits to the Queen of England.
You must know by now that there is no law compelling most Americans to pay income taxes.
You must know by now that Jews believe it is their Talmudic duty to kill or enslave all the non Jews of the world. You must know that Jews regard all non Jews as animals whom it is OK to kill as long as they don't get caught. You must also know that Jews control all the courts of the civilized world, and non Jews will never receive justice in any court as long as they are opposed by a Jew, because all the judges are approved by the Jews and all the lawyers are trained by the Jews.
You must know by now that Jews trumpet the shibboleth of "strength in diversity" for all countries it sabotages by race mixing, but strictly prohibits the intrusion of any non Jews in Israel because Jews know the introduction of foreign races into any homogenous population inevitably destroys that country with endless conflict, thereby creating more money making opportunities for Jews who support both sides and foment further strife.
You must know by now that the so-called people running the United States will admit to none of these truths listed here, and that the Department of Homeland Security was created to protect only the Jews, and not the rest of the American people, which is why 97 percent of DHS funding goes to Jewish organizations to assist with the elimination of the non Jewish population.
You must know by now that Americans are the most deluded populace ever to live on this planet, thinking that they themselves are heroes while their government goes around ravaging the world for fun and profit. And not just that, that the government Americans have put in charge of themselves is busily and continuously trying to kill its own citizens to adhere to the dictates of the world Jewish organization to kill or enslave the entire non Jewish population of the world.
You must know by now that if you don't know everything on this list, your life is in grave jeopardy and your life expectancy is much shorter than you realize.
This would be a good checklist to run past your favorite local elected official to make you realize how important it is to vote him (or her) out of office as soon as humanly possible.
Even now, the plan goes on to its conclusion.
We have yet to see the worst.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.11.06, 21:02:00
It is now well known by most "Truthers" that 9/11
symbolized continuation of the occult plan long
in progress.
Even now, the plan goes on to its conclusion.
We have yet to see the worst.
Good post and thank you for the book.
I do have to question one assertion though:
"You must know by now that cigarettes contain radioactive polonium for the purpose of population control."
I know there are a lot of nasty chemicals in cigarettes, but I have yet to detect any above baseline levels of radiation in them. Maybe Philip Morris is slacking on their agenda a bit.
I suppose one day we'll know whether John is right
about the Polonium in cigarettes.
The substance has been used by various "agencies"
for assassinations though. The amount required is
very tiny and may not indicate an unusually high
radiation signature. (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/whatkilledarafat/2012/07/20127395543834689.html)
Udo Ulfkotte Blows the Whistle on Himself
http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2014/10/13/yes-little-tim-.php
By Rowan Wolf,
October 13, 2014 6:47 AM
"Yes Little Tim, There Are Unexpected Folks Who Are With The CIA."
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte (picture left), a respected German journalist, editor, and a former advisor to the Kohl administration in Germany in the later 1990s, has written a new book (published in German, but translated) "Bought Journalism. How Politicians, Intelligence and High Finance Control German's Mass Media." (Kopp, Rottenburg am Neckar 2014). He was interviewed on RT's "Question More" program regarding his assertions that he worked for the CIA, and the German intelligence agency BNB.
"Well I've been a journalist for about 25 years. And I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how, how far um, how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia, this is a point of no return, and I stand, I'm going to stand up and say um "It is not right what I have done in the past." Ah, to manipulate people to make propaganda against Russia. And it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people - not only in Germany but all over Europe."
Vote all you want. The secret government won't change.
The people we elect aren't the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University's Michael Glennon
By Jordan Michael Smith
October 19, 2014
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA's warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America's nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn't have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it's a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, "National Security and Double Government," he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html
WJZ Exclusive: Baltimore Banker Reveals His Double Life As A CIA Agent
November 1, 2014 12:05 AM
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/11/01/wjz-exclusive-baltimore-banker-reveals-his-double-life-as-a-cia-agent/
BALTIMORE (WJZ)– Baltimore banker and prominent businessman–that's how we know Ed Hale. But in a WJZ exclusive, he reveals his double life.
Mary Bubala has the revealing details.
The secret and closed world of the CIA includes espionage, covert operatives, international surveillance—and Baltimore businessman Ed Hale.
"I was an agent for the CIA," Hale said.
In a WJZ exclusive, Hale reveals his covert role inside the CIA.
"I was the perfect cover because I was all over the world with my vessels and trucking here in America, so I was the perfect person to take somebody and send them out to Afghanistan, Uzbekistan," Hale said.
Hale probably looks familiar. He was the face of First Mariner Bank as chairman and CEO. He appeared in their commercials for years and is credited with developing the Canton Waterfront downtown. He owns the Baltimore Blast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-official_cover
Western News-Suppression about the Downing of MH-17 Malaysian Jet
http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/western-news-suppression-downing-mh-17-malaysian-jet/
Eric Zuesse
2014/11/05
The cause of the shooting-down of the Malaysian passenger plane MH-17 on July 17th (while that plane was flying over the conflict-zone during Ukraine's civil war) is becoming clearer and clearer, despite the rigorous continuing attempts by Western 'news' media to cover it up and to hide from the public the evidence that clearly shows what brought down this airliner.
In the months since I headlined on August 24th the news, "MH-17 'Investigation': Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out: Perpetrator of the Downing in Ukraine, of the Malaysian Airliner, Will Stay Hidden," explaining why the leaders of Western nations want these black-box and other basic data to remain hidden, additional evidence has nonetheless become public, and all of it confirms and adds yet further details to the explanation that was first put forth by the retired German Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, whose independent investigation had concluded that Ukrainian Government fighter-jets intentionally shot down this civilian plane.
Precisely how they did it is gradually becoming clearer, despite this continuation of Western secrecy regarding the contents of the black boxes, and of the U.S. satellite images, and of the Ukrainian air-traffic-control radar recordings, and of other evidence-sources that are held by the West and not made available to their 'news' media nor to anyone outside a tight official circle of those Western nations' intelligence agencies.
Russia has thus been releasing its own investigations regarding MH-17; and, in the process, Russia is not only providing further details as to how the downing actually happened (it wasn't by mistake, as the West contends it was), but they are also exposing the absurd impossibility of the Ukrainian Government's 'explanation' of this event, which is the 'explanation' that is still being parroted unquestioningly and unflinchingly by officials in Washington, Europe, and NATO, and also by Western 'news' media. (As my news-report explained, that secret August 8th agreement was signed by the four governments that were handed the black boxes to study — Ukraine, Belgium, Australia, and Netherlands — and it granted to the Ukrainian Government a veto over anything that the team's official report would say, which is probably the reason why the subsequent officially released report on those black boxes said essentially nothing. It was a brazen insult to the 298 victims' families.)
Article continues with hyper-linked sources at link.
Why Libya?
Posted on November 5, 2014 by Robert Barsocchini
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/libya.html
Following the standard US playbook, the Obama regime and its accomplices made up crimes to propagandize their populations into accepting illegal aggression and terrorism against Libya in 2011, and now ignore the actual crimes being committed in the Libya shoved, by the West, into "the abyss".
Journalist Patrick Cockburn yesterday noted the fabrications "that were used to fuel popular support for the air war in the US, Britain, France and elsewhere":
Human rights organisations ... discovered that there was no evidence for several highly publicised atrocities supposedly carried out by Gaddafi's forces...
These included the story of the mass rape of women by Gaddafi's troops that Amnesty International exposed as being without foundation. [Not to mention the US military protects its own rapists and supports other regimes that do use rape as a weapon.]
The uniformed bodies of government soldiers were described by rebel spokesmen as being men shot because they were about to defect to the opposition. Video film showed the soldiers still alive as rebel prisoners so it must have been the rebels who had executed them and put the blame on the government.
Cockburn further notes that, after lying to fabricate the pretext for aggression, the Western governments and media outlets have fallen mysteriously silent on Libya as the country has spiraled into oblivion. The West thus again all but insists we notice that humanitarian crises play no role in drawing their attention, and that they only trumpet – or invent – human rights violations to cover Western aggression, which is carried out, Cockburn notes, "always in the interests of the country intervening."
The West immediately lost its feigned concern over the "human rights" violations it exaggerated or simply made up regarding Libya because they were never of concern to begin with, and the West made things much worse: the illegal US-led attack instantly killed or led to the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands.
Since then, Cockburn documents,
[W]arring militias [have] reduce[d] Libya to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe...
Of these "militias", Washington's Blog noted in April that they were:
...largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
And:
The United States ... knowingly facilitat[ed] the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez ... former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
Cockburn continues:
The majority of Libyans are demonstrably worse off today than they were under Gaddafi...
Foreign governments and media alike have good reason to forget what they said and did in Libya in 2011, because the aftermath of the overthrow of Gaddafi has been so appalling. The extent of the calamity is made clear by two reports on the present state of the country, one by Amnesty International called "Libya: Rule of the gun – abductions, torture and other militia abuses in western Libya" and a second by Human Rights Watch, focusing on the east of the country, called "Libya: Assassinations May Be Crimes Against Humanity".
Amnesty says that torture has become commonplace with victims being "beaten with plastic tubes, sticks, metal bars or cables, given electric shocks, suspended in stress positions for hours, kept blindfolded and shackled for days."
It is well known that the Obama regime simply continued the leaked Bush Jr. agenda to "take out" Libya and six other countries.
But the Bush agenda was also a continuation of longstanding US policy. The US, immediately after World War II, made internal plans to try to dominate the resources of the Middle East.
Specifically, for a few examples, the US commenced terrorist operations to try to overthrow and install a puppet in Syria in 1948, Iran in 1953 (which it did successfully until 1979), and since the 1930s has been closely partnered with the terrorist organization ruling Saudi Arabia.
The US has been engaged in terrorist operations against Libya since at least 1986, when the US carried out "the major single terrorist act" of the year when it planted and detonated explosives there, attempting to assassinate Gaddafi but succeeding only in killing his daughter and many others.
With the "leading terrorist state", the US, caging more women than any other country, cracking down on speech, supporting the mass rapist Mubarak of Egypt for thirty years, through 2011, then transitioning to supporting the new mass rapist Sisi in Egypt now, along with scores of other terrorist regimes, one must look beyond official propaganda to determine why the US overthrew Gaddafi.
Taking into account that the US decided long ago to try to dominate the largely Mid East-based and global oil economy (as it earlier had decided to dominate cotton), US actions can be understood by using Syria's Assad as an analogy.
In trying to control Syria, what would Assad prefer: for any existing opposition to be strong and united against him, or for it to consist of disparate, disorganized, weak factions mostly battling and killing each other, if anyone?
The answer is obvious. We can then extend the analogy to the US (while remembering that the US formerly used Assad as an ally in the US global torture network).
In trying to dominate the world's oil market – and the world in general – what would the "leading terrorist state" prefer: unified, strong opposition or weak, small, disparate, warring factions killing and wiping each other out?
Again, the answer is obvious, so we can move on to asking: since "Gaddafi's overthrow was very much Nato's doing" (Cockburn), what was Libya before 2011 when it was destroyed by the US-led NATO terrorist network?
Harvard research scholar Garikai Chengu, on October 19, published a report called "Libya: From Africa's Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention".
Chengu:
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa's wealthiest nation.
Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
[Libya is now plagued by] widespread rape, assassinations and torture...
America... is now backing... long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya's new dictator.
[Hifter] has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.
Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.
Perhaps, Gaddafi's greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.
In 2011, the West's objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya's natural resources.
For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans.
One group that has suffered immensely from NATO's bombing campaign is the nation's women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi's Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women's rights.
When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya's university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.
[Libya is now] clamping down on women's rights.
Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.
Libya, it appears, was, indeed, an outstandingly strong source of opposition to Western domination of the region, as well as a "threat of a good example" for successfully carrying out policies hated by the USA, such as free healthcare, electricity, and education.
In one particularly egregious move, Gaddafi had even allied with Nelson Mandela in the fight against Apartheid, while the US, particularly Ronald Reagan, strongly supported and fought hard to maintain Apartheid, including by imprisoning Mandela and putting him on the US "terrorist" list (while taking Saddam Hussein off) until Bush Jr. finally changed Mandela's classification in 2008. Reagan and US efforts to topple Gaddafi were thus integral to the US white supremacist jihad to maintain Apartheid.
Indeed, to ask "Why Libya?" is to ask "Why anywhere?"
Chengu notes of "Western intervention in ... Libya, Iraq, and Syria":
...prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women's rights and standards of living.
As confirmation, the 2014 UN Development Report also found, as Patrick Martin notes:
The steepest decline in living conditions during 2013 occurred in Central African Republic, Libya and Syria—three countries targeted by US and French imperialism for military intervention and political subversion.
...
When we mute Western government and integrated corporate propaganda (what they say) and look at what they actually do, what is left? The bare reality of a brutal Western terror axis butchering, as it always has, any group of people that could potentially deter Western domination and thus cut into the percentage of global wealth captured by Western predators.
Depressing, but Carl Herman nicely expresses how we can deal with this.
Robert Barsocchini is a researcher focusing on global force dynamics. He also writes professionally for the film industry. Here is his blog. Also see his free e-book, Whatever it Takes – Hillary Clinton's Record of Support for War and other Depravities. Click here to follow Robert and his UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.
The Curious Silence of the West
Libya Falls Into the Abyss
by PATRICK COCKBURN
November 03, 2014
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/03/libya-falls-into-the-abyss/
Remember the time when Libya was being held up by the American, British, French and Qatari governments as a striking example of benign and successful foreign intervention? It is worth looking again at film of David Cameron grandstanding as liberator in Benghazi in September 2011 as he applauds the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and tells the crowd that "your city was an example to the world as you threw off a dictator and chose freedom".
Mr Cameron has not been back to Benghazi, nor is he likely to do so as warring militias reduce Libya to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe. The majority of Libyans are demonstrably worse off today than they were under Gaddafi, notwithstanding his personality cult and authoritarian rule. The slaughter is getting worse by the month and is engulfing the entire country.
"Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your democracy," pledged Mr Cameron to the people of Benghazi. Three years later, they are words he evidently wants to forget, since there was almost no reference to Libya, the one military intervention he had previously ordered, when he spoke in the House of Commons justifying British airstrikes against Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq.
The foreign media has largely ceased to cover Libya because it rightly believes it is too dangerous for journalists to go there. Yet I remember a moment in the early summer of 2011 in the frontline south of Benghazi when there were more reporters and camera crews present than there were rebel militiamen. Cameramen used to ask fellow foreign journalists to move aside when they were filming so that this did not become too apparent. In reality, Gaddafi's overthrow was very much Nato's doing, with Libyan militiamen mopping up.
Human rights organisations have had a much better record in Libya than the media since the start of the uprising in 2011. They discovered that there was no evidence for several highly publicised atrocities supposedly carried out by Gaddafi's forces that were used to fuel popular support for the air war in the US, Britain, France and elsewhere. These included the story of the mass rape of women by Gaddafi's troops that Amnesty International exposed as being without foundation. The uniformed bodies of government soldiers were described by rebel spokesmen as being men shot because they were about to defect to the opposition. Video film showed the soldiers still alive as rebel prisoners so it must have been the rebels who had executed them and put the blame on the government.
Foreign governments and media alike have good reason to forget what they said and did in Libya in 2011, because the aftermath of the overthrow of Gaddafi has been so appalling. The extent of the calamity is made clear by two reports on the present state of the country, one by Amnesty International called "Libya: Rule of the gun – abductions, torture and other militia abuses in western Libya" and a second by Human Rights Watch, focusing on the east of the country, called "Libya: Assassinations May Be Crimes Against Humanity".
The latter is a gruesome but fascinating account of what people in Benghazi call "Black Friday," which occurred on 19 September this year, the most deadly day in a three-day assassination spree in the city, in which "the dead included two young activists, members of the security services, an outspoken cleric and five other civilians". The activists were Tawfiq Bensaud and Sami Elkawafi, two men aged 18 and 19, who had campaigned and demonstrated against militia violence. Among others who died was a prominent cleric, Seikh Nabil Sati, who was murdered, as well as a young man, Abdulrahman al-Mogherbi, who was kidnapped at the cleric's funeral and later found dead.
Their murders brought to 250 the number of victims of politically motivated killings this year in Benghazi and Derna, the major cities in eastern Libya. This is not counting the far larger number who have died in military operations between the different militias or the battles that have raged in and around Tripoli.
Without the rest of the world paying much attention, a civil war has been raging in western Libya since 13 July between the Libya Dawn coalition of militias, originally based in Misrata, and another militia group centred on Zintan. A largely separate civil war between the forces of retired General Khalifa Haftar and the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries is being fought out in the city. Government has collapsed. Amnesty says that torture has become commonplace with victims being "beaten with plastic tubes, sticks, metal bars or cables, given electric shocks, suspended in stress positions for hours, kept blindfolded and shackled for days."
It is easy enough to deride the neo-imperial posturing of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, or to describe the abyss into which Libya has fallen since 2011. The people whom that intervention propelled into power have reduced a country that had been peaceful for more than half a century to a level of violence that is beginning to approach that of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever Western intentions, the result has been a disaster. In Libya, as in Syria today, Western intervention was supposedly in support of democracy, but was conducted in alliance with the Sunni absolute monarchies of the Gulf who had no such aims.
The temptation is to say that foreign intervention invariably brings catastrophe to the country intervened in. But this is not quite true: US air strikes in defence of the Syrian Kurds at Kobani and the Iraqi Kurds in their capital Erbil are justifiable and prevent massacres by Isis. But the drawback is that foreign intervention is always in the interests of the country intervening. These may, for a time, coincide with the real interests of the country where the foreign intervention is taking place, but this seldom lasts very long.
This is the lesson of recent foreign interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Most Afghans wanted the Taliban out in 2001 but they did not want the warlords back, something the Americans found acceptable. The US would fight the Taliban, but not confront the movement's sponsors in Pakistan, thereby dooming Afghanistan to endless war. In Iraq in 2003, many Iraqis welcomed the US-led invasion because they wanted the end of Saddam Hussein's rule, but they did not want a foreign occupation. The Americans did not want the fall of Saddam to benefit Iran, so they needed to occupy the country and install their own nominees in power.
In all three cases cited above, the West intervened in somebody else's civil war and tried to dictate who won. There was a pretence that the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad were demonically evil and without any true supporters. This foreign support may give victory to one party in a civil war, as in Libya, which they could not win by relying on their own strength. In Iraq, the beleaguered Sunni could not fight a US-backed Shia government so it needed to bring in al-Qaeda. Thus the conditions were created that eventually produced Isis.
Patrick Cockburn is the author of The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising.
Description of News Articles Index
http://www.wanttoknow.info/indexnewsarticles
The WantToKnow.info database contains over 5,000 one-paragraph summaries of highly revealing news articles from major media sources. For the very best of all these articles, click here. The key sentence or two in each news article is highlighted to facilitate skimming. Links are always provided to the original news articles on their major media websites. If any link fails to function, you can learn how to find the article by clicking here or by clicking on the link provided at the top of every news page.
This index contains links to the various categories of news articles provided with several choices for viewing options based on either importance, date the article was posted to the website, or date of the article itself. A few major categories have an additional option of viewing only the titles and links of major articles with three stars by the very best articles. Topics in the index table which have a (*) after the title are described below the table. Click on one or more categories in which you are interested, and you will be amazed at some of the highly revealing news articles which have been published on that subject.
For newcomers, we recommend starting with the column "Listed By Importance," which presents the most important articles on each topic first. Should you be interested keeping up with all of the new articles posted on any topic, use the "Date Posted" list, as newly posted articles end up scattered throughout the other lists. You can also use the RSS links available on all lists to receive the most recent updates. Thanks for your interest. Help us to transform our world by spreading the word.
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a 'Buk' Surface to Air Missile
http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814
This important article was first published in August 2014. Its assessment is broadly correct.
We'll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.
The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts," and he revealed there that,
"Contrary to the Obama administration's public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
It's actually based on lots more than that; it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
The reader-comments to my July 31st article, "First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down," provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko's reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, "conclusive," that Haisenko is right.
Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko's conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:
"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire."
This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.
Engineered Economic Crisis: Simultaneous Inflation and Deflation
http://www.globalresearch.ca/engineered-economic-crisis-simultaneous-inflation-and-deflation/5412686
By Prof. Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Global Research, November 08, 2014
While the financial sector of the core capitalist economies is enjoying escalating asset price inflation, the real sector of these economies, especially those of Europe and Japan, is suffering from deflation, that is, stagnation and high unemployment.
And while the simultaneous occurrence of inflation and deflation sounds paradoxical, it is only superficially so. In reality it is simply the logical outcome of neoliberal monetary policies pursued in these countries: as these policies of austerity economics have since the 2008 financial collapse systematically drained the overwhelming majority of citizens of material resources and funneled those resources to the financial sector, the result has been the understandable contraction of the real sector concurrent with the expansion of the financial sector.
In the face of these apparently contradictory developments, economic pundits and financial "experts" at the helm of monetary policy-making apparatus feign bewilderment at how market developments have become increasingly more "complicated," and how economic fine-tuning has accordingly become more challenging. Such pompous utterances are, however, hollow pretensions designed to obfuscate issues, to mystify economics and to confuse the people. In reality, there is absolutely nothing "complicated" or mysterious about the simultaneous expansion of the financial sector and contraction of the real sector. It is, indeed, altogether axiomatic that if you systematically rob Peter to pay Paul, you are going to impoverish Peter (the 99%) while enriching Paul (the 1%).
The concurrent enrichment of the financial plutocracy and impoverishment of the masses of the people is akin to the growth of a parasite in the body of a living organism at the expense of life-sustaining blood or nourishment of that organism. What is unbeknown to the public is that the parasitic transfer of economic blood from the bottom up is not simply the spontaneous outcome of the operations of the invisible hand of market mechanism, or the blind forces of competition. More importantly, the transfer is the logical outcome of deliberate monetary policies that are crafted by the financial elites and their proxies at the helm of economic policy making of most capitalist countries. As political economist Mike Whitney recently put it:
"As most people now realize, stocks haven't tripled in the last 5 years because the economy is expanding. Heck, no. The economy is still on all-fours and everyone knows it. The reason stocks have been flying-high is because the Fed added a hefty $4 trillion in red ink to its balance sheet. Naturally, when someone buys $4 trillion in financial assets, the price of financial assets go up" (source).
The purported rationale behind the unremitting bestowing of the nearly interest-free money upon the financial institutions is that as these institutions receive cheap money from the printing presses of the government they would, in turn, extend low-cost credit to manufacturers, thereby prompting investment and job creation in the real sector of the economy.
This traditional/New Deal monetary policy worked fairly well as long as regulatory constraints—especially the Glass-Steagall Act that was in force from 1933 to 1998—strictly stipulated the types and quantities of investments that banks and other financial intermediaries could undertake. As those regulatory requirements prohibited banks from engaging in speculative or risky investments, they had very little choice but to behave or do business mainly as banks, or financial intermediaries, that is, funneling depositors' savings and/or government-generated money to the real sector of the economy.
With the systematic removal of regulatory constraints, however, banks have been increasingly abandoning or marginalizing their traditional role as financial intermediaries. Instead, they now invest mostly in buying and selling of assets and other speculative activities, as such financial/speculative investments are much more lucrative than simply accepting deposits at certain rates of interest and then lending them at slightly higher rates.
Not only has this change in the behavior or function of the banking system drastically curtailed the flow of capital from the financial to the real sector, it has in fact reversed the flow of capital between these two sectors: there is now an alarming capital flight from the real to the financial sector in pursuit of higher, speculative rates of profit. Evidence shows that (in recent years) real sector corporate managers/CEOs are increasingly diverting their profits, as well the cheap money they borrow from governments (usually through the privately-owned central banks), to speculation instead of production. As I noted in an earlier article on this subject, "they seem to have come to think: why bother with the messy business of production when higher returns can be garnered by simply buying and selling titles."
This steady transfer of money from the real to the financial sector is the exact opposite of what monetary policy-makers—and indeed the entire neoclassical/mainstream economic theory—claim or portray to happen: flow of money from the financial to the real sector.
One would imagine that these drastic changes in real world markets, which show how gravely mainstream economists have gone awry in holding tight to their abstract and largely obsolete theories, would have somewhat shaken the faith of these economists in their economic orthodoxy and prompted them to revise or adjust their traditional theories of money supply, of credit creation, of finance, and of investment.
Alas, the faith in market mechanism and economic orthodoxy seems to be as strong as the faith in any otherworldly religion. Whether as university professors or as advisors to policy makers, mainstream economists continue to teach the same materials and retell the same theories in the face of heavily financialized economies as they did in times long past, that is, in the era of relatively competitive markets and industrial/manufacturing economic structures of yore.
Under the sway of finance capital, monetary policy has increasingly turned into an instrument of asset price inflation, that is, of accumulation of ever more fictitious capital in the deep pockets of the financial oligarchy. While not openly acknowledged, the rationale behind the endless injection of cheap money into the financial sector—in the manner of pumping hot air into a balloon—is a desperate attempt or a vain hope on the part of economic policy makers that the so-called trickle-down effects of asset price bubbles may lead to economic recovery.
Admittedly, the presumed trickle-down effects on aggregate demand may have had some validity in the earlier (industrial or manufacturing) stages of capitalism where the rise in the wealth of nations also meant expanded (real) production and increased employment. However, in the era of heavily financialized economies, where the dominant form of capitalist wealth comes not so much from real production of goods and services as it does from asset price bubbles, trickle-down theory has lost whatever minimal validity it may have had at earlier phases of capitalism.
Sadly, monetary policy makers, who are often proxies of financial elites at the helm of privately-owned central banks (contrary to the widespread perceptions, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank is also privately owned, its share-holders are commercial banks) are not deterred by real world economic developments that tend to contradict their religious-like theories. Their loyalty is first and foremost to the interests and agendas of their behind-the-scene bosses and benefactors―those who nurture, promote and place them at the seat of monetary/economic decision-making. Having abandoned the traditional/New Deal fiscal and monetary policies of demand management, asset-price inflation has now become the policy of choice of economic recovery—if not recovery, then of preventing an economic collapse.
Hostage to the Banksters
This helps explain why the economies of most of the core capitalist countries have become hostage to banksters, to their insatiable appetite for ever more cheap money. This practice of continued injections of cash into the financial sector is obviously tantamount to ransom payments to the "too big to fail" banksters, out of an exaggerated fear that their failure would lead to "cataclysmic economic collapse." It also helps explain the multiple renewals or endless extensions of the policy of quantitative easing (QE), as termination of this policy is bound to lead to another financial implosion.
As an indication of this destructive addiction of the financial markets to Uncle Sam's generous cash injections, let us remember how these markets went into a tail spin in mid-October by the prospect that QE may not be extended beyond October; and how they immediately rebounded on the news that the Fed would indeed continue cash injections beyond October―that is, QE3 would be continued as QE4. This is how Mike Whitney described those turbulent days of the financial markets:
"By mid-day [of October 15, 2014], the Dow was down 460 points before clawing its way back to minus 173 points. It looked like the market was set for another triple-digit flogging on Thursday [October 16] when the Fed stepped in and started talking-up an extension to QE3. That's all it took to ease investors jitters, stop the meltdown and send equities rocketing back into space. By the end of Friday's session, all the markets were back in the green with the Dow logging an impressive 263 points on the day" (source).
While the policy of indefinite extension of QE (along with near-zero interest rates) may temporarily keep the financial markets from imploding, the policy simply delays the day of reckoning—more or less like keeping a terminally-ill patient alive on artificial life support. And therein lies the futile, indeed tragic, aspect of this policy: monetary policy-makers' obligation to constantly inject cash into the financial system in order to keep the system from collapsing is akin to the logic of the proverbial bicyclist who has to keep riding forward or else he would fall over.
Monetary policy-makers at the head of central banks and treasury departments, representing the powerful interests of big finance, would do everything they can to avoid going off the cliff, or delaying the approach to the cliff. In so doing, however, they drain the overwhelming majority of citizens of economic/financial resources—by transferring those resources (through austerity measures) to the financial oligarchy. Andre Damon (of the World Socialist Web Site) succinctly captures the redistributive effects of this neoliberal monetary policy:
"The richest one percent of the world's population now controls 48.2 percent of global wealth, up from 46 percent last year, according to the most recent global wealth report issued by Credit Suisse, the Swiss-based financial services company.
"Hypothetically, if the growth of inequality were to proceed at last year's rate, the richest one percent for all intents and purposes would control all the wealth on the planet within 23 years.
"The report found that the growth of global inequality has accelerated sharply since the 2008 financial crisis, as the values of financial assets have soared while wages have stagnated and declined. . . . Emma Seery, head of Inequality at Oxfam, the British anti-poverty charity, commented, 'This report shows that those least able to afford it have paid the price of the financial crisis whilst more wealth has flooded into the coffers of the very richest.'
"The study revealed that the richest 8.6 percent of the world's population—those with a net worth of more than $100,000—control 85 percent of the world's wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 70 percent of the world's population—those with less than $10,000 in net worth—hold a mere 2.9 percent of global wealth.
"The growth in inequality is bound up with a worldwide surge in paper wealth, fueled by the trillions of dollars pumped into the financial system by central banks via zero interest rate and 'quantitative easing' policies. . . .
"As the report noted, 'The overall global economy may remain sluggish, but this has not prevented personal wealth from surging ahead during the past year. Driven by ... robust equity prices, total wealth grew by 8.3% worldwide ... the first time household wealth has passed the $250 trillion threshold'." (Source).
What is To be Done?
The solution to the runaway financial sector, according to most liberal–Keynesian critics of financialization, is regulation, or re-regulation. While this would be a welcome improvement over the destabilizing behavior of the unbridled finance capital, it would represent only a tentative short- to medium-term solution, not a definitive long-term one. For, as long as there is no democratic control, regulations would be undermined by the influential financial interests that elect and control both policy-makers and, therefore, policy. The dramatic reversal of the extensive regulations of the 1930s and 1940s, which were put in place in response to the Great Depression, to today's equally dramatic deregulations serves as a robust validation of this judgment.
Other critics of the out-of-control finance capital call for public banking. These critics argue that, due to their economic and political influence, powerful financial interests easily subvert government regulations, thereby periodically reproducing financial instability and economic turbulence. By contrast, they further argue, public-sector banks can better reassure depositors of the security of their savings, as well as help direct those savings toward productive credit allocation and investment opportunities. Ending the recurring crises of financial markets thus requires placing the destabilizing financial intermediaries under public ownership and democratic control.
While nationalization of commercial banks could mitigate or do away with market turbulences that are due to financial bubbles and bursts, it will not preclude other systemic crises of capitalism. These include profitability crises that result from very high levels of capitalization (or high levels of the "organic composition of capital" a la Marx), from insufficient demand and/or under-consumption, from overcapacity and/or overproduction, or from disproportionality between various sectors of a market economy.
Furthermore, as long as capitalism and, along with it, the lopsided distribution of economic surplus prevails, financial instability cannot be uprooted by bank nationalization. For, while nationalization of traditional/commercial banks may temper financial fragility, other types of financial intermediaries and institutions are bound to arise in order to circumvent regulation and/or nationalization, thereby precipitating financial instability. These include all kinds of shadow banks and speculative enterprises such as private equity firms, derivative markets, hedge funds, and more.
To do away with the systemic crises of capitalism, therefore, requires more than nationalizing and/or regulating the banks; it requires changing the capitalist system itself.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser's Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press 2012).
Financial Collapse Will Cause Civil Unrest to Erupt in America by 2016. Economist
Rampant corruption combined with economic woes to spark "revolution"
By Paul Joseph Watson
Global Research, November 08, 2014
Infowars 7 November 2014
Economist Martin Armstrong is predicting that rising resentment against the status quo as a result of economic inequality is likely to cause a serious political uprising before 2016.
"It looks more and more like a serious political uprising will erupt by 2016 once the economy turns down. That is the magic ingredient. Turn the economy down and you get civil unrest and revolution," writes Armstrong.
In making the forecast, the economist cites the case of 90-year-old World War 2 veteran Arnold Abbott, who is being targeted by authorities in Fort Lauderdale for defying a newly passed city ordinance that criminalizes feeding the homeless, an example says Armstrong of how "laws in the USA have simply gone nuts."
Armstrong, who correctly predicted the 1987 Black Monday crash as well as the 1998 Russian financial collapse, asserts that the downfall of the system will be its inability to gauge the anger that Americans currently feel towards their government.
"You just cannot make up this stuff. And the Democrats cannot figure out that the people are getting pissed-off at who is ever in office? And what about the police?" asks Armstrong. "Is this just turning into thugs with badges who just enforce whatever law some nut-job politician writes? What if they passed a Herod type law to curb population and decree that everyone must kill their first-born. When does reason ever return to the police force these days? They no longer protect the people – they protect the politicians against the people."
As we reported back in August, the U.S. Army is preparing for civil unrest in the United States. A 132-page document entitled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances outlines how troops may be required to deal with "unruly and violent crowds" where it is "necessary to quell riots and restore public order."
Riots which rocked Ferguson, Missouri earlier this year and threaten to reignite should Officer Darren Wilson be acquitted illustrate how single events can spark sustained social unrest.
However, more widespread dislocation is only likely to occur in the aftermath of an economic collapse which impacts a huge number of Americans. As we have seen in numerous countries across Europe, including in Belgium just today, crippling austerity measures combined with anemic economic growth have set the stage for violent unrest.
In a February 2013 article entitled Why the Banking Elite Want Riots in America, we outlined why the political class is perfectly content to engineer and exploit social unrest as a means of paving the way for the IMF to engage in its tried and tested method of asset stripping and looting a nation.
With polls showing some 74% of Americans are already angry or dissatisfied with the government, further economic hardship could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
Sleeping 7-year-old girl shot in head during no-knock police raid on wrong home
"They blew my granddaughter's brains out. They killed her right before my eyes. I watched the light go out of her eyes."
Posted on October 14, 2014 by Site Staff in News
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/aiyana-stanley-jones-raid/
DETROIT, MI — A Special Response Team shattered a family's window in the middle of the night, hurled a flashbang onto a couch next to a sleeping girl, then charged in and shot her in the head. The hyper-aggressive tactics were made worse by the fact that police had taken it upon themselves to raid both sides of a duplex, when their suspect was only known to reside in one of them.
The Danger of the 2014 Electoral Blowout
Thursday, November 6, 2014
http://iiipercent.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-danger-of-2014-electoral-blowout.html
The result of the brutal dismissal of D's on Tuesday will lead to a dangerous outcome: the vast majority of Americans will believe that something has happened that will change the reality in America. They will ramp-down. Their sense of urgency will fade as they "...let the system work, and let the new R's put the country back on track".
Worse - anyone to the Right of the R's just voted into office will be categorically deemed to be "outside the mainstream" - extremists, if you will.
Some of us know that nothing tangible will change as a result of the elections Tuesday.
But the sense of crisis will fade from many minds.
Be certain to insulate yourself from that dangerously false outlook, and the accompanying reinforcement of Normalcy Bias that is a certainty.
This country has never changed in any real fashion by the will or consent of the masses. Chasing those Hearts & Minds is a fool's errand.
None of those elected intend to repeal 2A infringements back to and including NFA. None of those will have the stomach to roll back ObamaCare - they'll tweak it, not kill it. None of those elected will stop our nation from bleeding out through entitlement programs. None campaigned on killing Patriot Act or NDAA. None of those elected have any intention of striving for Rightful Liberty.
But how many people have you heard in the last two days make some comment about "Now we'll get back on track!"
Amnesty? It's going to happen, one way or another, under whatever name focus groups find best, and the D' and R's will seek to win their share of the new voter pie. There will be no real closing of the borders.
Nothing changed except the window dressing.
Nothing any elected official will do will bring an end to stories like this one, sent in by CavMedic:
Mother Calls Police to Help Her Son Take His Medicine, Cop Shows Up and Shoots Him
http://theantimedia.org/mother-calls-police-to-help-her-son-take-his-medicine/
Cassius Methyl
October 29, 2014
(TheAntiMedia) In Gretna, Florida, Juanita Donald called the police to come assist her and get her 24 year old son to take his medication, as she had done in the past.
On Tuesday morning, around 9:30 am, she called the police to help her with her son Kaldrick Donald and one officer showed up, Sergeant Charles Brown.
Charles Brown ended up tasing Kaldrick Donald repeatedly, and then took him into the isolated bathroom in the family's house and shot him multiple times, killing him.
Brown murdered Donald in the presence his pregnant sister and mother, and no one can even say why. He was completely unarmed, and somehow not completely sane.
His mother said "I heard my baby say, I want my mama after he shot him, and then I didn't hear anything else."
His mother said she was "expecting them to take him to the Apalachee Center like before", but instead a single officer came and escalated the situation, murdering him in front of his family.
The countdown to impact continues to tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
Change will only happen when a small group of principled Americans make it so.
Stay the course.
Kerodin
III
November 6, 2014 at 3:21 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trojan-horse-bug-lurking-vital-us-computers-2011/story?id=26737476
Kill some of the power grid, blame it on the crazy Russians, start a war....
We're not falling for it.
ChuckM
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.11.09, 09:37:19
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
May I take a shot at 03?
Everyman Standing Order 03: Build the Future You Want. Never Accept the Scraps Thrown to You.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.11.09, 09:43:05
May I take a shot at 03?
Everyman Standing Order 03: Build the Future You Want. Never Accept the Scraps Thrown to You.
Not bad Matt, but not what the universe had in mind from my perspective. However the timing of 03 was prompted by you, the universe has it's own plan and let's us know in subtle ways if we pay attention..
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
Khorasan: Pentagon Says Fantasy Terror Group Bombed to Protect Homeland
Pentagon peddles debunked Khorasan myth
By Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, November 08, 2014
Infowars 7 November 2014
http://www.globalresearch.ca/khorasan-pentagon-says-fantasy-terror-group-bombed-to-protect-homeland/5412709
Now that Republicans have taken over Congress, and John McCain is about to hold court in the Senate's Armed Services Committee, it's time for the government to ramp up the war propaganda.
On Thursday Reuters reported a terror attack allegedly planned by the fictitious terror group Khorasan was thwarted by the Pentagon.
"We took decisive action to protect our interests and remove their capability to act," U.S. Central Command said in a statement on Thursday.
The Khorasan bad guys, according to the government narrative, pose "a more direct and imminent threat to the United States" than the Islamic State and were dispatched to Syria by al-Qaeda boss Ayman al-Zawahiri to fight against arch nemesis – of the U.S., the Gulf Emirates and Israel – Bashar al-Assad.
Instead, supposed Khorasan militants "will provide these sophisticated explosives to their Western recruits who could sneak them onto U.S.-bound flights."
Previous attempts attributed to al-Qaeda's supposed master bomber, Ibrahim al-Asiri, resulted in the fizzle bomb unleashed by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Nigerian underwear bomber, and the cargo plane bombs allegedly discovered at the last minute by Saudi Arabia's security boss on October 29, 2010.
For more on the overheated domestic terror threat posed by Khorasan, see our Khorasan: Toothpaste Bombers from Nowhere.
Khorasan, however, like its exaggerated explosives – including undetectable bombs inserted in the rectums of suicide bombers – does not exist.
"You haven't heard of the Khorasan Group because there isn't one," writes Andrew C. McCarthy. "It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorasan — the Iranian–Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it."
No one, that is, embedded in the corporate media. Almost from the start the alternative media has called foul on the Khorasan legend.
Many in the establishment media now sheepishly admit Khorasan is a ruse. Dogged Obama partisans, however, in particular Media Matters, follow the government script a bit more closely than their less partisan colleagues.
After denouncing reality – characterized as a conservative conspiracy – Alexandrea Boguhn writes for the New Democrat organization that "the intelligence community has been monitoring the Khorasan group for some time, and Obama himself has publicly acknowledged its ties to al Qaeda."
It really is astounding how eager so-called New Democrats are to support the neocon war agenda and push propaganda fabrications they denounced when Bush was in office.
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault
The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
By John J. Mearsheimer
From our September/October 2014 Issue
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault
According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin's decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.
But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU's expansion eastward and the West's backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.
Putin's pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia's backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.
But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia's border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.
U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia's border.
THE WESTERN AFFRONT
As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand.
The first round of enlargement took place in 1999 and brought in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. The second occurred in 2004; it included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Moscow complained bitterly from the start. During NATO's 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, for example, Russian President Boris Yeltsin said, "This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation's borders. ... The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe." But the Russians were too weak at the time to derail NATO's eastward movement -- which, at any rate, did not look so threatening, since none of the new members shared a border with Russia, save for the tiny Baltic countries.
Then NATO began looking further east. At its April 2008 summit in Bucharest, the alliance considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The George W. Bush administration supported doing so, but France and Germany opposed the move for fear that it would unduly antagonize Russia. In the end, NATO's members reached a compromise: the alliance did not begin the formal process leading to membership, but it issued a statement endorsing the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine and boldly declaring, "These countries will become members of NATO."
Moscow, however, did not see the outcome as much of a compromise. Alexander Grushko, then Russia's deputy foreign minister, said, "Georgia's and Ukraine's membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security." Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a "direct threat" to Russia. One Russian newspaper reported that Putin, while speaking with Bush, "very transparently hinted that if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist."
Russia's invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin's determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was deeply committed to bringing his country into NATO, had decided in the summer of 2008 to reincorporate two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But Putin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided -- and out of NATO. After fighting broke out between the Georgian government and South Ossetian separatists, Russian forces took control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow had made its point. Yet despite this clear warning, NATO never publicly abandoned its goal of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance. And NATO expansion continued marching forward, with Albania and Croatia becoming members in 2009.
The EU, too, has been marching eastward. In May 2008, it unveiled its Eastern Partnership initiative, a program to foster prosperity in such countries as Ukraine and integrate them into the EU economy. Not surprisingly, Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country's interests. This past February, before Yanukovych was forced from office, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the EU of trying to create a "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe. In the eyes of Russian leaders, EU expansion is a stalking horse for NATO expansion.
The West's final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been its efforts to spread Western values and promote democracy in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entails funding pro-Western individuals and organizations. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves." As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED's president, Carl Gershman, has called that country "the biggest prize." After Yanukovych won Ukraine's presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country's democratic institutions.
When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents." He added: "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
CREATING A CRISIS
Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.
The West's triple package of policies -- NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion -- added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to antigovernment demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had led to the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev to resolve the crisis. On February 21, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowed Yanukovych to stay in power until new elections were held. But it immediately fell apart, and Yanukovych fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists.
Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych's toppling that it was "a day for the history books." As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych's ouster.
For Putin, the time to act against Ukraine and the West had arrived. Shortly after February 22, he ordered Russian forces to take Crimea from Ukraine, and soon after that, he incorporated it into Russia. The task proved relatively easy, thanks to the thousands of Russian troops already stationed at a naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Crimea also made for an easy target since ethnic Russians compose roughly 60 percent of its population. Most of them wanted out of Ukraine.
Next, Putin put massive pressure on the new government in Kiev to discourage it from siding with the West against Moscow, making it clear that he would wreck Ukraine as a functioning state before he would allow it to become a Western stronghold on Russia's doorstep. Toward that end, he has provided advisers, arms, and diplomatic support to the Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, who are pushing the country toward civil war. He has massed a large army on the Ukrainian border, threatening to invade if the government cracks down on the rebels. And he has sharply raised the price of the natural gas Russia sells to Ukraine and demanded payment for past exports. Putin is playing hardball.
THE DIAGNOSIS
Putin's actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow's mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.
Washington may not like Moscow's position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia -- a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.
Officials from the United States and its European allies contend that they tried hard to assuage Russian fears and that Moscow should understand that NATO has no designs on Russia. In addition to continually denying that its expansion was aimed at containing Russia, the alliance has never permanently deployed military forces in its new member states. In 2002, it even created a body called the NATO-Russia Council in an effort to foster cooperation. To further mollify Russia, the United States announced in 2009 that it would deploy its new missile defense system on warships in European waters, at least initially, rather than on Czech or Polish territory. But none of these measures worked; the Russians remained steadfastly opposed to NATO enlargement, especially into Georgia and Ukraine. And it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.
To understand why the West, especially the United States, failed to understand that its Ukraine policy was laying the groundwork for a major clash with Russia, one must go back to the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration began advocating NATO expansion. Pundits advanced a variety of arguments for and against enlargement, but there was no consensus on what to do. Most eastern European émigrés in the United States and their relatives, for example, strongly supported expansion, because they wanted NATO to protect such countries as Hungary and Poland. A few realists also favored the policy because they thought Russia still needed to be contained.
But most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that a declining great power with an aging population and a one-dimensional economy did not in fact need to be contained. And they feared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in eastern Europe. The U.S. diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies," he said. "I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else."
The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.
Most liberals, on the other hand, favored enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, postnational order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe. The United States was not only the "indispensable nation," as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like western Europe.
And so the United States and its allies sought to promote democracy in the countries of eastern Europe, increase economic interdependence among them, and embed them in international institutions. Having won the debate in the United States, liberals had little difficulty convincing their European allies to support NATO enlargement. After all, given the EU's past achievements, Europeans were even more wedded than Americans to the idea that geopolitics no longer mattered and that an all-inclusive liberal order could maintain peace in Europe.
So thoroughly did liberals come to dominate the discourse about European security during the first decade of this century that even as the alliance adopted an open-door policy of growth, NATO expansion faced little realist opposition. The liberal worldview is now accepted dogma among U.S. officials. In March, for example, President Barack Obama delivered a speech about Ukraine in which he talked repeatedly about "the ideals" that motivate Western policy and how those ideals "have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power." Secretary of State John Kerry's response to the Crimea crisis reflected this same perspective: "You just don't in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext."
In essence, the two sides have been operating with different playbooks: Putin and his compatriots have been thinking and acting according to realist dictates, whereas their Western counterparts have been adhering to liberal ideas about international politics. The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.
BLAME GAME
In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would "say that we always told you that is how the Russians are." As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament. In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was "in another world." Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he is mentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.
Other analysts allege, more plausibly, that Putin regrets the demise of the Soviet Union and is determined to reverse it by expanding Russia's borders. According to this interpretation, Putin, having taken Crimea, is now testing the waters to see if the time is right to conquer Ukraine, or at least its eastern part, and he will eventually behave aggressively toward other countries in Russia's neighborhood. For some in this camp, Putin represents a modern-day Adolf Hitler, and striking any kind of deal with him would repeat the mistake of Munich. Thus, NATO must admit Georgia and Ukraine to contain Russia before it dominates its neighbors and threatens western Europe.
This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who supported NATO expansion were not doing so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force. Putin's actions in Crimea took them by complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovych's ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind.
Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people -- one-third of Ukraine's population -- live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation. Furthermore, Russia's mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscow is also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions.
But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it would still probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine. One need only consider the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.
A WAY OUT
Given that most Western leaders continue to deny that Putin's behavior might be motivated by legitimate security concerns, it is unsurprising that they have tried to modify it by doubling down on their existing policies and have punished Russia to deter further aggression. Although Kerry has maintained that "all options are on the table," neither the United States nor its NATO allies are prepared to use force to defend Ukraine. The West is relying instead on economic sanctions to coerce Russia into ending its support for the insurrection in eastern Ukraine. In July, the United States and the EU put in place their third round of limited sanctions, targeting mainly high-level individuals closely tied to the Russian government and some high-profile banks, energy companies, and defense firms. They also threatened to unleash another, tougher round of sanctions, aimed at whole sectors of the Russian economy.
Such measures will have little effect. Harsh sanctions are likely off the table anyway; western European countries, especially Germany, have resisted imposing them for fear that Russia might retaliate and cause serious economic damage within the EU. But even if the United States could convince its allies to enact tough measures, Putin would probably not alter his decision-making. History shows that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protect their core strategic interests. There is no reason to think Russia represents an exception to this rule.
Western leaders have also clung to the provocative policies that precipitated the crisis in the first place. In April, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden met with Ukrainian legislators and told them, "This is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the Orange Revolution." John Brennan, the director of the CIA, did not help things when, that same month, he visited Kiev on a trip the White House said was aimed at improving security cooperation with the Ukrainian government.
The EU, meanwhile, has continued to push its Eastern Partnership. In March, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, summarized EU thinking on Ukraine, saying, "We have a debt, a duty of solidarity with that country, and we will work to have them as close as possible to us." And sure enough, on June 27, the EU and Ukraine signed the economic agreement that Yanukovych had fatefully rejected seven months earlier. Also in June, at a meeting of NATO members' foreign ministers, it was agreed that the alliance would remain open to new members, although the foreign ministers refrained from mentioning Ukraine by name. "No third country has a veto over NATO enlargement," announced Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary-general. The foreign ministers also agreed to support various measures to improve Ukraine's military capabilities in such areas as command and control, logistics, and cyberdefense. Russian leaders have naturally recoiled at these actions; the West's response to the crisis will only make a bad situation worse.
There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria's position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.
To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO's expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the United States -- a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine. It is time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution. Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine to respect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers.
Some may argue that changing policy toward Ukraine at this late date would seriously damage U.S. credibility around the world. There would undoubtedly be certain costs, but the costs of continuing a misguided strategy would be much greater. Furthermore, other countries are likely to respect a state that learns from its mistakes and ultimately devises a policy that deals effectively with the problem at hand. That option is clearly open to the United States.
One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine's interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.
Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. There is no reason that the West has to accommodate Ukraine if it is bent on pursuing a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defense is not a vital interest. Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it will cause, especially for the Ukrainian people.
Of course, some analysts might concede that NATO handled relations with Ukraine poorly and yet still maintain that Russia constitutes an enemy that will only grow more formidable over time -- and that the West therefore has no choice but to continue its present policy. But this viewpoint is badly mistaken. Russia is a declining power, and it will only get weaker with time. Even if Russia were a rising power, moreover, it would still make no sense to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. The reason is simple: the United States and its European allies do not consider Ukraine to be a core strategic interest, as their unwillingness to use military force to come to its aid has proved. It would therefore be the height of folly to create a new NATO member that the other members have no intention of defending. NATO has expanded in the past because liberals assumed the alliance would never have to honor its new security guarantees, but Russia's recent power play shows that granting Ukraine NATO membership could put Russia and the West on a collision course.
Sticking with the current policy would also complicate Western relations with Moscow on other issues. The United States needs Russia's assistance to withdraw U.S. equipment from Afghanistan through Russian territory, reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, and stabilize the situation in Syria. In fact, Moscow has helped Washington on all three of these issues in the past; in the summer of 2013, it was Putin who pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the fire by forging the deal under which Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons, thereby avoiding the U.S. military strike that Obama had threatened. The United States will also someday need Russia's help containing a rising China. Current U.S. policy, however, is only driving Moscow and Beijing closer together.
The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process -- a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.
'German politicians are US puppets'
Fri, Nov 7, 2014
By Udo ULFKOTTE (Germany)
http://orientalreview.org/2014/11/07/german-politicians-are-us-puppets/
"Now the Americans are even considering blowing up a nuclear power plant in Ukraine and then insisting that the culprits were either separatists or Russians," claims the German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, former correspondent from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest German newspapers. He has published a book, Gekaufte Journalisten ("Purchased Journalists"), in which he describes how American and German politicians sway the German media, so that those journalists give the desired spin to world events. Ulfkotte claims that reporters are urged to bias their writing primarily to favor the American position and to oppose Russia. Udo Ulfkotte spoke to about how exactly this occurs and about the path his life is taking today after these revelations were made public.
Q: Mr. Ulfkotte, you've said that you were given a lot of money to write pro-American articles. How profitable is to be a pro-American journalist in Germany?
Udo Ulfkotte: I didn't get money – I got gifts. Things like gold watches, diving equipment, and trips with accommodations in five-star hotels. I know many German journalists who at some point were able to take advantage of this to buy themselves a vacation home abroad. But much more important than the money and gifts is the fact that you're offered support if you write pieces that are pro-American or pro-NATO. If you don't do it, your career won't go anywhere – you'll find yourself assigned to sit in the office and sort through letters to the editor.
Q: According to what you've said, journalists are corrupted surreptitiously, by inviting them for all-expense-paid trips to the US. But do serious professionals really sell themselves for so little?
UU: When you fly to the US again and again and never have to pay for anything there, and you're invited to interview American politicians, you're moving closer and closer to the circles of power. And you want to remain within this circle of the elite, so you write to please them. Everyone wants to be a celebrity journalist who gets exclusive access to famous politicians. But one wrong sentence and your career as a celebrity journalist is over. Everyone knows it. And everyone's in on it.
Q: Why have you only now decided to go public with your opinion about German journalism?
UU: I've had three heart attacks, I no longer have children I have to support, and day after day I kept watching the Americans on the news, once again gearing up for their next war. This time it's in Ukraine against Russia. But it's always the same game. Not even a complete idiot could have been oblivious to the Americans' one-sided anti-Moscow propaganda after the crash of flight MH17. Now the Americans are even considering blowing up a nuclear power plant in Ukraine and then insisting that the culprits were either separatists or Russians. I hear it all the time. It's unconscionable!
Q: You claim that Germany is a "banana republic." Isn't that an overly harsh assessment? After all, Germany does have opposition movements, including radical ones, and the media is critical of the government. For example, the recent broadcast of the TV program Die Anstalt caused quite a stir with its pointed criticism of the heavily biased German media.
UU: After that broadcast aired, with its journalists using satire (!) to express criticism of the German media – and, above all, against its purely pro-American coverage of events – complaints were filed and they were taken to court. This is perfect evidence of the fact that Germany is a banana republic: you can't even use satire to criticize the one-sided coverage. We have only the appearance of a free press. It's crazy.
Q: What do you think about the targeting of politicians whom the German press has lumped together in a group known as "Russian sympathizers" (Schröder, Gysi, Wagenknecht, and others), and the pro-Russian journalists?
UU: Those "Russian sympathizers" are well-educated, sincere people. I say that, although I'm not aligned with them politically. But I respect their integrity. The fact that they're being targeted is typical of banana republics such as Germany, where any deviation from mainstream opinion is harshly suppressed.
Q: You mentioned that Germany is still concealing the fact that in March of 1988, the regime of Saddam Hussein – at the time a Western ally – committed an act of genocide in a Kurdish city near the Iranian border, using chemical weapons manufactured in Germany. Can it be true that in all these years not a single newspaper, even an opposition paper, has written about that?
UU: No, they did write about it, but it took them a year to do so! I photographed Iranians who had been poisoned by German chemical weapons under the eyes of the US, but that was not supposed to be made public. At that time, the Iraqis, Germans, and Americans were celebrating their "final" victory over the Iranians. I found it ghoulish that in Baghdad they were celebrating the fact that they had jointly gassed human beings. I suffered greatly from the gas – later I got cancer. I did everything I could to record what had happened there, hoping that it would prompt an international outcry. But no one ever published it. Instead everyone celebrated their victory. To this day I ask myself why it's no problem for German chancellors to travel to Israel and go down on their knees and ask the Jews for forgiveness for gassing them, but then the Iranians killed by German gas are just second-class citizens? Have you ever heard of a German chancellor apologizing for that in Tehran? We can see that German politicians are nothing more than puppets of the US. They should obediently do as Washington tells them. We continue to be a US colony, a banana republic, and not a free country.
939100Q: You say that intelligence services provided you with information about Libya, which you published under your own name. And you claim that that was doing what you were assigned to do by the CIA and the Bundesnachrichtendienst. But if the information was interesting and true, couldn't it be that your interests simply coincided? After all, you could have refused to publish it.
UU: Yes, yes, I could have said "no." You know, the ADAC – the biggest German automobile club – had an employee working for its helicopter rescue service who refused to cooperate secretly with the BND. He was immediately expelled from the ADAC and then went to court, but the judges decided that a person cannot refuse to work with the BND, and it's not a problem that one might lose one's job for resisting. Do you get it? Do you see what I'm saying? I didn't want to be unemployed.
Q: You've said that the intelligence agencies ordered your home to be raided six times. But if you were simply publishing what the intelligence agencies gave you, why did they feel they needed to search your house? Or, on the other hand, if you were still coming up with information on your own that the intelligence agencies were trying to conceal, then doesn't it mean that you were still acting as an independent journalist, and not at all like an "unofficial CIA agent"?
UU: That's a translation error – it wasn't the intelligence agencies that ordered the raids, but the secret state police. What the Nazis used to call the Gestapo is now called the Department of State Security. And they came and conducted raids six times under the pretext that I was betraying state secrets. These types of scare tactics are typical of banana republics.
Q: You say that the publication of this book could create problems for you. What kind, for example?
UU: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung informed me in writing that they will file court charges against me for violating criminal, civil, and labor legislation, as well as corporate standards in journalism. That alone could destroy me. I've heard that many others want to put me in jail because I've once again exposed "state secrets." Perhaps it would be worth it for me to fly to Moscow like Edward Snowden and ask for asylum there. Let's wait and see how the leaders of the banana republic of Germany react, because they've been compromised, and everyone can read in my bestselling book how they manufacture the appearance of a free press here, and that democracy in Germany is merely an illusion.
Source in Russian: http://www.vz.ru/world/2014/10/24/712196.html
Translated by ORIENTAL REVIEW
GERALD CELENTE – World is in a CURRENCY WAR and Heading Towards WORLD WAR 3
November 8th, 2014
http://investmentwatchblog.com/gerald-celente-world-is-in-a-currency-war-and-heading-towards-world-war-3/
Gerald Celente, publisher of the Trends Journal tells us where he thinks the next military threat for the US will be and what's in store for the economic relationship between the US and Russia If there's one thing that should be clear, it's that nothing the government or their banking partners have done to solve the economic crisis has been for your benefit. They've enriched themselves, yet again, on the backs of the American people.
All the while, they've told us that everything is getting better. But anyone who's paying attention know that nothing of the sort has happened.
We continue to shed jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people are still losing their homes. Personal debt is rapidly approaching 2007 levels. The U.S. government has borrowed more money than what we can ever hope to repay. What will it take to change the course of the future? As America, the world superpower, gears up to elect its commander-in-chief, each candidate touts his leadership experience; Obama the Osama Slayer vs. Romney the Corporate Commando. Each lists his credentials, saying in effect, "this is why I should lead and why you should follow your leader." "gerald celente" 2014 war trends trending future military u.s. america "united states" nuclear history ww3 "world war 3″ WWIII biological finance "stock market" economy science leader world global "currency war" currency forex geopolitics sanctions russia japan "forex trading" ww2 troops "u.s. army" trade gold silver bullion china yuan usd dollar collapse oil 2015 news media europe newspaper "sell gold" "bank account" savings debt "savings account" banking "elite nwo agenda" recession depression obama ebola bioweapon false flag attack federal reserve isis isil is israel zion illuminati islamic state alex jones infowars david icke bilderberg 2015 jim rogers max keiser marc faber
There is no "We the People" until "I the Person" is willing to stand up and speak for himself or herself. Paul Craig Roberts – former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, PhD economist – wrote an article yesterday about the build up of hostilities between the U.S. and Russia titled, simply: "War Is Coming". In the article, Roberts notes: As reported by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, the Russian response to the extra-legal ruling of a corrupt court in the Netherlands, which had no jurisdiction over the case on which it ruled, awarding $50 billion dollars from the Russian government to shareholders of Yukos, a corrupt entity that was looting Russia and evading taxes, is telling. Asked what Russia would do about the ruling, an advisor to President Putin replied, "There is a war coming in Europe." Do you really think this ruling matters?"
In January, well-known economist Nouriel Roubini tweeted from the gathering of the rich and powerful at the World Economic Forum in Davos: Former Goldman Sachs technical analyst Charles Nenner – who has made some big accurate calls, and counts major hedge funds, banks, brokerage houses, and high net worth individuals as clients – saysthere will be "a major war", which will drive the Dow to 5,000. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (and many world leaders) admitted that the Iraq war was really about oil, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And see this and this. Libya, Syria, Iran and Russia are all oil-producing countries as well ... We're in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. Brazilian president Rousseff said in 2010: Given that China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have just joined together to create a $100 billion bank based in China, and that more and more trades are being settled in Yuan or Rubles – instead of dollars – the currency war is hotting up. What happened to [Libya's] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn't want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar
The open source revolution is coming and it will conquer the 1% - ex CIA spy
The man who trained more than 66 countries in open source methods calls for re-invention of intelligence to re-engineer Earth
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy
Robert David Steele, former Marine, CIA case officer, and US co-founder of the US Marine Corps intelligence activity, is a man on a mission. But it's a mission that frightens the US intelligence establishment to its core.
With 18 years experience working across the US intelligence community, followed by 20 more years in commercial intelligence and training, Steele's exemplary career has spanned almost all areas of both the clandestine world.
Steele started off as a Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. After four years on active duty, he joined the CIA for about a decade before co-founding the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, where he was deputy director. Widely recognised as the leader of the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) paradigm, Steele went on to write the handbooks on OSINT for NATO, the US Defense Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Forces. In passing, he personally trained 7,500 officers from over 66 countries.
In 1992, despite opposition from the CIA, he obtained Marine Corps permission to organise a landmark international conference on open source intelligence – the paradigm of deriving information to support policy decisions not through secret activities, but from open public sources available to all. The conference was such a success it brought in over 620 attendees from the intelligence world.
But the CIA wasn't happy, and ensured that Steele was prohibited from running a second conference. The clash prompted him to resign from his position as second-ranking civilian in Marine Corps intelligence, and pursue the open source paradigm elsewhere. He went on to found and head up the Open Source Solutions Network Inc. and later the non-profit Earth Intelligence Network which runs the Public Intelligence Blog.
Robert David Steele Former CIA spy and Open Source Intelligence pioneer, Robert David Steele speaking at the Inter-American Defense Board in 2013
I first came across Steele when I discovered his Amazon review of my third book, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism. A voracious reader, Steele is the number 1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction across 98 categories. He also reviewed my latest book, A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization, but told me I'd overlooked an important early work – 'A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change.'
Last month, Steele presented a startling paper at the Libtech conference in New York, sponsored by the Internet Society and Reclaim. Drawing on principles set out in his latest book, The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth and Trust, he told the audience that all the major preconditions for revolution – set out in his 1976 graduate thesis – were now present in the United States and Britain.
Steele's book is a must-read, a powerful yet still pragmatic roadmap to a new civilisational paradigm that simultaneously offers a trenchant, unrelenting critique of the prevailing global order. His interdisciplinary 'whole systems' approach dramatically connects up the increasing corruption, inefficiency and unaccountability of the intelligence system and its political and financial masters with escalating inequalities and environmental crises. But he also offers a comprehensive vision of hope that activist networks like Reclaim are implementing today.
"We are at the end of a five-thousand-year-plus historical process during which human society grew in scale while it abandoned the early indigenous wisdom councils and communal decision-making," he writes in The Open Source Everything Manifesto. "Power was centralised in the hands of increasingly specialised 'elites' and 'experts' who not only failed to achieve all they promised but used secrecy and the control of information to deceive the public into allowing them to retain power over community resources that they ultimately looted."
Today's capitalism, he argues, is inherently predatory and destructive:
"Over the course of the last centuries, the commons was fenced, and everything from agriculture to water was commoditised without regard to the true cost in non-renewable resources. Human beings, who had spent centuries evolving away from slavery, were re-commoditised by the Industrial Era."
Open source everything, in this context, offers us the chance to build on what we've learned through industrialisation, to learn from our mistakes, and catalyse the re-opening of the commons, in the process breaking the grip of defunct power structures and enabling the possibility of prosperity for all.
"Sharing, not secrecy, is the means by which we realise such a lofty destiny as well as create infinite wealth. The wealth of networks, the wealth of knowledge, revolutionary wealth - all can create a nonzero win-win Earth that works for one hundred percent of humanity. This is the 'utopia' that Buckminster Fuller foresaw, now within our reach."
The goal, he concludes, is to reject:
"... concentrated illicitly aggregated and largely phantom wealth in favor of community wealth defined by community knowledge, community sharing of information, and community definition of truth derived in transparency and authenticity, the latter being the ultimate arbiter of shared wealth."
Despite this unabashedly radical vision, Steele is hugely respected by senior military intelligence experts across the world. As a researcher at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, he has authored several monographs advocating the need for open source methods to transform the craft of intelligence. He has lectured to the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security as well as National Security Councils in various countries, and his new book has received accolades from senior intelligence officials across multiple countries including France and Turkey.
Yet he remains an outspoken critic of US intelligence practices and what he sees as their integral role in aggravating rather than ameliorating the world's greatest threats and challenges.
This week, I had the good fortune of being able to touch base with Steele to dig deeper into his recent analysis of the future of US politics in the context of our accelerating environmental challenges. The first thing I asked him was where he sees things going over the next decade, given his holistic take.
"Properly educated people always appreciate holistic approaches to any challenge. This means that they understand both cause and effect, and intertwined complexities," he said. "A major part of our problem in the public policy arena is the decline in intelligence with integrity among key politicians and staff at the same time that think tanks and universities and non-governmental organisations have also suffered a similar intellectual diminishment.
"My early graduate education was in the 1970's when Limits to Growth and World Federalism were the rage. Both sought to achieve an over-view of systemic challenges, but both also suffered from the myth of top-down hubris. What was clear in the 1970s, that has been obscured by political and financial treason in the past half-century, is that everything is connected – what we do in the way of paving over wetlands, or in poisoning ground water 'inadvertently' because of our reliance on pesticides and fertilisers that are not subject to the integrity of the 'Precautionary Principle,' ultimately leads to climate catastrophes that are acts of man, not acts of god."
He points me to his tremendous collection of reviews of books on climate change, disease, environmental degradation, peak oil, and water scarcity. "I see five major overlapping threats on the immediate horizon," he continues. "They are all related: the collapse of complex societies, the acceleration of the Earth's demise with changes that used to take 10,000 years now taking three or less, predatory or shock capitalism and financial crime out of the City of London and Wall Street, and political corruption at scale, to include the west supporting 42 of 44 dictators. We are close to multiple mass catastrophes."
What about the claim that the US is on the brink of revolution? "Revolution is overthrow – the complete reversal of the status quo ante. We are at the end of centuries of what Lionel Tiger calls 'The Manufacture of Evil,' in which merchant banks led by the City of London have conspired with captive governments to concentrate wealth and commoditise everything including humans. What revolution means in practical terms is that balance has been lost and the status quo ante is unsustainable. There are two 'stops' on greed to the nth degree: the first is the carrying capacity of Earth, and the second is human sensibility. We are now at a point where both stops are activating."
Robert Steele - preconditions for revolution Former CIA officer's matrix on the preconditions for revolution
It's not just the US, he adds. "The preconditions of revolution exist in the UK, and most western countries. The number of active pre-conditions is quite stunning, from elite isolation to concentrated wealth to inadequate socialisation and education, to concentrated land holdings to loss of authority to repression of new technologies especially in relation to energy, to the atrophy of the public sector and spread of corruption, to media dishonesty, to mass unemployment of young men and on and on and on."
So why isn't it happening yet?
"Preconditions are not the same as precipitants. We are waiting for our Tunisian fruit seller. The public will endure great repression, especially when most media outlets and schools are actively aiding the repressive meme of 'you are helpless, this is the order of things.' When we have a scandal so powerful that it cannot be ignored by the average Briton or American, we will have a revolution that overturns the corrupt political systems in both countries, and perhaps puts many banks out of business. Vaclav Havel calls this 'The Power of the Powerless.' One spark, one massive fire."
But we need more than revolution, in the sense of overthrow, to effect change, surely. How does your manifesto for 'open source everything' fit into this? "The west has pursued an industrialisation path that allows for the privatisation of wealth from the commons, along with the criminalisation of commons rights of the public, as well as the externalisation of all true costs. Never mind that fracking produces earthquakes and poisons aquifers – corrupt politicians at local, state or province, and national levels are all too happy to take money for looking the other way. Our entire commercial, diplomatic, and informational systems are now cancerous. When trade treaties have secret sections – or are entirely secret – one can be certain the public is being screwed and the secrecy is an attempt to avoid accountability. Secrecy enables corruption. So also does an inattentive public enable corruption."
Is this a crisis of capitalism, then? Does capitalism need to end for us to resolve these problems? And if so, how? "Predatory capitalism is based on the privatisation of profit and the externalisation of cost. It is an extension of the fencing of the commons, of enclosures, along with the criminalisation of prior common customs and rights. What we need is a system that fully accounts for all costs. Whether we call that capitalism or not is irrelevant to me. But doing so would fundamentally transform the dynamic of present day capitalism, by making capital open source. For example, and as calculated by my colleague JZ Liszkiewicz, a white cotton T-shirt contains roughly 570 gallons of water, 11 to 29 gallons of fuel, and a number of toxins and emissions including pesticides, diesel exhaust, and heavy metals and other volatile compounds – it also generally includes child labor. Accounting for those costs and their real social, human and environmental impacts has totally different implications for how we should organise production and consumption than current predatory capitalism."
So what exactly do you mean by open source everything? "We have over 5 billion human brains that are the one infinite resource available to us going forward. Crowd-sourcing and cognitive surplus are two terms of art for the changing power dynamic between those at the top that are ignorant and corrupt, and those across the bottom that are attentive and ethical. The open source ecology is made up of a wide range of opens – open farm technology, open source software, open hardware, open networks, open money, open small business technology, open patents – to name just a few. The key point is that they must all develop together, otherwise the existing system will isolate them into ineffectiveness. Open data is largely worthless unless you have open hardware and open software. Open government demands open cloud and open spectrum, or money will dominate feeds and speeds."
Robert Steele Robert Steele's vision for open source systems
On 1st May, Steele sent an open letter to US vice president Joe Biden requesting him to consider establishing an Open Source Agency that would transform the operation of the intelligence community, dramatically reduce costs, increasing oversight and accountability, while increasing access to the best possible information to support holistic policy-making. To date, he has received no response.
I'm not particularly surprised. Open source everything pretty much undermines everything the national security state stands for. Why bother even asking vice president Biden to consider it? "The national security state is rooted in secrecy as a means of avoiding accountability. My first book, On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World – which by the way had a foreword from Senator David Boren, the immediate past chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence - made it quite clear that the national security state is an expensive, ineffective monstrosity that is simply not fit for purpose. In that sense, the national security state is it's own worst enemy – it's bound to fail."
Given his standing as an intelligence expert, Steele's criticisms of US intelligence excesses are beyond scathing – they are damning. "Most of what is produced through secret methods is not actually intelligence at all. It is simply secret information that is, most of the time, rather generic and therefore not actually very useful for making critical decisions at a government level. The National Security Agency (NSA) has not prevented any terrorist incidents. CIA cannot even get the population of Syria correct and provides no intelligence - decision-support - to most cabinet secretaries, assistant secretaries, and department heads. Indeed General Tony Zinni, when he was commander in chief of the US Central Command as it was at war, is on record as saying that he received, 'at best,' a meagre 4% of what he needed to know from secret sources and methods."
So does open source mean you are calling for abolition of intelligence agencies as we know them, I ask. "I'm a former spy and I believe we still need spies and secrecy, but we need to redirect the vast majority of the funds now spent on secrecy toward savings and narrowly focused endeavors at home. For instance, utterly ruthless counterintelligence against corruption, or horrendous evils like paedophilia.
"Believe it or not, 95% of what we need for ethical evidence-based decision support cannot be obtained through the secret methods of standard intelligence practices. But it can be obtained quite openly and cheaply from academics, civil society, commerce, governments, law enforcement organisations, the media, all militaries, and non-governmental organisations. An Open Source Agency, as I've proposed it, would not just meet 95% of our intelligence requirements, it would do the same at all levels of government and carry over by enriching education, commerce, and research – it would create what I called in 1995 a 'Smart Nation.'
"The whole point of Open Source Everything is to restore public agency. Open Source is the only form of information and information technology that is affordable to the majority, interoperable across all boundaries, and rapidly scalable from local to global without the curse of overhead that proprietary corporations impose."
Robert Steele's graphic on open source systems thinking Robert Steele's graphic on open source systems thinking
It's clear to me that when Steele talks about intelligence as 'decision-support,' he really does intend that we grasp "all information in all languages all the time" – that we do multidisciplinary research spanning centuries into the past as well as into the future. His most intriguing premise is that the 1% are simply not as powerful as they, and we, assume them to be. "The collective buying power of the five billion poor is four times that of the one billion rich according to the late Harvard business thinker Prof C. K. Prahalad – open source everything is about the five billion poor coming together to reclaim their collective wealth and mobilise it to transform their lives. There is zero chance of the revolution being put down. Public agency is emergent, and the ability of the public to literally put any bank or corporation out of business overnight is looming. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, you cannot screw all of the people all of the time. We're there. All we lack is a major precipitant – our Tunisian fruit seller. When it happens the revolution will be deep and lasting."
The Arab spring analogy has its negatives. So far, there really isn't much to root for. I want to know what's to stop this revolution from turning into a violent, destructive mess. Steele is characteristically optimistic. "I have struggled with this question. What I see happening is an end to national dictat and the emergence of bottom-up clarity, diversity, integrity, and sustainability. Individual towns across the USA are now nullifying federal and state regulations - for example gag laws on animal cruelty, blanket permissions for fracking. Those such as my colleague Parag Khanna that speak to a new era of city-states are correct in my view. Top down power has failed in a most spectacular manner, and bottom-up consensus power is emergent. 'Not in my neighborhood' is beginning to trump 'Because I say so.' The one unlimited resource we have on the planet is the human brain – the current strategy of 1% capitalism is failing because it is killing the Golden Goose at multiple levels. Unfortunately, the gap between those with money and power and those who actually know what they are talking about has grown catastrophic. The rich are surrounded by sycophants and pretenders whose continued employment demands that they not question the premises. As Larry Summers lectured Elizabeth Warren, 'insiders do not criticise insiders.'"
But how can activists actually start moving toward the open source vision now? "For starters, there are eight 'tribes' that among them can bring together all relevant information: academia, civil society including labor unions and religions, commerce especially small business, government especially local, law enforcement, media, military, and non-government/non-profit. At every level from local to global, across every mission area, we need to create stewardship councils integrating personalities and information from all eight tribes. We don't need to wait around for someone else to get started. All of us who recognise the vitality of this possibility can begin creating these new grassroots structures from the bottom-up, right now."
So how does open source everything have the potential to 're-engineer the Earth'? For me, this is the most important question, and Steele's answer is inspiring. "Open Source Everything overturns top-down 'because I say so at the point of a gun' power. Open Source Everything makes truth rather than violence the currency of power. Open Source Everything demands that true cost economics and the indigenous concept of 'seventh generation thinking' – how will this affect society 200 years ahead – become central. Most of our problems today can be traced to the ascendance of unilateral militarism, virtual colonialism, and predatory capitalism, all based on force and lies and encroachment on the commons. The national security state works for the City of London and Wall Street – both are about to be toppled by a combination of Eastern alternative banking and alternative international development capabilities, and individuals who recognise that they have the power to pull their money out of the banks and not buy the consumer goods that subsidise corruption and the concentration of wealth. The opportunity to take back the commons for the benefit of humanity as a whole is open – here and now."
For Steele, the open source revolution is inevitable, simply because the demise of the system presided over by the 1% cannot be stopped – and because the alternatives to reclaiming the commons are too dismal to contemplate. We have no choice but to step up.
"My motto, a play on the CIA motto that is disgraced every day, is 'the truth at any cost lowers all other costs'", he tells me. "Others wiser than I have pointed out that nature bats last. We are at the end of an era in which lies can be used to steal from the public and the commons. We are at the beginning of an era in which truth in public service can restore us all to a state of grace."
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, ZERO POINT. ZERO POINT is set in a near future following a Fourth Iraq War.
Vladimir Putin: oil price decline has been engineered by political forces
As slumping oil prices dampen Russia's economic outlook, the country's President has said that "at some moments of crisis it starts to feel like it is the politics that prevails in the pricing of energy resources".
By Peter Spence, Economics Correspondent
9:46PM GMT 06 Nov 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11215063/Vladimir-Putin-oil-price-decline-has-been-engineered-by-political-forces.html
Recent tumbles in the value of oil on global markets have been the creation of politicians, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, suggested on Thursday.
The Russian state has been heavily exposed to slumping oil values, widely viewed to be the result of a supply glut.
"The obvious reason for the decline in global oil prices is the slowdown in the rate of [global] economic growth which means consumption is being reduced in a whole range of countries", Mr Putin said.
In addition to this, "a political component is always present in oil prices. Furthermore, at some moments of crisis it starts to feel like it is the politics that prevails in the pricing of energy resources", he added.
Mr Putin also referred to a "distinct direct link" between physical oil markets and "the financial platforms where the trade is conducted", in explaining part of oil price changes.
Since June, the value of brent crude - the benchmark which Russia's main export blend is priced off - has dropped from its $115 a barrel peak.
Energy and energy-related production account "a substantial share of total economic output, half of the federal budget revenues and almost two-thirds of export revenues", according to Deutsche Bank.
"Thus, lower oil prices lead to a downgrade to Russia's growth profile for the next several years," according to an investment note produced by the bank.
The price of the Russian flagship Urals crude blend has fallen to trade just over $80 a barrel, well below the $114 level that the state would require to balance its budget.
Forecasts released by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) imply that things could improve in long-term - as it predicts that oil prices will average $177 per barrel by 2040.
The Russian President also declared that the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade deal - between pacific countries including Japan and the US - was "just another US attempt to build an architecture of regional economic cooperation that the US would benefit from".
"At the same time, I believe that the absence of two major regional players such as Russia and China in its composition will not promote the establishment of effective trade and economic cooperation", he said.
America's Secret Libya War
The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion on Libya's revolution, and secretly helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft. John Barry provides an exclusive look at Obama's emerging 'covert intervention' strategy.
John Barry
08.30.11
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html
The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion so far and played a far larger role in Libya than it has acknowledged, quietly implementing an emerging "covert intervention" strategy that the Obama administration hopes will let America fight small wars with a barely detectable footprint.
Officially, President Obama handed the lead role of ousting Muammar Gaddafi to the European members of NATO. For this he was criticized by Washington war hawks who suggested that Europeans working with a ragtag team of Libyan rebels was a recipe for stalemate, not victory.
But behind the scenes, the U.S. military played an indispensable role in the Libya campaign, deploying far more forces than the administration chose to advertise. And at NATO headquarters outside Brussels, the U.S. was intimately involved in all decisions about how the Libyan rebels should be supported as they rolled up control of cities and oil refineries and marched toward the capital, Tripoli.
The Libya campaign was a unique international effort: 15 European nations working with the U.S. and three Arab nations. The air offensive was launched from 29 airbases in six European countries. But only six European nations joined with the U.S. and Canada to fly strikes against Gaddafi's forces. The scale of the unpublicized U.S. role affirms hawks' arguments: a divided NATO simply couldn't have waged the war it did without extensive American help. What the hawks underestimated was the U.S. ability to operate without publicity—in military lingo, beneath the radar.
According to two senior NATO officials, one American and the other European, these were the critical U.S. contributions during the six-month military campaign:
• An international naval force gathered off Libya. To lower the U.S. profile, the administration elected not to send a supercarrier. Even so, the dozen U.S. warships on station were the biggest contingent in this armada. In the opening hours of the campaign, an American submarine, the USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses, crucially opening an entry corridor for the airstrikes that followed.
• U.S. tanker aircraft refueled European aircraft on the great majority of missions against Gaddafi's forces. The Europeans have tanker aircraft, but not enough to support a 24/7 air offensive averaging, by NATO count, around 100 missions a day, some 50 of them strike sorties. The U.S. flew 30 of the 40 tankers.
• When the Europeans ran low on precision-attack munitions, the U.S. quietly resupplied them. (That explains why European air forces flying F-16s—those of Norway, Denmark, Belgium—carried out a disproportionate share of the strikes in the early phase of the campaign. The U.S. had stocks of the munitions to resupply them. When Britain and France, which fly European-built strike aircraft, also ran short, they couldn't use U.S.-made bombs until they had made hurried modifications to their aircraft.)
• To target Gaddafi's military, NATO largely relied on U.S. JSTARS surveillance aircraft, which, flying offshore, could track the movements of rival forces. When more detailed targeting information was needed—as in the battles for Misrata and other towns defended by Gaddafi's troops—the U.S. flew Predator drones to relay a block-by-block picture.
• U.S. Air Force targeting specialists were in NATO's Naples operational headquarters throughout the campaign. They oversaw the preparing of "target folders" for the strikes in Tripoli against Gaddafi's compound and the headquarters of his military and intelligence services. (Organizing precision strikes by high-speed jets is not a task for novices. The attack routes over Tripoli and the release times of bombs had to be precisely calibrated so munitions released even a second late by a strike aircraft would have the best chance of avoiding civilian homes.)
What seems to be evolving is a new American way of war.
• U.S. AWACS aircraft, high over the Mediterranean, handled much of the battle-management task, acting as air-traffic controllers on most of the strike missions. Again, the Europeans have AWACS, but not enough crews to handle an all-hours campaign lasting months.
• Eavesdropping by U.S. intelligence—some by aircraft, some by a listening post quietly established just outside Libya—gave NATO unparalleled knowledge of what Gaddafi's military planned.
• All this was crucial in supporting the European effort. But U.S. involvement went way beyond that. In all, the U.S. had flown by late August more than 5,300 missions, by Pentagon count. More than 1,200 of these were strike sorties against Libyan targets.
• The administration largely stuck to Obama's decision that the U.S. would not put boots on the ground in Libya (although the CIA did have agents inside Tripoli). British and French special forces were on the ground, training and organizing the insurgents—as were units from two Arab nations, Qatar and Jordan. But their communications relied on a satellite channel run by the U.S. And the U.S. also supplied other high-tech gear—NATO sources declined to describe it, but apparently it had never been given before, even to allied special forces.
• When a desperate Gaddafi began to launch Scud missiles into towns held by the opposition, a U.S. guided-missile destroyer offshore negated his offensive by shooting down the Scuds.
"President Obama may have taken the U.S. out of the direct combat role, but he certainly did not take American forces out of the front line," Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute think tank, wrote in a recent analysis. "The European allies were hardly 'going it alone' in this operation."
With the Pentagon facing deep budget cuts, the Libyan campaign will likely provoke a debate in Washington. There is zero appetite to repeat the massive interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still embroiled a decade later. The Libya campaign appears to offer an alternative. It hasn't been cheap. The Pentagon estimates U.S. operations there cost $896 million through the end of July.
The good news is that the U.S. will be repaid for its assistance to the Europeans—everything from fuel for the aircraft to munitions and spare parts—which cost a further $222 million, the Pentagon estimates. And compared with Afghanistan, which is still costing the U.S. taxpayer roughly $10 billion a month, Gaddafi's overthrow has been a bargain.
One senior NATO official pointed to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 2001 as a precursor of the Libya campaign. In Afghanistan, U.S. special forces riding with Northern Alliance troops downloaded on their laptops satellite pictures of Taliban deployments over the next hill, and used their satphones and hand-held GPS targeting devices to call in airstrikes. The Taliban was overthrown in 63 days.
"That was a classic example of the U.S. using its technological supremacy to support local forces," the official said. "Now we have Libya as another example."
The campaign in Yemen provides a third example. For more than two years, U.S. special forces have been training and working with Yemeni troops to combat, among other insurgent groups, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The U.S. campaign in Yemen has used conventional weaponry on occasion: sorties by Harriers and even some cruise-missile strikes. But the burden of much of the campaign has fallen to special-forces units, supported by Predators.
The ongoing struggle in Pakistan is arguably yet another case study in what seems to be evolving as a new American way of war.
Predator strikes against alleged Taliban and allied Afghan insurgent groups massing in Pakistan have preoccupied international attention. But senior NATO officers in Kabul whisper that again "beneath the radar," CIA paramilitary operatives are inside Pakistan, leading groups of locally recruited frontier tribesmen. They apparently supply much of the targeting information for the Predators—especially against senior Taliban and al Qaeda operatives, who reportedly are the main targets of these CIA-led bands. Their mission may go beyond reconnaissance. According to one senior NATO officer in Kabul, some strikes credited to Predators actually result from raids by this covert force.
The killing 10 days ago of al Qaeda's operations chief, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, in the Pakistani frontier province of Waziristan, was the greatest single success in the campaign. U.S. officials attributed al-Rahman's death to a Predator strike. But on the question of how he was identified and tracked, the officials were tight-lipped.
Weekend Edition Oct 31-Nov 02, 2014
Kobani Kurds Expose the Hypocrisy of the Coalition Against ISIS
ISIS: the Useful Enemy
by ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/isis-the-useful-enemy/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/isis-the-useful-enemy/
The dark force of ISIS is apparently an invincible and unstoppable war juggernaut that is mercilessly killing and conquering in pursuit of establishing an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In reality, however, it is not as out of control as it appears. It is, indeed, carefully controlled and managed by its creators and supporters, that is, by the United States and its allies in the regions—those who now pretend to have established a coalition to fight it! The U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other allies in the region do not really need to fight ISIS to (allegedly) destroy it; all they need to do to extinguish its hellish flames is stop supplying fuel for its fire, that is, stop supplying it with funds, mercenaries, military training and armaments.
There are many ways to show the fact that, in subtle ways, ISIS benefactors control its operations and direct its activities in accordance with their own geopolitical interests. One way is to pay attention to its purported mission: to dismantle the corrupt and illegitimate regimes in Iraq and Syria and replace them with a "pure" Islamic state under the rule of a "pious caliphate." Despite this professed mission to fight the dictatorial regimes that have tarnished Islam, however, ISIS does not question the most corrupt, dictatorial and illegitimate regimes in the region—such as the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Jordanian regimes that fund and arm its operations.
Another way is to compare ISIS's attack (in early August) on the Iraqi Kurds in Irbil with its current attack on the Syrian Kurds in Kobani. When Irbil came under attack by ISIS, the U.S. unleashed the full force of its air power in concert with the Kurdish peshmerga fighters to repel the attack.
By contrast, while the Kurdish city of Kobani in Northern Syria is being attacked by the disproportionately better armed forces of ISIS, and thousands of its besieged residents face certain mass killings if it falls, the forces of the "coalition to fight ISIS" are watching—in effect, playing a game of hide-and-seek, or perhaps trick-or-treat, with ISIS—as the outgunned and outmanned Kurdish forces are valiantly fighting to death against the attackers. Only occasionally the coalition forces carry out bombing missions that seem to be essentially theatrical, or just for the record.
So, why are the Kurds in Kobani treated differently than those in Irbil? I find Ajamu Baraka's answer to this question quite insightful:
"The reason why the Kurds of Kobani are to be sacrificed stems from the fact that they are the wrong kind of Kurds. Masoud Barzani and the bourgeois Kurds of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) are the "good Kurds" and the predominant force among the Kurds of Iraq. Their control of almost 45% of Iraqi oil reserves and the booming business that they have been involved in with U.S. oil companies and Israel since their 'liberation' with the U.S. invasion makes them a valued asset for the U.S. The same goes for Turkey where despite the historic oppression of Kurds in Turkey, the government does a robust business with the Kurds of Iraq" (Source).
While the U.S., Turkey and their allies in the region do not view KDP as a threat to their geopolitical plans (at least for now), they do so when it comes to the "bad" Kurds in the self-governing area in Northern Syria, led by the Kurdish People's Protection Unit (YPG). Contrary to KDP that tends to shun the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey in order not to antagonize the Turks, the United States and their allies in the region, YPG welcomes support from PKK in its fight against ISIS.
Turkey's overriding interest in Syria is not so much against ISIS as it is against the Syrian Kurds, as well as the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad; because the rabidly anti-Kurd regime in Ankara fears that the weakened regime of Assad may not be able to do away with the self-governing Kurds in Kobani and the surrounding Kurdish areas. The Turkish regime is concerned that if the Kobani Kurds succeed in fending off the ISIS forces, their success and their experience of self-government in the Kobani region, may serve as a tempting model of self-rule for the 15-million Kurds in Turkey. The Turks are also concerned that the success of the Syrian Kurds against ISIS would thwart their long-harbored ambitions to occupy and/or annex the oil-rich Kurdish region in Northern Syria—hence their insistence on a buffer or no-fly zone in that region.
This helps explain why the Turkish regime insists that the overthrow of the Assad regime must take precedence over the fight against ISIS. It also explains why it is feverishly trying to prevent the Kurdish volunteers to cross its border with Syria to help the besieged Kobani defenders against the brutal ISIS attack—in effect, helping ISIS against the Kurds. The inaction or half-hearted action of the United States in the face of the preventable slaughter of the Syrian Kurds, which makes it complicit in the carnage, can be explained by its political horse-trading with Turkey in exchange for the Turks' collaboration with the pursuit of its imperialistic interests in the region.
The U.S. approach to ISIS would be better understood when it is viewed in the context of its overall objectives in the region—and beyond. That overriding objective, shared and reinforced by its client states, is to undermine or eliminate "the axis of resistance," consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and, to a lesser extent, Shia forces in Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Achievement of this goal would also be achievement of another, even broader, goal: undermining Russia's influence and alliances in the region and, by extension, in other parts of the world—for example, its critically important role within both the Shanghai Cooperation Council (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) and the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
To intervene in order to achieve these goals, the U.S. and its allies need pretexts and/or enemies—even if it means inventing or manufacturing such enemies. Without ISIS, resumption of U.S. military operations in Iraq and extension of those operations into Syria would have been difficult to justify to the American people. A year or so ago, the Obama administration's drive to attack Syria was thwarted by the opposition from the American people and, therefore, the U.S. congress. The rise of ISIS quickly turned that opposition to support.
Viewed in this light, ISIS can be seen as essentially another (newly manufactured) instrument in the tool-box of U.S. foreign policy, which includes "global terrorism," the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, weapons of mass destruction, Iran's nuclear technology, Al-Qaeda, and many other radical Islamic groupings—all by-products of, or blowbacks to, imperialistic U.S. foreign policies.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser's Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion
Ensure that the future of journalism isn't delivered by a drone.
The Lie Machine
Paul Craig Roberts
October 11, 2014
I have come to the conclusion that the West is a vast lie machine for the secret agendas of vested interests. Consider, for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Transpacific Trade and Investment Partnership.
These so-called "partnerships" are in fact vehicles by which US corporations make themselves immune to the sovereign laws of foreign countries in which they do business. A sovereign country that attempts to enforce its laws against an American corporation can be sued by the corporation for "restraint of trade." For example, if Monsanto wants to sell GMO seeds in France or US corporations wish to sell genetically-modified foods in France, and France enforces its laws against GMOs, the Transatlantic Trade Partnership allows France to be sued in jurisdictions outside the courts of France for "restraint of trade." In other words, preventing the entry into France of a prohibited product constitutes restraint of trade.
This is the reason that the US has insisted that the Transatlantic and Transpacific Partnerships be totally secretive and negotiated outside the democratic process. Not even the US Congress has been permitted knowledge of the negotiations.
Obviously, the Europeans and Asians who are agreeing with the terms of these "partnerships" are the bought-and-paid-for agents of the US corporations. If the partnerships go through, the only law in Europe and Asia will be US law. The European and Asian government officials who agree to the hegemony of US corporations over the laws of their countries will be so handsomely paid that they could enter the realm of the One Percent.
It is interesting to compare the BBC's coverage (October 10) with that of RT (October 11). The BBC reports that the aim of the Transatlantic Partnership is to remove "barriers to bilateral commerce" and to stimulate more trade and investment, economic growth and employment. The BBC does not report that the removal of barriers includes barriers against GMO products.
Everyone knows that the European Commission is corrupt. Who would be surprised if its members hope to be enriched by the American corporations? Little wonder the European Commission declared that concerns that the Transatlantic partnership would impact the sovereignty of countries is misplaced. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29572475
RT, which is restrained in reporting truth because it operates inside the US, still manages to come to the point in its headline: "No TTIP: Mass protests slam US-EU trade deal as 'Corporate power grab'."
All over Europe people are in the streets in mass rallies against secret agreements by their corrupt governments for Washington to take over their lives and businesses. RT reports that "social networks have been mobilized for a mass campaign that has been calling on Europeans and Americans to take action against 'the biggest corporate power grab in a decade'."
RT quotes a leader of the demonstration in Berlin who says the secret agreements "give corporations more rights they've ever had in history." As we all know, corporations already have too many rights.
"Protests are planned in 22 countries across Europe–marches, rallies and other public events–in over 1,000 locations in UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, The Czech Republic and Scandinavian countries."
Did you hear about this latest American corporate power grab from Fox "News," CNN, New York Times, London Times, ABC? Of course not. Did you hear about the massive protests against it? Of course not. You only hear what the interest groups permit you to hear.
RT reports that the main aim of the international protests is "to reclaim democracy" and to put an end to the secret deals that are destroying life for everyone but the American corporations, organizations now regarded worldwide as the epitome of evil.
http://rt.com/news/195144-europe-protests-stop-ttip/
These phony "trade agreements" are advocated as "free trade removal of tariffs," but what they remove are the sovereignties of countries. America is already ruled by corporations. If these faux "trade agreements" go through, Europe and Asia will also be ruled by American corporations.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
October 16, 2014
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/16/cia-owns-everyone-significance-major-media/
As a former member of the major media prior to its concentration in few hands by the Clinton regime, I have reported on many occasions that the Western media is a Ministry of Propaganda for Washington. In the article below one of the propagandists confesses. PCR
Published on Russia Insider News: http://russia-insider.com/en/print/531
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." — former CIA Director William Colby
Our Exclusive Interview with German Editor Turned CIA Whistleblower
Fascinating details emerge. Leading US-funded think-tanks and German secret service are accessories. Attempted suppression by legal threats. Blackout in German media.
Exclusively for RI, Dutch journalist Eric van de Beek interviews the senior German editor who is causing a sensation with his allegations that the CIA pays German media professionals to spin stories to follow US government goals.
We wrote about this two weeks ago, and the article shot up in views, becoming one of the most read articles on our site.
Udo Ulfkotte reveals in his bestseller Bought Journalists, how he was "taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public."
The former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is one of Germany's largest newspapers, was secretly on the payroll of the CIA and German secret service, spinning the news in a way that was positive for the United States and bad for its opponents.
In his latest interview, Ulfkotte alleges that some media are nothing more than propaganda outlets of political parties, secret services, international think tanks and high finance entities.
Repenting for collaborating with various agencies and organisations to manipulate the news, Ulkotte laments, "I'm ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this."
Some highlights from the interview:
"I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service."
"Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations...once you're connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you're important. And one day one of them will ask you 'Will you do me this favor'..."
"When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don't mind."
"[The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] hasn't sued me. They know that I have evidence on everything."
"No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about."
"Bought journalists", who are they?
"We're talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what's really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets."
And you were one of them, and now you are the first to blow the whistle.
"I'm ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this. Although my superiors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung approved of what I did, I'm still to blame. But yes, to my knowledge I am the first to accuse myself and to prove many others are to blame."
How did you become a bought journalist?
"It started very soon after I started working at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I learned to regard luxury invitations as quite acceptable and to write positive articles in return. Later on I was invited by the German Marshall Fund of The United States to travel the United States. They paid for all my expenses and put me in contact with Americans they'd like me to meet. In fact, most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations. Many of them are even members or 'fellows'. I am a fellow of the German Marshall Fund. The thing is, once you're connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you're important. And one day one of them will ask you 'Will you do me this favor' and then another will ask you 'Will you do me that favor'. Bye and bye you get completely brainwashed. I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the Bundesnachrichtendienst."
You said your superiors approved of that?
"They did. From my private point of view, in retrospective, they even sent me to spy. For instance in 1988 they put me on a plane to Iraq, where I traveled to the border with Iran. In those days Saddam Hussein was still seen as a good guy, a close ally to the US. The Americans supported him in his war against Iran. About 35 kilometers from the border, in an Iranian place called Zubaidad, I witnessed the Iraqis killing and injuring thousands of Iranians by throwing poison gas at them. I did exactly what my superiors had asked me to do. I made photo's of the gas attacks. Back in Frankfurt it appeared my superiors didn't show much interest in the atrocities I had witnessed. They allowed me to write an article about it, but they severely limited the size of it as if it wasn't of much importance. At the same time they asked me to hand over the photo's that I had made to the German association of chemical companies in Frankfurt, Verband der Chemischen Industrie. This poison gas that had killed so many Iranians was made in Germany."
What's your opinion on press trips? Journalists usually excuse themselves by saying they are perfectly able to follow their own judgment and that they don't commit themselves to anything or anybody.
"I've been on a thousand press trips and never reported bad about those who paid all the expenses. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That's where corruption starts. And that's the reason why magazines like Der Spiegel don't allow their journalists to accept invitations to press trips unless they pay for their own expenses."
The consequences of becoming a whistleblower can be serious. Do you have any indications people tried to prevent the publication of your book?
"When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don't mind. You see, I don't have children to take care of. And you must know I was severely injured during the gas attack I witnessed in Iran in 1988. I'm the sole German survivor from a German poison gas attack. I'm still suffering from this. I've had three heart attacks. I don't expect to live for more than a few years."
In your book you mention many names of bought journalists. How are they doing now? Are they being sacked? Are they trying to clear their names?
"No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about the book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about. More shocking: We have respected journalists who seem to have gone deep sea diving for a long time. It's an Interesting situation. I expected and hoped that they would sue me and bring me to court. But they have no idea what to do. The respected Frankfurter Allgemeine just announced they will fire 200 employees, because they're losing subscribers very rapidly and in high numbers. But they don't sue me. They know that I have evidence on everything."
Vladimir Putin Is The Leader Of the Moral World
Paul Craig Roberts
October 25, 2014
Dear Friends,
Vladimir Putin's remarks at the 11th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club are worth more than a link in my latest column. These are the remarks of a humanitarian political leader, the like of which the world has not seen in my lifetime. Compare Putin to the corrupt war criminal in the White House or to his puppets in office in Germany, UK, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, and you will see the difference between a criminal clique and a leader striving for a humane and livable world in which the interests of all peoples are respected.
In a sane Western society, Putin's statements would have been reproduced in full and discussions organized with remarks from experts such as Stephen F. Cohen. Choruses of approval would have been heard on television and read in the print media. But, of course, nothing like this is possible in a country whose rulers claim that it is the "exceptional" and "indispensable" country with an extra-legal right to hegemony over the world. As far as Washington and its prostitute media, named "presstitutes" by the trends specialist Gerald Celente, are concerned, no country counts except Washington. "You are with us or against us," which means "you are our vassals or our enemies." This means that Washington has declared Russia, China, India, Brazil and other parts of South America, Iran, and South Africa to be enemies.
This is a big chunk of the world for a bankrupt country, hated by its vassal populations and many of its own subjects, that has not won a war since it defeated tiny Japan in 1945 by using nuclear weapons, the only use of such terrible weapons in world history.
As an American, try to image any known American politician, or for that matter any professor at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford capable of giving an address to an educated discussion group of the quality of Putin's remarks. Try to find any American politician capable of responding precisely and directly to questions instead of employing evasion.
No one can read Putin's remarks without concluding that Putin is the leader of the world.
In my opinion, Putin is such a towering figure that Washington has him marked for assassination. The CIA will use one of the Muslim terrorists that the CIA supports inside Russia. Unlike an American president, who dares not move among the people openly, Putin is not kept remote from the people. Putin is at ease with the Russian people and mingles among them. This makes him an easy target for the CIA to use a Chechnya terrorist, a Jihadist suicide bomber, or the traditional "lone nut" to assassinate Putin.
The immoral, wicked, and declining West is incapable of producing leadership of Putin's quality. Having defamed Putin, assassinating him will cause little comment in the Western media.
Here are Putin's remarkable remarks:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/10/25/vladimir-putin-leader-moral-world-paul-craig-roberts/
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
24 October 2014, Sochi
Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club's XI session. The meeting's theme is The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules.
This year, 108 experts, historians and political analysts from 25 countries, including 62 foreign participants, took part in the club's work.
The plenary meeting summed up the club's work over the previous three days, which concentrated on analysing the factors eroding the current system of institutions and norms of international law.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.
n organisation and content will bolster the club's influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the 'Valdai spirit' will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.
Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.
Today's discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.
Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion's participants have already said. It's practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants' views on some points and differ on others.
As we analyse today's situation, let us not forget history's lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.
The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.
Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system's 'founding fathers' had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.
The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world's current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.
It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.
The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.
The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.
Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.
Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.
Thank you very much for your attention.
9/11 After 13 years
Paul Craig Roberts
September 10, 2014
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/
The tragedy of September 11, 2001, goes far beyond the deaths of those who died in the towers and the deaths of firefighters and first responders who succumbed to illnesses caused by inhalation of toxic dust. For thirteen years a new generation of Americans has been born into the 9/11 myth that has been used to create the American warfare/police state.
The corrupt Bush and Obama regimes used 9/11 to kill, maim, dispossess and displace millions of Muslims in seven countries, none of whom had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11.
A generation of Americans has been born into distain and distrust of Muslims.
A generation of Americans has been born into a police state in which privacy and constitutional protections no longer exist.
A generation of Americans has been born into continuous warfare while needs of citizens go unmet.
A generation of Americans has been born into a society in which truth is replaced with the endless repetition of falsehoods.
According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security State of the World's Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.
That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.
The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get intercepter jet fighters into the air.
The National Security Council failed.
All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America's NATO and Israeli allies.
Air Traffic Control failed.
Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of such a failure is zero.
If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House, from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.
Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families' demands for an investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the government's account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were told to the commission, and that the commission "was set up to fail." The worst security failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.
Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.
The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots. The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in "the land of the free."
Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted the White House's story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden's hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden's death in December 2001 went down the memory hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.
The fairy tale story of bin Laden's murder by Seal Team Six served to end the challenge by disappointed Democrats to Obama's nomination for a second term. It also freed the "war on terror" from the bin Laden constraint. Washington wanted to attack Libya, Syria, and Iran, countries in which bin Laden was known not to have organizations, and the succession of faked bin Laden videos, in which bin Laden grew progressively younger as the fake bin Laden claimed credit for each successive attack, had lost credibility among experts.
Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a coverup.
After 13 years people at home and abroad find the government's story less believable.
The case made by independent experts is now so compelling that mainstream media has opened to it. Here is Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec#t=23
After years of persistence a group in New York has secured the necessary number of valid signatures to put on the ballot a vote to investigate the cause of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The official account, if correct, means that existing fire and building codes are insufficient to protect the public and that all other steel high rise structures are subject to the same failure. The group has been clever to frame the issue in terms of public safety and not in terms of 9/11 truth.
New York authorities, of course, continue to oppose the initiative. The question now rests on a judge's ruling. It is difficult to imagine a judge going against the government in such a major way, but the group will have made the point that the government has no confidence in the truth of its own story.
Over these 13 years, physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, and first responders have provided massive evidence that completely disproves the official account of the failure of the three skyscrapers. The response to experts has been for non-experts to call experts "conspiracy theorists." In other words, the defenders of the government's story have no scientific or factual basis on which to stand. So they substitute name-calling.
9/11 was used to fundamentally alter the nature of the US government and its relationship to the American people. Unaccountable executive power has replaced due process and the checks and balances established by the US Constitution. In the name of National Security, executive power knows no restraints. Essentially, Americans today have no rights if the government targets them.
Those Americans born after 9/11 were born into a different country from the rest of us. Having never experienced constitutional government, they will not know what they have lost.
The anthrax attacks of October 2001 have been forgotten, but Professor Graeme MacQueen in The 2001 Anthrax Deception (Clarity Press, 2014) shows that the anthrax attacks played an essential role in setting the stage for the government's acquisition of unaccountable police state power. Two Democratic Senate committee chairmen, Thomas Daschle and Patrick Leahy, were disturbed by the Bush regime's overreach for carte blanche power, and were in a position to block the coming police state legislation and the ability of the executive branch alone to take America to war.
Both senators received anthrax letters, as did major news organizations. The TV network news anchors, such as Dan Rather, who compared the collapse of WTC skyscrapers to buildings brought down by controlled demolition, had not yet been fired by Republicans on framed-up charges.
Initially, the anthrax letters, which caused the deaths of some USPS employees, were seen as the second stage of the 9/11 attack. Fear multiplied. The senators and media shut up. Then it was discovered that the anthrax was a unique kind produced only by a US government military facility.
The response to this monkey wrench thrown into the government's propaganda, was the FBI's frame-up of a dead man, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had been employed in the military lab that produced the anthrax and was driven to suicide by the false charges. The dead man's colleagues did not believe one word of the government's false story, and nothing in the dead man's past indicated any motive or instability that would have led him to such a deed.
Initially, the US government tried to frame up Steven Jay Hatfill, but despite the best efforts of the New York Times and Nicholas Kristof the attempt to frame Hatfill failed. Hatfill received $5 million from the US government for the false accusation that ruined his life. So the corrupt US government moved on to Ivins.
Ivins was dead and couldn't defend himself, but his colleagues did.
The entire episode stinks to high heaven. Justice is something that exists outside the borders of the United States. Never expect to find justice within the United States.
Most Americans are unaware of the extent to which the federal government owns the experts who can contradict its fairy tales. For example, no competent physicist can possibly believe the official story of the destruction of the three WTC buildings. But physics departments in US universities are heavily dependent on federal money. Any physicist who speaks his mind jeopardizes not only his own career but also the career of all of his colleagues. Physicist Steven Jones, who first pointed to the use of thermite in the destruction of the two towers had to agree to having his university buy out his tenure or his university was faced with losing all federal financing.
The same constraints operate in the private sector. High rise architects and structural engineers who express doubts about the official explanation of the collapse of three skyscrapers are viewed by potential clients as Muslim apologists and conspiracy kooks. The clients, of course, have no expert knowledge with which to assess the issue, but they are indoctrinated with ceaseless, endless, repetition that 9/11 was Osama bin Laden's attack on America. Their indoctrination makes them immune to facts.
The 9/11 lie has persisted for 13 years. Millions of Muslims have paid for this lie with their lives, the destruction of their families, and with their dislocation. Most Americans remain comfortable with the fact that their government has destroyed in whole or part seven countries based on a lie Washington told to cover up an inside job that launched the crazed neoconservatives' drive for Washington's World Empire.
Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?
Paul Craig Roberts
September 25, 2014
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/25/will-russia-china-hold-fire-war-alternative-paul-craig-roberts/
Obama's September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington's double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law.
It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly.
The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world's worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.
The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: "We stand at a crossroads," "signposts of progress," "reduced chance of war between major powers," "hundreds of millions lifted from poverty," and while ebola ravages Africa "we've learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun." We are now God. "We" is comprised of the "exceptional people"–Americans. No one else counts. "We" are it.
It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama's speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? "Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition."
Or is it this one? "After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border."
The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner's destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner's cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.
The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.
Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.
And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, "If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv."
Which is "the cancer of violent extremism"–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?
Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington's dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?
ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a "network of death," a "brand of evil" with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?
Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington's inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington "to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." A "hostile power" is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington's exercise of power.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere." A "rival" is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington's hegemony.
In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington's world order on the condition that they accept Washington's hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington's control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia "if Russia changes course," Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington's interest over Russia's own interest.
Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.
Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China's sphere of influence, "promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations" by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.
As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington's claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.
By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.
For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.
Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?
Much of Washington's power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington's power. For example, the BRICS' talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn't even require Washington's European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.
One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington's dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn't Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.
When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia's demonization.
China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar's value from the Federal Reserve's policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.
China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.
Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar's value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar's exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar's use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.
Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.
Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.
By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington's attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting "Putin's war against Ukraine." Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.
Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?
Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington's hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington's policy of protecting Washington's status quo in the Muslim world.
If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington's control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.
China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington's interests.
Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation "Atlanticist Integrationists." They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.
The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington's hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.
To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world's worst terrorist state–the US.
It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.
The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.
Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.
How Tyranny Arises
Paul Craig Roberts
August 22, 2014
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/22/tyranny-arises-paul-craig-roberts/
Law & Order Conservatives continue to shill for police as goon thugs continue to
violate constitutional protections and abuse the public:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/henderson-family-sues-police-breaking-their-homes
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/think-third-amendment-irrelevant/
Gullible Americans have been trained to be fearful of crime, blacks, Muslims, terrorists, "domestic extremists," and now Russia. These fears result in the public accepting illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral actions by police and government. With the passage of time the wrongful police and government behavior become institutionalized as the young are born into the system and know no different and the old who remember accountable government and liberty pass away. This is how liberty and freedom die, citizens become serfs, and the rise of tyranny is accomplished.
The transformation of the US into a tyranny is far advanced. It is a revolution that owes its success to the gullibility, ignorance and unconcern of the majority of the American people and to a corrupt and cowardly national media that betrays liberty and fosters tyranny.
As a voice against this Revolution of Tyranny, I am under constant attack. This website has grown dramatically in US and international readership. Its continuation depends on your support.
Warning to the World: Washington and its NATO & EU Vassals are Insane
Paul Craig Roberts
September 2, 2014
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/02/warning-world-washington-nato-eu-vassals-insane-paul-craig-roberts-2/
Herbert E. Meyer, a nutcase who was a special assistant to the CIA director for a period during the Reagan administration, has penned an article calling for Russian President Putin's assassination. If we have " to get him out of the Kremlin feet-first with a bullet hole in the back of his head, that would be okay with us." http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/how_to_solve_the_putin_problem.html
As the crazed Meyer illiustrates, the insanity that Washington has released upon the world knows no restraint. Jose Manual Barroso, installed as Washington's puppet as European Commission President, misrepresented his recent confidential telephone conversation with Russia's President Putin by telling the media that Putin issued a threat: "If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks."
Clearly, Putin did not issue a threat. A threat would be inconsistent with Putin's entire unprovocative approach to the strategic threat that Washington and its NATO puppets have brought to Russia in Ukraine. Russia's permanent representative to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, said that if Barroso's lie stands, Russia will make public the full recording of the conversation
Anyone familiar with the disparity between the Ukrainian and Russian militaries knows full well that it would take the Russian military 14 hours, not 14 days, to take all of Ukraine. Just remember what happened to the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian Army when Washington set its stupid Georgian puppets on South Ossetia. The American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian army collapsed under Russian counterattack in 5 hours.
The lie that Washington's puppet Barroso told was not worthy of a serious person. But where in Europe is there a serious person in power? Nowhere. The few serious people are all out of power. Consider the NATO Secretary General, Anders Rasmussen. He was a prime minister of Denmark who saw he could rise beyond Denmark by serving as Washington's puppet. As prime minister he strongly supported Washington's illegal invasion of Iraq, declaring that "we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." Of course, the fool didn't know any such thing, and why would it matter if Iraq did have such weapons. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction.
According to the rule that anyone who serves Washington is elevated, the cipher Rasmussen was elevated.
The problem with elevating unprincipled fools is that they risk the world for their career. Rasmussen has now put the entirety of Eastern and Western Europe at risk of annihilation. Rasmussen has announced the creation of a blitzkrieg spearhead force capable of blitzkrieg attack on Russia. What Washington's puppet calls "the Readiness Action Plan" is justified as a response to "Russia's aggressive behavior in Ukraine."
Rasmussen's "lightening spearhead force" would be wiped out along with every European capital. What kind of idiot provokes a nuclear superpower in this way?
Rasmussen asserts "Russia's aggressive behavior" but has no evidence of it. Russia has stood on the sidelines while Washington's puppet government in Kiev has shelled and bombed civilian housing, hospitals, schools and issued a constant stream of lies against Russia. Russia denied the requests of the now independent eastern and southern provinces of Ukraine, former Russian territories, to be reunited with Russia. As readers know, I regard Putin's decision as a mistake, but events might prove me wrong and that is OK with me. For now, the fact is that every act of aggressive behavior is the result of the US and EU support of the Kiev nazis. It is the Ukrainian nazi militias that are attacking civilians in the former Russian territories of eastern and southern Ukraine. A number of regular Ukrainian military units have defected to the independent republics.
Yes, nazis. Western Ukraine is the home of the Ukrainian SS division that fought for Hitler. Today the militias organized by the Right Sector and other right-wing political organizations wear the nazi insignia of the Ukrainian SS divisions. These are the people that Washington and the EU support. If the Ukrainian nazis could win against Russia, which they cannot, they would turn on the West, just as has the Washington-funded ISIS that Washington unleashed on Libya and Syria. Now ISIS is remaking the Middle East, and Washington appears helpless.
William Binney, a former high level official in the US National Security Agency, and colleagues from the CIA and military intelligence services have written to German chancellor Merkel advising her to beware of Obama's lies at the upcoming NATO summit in Wales. The US intelligence officials advise Merkel to remember Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and don't again be deceived, this time into conflict with Russia. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-01/ex-nsa-director-us-intelligence-veterans-write-open-letter-merkel-avoid-all-out-ukra
The question is: who does Merkel represent? Washington or Germany? So far Merkel has represented Washington, not German business interests, not the German people, and not Germany's interests as a country. Here is a protest in Dresden where a crowd prevents Merkel's speech with shouts of "kriegstreiber" (warmonger), "liar, liar," and "no war with Russia." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wSMhGE_Mpk
My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale, We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office.
The Western media, the largest brothel on earth, is desperate for war. The editorial board of the Washington Post, now a trophy newspaper in the hands of Amazon.com's billionaire owner, ran an editorial on August 31 that projected all of Washington's (and the Post's) lies upon Putin.
Amazon.com's owner might know how to market products on the Internet, but he is hopeless when it comes to running a newspaper. His editors at the Washington Post have made his trophy a worldwide laughing stock.
Here are the mindless accusations against Putin from the editors that the billionaire put in charge of his trophy newspaper:
Putin, bitterly resentful at the loss of power from the Soviet collapse, has "resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie" in order to reconstitute the Russian Empire.
"Russian sponsored militias in Ukraine" are responsible for the "shoot-down of the Malaysian airliner in July." The "Russian state-controlled media" lied and misrepresented to the Russian people the party responsible for downing the airliner.
"In the absence of independent and free reporting, few Russians realize that Russian soldiers and armaments are in action in eastern Ukraine, albeit (as in Crimea) in uniforms and vehicles stripped of their identifying insignia and license plates. With no free media, Russians are left to fend for themselves against a firestorm of falsehoods."
"Mr. Putin's Big Lie shows why it is important to support a free press where it still exists and outlets like Radio Free Europe that bring the truth to people who need it."
As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I can say with complete confidence that such extraordinary propaganda posing as an editorial would have resulted in the immediate firing of all concerned. In my days on the Congressional staff, the Washington Post was regarded as a CIA asset. Today the Post has sunk far below this status.
I have seen much media propaganda in my day, but this Washington Post editorial takes the cake. The editorial shows that either the editorial writers are completely ignorant or they are completely corrupt and also assume that their readers are completely ignorant. If Russian military units were in action in eastern Ukraine, the situation would be precisely as Alexander Zakharchenko http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/30/west-greatest-cause-war-human-history-stands-stripped-legitimacy-paul-craig-roberts/ and Dmitry Orlov describe. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/01/can-tell-whether-russia-invaded-ukraine/ Ukraine would no longer exist. Ukraine would again be part of Russia where it was for centuries prior to Washington taking advantage of the Soviet collapse to tear Ukraine away from Russia.
The question before us is: how long will Russia's patience last with the West's enormous lies and provocations? No matter how restrained Russia is, Russia is accused of the worst. Therefore, Russia might as well inflict the worst.
At what point will the Russian government decide that Washington's mendacity, and that of its European puppets and corrupt Western media, render hopeless Russia's efforts to resolve the situation with diplomacy and unprovocative behavior? As Russia is constantly accused falsely of invading Ukraine, when will the Russian government decide that as Western propaganda has established that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has imposed sanctions and new military bases on Russia's borders because of the alleged invasion, Russia might as well go ahead and rid themselves of the problem Washington has brought to Russia and invade Ukraine?
There is nothing that NATO could do about it if Russia decides that Ukraine in Washington's hands is too much of a strategic threat to Russia and reincorporates Ukraine again into Russia where it has resided for centuries. Any NATO force sent would start a war that NATO can't win. The German population, remembering the consequences of war with Russia, would overthrow Washington's puppet government. NATO and the EU would collapse as Germany departed the absurd construct that serves Washington's interest at the expense of Europe.
Once this happens, the world will have peace. But not until.
For those who care to understand how the land of lies works, Washington's puppet government in Kiev attributes the defeat of its military forces by the Donetsk Republic to the presence in the Donetsk army of Russian military units. This is the propaganda that has gone out to western Ukraine and to the presstitute western media, a collection of whores that echo the propaganda without any investigation whatsoever. However, Kiev has a different story for the IMF. Kiev cannot receive IMF money with which to pay off its Western creditors if Ukraine is at war. Therefore, Ukraine tells the IMF the opposite story: Russia has not attacked Ukraine. http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukie-doubleplusgooddoublethink.html
The Western media remains uninterested in any facts. Just the lies. Only the lies.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, Fox "news," Die Welt, the French press, the British press all plead: "please Washington give us more sensational lies that we can trumpet. Our circulation needs it. Who cares about war and the human race if only we can regain financial stability."
Justin Raimondo warns that Washington is planting the seeds of World War III: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/09/02/our-cold-war-with-russia-could-turn-hot/
The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria. Oil Gas Pipeline War
The Kerry-Abdullah Secret Deal
By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, October 26, 2014
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130
The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called IS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King. The unintended consequence will be to push Russia even faster to turn east to China and Eurasia.
One of the weirdest anomalies of the recent NATO bombing campaign, allegedly against the ISIS or IS or ISIL or Daash, depending on your preference, is the fact that with major war raging in the world's richest oil region, the price of crude oil has been dropping, dramatically so. Since June when ISIS suddenly captured the oil-rich region of Iraq around Mosul and Kirkuk, the benchmark Brent price of crude oil dropped some 20% from $112 to about $88. World daily demand for oil has not dropped by 20% however. China oil demand has not fallen 20% nor has US domestic shale oil stock risen by 21%.
What has happened is that the long-time US ally inside OPEC, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been flooding the market with deep discounted oil, triggering a price war within OPEC, with Iran following suit and panic selling short in oil futures markets. The Saudis are targeting sales to Asia for the discounts and in particular, its major Asian customer, China where it is reportedly offering its crude for a mere $50 to $60 a barrel rather than the earlier price of around $100. [1] That Saudi financial discounting operation in turn is by all appearance being coordinated with a US Treasury financial warfare operation, via its Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, in cooperation with a handful of inside players on Wall Street who control oil derivatives trading. The result is a market panic that is gaining momentum daily. China is quite happy to buy the cheap oil, but her close allies, Russia and Iran, are being hit severely.
The deal
According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC's largest producer. The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria.[2]
When combined with the financial losses of Russian state natural gas sales to Ukraine and prospects of a US-instigated cutoff of the transit of Russian gas to the huge EU market this winter as EU stockpiles become low, the pressure on oil prices hits Moscow doubly. More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas.
The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin's Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony. The strategy is similar to what the US did with Saudi Arabia in 1986 when they flooded the world with Saudi oil, collapsing the price to below $10 a barrel and destroying the economy of then-Soviet ally, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and, ultimately, of the Soviet economy, paving the way for the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, the hope is that a collapse of Russian oil revenues, combined with select pin-prick sanctions designed by the US Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence will dramatically weaken Putin's enormous domestic support and create conditions for his ultimate overthrow. It is doomed to fail for many reasons, not the least, because Putin's Russia has taken major strategic steps together with China and other nations to lessen its dependence on the West. In fact the oil weapon is accelerating recent Russian moves to focus its economic power on national interests and lessen dependence on the Dollar system. If the dollar ceases being the currency of world trade, especially oil trade, the US Treasury faces financial catastrophe. For this reason, I call the Kerry-Abdullah oil war a very stupid tactic.
The Kerry-Abdullah secret deal
On September 11, US Secretary of State Kerry met Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. The King invited former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar to attend. There a deal was hammered out which saw Saudi support for the Syrian airstrikes against ISIS on condition Washington backed the Saudis in toppling Assad, a firm ally of Russia and de facto of Iran and an obstacle to Saudi and UAE plans to control the emerging EU natural gas market and destroy Russia's lucrative EU trade. A report in the Wall Street Journal noted there had been "months of behind-the-scenes work by the US and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority." [3]
For the Saudis the war is between two competing age-old vectors of Islam. Saudi Arabia, home to the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, claims de facto supremacy in the Islamic world of Sunni Islam. The Saudi Sunni form is ultra-conservative Wahhabism, named for an 18th Century Bedouin Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahha. The Taliban derive from Wahhabism with the aid of Saudi-financed religious instruction. The Gulf Emirates and Kuwait also adhere to the Sunni Wahhabism of the Saudis, as does the Emir of Qatar. Iran on the other hand historically is the heart of the smaller branch of Islam, the Shi'ite. Iraq's population is some 61% majority Shi'ite. Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad is a member of a satellite of the Shi'ite branch known as Alawite. Some 23% of Turkey is also Alawite Muslim. To complicate the picture more, across a bridge from Saudi Arabia sits the tiny island country, Bahrain where as many as 75% of the population is Shi'ite but the ruling Al-Khalifa family is Sunni and firmly tied to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the richest Saudi oil region is dominated by Shi'ite Muslims who work the oil installations of Ras Tanura.
An oil and gas pipeline war
These historic fault lines inside Islam which lay dormant, were brought into a state of open warfare with the launching of the US State Department and CIA's Islamic Holy War, otherwise known as the Arab Spring. Washington neo-conservatives embedded inside the Obama Administration in a form of "Deep State" secret network, and their allied media such as the Washington Post, advocated US covert backing of a pet CIA project known as the Muslim Brotherhood. As I detail in my most recent book, Amerikas' Heiliger Krieg, the CIA had cultivated ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood death cult since the early 1950's.
Now if we map the resources of known natural gas reserves in the entire Persian Gulf region, the motives of the Saudi-led Qatar and UAE in financing with billions of dollars the opposition to Assad, including the Sunni ISIS, becomes clearer. Natural gas has become the favored "clean energy" source for the 21st Century and the EU is the world's largest growth market for gas, a major reason Washington wants to break the Gazprom-EU supply dependency to weaken Russia and keep control over the EU via loyal proxies like Qatar.
The world's largest known natural gas reservoir sits in the middle of the Persian Gulf straddling part in the territorial waters of Qatar and part in Iran. The Iranian part is called North Pars. In 2006 China's state-owned CNOOC signed an agreement with Iran to develop North Pars and build LNG infrastructure to bring the gas to China.[4]
The Qatar side of the Persian Gulf, called North Field, contains the world's third largest known natural gas reserves behind Russia and Iran.
In July 2011, the governments of Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an historic gas pipeline energy agreement which went largely unnoticed in the midst of the NATO-Saudi-Qatari war to remove Assad. The pipeline, envisioned to cost $10 billion and take three years to complete, would run from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh near the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, to Damascus in Syria via Iraq territory. The agreement would make Syria the center of assembly and production in conjunction with the reserves of Lebanon. This is a geopolitically strategic space that geographically opens for the first time, extending from Iran to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[5] As Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar put it, "The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it's ever built – would solidify a predominantly Shi'ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord."[6]
Shortly after signing with Iran and Iraq, on August 16, 2011, Bashar al-Assad's Syrian Ministry of Oil announced the discovery of a gas well in the Area of Qarah in the Central Region of Syria near Homs. Gazprom, with Assad in power, would be a major investor or operator of the new gas fields in Syria. [7] Iran ultimately plans to extend the pipeline from Damascus to Lebanon's Mediterranean port where it would be delivered to the huge EU market. Syria would buy Iranian gas along with a current Iraqi agreement to buy Iranian gas from Iran's part of South Pars field.[8]
Qatar, today the world's largest exporter of LNG, largely to Asia, wants the same EU market that Iran and Syria eye. For that, they would build pipelines to the Mediterranean. Here is where getting rid of the pro-Iran Assad is essential. In 2009 Qatar approached Bashar al-Assad to propose construction of a gas pipeline from Qatar's north Field through Syria on to Turkey and to the EU. Assad refused, citing Syria's long friendly relations with Russia and Gazprom. That refusal combined with the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline agreement in 2011 ignited the full-scale Saudi and Qatari assault on Assad's power, financing al Qaeda terrorists, recruits of Jihadist fanatics willing to kill Alawite and Shi'ite "infidels" for $100 a month and a Kalishnikov. The Washington neo-conservative warhawks in and around the Obama White House, along with their allies in the right-wing Netanyahu government, were cheering from the bleachers as Syria went up in flames after spring 2011.
Today the US-backed wars in Ukraine and in Syria are but two fronts in the same strategic war to cripple Russia and China and to rupture any Eurasian counter-pole to a US-controlled New World Order. In each, control of energy pipelines, this time primarily of natural gas pipelines—from Russia to the EU via Ukraine and from Iran and Syria to the EU via Syria—is the strategic goal. The true aim of the US and Israel backed ISIS is to give the pretext for bombing Assad's vital grain silos and oil refineries to cripple the economy in preparation for a "Ghaddafi-"style elimination of Russia and China and Iran-ally Bashar al-Assad.
In a narrow sense, as Washington neo-conservatives see it, who controls Syria could control the Middle East. And from Syria, gateway to Asia, he will hold the key to Russia House, as well as that of China via the Silk Road.
Religious wars have historically been the most savage of all wars and this one is no exception, especially when trillions of dollars in oil and gas revenues are at stake. Why is the secret Kerry-Abdullah deal on Syria reached on September 11 stupid? Because the brilliant tacticians in Washington and Riyadh and Doha and to an extent in Ankara are unable to look at the interconnectedness of all the dis-order and destruction they foment, to look beyond their visions of control of the oil and gas flows as the basis of their illegitimate power. They are planting the seeds of their own destruction in the end.
William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics in the New World Order. He is a contributing author at BFP and may be contacted through his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net where this article was originally published.
The Collapse of Oil Prices: Has Washington Just Shot Itself in the Oily Foot?
By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, November 06, 2014
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-oil-prices-has-washington-just-shot-itself-in-the-oily-foot/5412265
By now even the New York Times is openly talking about the secret Obama Administration strategy of trying to bankrupt Russia by using its oil-bloated Bedouin bosom buddy, Saudi Arabia, to collapse the world price of oil. However, it's beginning to look like the neo-conservative Russia-haters and Cold war wanna-be hawks around Barack Obama may have just shot themselves in their oily foot. As I referred to it in an earlier article, their oil price strategy is basically stupid. Stupid, as all consequences have not been taken into account. Take now the impact on US oil production as prices plummet.
The collapse in US oil prices since September may very soon collapse the US shale oil bubble and tear away the illusion that the United States will surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's largest oil producer. That illusion, fostered by faked resource estimates issued by the US Department of Energy, has been a lynchpin of Obama geopolitical strategy.
Now the financial Ponzi scheme behind the increase of US domestic oil output the past several years is about to evaporate in a cloud of fictitious smoke. The basic economics of shale oil production are being ravaged by the 23% oil price drop since John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah had their secret meeting near the Red Sea in early September to agree on the Saudi oil price war against Russia.
Wall Street bank analysts at Goldman Sachs just issued a 2015 forecast that US oil prices, measured by a benchmark called WTI (West Texas Intermediate) will fall to $70 a barrel. In September 2013, WTI was more than $106 a barrel. That translates into a sharp 34% price collapse in just a few months. Why is that critical to the US shale production? Because, unlike conventional crude oil deposits, shale oil or tight oil as industry calls it, depleted dramatically faster.
A comprehensive new analysis just issued by David Hughes, a Canadian oil geo-scientist with thirty years' experience with the Geological Survey of Canada, using data from existing US shale oil production that has now become public for the first time (the shale oil story is very recent), shows dramatic rates of oil volume decline from US shale oil wells:
The three year average well decline rates for the seven shale oil basins measured for the report range from an astounding 60-percent to 91-percent. That means over those three years, the amount of oil coming out of the wells decreases by that percentage. This translates to 43-percent to 64-percent of their estimated ultimate recovery dug out during the first three years of the well's existence. Four of the seven shale gas basins are already in terminal decline in terms of their well productivity: the Haynesville Shale, Fayetteville Shale, Woodford Shale and Barnett Shale.
A decrease in oil daily of between 60% and 91% for these best possible shale oil regions means the oil companies must drill deeper to even stay still with oil production, let alone increase total oil volume. That means the drillers must spend more money to drill deeper, a lot more. According to Hughes, the Obama administration Department of Energy has uncritically taken rosy forecast numbers given them by the companies that boost the US shale oil myth. His calculations show future US shale oil output only 10% that estimated for 2040 by the Energy Department.
Hughes describes the current deadly dilemma of the shale oil companies as a "drilling treadmill." They must drill more and more wells just to keep production levels flat. The oil companies have already gone after the most promising shale oil areas, so-called "sweet spots," to maximize their production. Now as production begins to decline terminally, they must start drilling in spaces with less rich oil and gas returns. He adds, "if the future of U.S. oil and natural gas production depends on resources in the country's deep shale deposits...we are in for a big disappointment."
Oil price collapse
What Hughes describes was the state of shale oil before the start of the Kerry-Abdullah Saudi oil price war. Now US WTI oil prices have dropped a catastrophic 25% in six weeks, and still falling. Other large oil producers like Russia and Iran are in turn flooding the world market with their oil to increase revenue for their state budgets, adding to a global oil supply glut. That in turn pressures prices more.
The shale oil and gas bonanza of the past five years in the USA has been built on a foundation of zero Federal Reserve interest rates and huge speculative investment by hungry Wall Street firms and funds. Because of the ultra-rapid oil well depletion, when market oil prices collapse, the entire economics of lending to the shale oil drillers collapses as well. Money suddenly vanishes and debt-strapped oil companies begin real problems.
According to Philip Verleger, former head of President Carter's Office of Energy Policy and now an energy consultant, in North Dakota's Bakken shale, one of the most important new shale oil regions, oil at $70 a barrel could cut production 28 percent to 800,000 barrels a day by February from 1.1 million barrels a day in July. "The cash flow will go down as the prices go down, the amount of money advanced to these people to continue the drilling will dry up entirely, so you'll see a marked slowdown in drilling," said Verleger.
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars
The end of the shale oil bubble would deal a devastating blow to the US oil geopolitics. Today an estimated 55% of US oil production and all the production increase of the past several years comes from fracking for shale oil. With financing cut off because of economic risk amid falling oil prices, shale oil drillers will be forced to halt new drilling that is needed merely to maintain a steady oil output.
The aggressive US foreign policy in the Middle East—its war against Syria's al-Assad regime, its hardball oil sanctions against Iran, its sanctions against Russian oil projects, its cynical toleration of ISIS in Iraqi oil regions, its refusal to intervene to stabilize the Libyan oil economy but instead to tolerate dis-order are all premised on a cocky view in Washington that the USA is once again the King of Oil in the world and can afford to play high-risk oil geopolitics. The official government agency responsible for advising the CIA, Department of Defense, State Department and White House on energy, the US Department of Energy, has issued projections of US shale oil growth based on myths and lies. That has led the Obama White House to launch oil wars based on those same myths and lies about the rosy prospects of shale oil.
This oily arrogance was epitomized in a speech by then Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon. In an April 2013 speech at Columbia University, Donilon, then Obama's national security adviser, publicly expressed this: "America's new energy posture allows us to engage from a position of greater strength. Increasing US energy supplies acts as a cushion that helps reduce our vulnerability to global supply disruptions and price shocks. It also affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our international security goals."
The next three or so months in the US shale oil domain will be strategic.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"
"ISIS" is Merely a Backdoor to Ousting Assad. Here's WHY & HOW...
September 16th, 2014
http://investmentwatchblog.com/isis-is-merely-a-backdoor-to-ousting-assad-heres-why-how/
"ISIS" is obviously an excuse to bomb Syria, as a back door attempt to oust Assad by providing air support for the faltering Free Syrian Army. Russian diplomacy foiled the first neoconservative push to bomb Syria last year.
We're told by our government and media that we've been shown "beheading" videos. That's not true. If you look hard enough online, you can find the RAW "beheading" videos. But in NONE of the three "beheading" videos (Foley, Sotloff, and Haines) does it show a head being cut off. As "Jihad John" ostensibly starts to saw their necks with his knife, the video fades to black. When the video comes back on, it shows a "headless body" with the purported head of the victim resting on the back.
It reminds me of the alleged Saddam Hussein "hanging" video. NOWHERE did it ever show Saddam hanging. It showed him with the noose around his neck, then the trap door opens and he falls through. BUT THEN THE VIDEO AGAIN GOES BLACK! When the video comes back, we see the ostensibly lifeless body of Saddam laying on the floor with the noose around his neck.
Seeing a pattern?
And where's the video of the raid that allegedly killed Bin Laden?
It's amazing that we can be TOLD what we are actually SEEING with our own eyes, and have our own observation be "overridden" by what our government & media tell us.
Edward Bernays would be proud.
The purpose of the fake beheadings is to sway public opinion to support action in Syria — a back door to overthrowing Assad; the first effort being thwarted by clever Russian diplomacy last year.
And don't assume that the President or Congress are behind this. It's much deeper. Powerful interests (whose bidding our politicians do; namely Israel & Saudi Arabia) want Assad removed.
Incidentally, the war in the Middle East is against SHI'A Islam, the House of Saud's mortal enemy. Look whom ISIS is attacking — Shi'a-ruled countries — Syria & Iraq, with Iran being the ultimate prize, eventually; especially since the American public wasn't buying the neocons' lies and push to directly bomb Iran over the last 7 or 8 years. So Syria is a back door to Iran, as "ISIS" is a back door to Syria (Assad).
America doesn't get its oil from Saudi Arabia, but much of the rest of the world does. And where do the Saudis invest their massive oil profits? Not in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia invests its oil fortune in the U.S. economy. And currently we're more desperate than ever for that investment. THAT's the "relationship" between the U.S. & KSA. As with China, the U.S. desperately needs that massive Saudi investment into our debt-ridden, non-producing (except the Defense industry), faltering economy.
Remember a little over a year ago, the media said the U.S. was going to train the FSA (Free Syrian Army) in Jordan? It's my contention that we armed and trained "ISIS" in the eastern desert of Jordan. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was Blackwater/ Xe/ Academi (whatever they've changed their name to this week) who did the training.
How is ISIS funded? Where do they get their oil? Their arms? How do they manage logistically? Supply lines, etc.?
Of course we're told they stole U.S. weaponry from Iraqi Army bases in northern Iraq, and that they robbed banks in Mosul (lol). How convenient. Now no one will raise an eyebrow when they see "ISIS" in humvees and shooting M-16s, and not question their funding.
If "ISIS" is as we've been told, why didn't we bomb the holy hell out of them as they drove south from Mosul along the highway toward Baghdad in one, long convoy. We've been shown those photos by the media. I'm sure those photos were meant to elicit a feeling of desperation and fear in the American public, but to any thinking, rational, logical person it begged the question: Why aren't we bombing that "ISIS" convoy like we bombed the retreating Iraqi Army in 1991 on the highway from Kuwait back to Iraq?!
Why? For the same reason "Pentagon lawyers" shut down Able Danger after Lt. Col. Shaffer's team identified Mohammed Atta and several other "terrorists" in 2000. For the same reason western intelligence knew of Bin Laden's 10-day stay for medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001.
And that reason is: Why would the U.S. eliminate the very boogeyman it created? That boogeyman is needed to serve it's psychological purpose as scapegoat.
Here's Why
Britain Poised to Muzzle 'Extremist' Speech
The country that gave us free expression may be backpedaling.
Brendan O'Neill | November 8, 2014
http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/08/britain-poised-to-silence-extremist-spee
In Britain, if you have extreme views on anything from Western democracy to women's role in public life, you might soon require a licence from the government before you can speak in public. Seriously.
Nearly 350 years after us Brits abolished the licensing of the press, whereby every publisher had to get the blessing of the government before he could press and promote his ideas, a new system of licensing is being proposed. And it's one which, incredibly, is even more tyrannical than yesteryear's press licensing since it would extend to individuals, too, potentially forbidding ordinary citizens from opening their gobs in public without officialdom's say-so.
It's the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron's government. May wants to introduce "extremism disruption orders", which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.
Last month, May unveiled her ambition to "eliminate extremism in all its forms." Whether you're a neo-Nazi or an Islamist, or just someone who says things which betray, in May's words, a lack of "respect for the rule of law" and "respect for minorities", then you could be served with an extremism disruption order (EDO).
Strikingly, EDOs will target even individuals who do not espouse or promote violence, which is already a crime in the U.K. As May says, "The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence. [This] has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line." How telling that a leading British politician should be snotty about "this distinction" between speech and violence, between words and actions, which isn't actually some glitch in the legal system, as she seems to think, but rather is the foundation stone on which every free, democratic society ought to be built.
Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a "requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print." That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
What sort of people might find themselves branded "extremists" and thus forbidden from speaking in public? Anyone, really. The definition of extremist being bandied about by May and her colleagues is so sweeping that pretty much all individuals with outré or edgy views could potentially find themselves served with an EDO and no longer allowed to make any public utterance without government approval.
So you won't have to incite violence to be labelled an extremist —in May's words, these extremism-disrupting orders will go "beyond terrorism." May says far-right activists and Islamist hotheads who have not committed any crime or incited violence could be served with an order to shut the hell up. She has also talked about people who think "a woman's intellect [is] deficient," or who have "denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs," or who have "rejected democracy"—these folk, too, could potentially be branded extremists and silenced. In short, it could become a crime punishable by gagging to be a sexist or a religion-hater or someone who despises democracy.
Never mind violence, you won't even have to incite hatred in order to be judged an extremist. As one newspaper report sums it up, the aim is "to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred," but anyone who indulges in "harmful activities" that could cause "public disorder" or "alarm or distress" or a "threat to the functioning of democracy." (By "harmful activities", the government really means "harmful words"—there's that Orwellian slip again.) This is such a cynically flabby definition of extremism that it could cover any form of impassioned, angry political or moral speech, much of which regularly causes "alarm or distress" to some of the people who hear it.
As some Christian campaigners recently pointed out, they are frequently accused by their opponents of being "extremists" and of "spreading hatred" simply for opposing gay marriage and taking other traditional stances. Will they potentially be silenced for saying extreme things and causing distress? It's not beyond the realms of possibility, given that May has said that anyone who wants to avoid being thought of as an extremist should "respect British values and institutions" and express "respect for minorities." Slamming gay marriage could very well be read as disrespect for a British institution (gay marriage was legalised here this year) and disrespect for a minority.
What the government is proposing is the punishment of thoughtcrimes, plain and simple. Its insistence that officialdom must now move beyond policing violence and incitements to violence and start clamping down on hotheaded, "harmful" speech that simply distresses people is about colonising the world of thought, of speech, of mere intellectual interaction between individuals—spheres officialdom has no business in policing.
But self-styled progressives, members of the left and those who consider themselves liberal, don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging May's tyrannical proposals. For it is was their own arguments, their claims over the past decade that "hate speech" is dangerous and must be controlled and curbed, that gave legitimacy to May's vast silencing project, that inflamed the government's belief that it has the right to police heated minds and not just heated behaviour.
For the best part of two decades, so-called progressives have been spreading fear about the impact of dodgy words and dangerous ideas on the fabric of society. On campuses, in academia, in public life, they've continually pushed the notion that words hurt, that they cause terrible psychic damage, especially to vulnerable groups, wrecking people's self-esteem and making individuals feel worthless. From Britain's student-union officials who have banned Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' in the name of protecting "students' wellbeing" to feminists who have demanded (and won) the arrest and imprisonment of misogynistic trolls, a climate of intolerance towards testy and vulgar speech has already been created in Britain, and the government is merely milking it.
May's proposal to set up a system of licensing for speech, essentially to provide a license to those who respect British values and deny it to those who don't, is the ugly, authoritarian endpoint to the mad obsession with hate speech that has enveloped much of the Western world in recent years.
We should defend extremists. Extremism can be good. I'm an extremist, especially on freedom of speech, which I don't think should ever be limited. Extremists enliven public debate; they sex it up, stir it up, forcing us all to rethink our outlooks and attitudes and sometimes to change our minds. A world without extremists would be conformist and dull and spiritually and intellectually dead.
Let's remember the words of the 17th-century poet John Milton in his impassioned argument against those authorities that last tried to license public expression: "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." Guess what was said about Milton after he said those words? Yep, he was called an extremist.
(PHOTO) Man Refuses to Perform Nazi Salute, 1936 - Hamburg, Germany
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2982249/posts
August Landmesser (born May 24, 1910; missing and presumed dead Oct 17, 1944; declared dead in 1949) was a worker at the Blohm + Voss shipyard in Hamburg, Germany, best known for his appearance in a photograph refusing to perform the Nazi salute at the launch of the naval training vessel Horst Wessel on 13 June 1936.
August Landmesser was the only child of August Franz Landmesser and Wilhelmine Magdalene (née Schmidtpott). He joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in 1931 in hope of getting a job. When he became engaged to the Jewish woman Irma Eckler in 1935, he was expelled from the party. They registered to be married in Hamburg, but the Nuremberg Laws enacted a month later prevented it.
On October 29, 1935, their first daughter Ingrid was born. In 1937, they tried to flee to Denmark but Landmesser was arrested and it became known that Irma Eckler was pregnant and expecting another daughter.
Landmesser was charged and found guilty of "dishonoring the race" under Nazi racial laws in July 1937. Landmesser argued that neither he nor Eckler knew that she was fully Jewish, and he was acquitted on May 27, 1938 for lack of evidence, with the warning that a repeat offense would result in a multi-year prison sentence. Landmesser and Eckler publicly continued their relationship, and on July 15, 1938 he was arrested again and sentenced to two and a half years in the concentration camp Börgermoor.
Eckler was detained by the Gestapo and held at the prison Fuhlsbüttel, where she gave birth to a second daughter Irene. From there she was sent to the Oranienburg concentration camp, then the Lichtenburg concentration camp for women, and then the women's concentration camp at Ravensbrück. Their children were initially taken to the city orphanage. Ingrid was later allowed to live with her maternal grandmother; Irene went to the home of foster parents in 1941. After her grandmother's death in 1953, Ingrid was also placed with foster parents. A few letters came from Irma Eckler until January 1942. It is believed that she was brought to the so-called Bernburg Euthanasia Centre in February 1942, where she was among the 14,000 killed; she was pronounced dead in 1949, with a date of April 28, 1942.
Landmesser was discharged from prison on 19 January 1941. Landmesser worked as a foreman for the firm Püst, a haulage company. The company had a branch at the Heinkel-Werke (factory) in Warnemünde. In February 1944 he was drafted into a penal battalion, the 999th Fort Infantry Battalion. He was declared missing in action and presumably killed during fighting in Croatia on October 17, 1944. He was declared dead in 1949, with an effective date of August 1 that year. The marriage of August Landmesser and Irma Eckler was recognized retroactively by the Senate of Hamburg in the summer of 1951, and in the autumn of that year Ingrid assumed the surname Landmesser. Irene continued to use the surname Eckler.
- Wikipedia
Bill Hicks - It's Just A Ride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrKW7fh_Bo
As you have all (I hope) surmised by now the UK government is becoming increasingly desperate to cover-up the extensive inhumane crimes of the establishment, which will see every single one of them who has served evil going to prison for the rest of their natural lives on this planet.
Nuremberg Trials 2 is on the horizon for them and with every sunrise moves closer...
They cannot paint the 9/11 or 7/7 truth movements as terrorists because we are not terrorists, we are professionals and truthists who simply point out the lies with persistent and incontestable proof.
As the dog poet would say:
'As long as certain twisted souls feel the need to lie, cheat and murder to achieve their ends some of us need to keep pointing it out.......' - Visible
I have no doubt that I will be served with an "extremist disruption order" when they make it legal to silence peaceful justified dissent. An EDO is surely better than being targeted for assassination, is it not ? Hmmm...
The reason they have to go this route is because they could never convince the public that I, or my fellow men that stand for the truth, are terrorists. Many people know me, many people know you, and none of them would say you are a terrorist.. would they ?
We do not organise protests, we do not join "extremist organisations", we do not advocate violence as the solution to the problem; in fact we champion the opposite of extremism and simply ask for an honest and open investigation into terrorist events that have changed the course of planet Earth's journey, and is based upon rigorous scientific proof.
At some point in the future I will be gone, one way or another. What matters to me is that you remember that Robert Ian Mason stood; against tyranny, with everything he had. I stand with Everyman that would be free from tyranny.
I do not have the same luxury as Udo Ulfkotte, I have dependant children. Being a father does not make the decision to stand any more difficult, it just makes it more painful in every moment. I cry sometimes because of it, but I stand.
My generation is the last generation with the choice to stand, the next generation will not get a choice, it will be over; and if we do not stand now.. Everyman standing together as brothers and sisters in the face of tyranny, united as one, the chance will be gone.
I cannot make you stand, but I can show you that I stood.
The Best of Bill Hicks: You Can't Handle The Truth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT-DGRhsQd8
William Melvin "Bill" Hicks (December 16, 1961 -- February 26, 1994) was an American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist, and musician. His material largely consisted of general discussions about society, religion, politics, philosophy, and personal issues. Hicks's material was often controversial and steeped in dark comedy. In both his stand-up performances and during interviews, he often criticized consumerism, superficiality, mediocrity, and banality within the media and popular culture, describing them as oppressive tools of the ruling class, meant to "keep people stupid and apathetic".
ISIS Psyop Final Phase - Prolonging the Existence of ISIS
Bernie Suarez
Activist Post - Tuesday, November 11, 2014
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/11/isis-psyop-final-phase-prolonging.html
Those of us who are truth seekers marching through life with an everyday understanding of longstanding government false flag operations, corruption, stated global plans and strategies, live in a much easier and clearer world than our counterpart brainwashed, naive, TV and mainstream media-indoctrinated zombies.
Yes, at this point in history, given the information age and the broad worldwide awakening to the new world order plans, we can now definitively declare not only the manifestation of our conscious existence but concomitantly we can pinpoint the manifestation of those who are the exact opposite of who we are; that is, those who are asleep in the matrix and believe mainstream media propaganda and the lies that the sheep are told every day.
There is something special about mainstream media CIA-controlled news that is important to point out. I've alluded to this in previous articles but it's very important to mention again here. The idea of mainstream media acting as a deceptive government mouthpiece is something most if not all of my readers are widely familiar with. However, it is important to underscore that mainstream media news, like the moving spiral of a hypnotic presentation, is always moving. In other words, if mainstream media actually stopped for even one day, it would begin to lose its effect immediately, and the control system knows this. The power of CIA-controlled mainstream media hypnosis comes in the fact that mainstream media news is ongoing. You get hit with one story, then another, then another, and another and so on. The motion of stories never ends. This moving quality of story-delivery is powerful and carries a hypnotic effect.
Let me be more specific.
When your brain hears one story about ISIS, if that story stood alone eventually your brain would start questioning the story if it didn't have enough weight of evidence to it. However, given the same amount of non-evidence, if you keep the ISIS stories coming continuously, your brain starts wondering how improbable it is that ALL of the stories are untrue; therefore, the naive brain begins to accept that even if the first one or two stories weren't exactly true, then these next 50 stories can't all possibly be untrue.
With this example we can see that the motion of delivering continuous stories then begins to take root inside the mind of the naive mainstream media watcher until finally the person simply believes what they see. With this moving process of continuous lies the CIA is assured that mainstream media believers will eventually be lulled into the hypnotic state they want. Once the sheep are in a deep trance (probably within the first one or two months of repeatedly seeing ISIS stories in this example) the sheep will accept literally anything the CIA throws at them.
This final phase is exactly where we are in terms of the now historic 2014 American media ISIS psyop. This deep trance phase is the phase which will last a very long time, and its main purpose is to prolong the perceived existence of ISIS. During this long trance phase the only thing that matters is that ISIS never goes away. So no matter how powerful the U.S. military is and how powerful the military of all of its allies are, ISIS will never be and must never be defeated. ISIS must live on somehow in this long-term final psyop phase.
From an Intelligence standpoint the creators of the ISIS script need to be creative in generating stories about ISIS that makes it appear as though they are invincible, invisible, have impeccable intelligence, demonstrate super counter-surveillance, are masters of the Internet and alternate communication, are wildly evasive and untraceable, are mobile, clever, quick, ultra-strategic and full of masterful military tactical surprises.
Prolonging the ISIS psyop doesn't end there. It is imperative to push ISIS out of the news for long periods of time so we can expect this next year (2015). Pushing ISIS out of the news for repeated chunks of time will buy the globalists plenty of time to regroup and create more plans with ISIS. This can be easily accomplished by simply focusing on new stories. The media needs no practice with this; think to yourself right now ... whatever happened to MH370?? Or MH17 for that matter??
In order to prolong the ISIS psyop we can expect specific pieces of evidence to fall into the lap of our criminal government similar to the fake beheading videos that characterized the introductory phase of the ISIS psyop. Perhaps they will find "new" videos of ISIS warriors beheading new journalists or Christians. Perhaps they (CIA/Mossad) will hit the studios for a high production value scene which could be indoors or outdoors. Perhaps they will go for the full blood and guts effect instead of cutting to black before showing a Photoshopped head on top of a body. Perhaps they will unleash a pack of new ISIS captured criminals who will "confess" to committing crimes against America.
There is no way to tell what direction the CIA/Mossad will take the ISIS psyop, but in order to do whatever they want to do they will need time. Time is the most important factor right now because no one is asking the obvious questions: Given how small ISIS is and how powerful the U.S. military and its allies are, why does ISIS still exist?? Other questions are not being asked like: How is ISIS managing to exist without food and water? If they do have food supply who then is supplying ISIS with food and water? Where are they getting their new ammunition? Who is cleaning their weapons? Weapons that are not regularly maintained and properly cleaned do not fire properly, remember? Soldiers without food don't have energy to fight so who is running the ISIS supply department and why is their supply not cut off by now? The simple questions that blow open and expose the ISIS psyop go on and on and on. I asked many of these simple questions in my article months ago - How is ISIS getting on the Internet? Who is hosting their account? How do they have a production department and who does their programming and editing? Where are these fancy facilities located and why was their power and communication not cut off a long time ago?
If ISIS gets a flat tire where do they fix it? Why and how do they have the time and space to live so comfortably while waging supposed wars on multiple fronts against the world's greatest military of all time and still easily survive and carry on strong? Who's teaching ISIS? Where (according to the CIA-controlled mainstream media new world order mouthpiece) is ISIS training? Where do they train to fire howitzers and tanks? How about flying planes?? Our CIA-controlled media has no answers for any of these questions. They just want you to think that ISIS simply came about from secret anonymous funding. The U.S. weapons are supposed to be magically "stolen" and the endless supply of ammunition simply found randomly.
At this point in history (November 2014) the ISIS psyop is becoming a story for the ages. I encourage all truth seekers to keep a tight watch on ISIS and the tales the CIA and the globalists have in store for us. Please do whatever you can to expose this final phase of the psyop; and by that I mean the perceived prolongation of their very existence. In order to prolong the existence of ISIS the CIA will likely have to put out many stories of others "joining" ISIS so that ISIS comes across as a "growing" group instead of a dwindling group of untrained young men running around with covered faces.
The ISIS psyop may very well be forever - or at least a very long time - and those of us who have narrated the ISIS tale from the minute they were made global stars by our mass media late this summer have an obligation to narrate the truth about ISIS as it happens in real-time. Future generations deserve to know the truth about the creation and the prolongation of the ISIS psyop and we have an obligation to provide that narrative.
So let's keep watchful of all their moves and be aware of where we stand historically. ISIS is a creation of and for the new world order globalist gangsters. ISIS has a love relationship with Israel and we can expect that they will only be used to help the U.S. expand their global wars while at the same time help the globalists continue to expand their domination, power and tyranny in the U.S. over American citizens. Once you understand these two major goals you will understand why ISIS will not attack Israel, yet they supposedly are willing to travel magically all the way from the Middle East to the United States just to blow up American targets.
Face it, ISIS is the perfect tool for the globalists and anyone going along with the ISIS psyop is naively supporting the globalists and their plans for world domination. Until we can solve our problems by dissolving the Federal Reserve criminal banking system and stop funding the U.S. Department of Defense that pays to arm and equip organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda, we will not be able to stop this madness. Hopefully a solution is near; until then. let us do what we can to spread the awareness and information like this that leads to ideological resistance. With enough awareness I believe we can change this horrific road that we are on. We have what it takes to put an end to this psychopathic madness that the globalists have created with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others. We must remain strong and vigilant and hope that enough people see what is happening and impose their will on this system, which is now the greatest threat to humanity.
If you believe and understand this message, share it with someone and let's hope that the prolongation of the ISIS psyop becomes their own undoing. Let us be creative in finding ways to derail their plans and expose their lies. Let's use every technique we can think of including art, poetry, articles, music, films, documentaries, comedy, rallies, petitions, online campaigns, books, blogs, personal creative projects and anything else you can think of to expose their plans.
In the end, remember this is not just about the ISIS psyop, this is a battle for humanity, truth, justice, morality, reason, dignity, integrity and honor. We WILL win this information war, which is not just about information but a spiritual and psychological overall human survival war. A war that only we are capable of truly winning since the control system doesn't have a conscience or spirit as a driving force the way that we do. Let yourself ponder on this for a minute...
Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.
Obama's Secret Deals With Saudi Arabia & Qatar
What's Behind Lower Gas-Prices and the Bombings of Syria and of Eastern Ukraine: Obama Represents U.S. & Arabic Aristocracies, Against Those of Russia & Iran
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40162.htm
By Eric Zuesse
(The following report reconstructs U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy, on the basis of what I have deemed to be reliable news accounts of his Administration's actions, not of its mere words. This reconstruction is grounded in the linked-to news-sources, all of which I have investigated and verified -- and some of which I wrote. The ones that I wrote are themselves sourced to the links within those reports, all of which I have, likewise, personally checked and verified. Consequently, the chain of verifications back to this reconstruction's primary sources is available to any online reader, and every reader is encouraged to track back to its ultimate source any allegation that might appear to be at all questionable to him or her in the present article. Not only will this exercise be helpful to the reader concerning that given point at question, but it will open that person to an associated world of deeper discovery, which I hope that this news-report and analysis will do for many readers, and which is the reason I wrote it: so as to share with others what I and other careful and cautious researchers have discovered, though it might be, in some instances, starkly at variance with what our Government, and most of the press, have been more commonly presenting as 'truth' about these matters. At least, this exercise will provide an alternative frame of reference regarding these issues, an alternative possibility to consider, and which I have verified, from every root to every branch, in this tree of historical reconstruction of the events.)
INTRODUCTION:
November 07, 2014 "ICH" - Why is the Ukrainian Government, which the U.S. supports, bombing the pro-Russian residents who live in Ukraine's own southeast?
Why is the American Government, which aims to oust Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad, bombing his main enemy, ISIS?
I find that both bombings are different parts of the same Obama-initiated business-operation, in which the American aristocracy, Saudi aristocracy, and Qatari aristocracy, work together, to grab dominance over supplying energy to the world's biggest energy-market, Europe, away from Russia, which currently is by far Europe's largest energy-supplier.
Here are the actual percentage-figures on that: Russia supplies 38%, #2 Norway (the only European nation among the top 15) supplies 18%, and all other countries collectively supply a grand total of 44%. That's it; that's all -- in the world's largest energy-market. Russia is the lone giant. But U.S. President Obama's team want to change that. (Unfortunately, the residents in southeastern Ukraine are being bombed and driven out to become refugees in Russia , as an essential part of this operation to choke off Russia's gas-supply to Europe.)
Obama has initiated, and is leading, this international aristocratic team, consisting of the U.S. aristocracy and Sunni Moslem aristocracies -- the Saudi and the Qatari royal families -- to choke off Russia's economic lifeblood from those European energy sales, and to transfer lots of this business, via new oil and gas pipeline contracts and new international trade-deals, over to the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Those royals, in turn, are assisting Obama in the overthrow of the key Russia-allied leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, who has performed an indispensable role in blocking any such massive expansion of Saudi and Qatari energy-traffic into Europe, and who has thus been a vital protector of Russia's dominance in the European energy-market.
America's aristocracy would be benefited in many ways from this changeover to Europe's increasing dependence upon those Sunni Moslem nations, which have long been allied with U.S. oil companies, and away from the Shiite Moslem nation of Iran, and from its key backer, Russia.
The most important way that America's aristocrats would benefit would be the continuance, for the indefinite future, of the U.S. dollar's role as the international reserve currency, in which energy and energy-futures are traded. The Sunni nations are committed to continued dominance of the dollar, and Wall Street depends on that continuance. It's also one of the reasons the U.S. Treasury's sales of U.S. Federal debt around the world have been as successful as they are. This also provides essential support to the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Furthermore, Obama's effort to force the European Union to weaken their anti-global-warming standards so as to allow European imports of oil from the exceptionally carbon-gas-generating Athabasca Canada tar sands -- which are approximately 40% owned by America's Koch brothers, the rest owned by other U.S. and allied oil companies -- would likewise reduce Europe's current dependency upon Russian energy sources, at the same time as it would directly benefit U.S. energy-producers. Obama has been working hard for those oil companies to become enabled to sell such oil into Europe .
And, finally, the extension of U.S. fracking technology into Ukraine, and perhaps ultimately even into some EU nations, where it has been strongly resisted, might likewise reduce the enormous flow of European cash into Russian Government coffers to pay for Russian gas (which doesn't even require fracking).
In other words, the wars in both Syria and Ukraine are being fought basically in order to grab the European energy market, away from Russia, somewhat in the same way (though far more violently) as Iran's share of that market was previously grabbed away by means of the U.S.-led sanctions against that country. The current bombing campaigns in both Syria and Ukraine are directed specifically against Iran's chief ally, Russia.
First, will be discussed here the bombing-campaign against Iran's and Russia's ally Assad in Syria; then against the residents of the ethnic-Russian areas of Ukraine.
SYRIA:
As the articles that are headlined below document, there has been proposed, in order to promote Russian gas flowing into Europe, an eastbound Iran-Iraq-Syria-Turkey-Europe gas pipeline (but sanctions stopped that); and there was also proposed, in order to undercut Russian gas flowing into Europe, a northbound Qatar-Saudi-Jordan-Syria-Turkey-Europe gas pipeline -- those being two different and competing ways of supplying gas into Europe.
Russia's ally Syria is crucial to both proposed pipelines, which means that Assad has needed to be overthrown in order for the northbound pipeline from Qatar to be constructed and so to compete against Russia's gas-supplies to Europe.
There have also been some differences between the Saudi and Qatari royal families as regards their motives for removing the Shiite Assad from leading Syria. Qatar's royals ( and also Turkey's aristocrats ) want him to be replaced by an anti-Iranian, Sunni Moslem Brotherhood leader (the type of person that Obama euphemistically calls by such terms as 'moderate Moslems' though they were hardly that in Egypt once they gained power there ). Qatar's royals have protected themselves from being overthrown by fundamentalist Moslems; they've done it especially by supporting the Moslem Brotherhood as a means of displaying their own loyalty to Moslem clerics. (The public trusts the clerics, but doesn't trust the aristocrats; and, like everywhere, aristocrats obtain their perceived 'legitimacy' from the local clergy, whom aristocrats buy-off with special favors.) The Moslem Brotherhood want to control Syria, and would love to approve a gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria to Europe, to reward their chief benefactor, Qatar's royals. As for the Saudi royals, they want Assad to be replaced by an anti-Iranian, Sunni ISIS leader, who will represent the Sauds' Wahhabist sect in Islam, which provides Saudi royals their 'legitimacy.' (Saudi royals say they don't like Al Qaeda and ISIS, but that's said mainly for public consumption in the West.) Right now, Saudi Arabia supplies less than 5% of Europe's energy, which is a mere one-eighth of what Russia does. So: each of these two royal families relies primarily upon a different category of Islamists. Obama prefers the 'moderate' Muslim Brotherhood to the extremist ISIS, but Saudi royals accept his having that preference, because any way to weaken Iran and its backer Russia is fine with them, especially since it would open wide the enormous European market for their oil.
Other internal conflicts also exist within Obama's team. For example, an expert on these matters, Felix Imonti, explained to me in a personal communication, that, "Qatar ... abandoned the [pipeline] plan in 2010 for a very simple reason. Saudi Arabia will not permit a pipeline to be constructed across its territory. Qatar is interested along with Turkey in installing a MB government in Syria. ... The Saudi objective is to drive out the Iranians from Syria." The Saudis' "objective was to establish a Wahhabi based [fundamentalist Moslem] state that would include western Iraq with Syria," which, of course, is what ISIS is all about. Imonti also says: "Egypt [except for the brief time when it was controlled by the MB] is a bought puppet of Saudi Arabia. The Egyptians are bombing Qatari groups in Libya." That Egyptian action is indirectly a Saudi attack against the Qatari royals' own support-base. These issues between the two royal families are like squabbles within a family: more is shared in common than splits them apart. Obama's decisions are often determinative on such matters.
So, America's aristocracy supports both the Saudi and the Qatari aristocracies, despite their disagreements, in order to defeat the aristocracies in Russia, China, and the other "BRIC" countries.
Or, as President Obama's speech at West Point, on 28 May 2014 , propagandized for this view on the part of America's aristocracy: "Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us." So, Obama made clear to the graduating cadets that the BRIC countries are the enemy, from the standpoint of America's aristocracy. Ours want to crush the aristocrats in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Though it's alright for those other countries to produce more, that's true only if American aristocrats control the local ones, like in any other international empire -- not if the local aristocrats there do. Similarly, for example, the British Empire didn't wish for local aristocrats in India to be in control, but only for those client aristocrats to be of use . Obama added, placing a nationalistic coloration on his promotion of America's empire: "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation." He promised to keep it that way: "That has been true for the century passed [sp.: past [[somebody at the White House didn't know the difference between 'past' and 'passed']] and it will be true for the century to come."
An important asset of the American aristocracy happens to be shale-gas-fracking technology, which is overwhelmingly owned by America's aristocrats . Though Qatar is a major gas-producer, it has no need for fracking, and so is merely a gas-competitor in that regard, but they do share America's pro-Sunni, anti-Assad goal, and also America's anti-Russian goal. Although Qatar ships most of its gas into Asia, they'd like to have some way to pipe it more nearby, into Europe, to undercut Russia's Gazprom. And that's why the U.S. is working with Qatar to bump Assad from Syria.
The Saudis are actually doing the most of all to defeat Russia, by driving oil prices down so low as to upset Russia's economic plans, which have been based upon minimum $100/barrel projections. We're already around 10% below that. As Imonti writes, "The Saudis can sustain these lower prices for seven or eight years while drawing on their foreign reserves to cover the deficits. They could very well be trying to break the fracking business in the U.S. that has high production costs. [Of course, America's gas aristocrats won't like that, but Obama has to balance multiple sub-constituencies, including Qatar's royals.] They might also be directing the target towards Russia that supports Assad and Iran. They could be doing all of the above with one action." If the Sauds keep this up "for seven or eight years," then Russia will be hit a lot harder than Russia is being hit, or is likely to be hit, by any economic sanctions.
Qatar has been the main funder of the overthrow-Assad movement, for the Moslem Brotherhood; and Saudi Arabia has been the main funder of the overthrow-Assad movement, for ISIS. Both are Sunni organizations. However, Qatar has also funded ISIS. Obama, when he decided to bomb ISIS, was acting on behalf of America's aristocrats, but Saudi and Qatari aristocrats might have felt differently about it. He possessed the freedom to do this, which those aristocrats don't have, because everyone in the Islamic world knows that Obama is no Moslem; everyone understands that America is in a permanent state of war against fundamentalist Islam of all sorts. Only Moslem aristocrats need the approval of Islamic fundamentalists. In America, aristocrats don't even need the approval of Christian fundamentalists, the type of fundamentalists that might be able to threaten their authority in the West (since the West is predominantly Christian, not Moslem). And the same is true regarding Jewish aristocrats in Israel: aristocrats fear only their local majority clergy. That's basic survival-knowledge for aristocrats, anywhere, in order to be able to get the public to accept the rightfulness of the aristocracy itself there.
So, ISIS gets money from the aristocracies of Saud, and of Qatar (and also, more recently, of Kuwait) -- whatever is needed, in order for those aristocrats to retain the loyalty of their local clerics, and thus their public. It's like aristocrats do in every country, getting "God's approval" of their wealth, by throwing a few coins to the preacher, the local mouthpiece for "God," thus relying upon the public's trust in clergy. Even Mafia aristocrats do it. That has been the way of conservatism for millennia; it's the way conservatism works. In more-recent centuries, a modified version of that trick has grown up, as liberalism, in which the aristocrats' validation comes instead from scholars, and so aristocrats throw a few coins to them, instead of to clerics. But it's no different -- it's authoritarianism, equally in either case. It's purchased authority. Aristocrats don't really fear the clergy, nor the scholars: they actually fear the public, such as what happened during the French Revolution, and during the Russian Revolution. But that's another story altogether, going back millennia, actually.
The recent bombings in Syria, and in Ukraine, are a business-operation being carried out as a war (and also very profitable for U.S. armaments-makers, who likewise are controlled by America's aristocrats and so this is a double-whammy for America's aristocracy -- and U.S. arms-makers have consequently been soaring on the stock market). It's basically a grab by U.S. and Sunni aristocrats, from Russian and Shiite aristocrats, of the market to supply oil and gas into Europe. And it provides other advantages, too, for U.S. aristocrats.
Natural gas, especially of the non-fracked variety, is generally regarded as the bridge-fuel to get our planet to being able to survive long-term while fusion and renewable forms of energy come online as cost-competitive. Fracking is, as has been mentioned, an American technology, but it's widely resisted even within American-allied nations. The U.S. Government can impose it upon the American people, because they are trusting in 'free enterprise,' but other governments are having a hard time trying to impose it on theirs. That public resistance in Europe is giving protection to the gas-import markets there; and this has benefited Russia, their major existing gas-supplier.
Russia has the world's largest proven reserves of natural gas , and that's without their even needing to use fracking-techniques in order to get at it. #2 Iran has 69% as much gas, and is allied with Russia, and it also doesn't frack. But sanctions close them out of Europe. Then #3 Qatar, at 47%, is allied with U.S. oil companies, but has no need to frack. Then #4 Turkmenistan, 37%, is allied with Russia, and also doesn't frack. Then #5 U.S., 20%, is allied with U.S. oil companies, and only fracks. Then #6 Saudi Arabia, 17%, is also allied with U.S. oil companies, and doesn't need to frack.
The European Union bans fracking, because they have environmentally-concerned publics. But U.S. and other Western corporate-owned oil companies want to frack gas in Europe, just as they do in America; and the new Ukrainian Government is desperate enough to want their land to be fracked.
UKRAINE:
The main shale-gas (fracking) field in Ukraine is Yuzivska, right in the middle of the Donbass region, where the residents don't want fracking and don't want U.S. rule (which includes fracking). Furthermore, the people there reject the legitimacy of the Obama coup in Ukraine this year in February , and of its subsequent rulers of Ukraine , who have been bombing them , because 90% of the voters in that region had voted for the pro-Russian President whom Obama had overthrown , and because the new, anti-Russian, regime doesn't want those people to stay (or at least to stay alive ) in Ukraine, because otherwise that post-coup regime would become ousted if any nationwide election would ever again be held throughout Ukraine. This tactic of killing unwanted voters is a variant of what the Republican Party does in the U.S., simply trimming the voter-rolls in order to create a more-favorable "voting public." Except that it's being done in Ukraine by bombs and bullets , rather than by limiting or restricting ballots.
"The West," or the allies of Sunni aristocrats, are now bombing intensively, both in Ukraine and in Syria; and, in both instances, the argument for the bombings is to spread "democracy" there. It's giving a bad name to 'democracy,' to anyone who misbelieves that this is it.
BACK AGAIN TO SYRIA:
Below are the main sources that describe the Middle Eastern part of this Obama-Putin power-struggle, that is the part in Syria instead of in Ukraine. This is how international business is actually carried out – it's a perfect libertarian world, since there is no international government; this market is unregulated to so extreme an extent that even ethnic cleansings and mass-murders go unpunished -- it's a pure free market, which operates on an international scale (the only scale where libertarianism exists in even nearly this pure a form); this libertarianism is an exemplar of the conservative ideal: pure liberty for aristocrats, total lack of accountability . If anything, Barack Obama might be even more of a conservative than was George W. Bush: under Obama, the IRS specifically allows blatantly illegal tax-evasion by the mega-rich to go uninvestigated and unpunished, and concentrates virtually all its resources on pursuing two-bit tax-cheats. That's what 'democracy' has come to in America. In America's client-states, such as in the Middle East and (since February) in Ukraine, it's even worse.
The first of these articles explains why the price of oil has been plunging, and who has been behind that:
---
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/10/24/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/
"The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria"
WILLIAM ENGDAHL | OCTOBER 24, 20143 COMMENTS
The Kerry-Abdullah Secret Deal & An Oil-Gas Pipeline War
---
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/why-oil-plunging-other-part-secret-deal-between-us-and-saudi-arabia
"Why Oil Is Plunging: The Other Part Of The "Secret Deal" Between The US And Saudi Arabia"
Tyler Durden on 10/11/2014 18:19 -0400
... [Excerpt:] Today's Brent closing price: $90. Russia's oil price budget for the period 2015-2017? $100. Which means much more "forced Brent liquidation" is in the cards in the coming weeks as America's suddenly once again very strategic ally, Saudi Arabia, does everything in its power to break Putin. [Note: The Russian Government's fiscal projections were based on $100/barrel, but the Saudi-forced-down price was now $89/barrel. How long would Saudis and Qataris keep this up? And how long would Assad hold off ISIS? Big bets are being made on both.]
—
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-25/look-inside-secret-deal-saudi-arabia-unleashed-syrian-bombing
"A Look Inside The Secret Deal With Saudi Arabia That Unleashed The Syrian Bombing"
Tyler Durden on 09/25/2014 10:17 -0400
... [Excerpt:] Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire -- what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?
—
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-saudi-arabias-bandar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war
" Meet Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppetmaster Behind The Syrian War"
Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 15:21 -0400
... [Excerpt:] Of course, there is Syria:
Regarding the Syrian issue, the Russian president responded to Bandar, saying, "Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position. In his upcoming meeting with his American counterpart John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will stress the importance of making every possible effort to rapidly reach a political settlement to the Syrian crisis so as to prevent further bloodshed."
Alas, that has failed.
So what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis?
Bandar told Putin, "There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory's direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria's political future."
—
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-08/putin-laughs-saudi-offer-betray-syria-exchange-huge-arms-deal
"Putin Laughs At Saudi Offer To Betray Syria In Exchange For 'Huge' Arms Deal"
Tyler Durden on 08/08/2013 11:20 -0400
—
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-16/mystery-sponsor-weapons-and-money-syrian-rebels-revealed
"Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary 'Rebels' Revealed"
Tyler Durden on 05/16/2013 19:12 -0400
... [Excerpt:] So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!
—
The final source will be posted here in full, because it goes closest to the reason for our bombing Syria:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Qatar-Rich-and-Dangerous.html
"Qatar: Rich and Dangerous"
17 September 2012, by Felix Imonti
The first concern of the Emir of Qatar is the prosperity and security of the tiny kingdom. To achieve that, he knows no limits.
Stuck between Iran and Saudi Arabia is Qatar with the third largest natural gas deposit in the world. The gas gives the nearly quarter of a million Qatari citizens the highest per capita income on the planet and provides 70 percent of government revenue.
How does an extremely wealthy midget with two potentially dangerous neighbors keep them from making an unwelcomed visit? Naturally, you have someone bigger and tougher to protect you.
Of course, nothing is free. The price has been to allow the United States to have two military bases in a strategic location. According to Wikileaks diplomatic cables, the Qataris are even paying sixty percent of the costs.
Having tanks and bunker busting bombs nearby will discourage military aggression, but it does nothing to curb the social tumult that has been bubbling for decades in the Middle Eastern societies. Eighty-four years ago, the Moslem Brotherhood arose in Egypt because of the presence of foreign domination by Great Britain and the discontent of millions of the teaming masses yearning to be free. Eighty-four years later, the teaming masses are still yearning.
Sixty-five percent of the people in the Middle East are under twenty-nine years of age. It is this desperate angry group that presents a danger that armies cannot stop. The cry for their dignity, "I am a man," is the sound that sends terror through governments. It is this overwhelming force that the Emir of Qatar has been able to deflect.
A year after he deposed his father in 1995, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani established the Al-Jazeera television satellite news network. He invited some of the radical Salafi preachers that had been given sanctuary in Qatar to address the one and a half billion Moslems around the world. They had their electronic soapbox and the card to an ATM, but there was a price.
The price was silence. They could speak to the world and arouse the fury in Egypt or Libya, but they would have to leave their revolution outside of Qatar or the microphone would be switched off and the ATM would stop dispensing the good life.
The Moslem Brotherhood, that is a major force across the region, dissolved itself in Qatar in 1999. Jasim Sultan, a member of the former organization, explained that the kingdom was in compliance with Islamic law. He heads the state funded Awaken Project that publishes moderate political and philosophical literature.
How Qatar has benefited from networking with the Salafis is illustrated by the connections with Tunisia where Qatar is making a large investment in telecommunications. Tunisian Foreign Minister Rafiq Abdulsalaam was head of the Research and Studies Division in the Al Jazeera Centre in Doha. His father-in-law Al Ghanouchi is the head of the Tunisian Moslem Brotherhood party.
Over much of the time since he seized power, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani has followed the policy of personal networking, being proactive in business and neutral on the international stage. The Emir is generous with the grateful, the Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund bargains hard in the board room and the kingdom makes available Qatar's Good Offices to resolve disputes.
Qatar's foreign policy made an abrupt shift when the kingdom entered the war against Qaddafi. The kingdom sent aircraft to join NATO forces. On the ground, Qatari special forces armed, trained, and led Libyans against Qaddafi's troops.
The head of the National Transition Council Mustafa Abdul Jalil attributed much of the success of the revolution to the efforts of Qatar that he said had spent two billion dollars. He commented, "Nobody traveled to Qatar without being given a sum of money by the government."
Qatar had ten billion dollars in investments in Libya to protect. The Barwa Real Estate Company alone had two billion committed to the construction of a beach resort near Tripoli.
While the bullets were still flying, Qatar signed eight billion dollars in agreements with the NTC. Just in case things with the NTC didn't work out, they financed rivals Abdel Hakim Belhaj, leader of the February 17 Martyr's Brigade, and Sheik Ali Salabi, a radical cleric who had been exiled in Doha.
If Qatar's investments of ten billion dollars seem substantial, the future has far more to offer. Reconstruction costs are estimated at seven hundred billion dollars. The Chinese and Russians had left behind between them thirty billion in incomplete contracts and investments and all of it is there for the taking for those who aided the revolution.
No sooner had Qaddafi been caught and shot, Qatar approached Bashar Al-Assad to establish a transitional government with the Moslem Brotherhood. As you would expect, relinquishing power to the Brotherhood was an offer that he could refuse. It didn't take long before he heard his sentence pronounced in January 2012 on the CBS television program, 60 Minutes by Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.
The Emir declared that foreign troops should be sent into Syria. At the Friends of Syria conference in February, Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said, "We should do whatever necessary to help [the Syrian opposition], including giving them weapons to defend themselves."
Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested? A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.
It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets. In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.
Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG. The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.
A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe. The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.
Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia's efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir's broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.
A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad. Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center. "The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations" a source in the Gulf told Reuters.
The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term. At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields. In any case, Al-Assad must go. There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.
—
I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Imonti for his allowing me to publish here the entirety of that article.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .
Good job Eric!
NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud
Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns
Why 2,300 Architects & Engineers Demand Independent Investigation
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html
INTRODUCTION
Editor's Note: This fascinating and provocative technical article on NIST's mistreatment of the WTC 7 evidence is broken down into a multi-part series. The first section, below, is the Introduction to the whole series. Stand by for the next five parts in subsequent articles, to be published monthly.
Introduction
The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"
NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator's credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.
wtc7 demolition comparison Figure 1. NIST's final report states that random office fires alone brought down Building 7. However, the collapse of WTC 7 compared, side by side, with an acknowledged professional controlled demolition reveals an entirely different story. Only a handful of companies have the ability to neatly implode a steel-framed skyscraper into its own footprint like this. Click on this video to see WTC 7 fall next to three acknowledged professional CDs.
Indeed, the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 is the third of the three only known "global collapses" of high-rise, steel-framed buildings ever recorded, and all three incredibly took place in one day: September 11, 2001.
NIST contends that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact damage and consequent fires from the large airliner jets that hit them. But no jet struck WTC 7, and NIST claims that office fires alone demolished that building. The agency does admit that, if true, this would be the first and only time that an office fire brought down a steel skyscraper.
Ultimately, we are asked to accept on faith NIST's ever-changing, remarkable, and, frankly, suspect explanations for WTC 7's destruction.
Why "suspect"? Because NIST ignored the National Fire Protection Association protocol — specifically, the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations — and refused to perform a forensic investigation. As a consequence, NIST has no physical proof to back up its unusual explanation for WTC 7's destruction.
Even more concerning, NIST bases its finding on computer models whose input data it refuses to release to either the scientific community or the general public. Thus, it is impossible to independently verify NIST's work and its startling conclusion. AE911Truth contends that NIST's methodology is contrary to every tenet of legitimate scientific inquiry. In this article, we seek to show how the supporting "evidence" put forward by NIST in the 13 years since that fateful day has been consistently and deliberately misleading.
We will review NIST's progression from its 2004 preliminary report to its 2008 final report — a progression that will reveal a pattern of omissions and distortions that appear designed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.
We will show, step by step, that NIST's final hypothesis of scattered office fires producing the gravitational collapse of a 47-story steel structure is a classic case of "cover-up" — designed to obscure the fact that the implosion of Building 7 was the result of controlled demolition.
Obama Admits ISIS Strategy About Deposing Assad
Administration blames al-Assad for rise of Islamic State
http://www.infowars.com/obama-admits-isis-strategy-about-deposing-assad/
by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | November 13, 2014
The Obama administration has officially conceded the military effort in Syria is not about attacking the Islamic State. It is about removing Bashar al-Assad from power.
The new strategy formed by Obama's national security team ignores the fact al-Assad and the Syrian military represent the only tenable opposition to the Islamic State and other Islamist groups funded and trained by the United States and its partners, most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Employing convoluted logic, the administration argues the "long-running Syria problem is now compounded by the reality that to genuinely defeat ISIL, we need not only a defeat in Iraq but a defeat in Syria."
ISIL, short for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is the acronym the government uses for Da'esh (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham), or the Islamic State.
The initial plan, described as "Iraq first," concentrated on attacking the Islamic State in northern Iraq where it defeated the U.S. trained and armed Iraqi army and captured a large amount of territory. The administration is reportedly jettisoning this strategy in favor of directly targeting the Syrian government.
In addition to creating a no-fly zone along the border with Turkey, the administration is looking at vetting "moderate rebels." As noted by Infowars and others, radical Sunni Islamists dominate the proxy war against the Shia government in Damascus and the argument that moderate forces are involved to any significant degree is largely a public relations effort designed to mask the real character of the so-called opposition.
The United States is also targeting Syria's oil infrastructure. In September, it attacked grain silos in Manbij that killed civilians, not IS fighters. Attacks in Aleppo, Deir al-Zor, Hasaka, Raqqa and Idlib have killed civilians, including children. According to Reuters, the United States takes reports of civilian casualties seriously and says it has a process to investigate each allegation.
The new strategy will in fact strengthen the Islamic State, not weaken it as Obama claims. The war "is even less tenable than it was before, as between attacks on ISIS, Nusra, and Islamic Front fighters, and now the Assad government, the US is fighting materially all of the combat forces inside Syria at the same time, even the ones that are aligned with their publicly-stated goals," notes Jason Ditz.
Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said the administration has "had regular meetings that the President has joined with his national security team on this issue and Syria has been an important subject at those meetings. And I think the President wants to make sure that we're asking hard questions about what we're targeting in Syria, how we're able to degrade ISIL but also how we're supporting opposition and building them up as a counterweight to ISIL but also ultimately of course to the Assad regime."
"Assad has been the biggest magnet for extremism in Syria, and the President has made clear that Assad has lost all legitimacy to govern. Alongside our efforts to isolate and sanction the Assad regime, we are working with our allies to strengthen the moderate opposition," added Alistair Baskey, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Left out of the discussion is the fact the United States and its partners created and exacerbated the situation in Syria and are responsible for the death of over 140,000 Syrians, the displacement of millions of others and the wholesale destruction of the Syrian economy. Syria's GDP has fallen more than 35 percent, while the local currency has lost 80 percent of its value.
I called the obvious intended murder of a democratically elected sovereign president six weeks ago, via an obvious internationally illegal war of aggression; now they are going forward with the plan in the open and will deliberately and openly provoke Russia into WW3 (murdering the innocent people on flight MH17 and immediately using the Western media (a method explained by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty to blame Oswald for the JFK assassination, and also used on 9/11 to get Saddam and opium production back up and running in Afghanistan) to blame Russia did not work and is causing horrific blowback, which is why it is being covered up by the MSM)
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41964#msg41964
Theresa May admits there 'may have been a cover-up' over child abuse claims but Cameron tells 'conspiracy theorists' to look elsewhere
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2830030/Theresa-orders-review-MI5-s-handling-allegations-child-sex-abuse-1980s.html
Theresa May made the extraordinary admission that there 'might have been a cover-up' of an Establishment paedophile ring by the Home Office in the 1980s.
The Home Secretary's comments came after the publication of a report into how her department handled papers relating to alleged Westminster child abusers.
NSPCC boss Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC had tried to track down 114 files that went missing in the Home Office.
Just one was found; another was shredded by the Ministry of Justice, which took possession of the dossier, just three years ago.
The men concluded: 'It is ... not possible to say whether files were ever removed or destroyed to cover up or hide allegations of organised or systematic child abuse by particular individuals because of the systems then in place.
'We cannot say that no file was removed or destroyed for that reason.'
Their report also revealed the list of names which officials were asked to search under when looking for the missing files – suggesting possible links to the so-called Dickens dossier.
It included known paedophiles such as Cyril Smith and members of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which campaigned to legalise sex with children.
It also featured senior political figures such as former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, Labour peer Lord Janner, and two Tory grandees, Sir Peter Morrison and Sir Peter Hayman, who are both now dead.
Police have questioned Lord Brittan and searched Lord Janner's home in recent months, but neither has been charged.
In a statement to MPs, Mrs May said of the latest findings: 'It doesn't prove or disprove the Home Office acted appropriately in the 1980s.' She added: 'There might have been a cover-up.'
However, contradicting the Home Secretary and the findings of the report, David Cameron said on the campaign trail in Rochester that 'conspiracy theorists' would have to 'look elsewhere'.
Ok David, let's forget the dossier for now (presumably all known copies destroyed..) let's take your advice and look elsewhere:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682151/There-establishment-cover-child-abuse-claims-protect-says-Lord-Tebbit.html
There may have been establishment cover-up of child abuse claims to 'protect the system', says Lord Tebbit
Ex-Tory party chairman says it was 'more important to protect the system'
Says it was 'spectacularly wrong' because the abuses have 'grown'
Government says 114 secret files on paedophile cases have gone missing
Labour MP Keith Vaz condemns loss of files on an 'industrial scale'
Four new cases of alleged child abuse are to be investigated by the police
Top lawyer to investigate handling of dossier alleging paedophile activity
Dossier was passed to Home Secretary Leon Brittan but subsequently lost
Government refuses to order an Hillsborogh-style wide-ranging inquiry
The Thatcher government may have orchestrated an Establishment cover-up of child abuse by senior politicians, Lord Tebbit claimed today.
The former Tory party chairman claimed there was a mindset to 'protect the system' which has been to shown to have gone 'spectacularly' wrong because incidents of abuse grew.
The Home Office has ordered a full-scale legal inquiry into claims of an Establishment cover-up, after admitting it has lost 114 files including a dossier relating to allegations of abuse.
David Cameron is to appoint a top lawyer to investigate the Government's handling of a dossier alleging high-level paedophile activity.
The file was first passed to Home Secretary Leon Brittan by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in 1983 – but subsequently lost.
Mark Sedwill, the Home Office permanent secretary, said a massive review of 746,000 Home Office files covering 1979 to 1999 had identified '573 relevant files which had been retained'.
However, he added: 'The extensive analysis of the central database identified 114 potentially relevant files had been destroyed, missing or not found.
'The investigation identified 13 items of alleged child abuse, nine of which were known or reported to the police including four involving Home Office staff.
'The remaining four, which had not been previously disclosed, have now been passed to the police.'
Today Lord Tebbit, a minister in Margaret Thatcher's government from 1979-87, said social attitudes at the time had been wrong.
He told BBC One's Marr Show : 'At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
'That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown.'
oops same topic.. I will try again:
Ex-MI6 chief Peter Hayman named as VIP who sexually abused boys at Dolphin Square apartment complex near Parliament
Peter Hayman has been identified as one of many alleged child abusers
The former MI6 deputy director 'liked to kiss and touch' boy, 11
'Group of paedophiles' who abused children at Dolphin Square in Seventies
Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827378/Ex-MI6-chief-Peter-Hayman-named-VIP-sexually-abused-boys-Dolphin-Square-apartment-complex-near-Parliament.html
Just keeps coming up everywhere I look goddammitt! I will try again:
Savile isn't the only obnoxious paedophile being covered up by the system. Thomas Hamilton.
http://www.dunblaneexposed.info/
This revisionism had the effect of giving a post mortem character reference for Thomas Hamilton, signed by Lord Cullen, despite the fact that his abuse of boys at his Loch Lomond camps was well known and had been reported to the police. These and other incidents had made him known to half the police forces in Scotland and had seen him dismissed from the Scout movement
Nope just cannot get away from paedophiles in power however hard I try.. hmm.. Let's try illegal wars of aggression instead:
Syria crisis: No to war, blow to Cameron
David Cameron was forced to abandon plans for Britain to participate in military strikes against Syria after suffering an unprecedented Parliamentary defeat.
Dozens of Conservative MPs refused to support the Prime Minister and sided with Labour in opposing a Government motion which supported the principle of military intervention. The motion backing the use of force "if necessary" was rejected by 285 votes to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
It is the first time that a British Government has been blocked from executing a military deployment and highlights the deep mistrust of official intelligence in the wake of the Iraq war.
Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour party leader Ed Miliband speak during the debate on Syria
Within minutes of the embarrassing defeat, the Prime Minister said that he understood that there was not support for British action against Syria and indicated he would abandon any such plans. The decision came just hours after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region.
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
David Cameron: "It is clear to me that the British parliament... does not want to see British military action"
Syria's war
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".
France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.
The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.
The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.
Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.
ISIS threat has been exaggerated, says former MI6 chief: Sir Richard Dearlove thinks 'pathetic' Britons spreading messages on internet should be ignored
Ex-intelligence chief made remarks in a speech in London yesterday
He said government and the media should not offer 'oxygen of publicity'
Fighting in Syria and Iraq is 'essentially Muslim on Muslim', he added
Instead he said people should focus on growing threat of Russia and China
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2684077/ISIS-threat-exaggerated-says-former-MI6-chief-Sir-Richard-Dearlove-thinks-pathetic-Britons-spreading-messages-internet-ignored.html
(Editors Note: My name is Robert Ian Mason and I am 36 years old. I am an ex-soldier of the British Army who served in Iraq during the offensive phase of the destruction of that country. I do not have a criminal record, I do not advocate violence as the solution to the problem. I keep my car in good order, drive carefully, and have never had a serious accident in almost 2 decades of regular driving in all conditions. I am not suicidal. My health is fine and I do not expect to die anytime soon from natural causes. I do expect to be targeted for suppression or assassination by the British Establishment or their allies. I stand with Everyman who would be free from Tyranny.)
The endgame of the US 'Islamic State' strategy
Published on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 11:35
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/opinion/8551-the-endgame-of-the-us-islamic-state-strategy
By Nicola Nasser
Dismantling what the former US President George W. Bush once described as the Syria – Iran component of the "axis of evil," or interrupting in Iraq the geographical contiguity of what King Abdullah II of Jordan once described as the "Shiite crescent," was and remains the strategic goal of the US – Israeli allies in the Middle East unless they succeed first in "changing the regime" in either Damascus or Tehran.
The US, Israel and their regional allies have been on the record that the final target of their "regime change" campaign in the Middle East was to dismantle the Syria – Iran alliance.
With the obvious failure of Plan A to dismantle the self- proclaimed anti-Israel and anti - US Syrian – Iranian "Resistance Axis" by a forcible "regime change" in Damascus, a US – led regional alliance has turned recently to its Plan B to interrupt in Iraq the geographical contiguity of that axis.
This is the endgame of President Barak Obama's strategy, which he declared on last September 10 as ostensibly against the Islamic State (IS).
This would at least halt for the foreseeable future all the signed and projected trilateral or bilateral Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian pipeline networks to carry oil and gas from Iran and Iraq to the Syrian coast at the Mediterranean.
Israeli Col. (res.) Shaul Shay, a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a former Deputy Head of the Israel National Security Council anticipated in writing on last January 21 what he called the "Salafi Crescent" that is dangerously emerging to challenge the "Shia Crescent."
"The growing involvement of Sunni Salafi jihadis in Iraq (since 2003), among the rebels in Syria (since 2011), and in Lebanon has created a 'Salafi Crescent' ... from Diyala [in eastern Iraq] to Beirut," he wrote.
"A positive outcome" of this Salafi Crescent "will be the decline in Iranian influence in the region," Shay concluded.
Conspiracy theories aside, the eventual outcome is a sectarian Sunni military and political wedge driven into the Iraqi geographical connection of the Iran-Syria alliance in a triangle bordering Turkey in the north, Iran in the east, Jordan in the west and Saudi Arabia in the south and extending from north eastern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala which borders Iran.
Iraqi Kurdistan is already effectively an independent state and cut off from the central government in Baghdad, but separating Iran and Syria as well and supported by the same US – led anti – IS coalition.
Amid the misinformation and disinformation, the fact is that the IS threat is being used as a smokescreen to confuse and blur this reality.
The IS was conceived and delivered in an American womb. The US – drafted and enforced current constitution produced the sectarian government that is still trying to rule in Iraq. Sectarian cleansing and exclusion of Sunnis could not but inevitably create its antithesis.
The IS was the illegitimate fetus born and nurtured inside the uterus of the US - engineered political process based on a constitution legalizing a federal system based in turn on sectarian and ethnic sharing of power and wealth.
This horrible illegitimate creature is the "legacy" of the US war on Iraq, which was "conceived" in the "sin" of the US invasion of the country in 2003, in the words of the president of the Arab American Institute, James J. Zogbi, writing in the Jordan Times on last June 16.
US Senator John McCain, quoted by The Atlantic on last June 23, thanked "God," the "Saudis and Prince Bandar" and "our Qatari friends" for creating the "monster."
The pro-Iran government of former Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki was squeezed by the IS military advances to "request" the US help, which Washington preconditioned on the removal of al-Maliki to which Iran succumbed. The IS gave Obama's IS strategy its first success.
However, al-Maliki's replacement by Haider al-Abadi in August has changed nothing so far in the sectarian component of the Iraqi government and army. The US support of Iraq under his premiership boils down only to supporting continued sectarianism in the country, which is the incubator of the survival of its IS antithesis.
Moreover, the destruction of the Iraqi state infrastructure, especially the dismantling of Iraq's national army and security agencies and the Iraqi Baath party that held them intact, following the US invasion, has created a power vacuum which neither the US occupation forces nor the sectarian Shiite militias could fill. The IS was not powerful per se. They just stepped in on a no-man land.
Similarly, some four years of a US – led "regime change" effort, which was initially spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood and which is still financed, armed and logistically facilitated by the US regional allies in Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as by allied western intelligence services, has created another power vacuum in Syria, especially on border areas and in particular in the northern and eastern areas bordering Turkey and Iraq.
US Senator Rand Paul in an interview with CNN on last June 22 was more direct, accusing the Obama administration of "arming" and creating an IS "safe haven" in Syria, which "created a vacuum" filled by the IS.
"We have been fighting alongside al Qaeda, fighting alongside ISIS. ISIS is now emboldened and in two countries. But here's the anomaly. We're with ISIS in Syria. We're on the same side of the war. So, those who want to get involved to stop ISIS in Iraq are allied with ISIS in Syria. That is the real contradiction to this whole policy," he said.
The former 16 - year member of the US Congress and two - time US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, writing in the http://www.huffingtonpost.com on last September 24, summed it up: The IS "was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria."
The US 'Trojan horse'
The IS could have considered playing the role of a US "Frankenstein," but in fact it is serving as the US "Trojan horse" into Syria and Iraq. Fighting the IS was the US tactic, not the US strategy.
On record, Iranian deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that "the best way of fighting ISIS and terrorism in the region is to help and strengthen the Iraqi and Syrian governments, which have been engaged in a serious struggle" against the IS. But this would not serve the endgame of Obama's strategy, which targets both governments instead.
Beneficiaries of the IS "Trojan horse" leave no doubts about the credibility of the Syrian, Iranian and Russian doubts about the real endgame of the US – led declared war on the IS.
The United States was able finally to bring about its long awaited and promoted "front of moderates" against Iran and Syria into an active and "air-striking" alliance, ostensibly against the IS.
In Iraq, the IS served the US strategy in wrestling back the so called "political process" from the Iranian influence by proxy of the former premier al – Maliki. Depriving al – Maliki of a third term had proved that there is no unified Iran – backed "Shia house" in Iraq. The US has its own influence inside that "house."
Installing a US Iraqi satellite was the strategic goal of the US – led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Instead, according to Doug Bandow, writing in Forbes on last October 14, "Bush's legacy was a corrupt, authoritarian, and sectarian state, friendly with Iran and Syria, Washington's prime adversaries in the Middle East. Even worse was the emergence of the Islamic State."
This counterproductive outcome of the US invasion, which saw Iran wielding the reigns of power in Baghdad and edging Iraq closer to Syria and Iran during the eight years of al-Maliki's premiership, turned the red lights on in the White House and the capitals of its regional allies.
Al-Maliki, whom Bush had designated as "our guy" in Baghdad when his administration facilitated his premiership in 2006, turned against his mentors.
He edged Iraq closer to the Syrian and Iranian poles of the "axis of evil." Consequently he opposed western or Israeli military attack on Iran, at least from or via the Iraqi territory. In Syria, he opposed a regime change in Damascus, rejected direct military "foreign intervention" and indirect proxy intervention and insisted that a "political solution" is the only way forward in Iraq's western Arab neighbor.
Worse still was his opening Iraq up to rival Chinese and Russian hydrocarbon investments, turning Iraq a part of an Iran-Iraq-Syria oil and gas pipeline network and buying weapons from the Russian Federation.
Al- Maliki had to go. He was backed by Iran to assume his second term as prime minister in spite of the US, which backed the winner of the 2010 elections for the post, Ayad Allawi. The US had its revenge in the 2014 elections. Al-Maliki won the elections, but was denied a third term thanks to US pressure.
The IS was the US instrument to exert that pressure. US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to Baghdad on last June 23 warned that Iraq was facing "an existential threat."
It was a US brinkmanship diplomacy to force al-Maliki to choose between two bad options: Either to accept a de facto secession of western and northern Iraq on the lines of Iraqi Kurdistan or accept the US conditional military support. Al-Maliki rejected both options, but he had paid the price already.
The turning point came with the fall of Iraq's second largest city of Mosul to the IS on last June 10. Iraqi Kurdistan inclusive, the northern and western Iraq, including most of the crossing points into Syria and Jordan in the west, were clinched out of the control of Baghdad, i.e. some two thirds of the area of Iraq. Al-Maliki was left to fight this sectarian Sunni insurgency by his sectarian Iran-backed Shiite government. This was a non-starter and was only to exacerbate the already deteriorating situation.
Al- Maliki and Iran were made to understand that no US support was forthcoming to reign in the IS until he quits and a less pro-Iran and a more "inclusive" government is formed in Iraq.
The creation of the IS as the sectarian Sunni alternative against Iran's ruling allies in Baghdad and Damascus was and is still the US tactic towards its strategic endgame. Until the time the US strategy succeeds in wrestling Baghdad from Iran influence back into its fold as a separating wedge between Iran and Syria, the IS will continue to serve US strategy and so far Obama's strategy is working.
"America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance," Garikai Chengu, a research scholar at Harvard University, wrote in http://www.counterpunch.org/ on last September 19.
As a doctrine, since the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate early in the twentieth century, western powers did their best to keep Arabs separated from their strategic depth in their immediate Islamic proximity. The Syria – Iran alliance continues to challenge this doctrine.
Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories ( nassernicola@ymail.com).
Finally, the Differences Between Strategy and Tactics Explained
http://www.lowtechcombat.com/2011/08/finally-differences-between-strategy.html
Too many people use the terms 'strategy' and 'tactics' incorrectly or even talk about a particular 'thing' or topic as being both a good strategy and tactic. Usually, this is actually referring to a tactic but the person likes to throw in the word strategy because it sounds cool, they don't know better or believe it somehow implies a deeper thought process and means more...
Not any more. No more excuses.
There are unquestionable and very fundamental differences between strategy and tactics and these will be clearly detailed in this article. Not only are these words used poorly and often interchangeably, but a poor understanding of the meaning of the words can inhibit or mislead a persons overall training outcomes and objectives. It can muddy a persons goals and lead people down the wrong path. Sometimes, years can be spent training a certain way or in a certain system that is not really in line with their long term overall goals, purely because the meaning of 'strategy' and 'tactics' is not clearly understood.
These matters and more will now be discussed in detail.
What are Tactics?
Traditional definition:
...the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organising operations, especially during contact with an enemy.
Simply, it is the art of disposing armed forces, especially during contact.
Tactics are those short term decisions and actions that give a combatant an advantage during combat or that time immediately prior.
Tactics include, but are not limited to, the following:
Counter fighting
Drawing an opponent to use a desired attack in order to present an opening to attack
Feinting to determine likely responses
Stop hitting
Using set up questions
Using non aggressive stances and posture to mentally disarm an aggressor
Telling an angry male that you thought you knew their girlfriend from school, that is why you were staring
Appearing crazier than the aggressor in order to prevent a possible encounter going physical
Repeating the same technique in order to prompt the defender to expect it again and then do something else
Go low then high, high then low, left then right, right then left etc.
Deciding not to argue with the drunk male who said you were a pathetic moron and told your girlfriend she could do better
Identifying that guy across the room who is pissed at you for some reason so you decide to leave that room or establishment prior to violence kicking off
Crossing the road or turning around when you see a dodgy person lingering near a driveway up ahead at night
Deciding not to use that ATM because there are some people hanging around that do not appear quite right
Buying that drunk guy a drink after his got spilt by you
This list is not exhaustive. Tactics are where the action is. Tactics are those actions and decisions taken with a short term focus. Tactics are right in the thick of an encounter or just prior to it happening or potentially happening. For many people, tactics are where the juice is. It is what they love. It is often quite enjoyable to watch a sport fighter fight who is a very good tactician. There is a lot going on. You can see them setting up their opponent. They are often referred to as smart fighters. They think. They utilise tactics and do it well.
Tactics and a 'game'
Of note, many sport fighters are certainly not good tacticians. Instead, they use their exceptional power or techniques. They have very good tools and they know how to use them. This could be in the form of combinations that work for them, superior quickness or an unstoppable takedown followed by submission or ground and pound.
These combinations of moves that work well for them are a basic form of rigid tactics. As an example, they will punch high for a while and when the opportunity presents itself, they know they will go for the takedown. This rigid form of tactics is what is referred to as a fighters 'game'. They have a game plan they are going to follow. It is like a strict system of tactics that are tied together. Once a talented fighter with great tools has a good 'game' that works for them, watch out. They can be very hard to beat, even for a fighter who utilises a more fluid implementation of tactics.
Tactics are what most people focus on. It is what many people are good at. It probably makes up around 99% of a persons training time. It is what we do when we 'do' training. We drill, we spar, we roll, we compete etc. Most people have a pretty good appreciation of what tactics are and how to train in order to develop and enhance them. The mistake is, many people call some tactics, strategy. This is incorrect.
What is a Strategy?
Ok, we understand what tactics are now, so what is a strategy?
Traditional definition:
...a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
Strategy happens away from the action. If you are involved in a violent encounter, you are not using strategy, you are using tactics. Hopefully good ones and hopefully to a good standard.
Strategy is big picture stuff. Strategy happens when you think about something deeply over a period of time and make a deliberate decision. This could be a goal or plan or whatever. These could be medium term but are generally long term. Even very long term. These deliberate decisions or goals are what drives everything else. Implementing a strategy often takes work and effort. It can require a detailed plan as to how you are going to reach your strategic goal.
It is often hard work to make something achievable. That is one of the reasons few people engage in strategic thought and implement a strategic action plan to get things done in accordance with strategic aims. Its all too easy to place it in the too hard basket for a while and then go back to doing whatever you feel like on spur of the moment decisions or just follow what everyone else is doing. Following this pattern, it is very unlikely you will by accident end up where you want to be.
And then you are 80 years old and realise you havn't done what you truly wanted to do...
In a martial arts or self defence context, deciding you want to learn how to defend yourself is very much a strategic decision. And an important one at that! However, too many people leave the strategic thought there and simply begin doing whatever classes are close to them or what their friends do. The basic strategic intent is there, however the implementation of that desired end state is done poorly. The decision of what to learn can impact on a person for years to come. A person may begin going to a certain class for 4 to 10 years or even longer. We are talking about a long time. But is that class really well suited to the students desired end state? Their strategic aim?
Thinking Strategy
The issue largely stems from a beginner not really understanding violence and violent crime, so any decision they make at this early stage is likely going to be ill informed. As time goes on and the new student learns more about that violence they have made a decision to prepare themselves for, better decisions can then be made. Improvements to previous decisions can be made. The implementation of that strategic aim can improve over time.
A persons overall goals can change, so their strategic direction will change accordingly. They may change from wanting to be able to defend against a real attack to wanting to understand a certain culture and art they have since fallen in love with. As strategic goals change, their plan as to how they want to achieve those goals needs to change as well.
Another persons overall goals may harden. They may be more interested in the area of human to human violence and may want to learn more and more and pursue the worlds best practises and concepts in that field. This persons overall strategic goals don't change, but their plans about how they are going to pursue them, will. It will become refined over time and more targeted and informed. The implementation of the strategic plan will improve as knowledge of the subject improves.
Strategic decisions drive activity through plans and routine. After identifying an overall strategic goal (and this may take some time to consider), a strategic plan is developed as to how that strategic goal is going to be realised. That plan is then implemented into ones life and is followed. This becomes a persons training routine. In that routine, classes and seminars are gone to, books are read and thought is undertaken.
Lessons are learnt. Done properly, these lessons directly contribute to moving towards achieving those strategic goals.
One of those areas that are developed whilst actioning our strategic plan is tactics. We learn tactics at our classes and whilst studying. With a properly implemented strategic plan, these learnt tactics will be very relevant to our desired strategic goals.
Strategic Decisions Drive our Learning of Tactics.
This ensures what we learn is what we want to be learning. If we did not make well considered strategic decisions we will likely not come across those lessons that we desire which includes our understanding of tactics. What point is being the worlds best at performing a Wushu demonstration when what we really wanted to do was become a proficient boxer? This is just a simple example of how not making those important strategic decisions and sticking with the intent can lead one easily down some other path that seemed interesting enough at the time but became all consuming as friends were going there and the people were nice and friendly.
Along the path, knowledge can increase strategic understanding and provide direction as to how our routine will best facilitate learning.
Here are some strategic issues and areas where knowledge can drive understanding and appropriate training which will likely lead to relevant tactics being learnt:
Understand the real violent crime statistics for your own neighbourhood
Understanding what form of violent crime YOU are most likely to encounter in your day to day life (fight at pub, mugging at car park etc.)
Understand what weapons are most commonly used in real attacks
Understanding that three or more attackers are much more likely than just two
Understand that some people will harness social norms to gain an advantage over you non violently
Understand how ego and face can become a core reason that violent encounters begin
Understand that assault types of attack are much more likely (about 10 times more), than muggings and robbery
Understand that about half of all assaults are between people who know each other (It may not be the stereotypical drunk guy you dont know in the pub)
Understand where the primary danger zones are for you and when they are most dangerous
The above is not an exhaustive list. These are just some big picture considerations that could be seen to be useful in driving some training methodologies that would be most relevant to a person for THEM and not a one size fits all. Once knowledge is gained and strategic direction is followed, look out. Such a person would be well on their way along the path.
The importance of strategy does not only need to apply in the martial arts or self defence context. It can apply anywhere. Think of a long term goal and work towards what is truly important to you. That is strategic thinking and strategic action. Along the way, you will learn tactics that work for that particular strategic field.
This article has demonstrated some of the clear differences between strategy and tactics. The differences are obvious. When you hear people use the terms incorrectly now, it will be loud and obvious. Harnessing the power of strategy is the most important thing. Tactics follow strategy. Strategy drives a good understanding of tactics.
Strategic subjects are generally those which are written about on this site. Most articles here are about bigger picture areas of what we call Low Tech Combat. To us, this is the most appropriate use of the written word on the internet. Tactics are best learnt in person from another person. However, too many people are engaging in training that does not really follow their overall intent. And that is a shame.
Strategy must come first in order to facilitate informed decisions and appropriate training.
"Any bloody fool can pull a trigger"
http://whereexcusesgotodie.com/culture/any-bloody-fool-can-pull-a-trigger/
Give us another film like Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon.
At one point, early in Bruce Lee's 1972 karate classic-to-be, Enter the Dragon, British Intelligence recruiter "Braithwaite" offers Lee whiskey, which he refuses as though it contains all the weaknesses of Western culture. Braithwaite's droopy shrug 'n gulp response serves to confirm for the audience that one of these two knows some things the other doesn't.
As Braithwaite reveals more of Enter the Dragon's cloak-and-dagger intrigue, Lee suggests someone just go in and shoot the bad guy. Initially, the question seems like a no-brainer, but Braithwaite assures Lee that possession of a gun on an island off of Hong Kong is a whopper of a British Colonial no-no: if firearms were suspected, he seems to say, the Queen herself would arrive to tidy things up. Moreover, this particular bad guy, "Han," suspects he could be assassinated at any moment, so he's particularly sensitive. "Can't really blame him," Braithwaite reasons. "Any bloody fool can pull a trigger."
That line, delivered by another character in another film or era, could easily have slipped past, unnoticed. But when Enter the Dragon was released in '73, it changed the world – and I mean overnight. Western audiences, long accustomed to the action movie perspectives of white men with guns and horsies, were suddenly forced to recognize a mainstreaming of Asians and brown people. "Shaft" wasn't going anywhere, and now he had badass company. A lot of us were ready to hang on Bruce Lee's every word, especially since the man died strangely just a week before Enter the Dragon was released.
That event itself was a conspiratorial marvel that helped sell thousands of martial arts magazines, all of which promised to fuel the mystique of Lee's legacy. By the time I was ten, my own stack of Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu magazines was tall enough to stand on – so I could paper my bedroom walls with Bruce Lee posters.
Charles Bronson Black Belt 1973From the pages of one such periodical, I ordered a Game of Death tracksuit, which my folks encouraged, as it was my first run at retail mail-order. I put it on as soon as it arrived and started sweating immediately: it was the scratchiest, lowest grade nylon imaginable, and it was too small. I felt like a sucker, but I buried it. I'd waited too long. Ill-fitting or not, within minutes I was walking right out the front door. And yes, I can still hear the laughter. Even worse were the erupting faces of the kids who held it back.
Yet there was hardly a kid around who didn't relate, who didn't engage in the debate over which martial art, artists, schools, and "training products" were the best. Or who could beat Bruce Lee. Plus there was always that linguistic biggie, the proper, "respectful" way to pronounce "numchucks." That ain't it, trust me, but you won't actually get confirmation from the movie; despite its all-powerful use in the film, the weapon is never actually named. Enter the Dragon just isn't formal or full of itself like that. Knowing head nods serve to highlight connections between the characters, and chins are often popped up to say hello or I get it.
With the exception of Braithwaite, Enter the Dragon's characters speak in what was then considered loose, California-talk, using words like "faked out," "man," and "cat," as in, "Whaddya know about this Han cat?" Easy Rider got there first, of course, with its vernacular of drug use and road trip freedom, but that was the sort of language more or less expected from a movie about fringe-by-choice fuck ups. Enter the Dragon took us farther. The power of Braithwaite's disdain for guns was equal to Lee's contempt for the liquor. "Any bloody fool can pull a trigger," was vigorously accepted as code by young audiences. Fans picked it apart, and it felt like a higher standard. Even the movie's grindhouse-esque trailer promises that the human body is more deadly than bullets. Okay-sure, it immediately became a gimmick, but I'll bet it saved more lives than today's name calling, finger pointing, foot stomping, and cries for politicians to save us from the second amendment!
When "Williams," Jim Kelly's doomed Enter the Dragon character, breaks a racist LAPD cop's nightstick in half before breaking his face, audiences saw right off the bat just how different this movie was going to be. The diversity in the cheers that followed this mother of all comeuppance karate scenes made 'em even louder.
Even more importantly, Enter the Dragon helped re-focus Americans' collective lens on a group 'til then most commonly referred to as "Orientals." Stereotypes such as those promoted through the dismissive, chopsocky kitsch of Carl Douglas' radio hit, "Kung Fu Fighting" were challenged by Lee's legacy, as well as by his Chinese and Filipino-American colleagues: Dan Inosanto, Sammo Hung, and Jackie Chan. Among others, these were guys who essentially negated everything we thought we knew about Asian cultures. Now, not only did we know more about Asians, we wanted to be more like them.
I couldn't say why, but the older I got, the more I respected Lee's refusal of the whiskey. Other admonitions were far quicker to sink in. Hundreds of viewings later, for example, I'm still awed by Angela Mao, playing Lee's sister, Su Lin. After utterly annihilating a gang of attackers with surgical strikes, Su Lin is finally cornered. As the gang leader catches up, the resignation and dignity in her face is devastating. Su Lin knows what's coming, and also that none of these shit-stains will get their chance. From that day forward, I understood that real men don't force themselves on women. My reverence for what I took away from this film as a ten-year-old is difficult to measure.
So even though dorky Braithwaite was the one to blithely dismiss the use of guns, it was clear to us that this was all a part of the same lesson plan, made accessible through slang and story. Each character's journey seemed dependent on how well he bridged so many cultural and linguistic gaps; it was highly persuasive when they navigated the differences so smoothly. I wanted to be that. Maybe not smooth, but uninhibited by other cultures — and unarmed.
I'll watch just about any movie where dudes get their heads busted with flying feet, fists, and lead pipes. But my allegiance lies with (now rare) films in which only chickenshits fight with guns. Given the rise in firearm violence in America since the '70s, it sounds like we could use another Enter the Dragon.
How could Enter the Dragon, a 40-year-old film dismissed as violent "trash" by parents and of the era, contain so many healthy lessons? And how will we ever replace Lalo Schifrin!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPRsKgyqTjE
Asymmetric warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, less equipped and supported, undermanned but resilient opponent.
Definition and differences
The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J. R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred simply to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power," in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, and so on. Mack's analysis was largely ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s, new research building on Mack's insights was beginning to mature, and, after 2004, the U.S. military began once again to seriously consider the problems associated with asymmetric warfare.
Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, and by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt, or even to the nature of the adversary itself (e.g., "asymmetric adversaries can be expected to ...") rather than to the correlation of forces.
Academic authors tend to focus more on explaining the puzzle of weak actor victory in war: if "power," conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war, then how is the victory of the "weak" over the "strong" explained? Key explanations include strategic interaction; willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs; external support of weak actors; reluctance to escalate violence on the part of strong actors; internal group dynamics and inflated strong actor war aims. Asymmetric conflicts include both interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.
Strategic basis
In most conventional warfare, the belligerents deploy forces of a similar type and the outcome can be predicted by the quantity of the opposing forces or by their quality, for example better command and control of their forces. There are times where this is not true because the composition or strategy of the forces makes it impossible for either side to close in battle with the other. An example of this is the standoff between the continental land forces of the French army and the maritime forces of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the words of Admiral Jervis during the campaigns of 1801, "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea", and a confrontation that Napoleon Bonaparte described as that between the elephant and the whale.
Tactical basis
The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:
One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the decisive English longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example.
Technological inferiority usually is cancelled by more vulnerable infrastructure which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply systems in highly populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and morale, while the weaker side may not have these structures at all.
Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries the Greek hoplite's (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example.
If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since) provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.
If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or clearly marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush, but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an inferior power uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the superior power will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss. As seen in most conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries, this is highly unlikely as the propaganda advantage has always outweighed adherence to international law, especially by dominating sides of any conflict.
War by proxy
Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give deniability to the state actor. The deniability can be important to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.
Asymmetric warfare and terrorism
There are two different viewpoints on the relationship between asymmetric warfare and terrorism. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters. For example, terrorists often use women and children as human shields, which practise is not considered either moral or part of traditional symmetrical warfare.
The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism. The use of terror by the much lesser Mongol forces in the creation and control of the Mongol empire could be viewed as asymmetric warfare. The other is the use of state terrorism by the superior Nazi forces in the Balkans, in an attempt to suppress the resistance movement.
Full-spectrum dominance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
Full-spectrum dominance is a military entity's achievement of control over all dimensions of the battlespace, effectively possessing an overwhelming diversity of resources in such areas as terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.
US military doctrine
Officially known as full-spectrum superiority and defined by the U.S. military as:
The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.
The United States military's doctrine has espoused a strategic intent to be capable of achieving this state in a conflict, either alone or with allies by defeating any adversary and controlling any situation across the range of military operations.
The stated intent implies significant investment in a range of capabilities; dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection.
Criticism
As early as 2005, the credibility of full-spectrum dominance as a practical strategic doctrine was dismissed by Professor Philip Taylor of the University of Leeds an expert consultant to the US and UK governments on psychological operations, propaganda and diplomacy.
"It's true, though rarely recognized in the control-freakery world of the military, that full spectrum dominance is impossible in the global information environment."
Two-front war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-front_war
In military terminology, a two-front war is a war in which fighting takes place on two geographically separate fronts. It is usually executed by two or more separate forces simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, in the hope that their opponent will be forced to split their fighting force to deal with both threats, therefore reducing their odds of success. Where one of the contending forces is surrounded, the fronts are called interior lines.
One of the earliest examples of a two-front war occurred in the third century BC, when the Roman Republic fought the First Macedonian War contemporaneously with the Second Punic War against Carthage. Also, after the consolidation of the Empire's frontier in the reign of Augustus, the Roman forces had to contend with multiple enemies in its frontiers, in the Rhine, Danube and Mesopotamia, with various examples of emperors (such as Septimius Severus and Aurelian) who marched their armies from one side of the Empire to another to face them. In the later period, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the surviving part, the Byzantine Empire had to face invaders coming from both west and east and simultaneously trying to preserve its territories in Italy.
Napoleonic Wars
During the Napoleonic Wars, France repeatedly fought on multiple fronts. For example, France fought the Spanish and Anglo-Portuguese army in the Peninsular War while fighting the Russian Empire at the same time during its invasion of Russia.
World War I
During World War I, Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II fought a two-front war against French, British, Belgian, and (later) American forces on the Western Front while simultaneously fighting the Russians on the Eastern Front, until the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 took Russia out of the war. Germany had foreseen such a scenario, and developed the Schlieffen Plan in order to counteract being surrounded by its enemies.[citation needed] Under the Schlieffen Plan, German forces would invade France via Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (the idea to go through the Netherlands was abandoned because of the country's neutrality), quickly capturing Paris and forcing France to sue for peace. The Germans would then turn their attention to Russia in the east before the Tsar could mobilize his massive forces. Due to several factors however, the Germans failed to achieve the plan's aims.
World War II
Perhaps the most famous example of a two-front war was the European theatre during World War II, when Hitler's Nazi Germany had to deal with the Western Allies on the west and the Soviet Union to the east. The Germans were unable to repel either of the two front's advances and eventually lost the war. While there were other contributing factors, such as the insufficiency of the Wehrmacht for a long war, and the abandonment of blitzkrieg tactics due to fuel shortages and a rising need to defend territory, the two-front war was an important factor in deciding when the German military would be forced to surrender.
The Allies, especially the United States, also fought a two-front war, splitting their forces between the European theatre against Nazi Germany and the Pacific War against Japan. Japan too was fighting in both Asia and the Pacific. The Axis Powers had the opportunity to force the Soviet Union into a two-front war by means of a Japanese attack on the Soviet Far East, but the Japanese declined to do so, due to their defeats in the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts. While Germany and the United States remained respective threats, the Soviets and Japanese did not fight each another until the August 9 Soviet-Japanese War (1945), three months after the surrender of Germany. Japan, thus, fought a two-front war as well, splitting it's forces between China in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the United States in the aforementioned Pacific Theatre of WWII. The Soviet Union later invaded Manchuria, worsening the situation for Imperial Japan. In the case of the United States, the Pacific theatre was primarily a naval and air effort despite losing ships during the 1941 Pearl Harbor Attack while ground forces were used in Europe. Similarly for Japan, most ground troops were fighting China and the Pacific theatre was also primarily a naval and aerial battle.
Israeli-Arab Wars
In the 1948 Israeli-Arab War, the Israelis fought the Egyptians to the south and the Jordanians and Syria in the east and north. Israel again fought two-front wars in the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
Cold War
A major rationale for the American 600-ship Navy plan in the 1980s was to threaten the Soviet Union with a two-front war (in Europe and the Pacific Ocean) in the event of hostilities.
Metaphorical usage
The term is often used metaphorically. An example is when a moderate politician faces political "attacks" from those to his left and those to his right.
The Western Establishment has defined all peoples of planet Earth "enemy combatant" status, therefore we are witnessing the roll out of the police state at home (while being poisoned in every sense of the concept); and the destructive wars of conquest rage overseas via Asymmetric Warfare tactics (Terrorism and Propaganda).
British Prime Minister David Cameron has compared Russia to Nazi Germany over Moscow's actions in Ukraine ahead of meeting with Vladimir Putin on Saturday at the G20 summit in Australia.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20141114/1014733337.html
MOSCOW, November 13 (Sputnik) – UK Prime Minister David Cameron has likened Russia to Nazi Germany over Moscow's actions in Ukraine ahead of his meeting with President Vladimir Putin, The Daily Telegraph reported Friday.
"Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we are dealing with. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe ... We have seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again," the prime minister said in reference to World War II, according to the newspaper.
It is not the first time the British politician made such a controversial comparison. In September, Cameron told EU leaders at a summit in Brussels that the West risks making similar mistakes in appeasing the Russian president over Ukraine as Britain and France did with Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II.
The British prime minister is expected to meet Putin on Saturday at the G20 summit in Australia, the first such meeting between the two since the Ukraine crisis erupted.
Western countries have been accusing Russia of escalating tensions in eastern Ukraine, arming independence supporters and sending its troops to the volatile regions. Moscow has labeled the claims as groundless.
The pot calling the kettle black
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black
The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to claim that a person is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another.
Interpretations and origins
As generally understood, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in it.
An alternative interpretation, recognized by some, but not all, sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot's own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.
A poem in an early-twentieth-century school textbook runs:
"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."
—Maxwell's Elementary Grammar, 1904,
Similar phrases
In Ancient Greece, mention of 'the Snake and the Crab' signified much the same idiom. The first instance of this is in a drinking song (skolion) dating from the late 6th or early 5th century BCE. The fable ascribed to Aesop under this name makes the crab an honest actor who kills the snake for the common good. In another, however, concerning a mother crab and its young, the mother tells the child to walk straight and is asked in return to demonstrate how that is done.
A similar story occurs in the Aramaic version of the story of Ahiqar, dating from about 500 BCE. 'The bramble sent to the pomegranate tree saying, "Wherefore the multitude of thy thorns to him that toucheth thy fruit?" The pomegranate tree answered and said to the bramble, "Thou art all thorns to him that toucheth thee".
In the Gospel of Matthew 7:3, Jesus is quoted as saying, during the discourse on judgmentalism in the Sermon on the Mount, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Many scholars have interpreted this as a proscription against personal attacks in general, not just particulars. In the King James Version of the Bible, it is translated as "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
A widespread European proverb (see below) whose English equivalent is 'those that live in glass houses should not throw stones' also counsels caution from being judgmental. It appears in the work of Geoffrey Chaucer as 'One who has a glass head should beware of stones' (Troilus and Criseyde II/867–8) and in George Herbert's Outlandish Proverbs (1640) as 'Whose house is of glasse, must not throw stones at another' (#196).
In his play Troilus and Cressida Shakespeare uses the phrase "The raven chides blackness" to refer to the same phenomenon.
Coups and terror are the fruit of Nato's war in Libya
The dire consequences of the west's intervention are being felt today in Tripoli and across Africa, from Mali to Nigeria
Seumas Milne
The Guardian, Thursday 22 May 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/coups-terror-nato-war-in-libya-west-intervention-boko-haram-nigeria
Iraq may have been a blood-drenched disaster and Afghanistan a grinding military and political failure. But Libya was supposed to have been different. Nato's war to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 was hailed as the liberal intervention that worked.
The western powers might have had to twist the meaning of the UN resolution about protecting civilians, the city of Sirte might have been reduced to rubble, large-scale ethnic cleansing taken place and thousands of civilians killed. But it was all in a noble cause and achieved without Nato casualties.
This wasn't Bush and Blair, after all, but Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy. The people were free, the dictator was dead, a mooted massacre had been averted – and all this without any obvious boots on the ground. Even last year the prime minister was still claiming it had all been worthwhile, promising to stand with Libyans "every step of the way".
But three years after Nato declared victory, Libya is lurching once again towards civil war. Over the past few days, the CIA-linked General Hiftar launched his second coup attempt in three months, supposedly to save the country from "terrorists" and Islamists. On Sunday, his forces stormed the national parliament in Tripoli, after 80 people were killed in fighting in Benghazi two days earlier.
Now Libya's chief of staff has called on Islamist militias to defend the government in advance of new elections. Since the country is overrun with militias far more powerful than its official forces, riven with multiple divisions and prey to constant external interference, the chances of avoiding full-blown conflict are shrinking fast.
But these are only the latest of the clashes and atrocities that have engulfed Libya since Nato's "liberation": including bombings, assassinations, the kidnapping of the prime minister, the seizure of oil terminals by warlords, the explusion of 40,000 mainly black Libyans from their homes, and the killing of 46 protesters on the streets of Tripoli in one incident — ignored by the states that supposedly went to war to protect civilians.
In reality, the west seized the chance to intervene in Libya to get a grip on the Arab uprisings. Nato air power in support of the Libyan rebellion increased the death toll by a factor of about 10, but played the decisive role in the war— which meant no coherent political or military force was ready to fill the vacuum. Three years on, thousands are held without trial, there are heavy curbs on dissent, and institutions are close to collapse.
But the US and Britain are still training Libyan troops to keep control. Before Gaddafi's overthrow, Hiftar headed the military wing of the CIA-backed National Salvation Front. In advance of his latest coup attempt, a sympathetic US sent a force of marines to Sicily ready to intervene, and John Kerry has promised to help Libya with "security and extremism".
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are openly backing Hiftar, as is the military coup leader in Egypt, General Sisi. Having suppressed, jailed and shot in large numbers Egypt's own Islamists, Sisi and his Gulf backers are determined to prevent them consolidating power in oil-rich Libya. There are signs that Sisi – who complains that the west failed to garrison Libya after Gaddafi's overthrow – wants to use Libya's crisis to send in his own forces.
But it's not just Libya that's living with the fallout from Nato's intervention. Blowback from the Libyan war has spread across Africa, destabilising the Sahel region and beyond. After Gaddafi's fall, Tuareg people who had fought for him went home to Mali, bringing Libyan arms caches with them. Within months, that had tipped northern Mali into full-scale armed rebellion and takeover by Islamist fighters.
The result was last year's French military intervention, backed by the US and Britain. But Libya's impact goes much wider. Among the groups whose armed campaigns have been fuelled by large-scale heavy weapons supplies from Gaddafi's looted arsenals is Boko Haram.
Support for the fundamentalist Nigerian terror sect – which kidnapped 200 schoolgirls last month and has been responsible for more than 1,500 deaths since the start of the year – has been fed by deprivation, drought and brutal state repression in the Muslim north.
But, as elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East, each outside intervention only spreads the cycle of the terror war. So the call for action over the outrage of the Boko Haram kidnapping has brought US, British and French forces to oil-wealthy Nigeria, just as the Mali crisis last year led to the establishment of a US military drone base in neighbouring Niger.
US armed forces are now involved in 49 out of 54 African states, along with the former colonial powers of France and Britain, in what's becoming a new carve-up of the continent: a scramble for resources and influence in the face of China's growing economic role, underpinned with an escalating military presence that spreads terror as it grows. That will bring its own backlash, as did the war in Libya.
Supporters of Nato's Libyan war counter that, even if the country is now plagued by chaos and violence, there was no western military intervention in Syria and more than 150,000 have died in its horrific civil war. But of course there is large-scale covert intervention in support of the Syrian rebels by both the Nato powers and the Gulf states.
One of the ugliest aspects of western policy towards Syria is the turning on and off of that backing to keep their favoured armed groups in the game – without giving them any decisive advantage. In fact, US, British and Gulf support is being stepped up right now because of regime advances on the field.
But it defies logic to imagine that the death toll would have somehow been lower in Syria, or the sectarian conflict less brutal, if the US and its allies had launched a full-scale military attack at any stage of the conflict. The experience of Iraq, where the war is now estimated to have killed 500,000, makes that obvious enough.
But such is the expectation of routine war-making among parts of the western elite that they're already impatient for another outright intervention. "What would America fight for?" asked the Economist plaintively earlier this month, echoing the US Republican charge of weakness in the White House. For the rest of the world, the reality of Libya and its disastrous consequences should be answer enough.
British and US Attacks against ISIS: Obama and Cameron: "Air Strikes on Syria would be Legally Justified"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-and-us-attacks-against-isis-obama-and-cameron-air-strikes-on-syria-would-be-legally-justified/5400266
By Cem Ertür
Global Research, September 10, 2014
One wonders how British Prime Minister David Cameron would try to justify his patently criminal statements in front of a war crimes tribunal...
This is how the British press covers the issue of "Going After ISIS" as part of a "Global War on Terrorism"
BBC: Your former defence spokesman [sic] Liam Fox says that basically we should be joining the Americans in air strikes because it does help those on the ground. You damage supply lines with military power, you destroy bases; and whether that's in Iraq or in Syria.
PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Well, these are all things that should be considered. And we've supported the American air strikes up to now, which have been helping to make sure that the Kurds...
See source link above for selected excerpts.
The Nuremberg Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
The principles:
Principle I
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle II
"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Principle VI
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."
Principle VII
"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."
Libya's "Water Wars" and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project
http://globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868
It was Muammar Gaddafi`s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production.
Libyans called it the eighth wonder of the world. Western media called it a pet project and the pipe dream of a mad dog. The "mad dog" himself in 1991 prophetically said about the largest civil engineering venture in the world:
After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.
Gaddafi's dream
It was Muammar Gaddafi's dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production. In 1953, the search for new oilfields in the deserts of southern Libya led to the discovery not just of significant oil reserves, but also of vast quantities of fresh water trapped in the underlying strata. The four ancient water aquifers that were discovered, each had estimated capacities ranging between 4,800 and 20,000 cubic kilometers. Most of this water was collected between 38,000 and 14,000 years ago, though some pockets are believed to be only 7,000 years old.
After Gaddafi and the Free Unitary Officers seized power in a bloodless coup from the corrupt King Idris during the Al-Fateh Revolution in 1969, the Jamahiriya government nationalized the oil companies and spent much of the oil revenues to harness the supply of fresh water from the desert aquifers by putting in hundreds of bore wells. Large farms were established in southern Libya to encourage the people to move to the desert. It turned out that the majority of the people however preferred life in the northern coastal areas.
Therefore Gaddafi subsequently conceived a plan to bring the water to the people instead. The Libyan Jamahiriya government conducted the initial feasibility studies in 1974, and in 1983 the Great Man-Made River Authority was set up. This fully government funded project was designed in five phases, each of them largely separate in itself, but which eventually would combine to form an integrated system. As water in Gaddafi's Libya was regarded to be a human right, there has not been any charge on the people, nor were any international loans needed for the almost $30 billion cost of the project.
In 1996, during the opening of Phase II of the Great Man-Made River Project, Gaddafi said:
This is the biggest answer to America and all the evil forces who accuse us of being concerned with terrorism. We are only concerned with peace and progress. America is against life and progress; it pushes the world toward darkness.
Development and destruction
At the time of the NATO-led war against Libya in 2011, three phases of the Great Man-Made River Project were completed. The first and largest phase, providing two million cubic metres of water a day along a 1,200 km pipeline to Benghazi and Sirte, was formally inaugurated in August 1991. Phase II includes the delivery of one million cubic metres of water a day to the western coastal belt and also supplies Tripoli. Phase III provides the planned expansion of the existing Phase I system, and supplies Tobruk and the coast from a new wellfield.
The 'rivers' are a 4000-kilometer network of 4 meters diameter lined concrete pipes, buried below the desert sands to prevent evaporation. There are 1300 wells, 500,000 sections of pipe, 3700 kilometers of haul roads, and 250 million cubic meters of excavation. All material for the project was locally manufactured. Large reservoirs provide storage, and pumping stations control the flow into the cities.
The last two phases of the project should involve extending the distribution network together. When completed, the irrigation water from the Great Man-Made River would enable about 155,000 hectares of land to be cultivated. Or, as Gaddafi defined, the project would make the desert as green as the flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya.
In 1999, UNESCO accepted Libya's offer to fund the Great Man-Made River International Water Prize, an award that rewards remarkable scientific research work on water usage in arid areas.
Many foreign nationals worked in Libya on the Great Man-Made River Project for decades. But after the start of NATO's so-called humanitarian bombing of the North-African country in March 2011, most foreign workers have returned home. In July 2011, NATO not only bombed the Great Man-Made River water supply pipeline near Brega, but also destroyed the factory that produces the pipes to repair it, claiming in justification that it was used as "a military storage facility" and that "rockets were launched from there". Six of the facility's security guards were killed in the NATO attack, and the water supply for the 70% of the population who depend on the piped supply for personal use and for irrigation has been compromised with this damage to Libya's vital infrastructure.
The construction on the last two phases of the Great Man-Made River Project were scheduled to continue over the next two decades, but NATO's war on Libya has thrown the project's future – and the wellbeing of the Libyan people – into great jeopardy.
A German language documentary shows the size and brilliance of the project:
Water Wars
Fresh clean water, as provided to the Libyans by the Great Man-Made River, is essential to all life forms. Without fresh water we simply cannot function. Right now, 40% of the global population has little to no access to clean water, and that figure is actually expected to jump to 50% by 2025. According to the United Nations Development Program 2007, global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. Simultaneously, every single year most of the major deserts around the world are becoming bigger and the amount of usable agricultural land in most areas is becoming smaller, while rivers, lakes and major underground aquifers around the globe are drying up – except in Gaddafi's Libya.
In the light of the current world developments, there is more to the NATO destruction of the Great Man-Made River Project than being an isolated war crime. The United Nations Environment Program 2007 describes a so-called "water for profit scheme", which actively promotes the privatization and monopolization for the world's water supplies by multinational corporations. Meanwhile the World Bank recently adopted a policy of water privatization and full-cost water pricing, with one of its former directors, Ismail Serageldin, stating:
"The wars of the 21st century will be fought over water".
In practice this means that the United Nations in collaboration with the World Bank plans to secure water resources to use at their disposal, and that once they totally control these resources, the resources become assets to be reallocated back to the enslaved nations for a price. Those prices will rise while the quality of the water will decrease, and fresh water sources will become less accessible to those who desperately need it. Simply put, one of the most effective ways to enslave the people is to take control of their basic daily needs and to take away their self-sufficiency.
How this relates to the NATO destruction of Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River Project in July 2011 can be best illustrated by the Hegelian Dialectic, popularly known as the concept of Problem -> Reaction -> Solution. In this case, by bombing the water supply and the pipes factory, a Problem was created with an ulterior motive, namely to gain control over the most precious part of Libya's infrastructure. Subsequently a Reaction in the form of an immediate widespread need was provoked as a result of the Problem, since as much as 70% of the Libyans depend on the Great Man-Made River for personal use as well as for the watering of the land. A month after the destruction of the Great Man-Made River, more than half of Libya was without running water. Ultimately a predetermined Solution was implemented: in order to have access to fresh water, the inhabitants of the war-torn country had no choice but to fully depend on – and thus to be enslaved to – the NATO-installed government.
A 'democratic' and 'democracy-bringing' government that came to power through the wounding and killing of thousands of Libyans by 'humanitarian bombs', and that overthrow the 'dictator' whose dream it was to provide fresh water for all Libyans for free.
War is still peace, freedom is still slavery.
New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders to Kill 294 Americans
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-evidence-proves-israel-attacked-uss-liberty-with-orders-to-kill-294-americans/5413807
Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake. Since 1967 the 'official story' has been that Israel simply misidentified the American ship as Egyptian for several hours. Israel apologized to the United States and for several decades we've been led to believe that this could be the only explanation for why Israeli jets and torpedo boats would launch rockets, missiles and torpedoes at an American target for more than two hours.
A new documentary called 'The Day Israel Attacked America" airing on Al Jazeera was produced and directed by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield. Thanks to the audio evidence obtained by Belfield, it is finally possible to prove the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty were right all along. The survivors have always been extremely confident that Israel's intentions were to sink that ship and kill everyone on board so Egypt could be blamed for the tragedy. Why? To convince President Lyndon Johnson (and the American public) that we needed to declare war on Egypt. This is the definition of a 'false flag'. (can you say 9/11?)
It appears that once again, a conspiracy theory has turned out to be conspiracy fact. You can finally take off your tinfoil hats!
"Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Israeli Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film." - Richard Belfield
Just sixteen minutes after Israel attacked America, the USS Liberty was confirmed by Israeli forces to be an American ship. These conversations can be heard in the documentary Al Jazeera has been airing on their station.
"To what state does she belong?" (Answer): "American"
Yet the attacks continued for an hour and a half!
Even five minutes before the first bombing you can hear Israeli Air Force pilots question whether the ship was American or not. You don't have to be a genius to understand why these pilots would be extremely uncomfortable attacking a ship suspected to be American without being given direct orders to do so. I believe we can safely assume this attack wouldn't have been carried out otherwise.
"Is it an American ship?" "What do you mean American?" "No comment."
Twenty minutes after a ground controller answered "American" when asked "to what state does she belong?" by Israeli Air Force pilots, the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty. A voice can clearly be heard which confirms that this target, thought to be American at that time, was to be destroyed.
"The torpedo is talking care of the ship now."
As soon as the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty, Israeli torpedo boats circled the ship and started machine-gunning the American target for another 40 minutes. When the USS Liberty crew lowered their lifeboats into the water to evacuate their ship, the Israelis moved closer so they could gun down the Americans attempting to save their own lives.
More than ten years ago a journalist named Arieh O'Sullivan from the Jerusalem Post was allowed to listen to these same audiotapes. He published a transcript of the Israeli military transmissions he heard directing the attack on the USS Liberty. Sixteen minutes after the attack started, just as in the recording obtained by Al Jazeera, O'Sullivan's transcript (translated from Hebrew to English) shows the same exchange.
"Kislev, what country?" (Answer): "Apparently American."
That is where O'Sullivan's transcript, published over ten years ago by the Jerusalem Post, ends. There is just one major problem with that... The attack continued for another hour and a half!
Navy Admiral Thomas Moorer, who has served this country as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, once lead an independent commission to investigate what really happened to the USS Liberty. The commission's findings were made public in 2003. Here are a few of the shocking conclusions.
The attack, by a U.S. ally, was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill its entire crew.
The attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts .
The White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the USS Liberty. This was the first time in naval history a rescue mission had been cancelled while an American ship was under attack.
Surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment, or worse if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were "abandoned by their own government
-
John Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, published in 2007 what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has called the 'most detailed and accurate account of the Israeli attack' for the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun. You guessed it, Crewdson was fired by the Chicago Tribune just a year later after working there for 24 years. You should read his work.
"Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew." – former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
-
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html
In 1967, at the height of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship that was monitoring the conflict from the safety of international waters in the Mediterranean.
Israeli jet fighters hit the vessel with rockets, cannon fire and napalm, before three Israeli torpedo boats moved in to launch a second more devastating attack. Though she did not sink, the Liberty was badly damaged. Thirty-four US servicemen and civilian analysts were killed, another 171 were wounded.
Later Israel apologised for what it claimed to be a tragic case of mistaken identity. It said that it had believed the ship to be hostile Egyptian naval vessel. US President Lyndon Johnson was privately furious but publicly the White House chose not to challenge the word of its closest Middle East ally and accepted that the attack had been a catastrophic accident.
However, as this exclusive Al Jazeera investigation reveals, fresh evidence throws new light on exactly what happened that fateful day - and the remarkable cover up that followed.
By Richard Belfield
I was first told about the attack on the USS Liberty in 1980 over dinner with a former analyst from the National Security Agency (NSA) in Washington DC.
Back in 1980, I promised my friend that if I ever got the chance I would make a film about it. Over the years, I pitched the idea to numerous broadcasters and always got the same response: eyes rolled upwards, usually followed by the statement, "Are you completely mad?"
Fast forward to 2009 and I was a guest speaker at the NSA's biennial conference on historical cryptography, talking about an unsolved code on an 18th century monument in an English stately home.
While there, I went to two other sessions - both about attacks on American signal intelligence naval vessels.
The first was the capture of the US spy ship, the Pueblo (boarded by North Korean forces in 1968 - and never returned). The survivors of that incident were treated like heroes and feted on stage.
The next day there was a session about the USS Liberty. James Scott, who has written easily the best book on the Liberty attack, was on stage and limited to his allotted 20 minutes. Ranged against him were three Israeli apologists, all of whom were allowed to overrun their time. Survivors from the Liberty affair were allowed to sit in the audience, but they were denied any say in proceedings.
As an Englishman, I was brought up with a strong sense of fair play and I thought this was a disgrace. It was gruesome to watch. First, the crew had been attacked in broad daylight by a close ally, then they were betrayed by their government and now they were being humiliated by the same agency many had worked for back in 1967.
Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Isreali Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.
On location, it all started with James Scott (who gets a co-producer credit on this project). When writing his book, he had already interviewed the survivors as well as many of the key people in the Washington political and intelligence machine from that time. The introductions he made would prove invaluable as we began filming interviews.
The veterans were extraordinary. One after another, they were generous with their time, uniformly eloquent and passionate and above all, honest in their recollections.
They all felt betrayed by the American government but were keen to exonerate ordinary Jewish people both in Israel and without, for any responsibility for the incident. Their beef was simply with the senior Israeli officers in the control room and their superiors higher up the command chain who had ordered the attack.
After a few days filming, I rang Elaine Morris, my producer back in London. She asked how things were going. All I could say was that the quality of the interviews was the best I had ever experienced in many decades in this business.
In Texas we interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, an intelligence officer with a glittering track record at the CIA, Naval Intelligence and as a former director of the NSA. My contacts in the UK intelligence world had always told me "he is one of the good guys" and I quickly discovered why. He was frank and clear. The top Israeli commanders, he explained, had known exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty and when it came to holding them to account, the US government rolled over for them.
We filmed an annual memorial ceremony in Washington, D.C. It was emotional, visceral and tense, with survivors, family and friends gathered in the morning sun. Listening to a sole bugler playing the US Navy's lament, 'Taps' is a memory that will never fade.
Years earlier, I had visited the US military graves in Arlington Cemetery but now, following the ceremony, I got to go there again with Dave Lucas, one of the survivors of the attack and a truly wonderful man.
We filmed as he walked up the hill carrying a wreath from the ceremony. Alongside him was a crew member, a Portuguese language specialist, who had left the Liberty in Spain just a few days before it sailed off up the Mediterranean to take up position off the Egyptian coast. He had been temporarily replaced for the mission by an Arab linguist. He wept openly for the comrades he had said goodbye to, never to see again. As we filmed the pair laying the flowers, an interview with one of the other survivors, Jim Kavanagh came suddenly to mind. "I went through hell," he had said about his shipmates. "But they left this earth."
Finally, we filmed on a sister ship to the Liberty, now moored in San Francisco. The crew hauled an outsized US flag up a mast for us. The flag - known as the "holiday colours" - was identical to that which was flown from the Liberty on June 8, 1967. It was huge, clearly visible for miles, and I knew immediately that no one could ever have been in any doubt about the nationality of the ship beneath it.
Watching the Stars and Stripes unfurl into the wind, I realised that I had got to keep the promise I first made to my friend in a Washington restaurant 34 years ago.
Unusual graphic 'entertainment' evidence (http://www.tomatobubble.com/trotters.html) of the long range
planning of 9/11.
It is looking more and more like the true purpose of
9/11 and all that followed was to get us to where we
are now with 'The Unstoppable Juggernaut (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=107238).'
This too. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=107250)
The Final Battle is rapidly approaching...
China & others can cripple US power grid, NSA admits for the first time
Published time: November 20, 2014 18:52
http://rt.com/usa/207415-rogers-congress-nsa-china/
The head of the National Security Agency warned Congress on Thursday that China and "one or two" other nations currently possess the capability of crippling the American power grid through cyberattacks.
Speaking before the House intelligence committee Thursday morning, Adm. Michael Rogers — the top official at both the NSA and United States Cyber Command — said that major systems, like the infrastructure that provides power to houses and facilities across the country, could be taken offline by state-sponsored hackers from abroad.
Certain nations are regularly performing electronic "reconnaissance," Rogers warned, in an effort to be well placed within utility systems in the event that the networks relied on by chemical facilities, water treatment plants and other critical infrastructure components are ordered to be taken offline by a foreign government.
"All of that leads me to believe it is only a matter of when, not if, we are going to see something dramatic," the NSA chief said.
Leading figures within the American intelligence community and Congress have long warned of potentially catastrophic repercussions if such networks should happen to be penetrated and pulverized by foreign actors with malicious intent, but Rogers' remarks this week are among the most dire ever from not just individual well placed within the administration, but a person arguably most qualified to testify as much.
"We're watching multiple nation states invest in this capability," Rogers warned the committee, specifically naming only China as one of the countries considered to now have such power.
Rogers, a cryptology expert with a decades-long career in the US Navy, replaced Gen. Keith Alexander as head of the Cyber Command and NSA in April, less than a year after the latter first became the subject of an international scandal when former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden started supplying journalists with classified information about secret surveillance programs used by the US and its allies.
The NSA chief 's comments on Thursday came mostly in response to questioning from another Mike Rogers — the Republican congressman from Michigan who currently chairs the House committee and has long campaigned for new rules concerning both offensive and defensive cyber operations.
"China's economic cyber espionage ... has grown exponentially in terms of volume and damage done to our nation's economic future. The Chinese intelligence services that conduct these attacks have little to fear because we have no practical deterrents to that theft. This problem is not going away until that changes," Rep. Rogers warned on Thursday's hearing.
Last month, Rep. Rogers told attendees at an event in Washington, DC that the US government lacks sound policies for protecting its cyber infrastructure, as well as launching offensive attacks, and must take action immediately to ensure foreign hackers don't launch further attacks on American networks without either party risking significant repercussions
"The very fact that a nation state believes that they could do that without any problem or consequence is another very, very serious issue for us," he said at the time.
Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) would take Rogers' place atop the intelligence committee when the next congressional session kicks off early next year.
"These are challenging and dangerous times for our country, and this committee is at the forefront of ensuring our intelligence community has the tools and resources it needs to keep America safe," Rep Rogers said in response to the announcement. "I wish Devin the best of luck as he takes the helm and continues this committee's important bipartisan oversight work."
Rep. Rogers has for years advocated in favor of legislation that would protect American computer networks by allowing the private sector to share information about threats and cyberattacks with the US government. Last month, Sen Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga), the vice chair of that chamber's intelligence committee, said any further delays in passing such a bill could have colossal implications.
"If we wait another year, we are risking the economy of the United States," Chambliss said.
The US has indicted several Chinese nationals in 2014 alone with charges related to alleged cyberattacks and online espionage carried out at the behest of the People's Liberation Army. Beijing had adamantly denied any such involvement, and has accused US rather of being the more active international cyberspy.
Meme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Meme (disambiguation).
"Memes" redirects here. For the weevil genus known as Memes, see Hylobiini.
It has been suggested that portions of this article be moved into Memetics. (Discuss)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[3]
The word meme is a shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme (from Ancient Greek μίμημα Greek pronunciation: [míːmɛːma] mīmēma, "imitated thing", from μιμεῖσθαι mimeisthai, "to imitate", from μῖμος mimos "mime")[4] and it was coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)[1][5] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches.[6]
Proponents theorize that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]
A field of study called memetics[8] arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that academic study can examine memes empirically. However, developments in neuroimaging may make empirical study possible.[9] Some commentators in the social sciences question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units, and are especially critical of the biological nature of the theory's underpinnings.[10] Others have argued that this use of the term is the result of a misunderstanding of the original proposal.[11]
Dawkins's own position is somewhat ambiguous: he obviously welcomed N. K. Humphrey's suggestion that "memes should be considered as living structures, not just metaphorically"[12] and wanted to regard memes as "physically residing in the brain".[13] Later, he argued that his original intentions, presumably before his approval of Humphrey's opinion, had been simpler.[14] At the New Directors' Showcase 2013 in Cannes, Dawkins's opinion on memetics was deliberately ambiguous.[15]
Contents
1 Origins
2 Memetic lifecycle: Transmission, retention
3 Memes as discrete units
4 Evolutionary influences on memes
5 Memetics
6 Criticism of meme theory
7 Applications
8 Religion
9 Memetic explanations of racism
10 Architectural memes
11 Internet culture
12 Meme maps
13 See also
14 Notes
15 References
16 External links
Origins
The word meme originated with Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins cites as inspiration the work of geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, anthropologist F. T. Cloak [16] and ethologist J. M. Cullen.[17] Dawkins wrote that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission—in the case of biological evolution, the gene. For Dawkins, the meme exemplified another self-replicating unit with potential significance in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution.
"Kilroy was here" was a piece of graffiti that became popular in the 1940s, and existed under various names in different countries, illustrating how a meme can be modified through replication.[18]
Dawkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that one could view many cultural entities as replicators, and pointed to melodies, fashions and learned skills as examples. Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient copiers of information and behaviour. Because humans do not always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and change through the evolution of culture to the natural selection of genes in biological evolution.[6]
Dawkins defined the meme as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation and replication, but later definitions would vary. The lack of a consistent, rigorous, and precise understanding of what typically makes up one unit of cultural transmission remains a problem in debates about memetics.[14] In contrast, the concept of genetics gained concrete evidence with the discovery of the biological functions of DNA. Meme transmission requires a physical medium, such as photons, sound waves, touch, taste or smell because memes can be transmitted only through the senses.
Memetic lifecycle: Transmission, retention
See also: Diffusion of innovations
Memes, analogously to genes, vary in their aptitude to replicate; successful memes remain and spread, whereas unfit ones stall and are forgotten. Thus memes that prove more effective at replicating and surviving are selected in the meme pool.
Memes first need retention. The longer a meme stays in its hosts, the higher its chances of propagation are. When a host uses a meme, the meme's life is extended.[19] The reuse of the neural space hosting a certain meme's copy to host different memes is the greatest threat to that meme's copy.[20]
A meme which increases the longevity of its hosts will generally survive longer. On the contrary, a meme which shortens the longevity of its hosts will tend to disappear faster. However, as hosts are mortal, retention is not sufficient to perpetuate a meme in the long term; memes also need transmission.
Life-forms can transmit information both vertically (from parent to child, via replication of genes) and horizontally (through viruses and other means). Memes can replicate vertically or horizontally within a single biological generation. They may also lie dormant for long periods of time.
Memes reproduce by copying from a nervous system to another one, either by communication or imitation. Imitation often involves the copying of an observed behaviour of another individual. Communication may be direct or indirect, where memes transmit from one individual to another through a copy recorded in an inanimate source, such as a book or a musical score. Adam McNamara has suggested that memes can be thereby classified as either internal or external memes (i-memes or e-memes).[9]
Some commentators have likened the transmission of memes to the spread of contagions.[21] Social contagions such as fads, hysteria, copycat crime, and copycat suicide exemplify memes seen as the contagious imitation of ideas. Observers distinguish the contagious imitation of memes from instinctively contagious phenomena such as yawning and laughing, which they consider innate (rather than socially learned) behaviors.[22]
Aaron Lynch described seven general patterns of meme transmission, or "thought contagion":[23]
Quantity of parenthood: an idea that influences the number of children one has. Children respond particularly receptively to the ideas of their parents, and thus ideas that directly or indirectly encourage a higher birthrate will replicate themselves at a higher rate than those that discourage higher birthrates.
Efficiency of parenthood: an idea that increases the proportion of children who will adopt ideas of their parents. Cultural separatism exemplifies one practice in which one can expect a higher rate of meme-replication—because the meme for separation creates a barrier from exposure to competing ideas.
Proselytic: ideas generally passed to others beyond one's own children. Ideas that encourage the proselytism of a meme, as seen in many religious or political movements, can replicate memes horizontally through a given generation, spreading more rapidly than parent-to-child meme-transmissions do.
Preservational: ideas that influence those that hold them to continue to hold them for a long time. Ideas that encourage longevity in their hosts, or leave their hosts particularly resistant to abandoning or replacing these ideas, enhance the preservability of memes and afford protection from the competition or proselytism of other memes.
Adversative: ideas that influence those that hold them to attack or sabotage competing ideas and/or those that hold them. Adversative replication can give an advantage in meme transmission when the meme itself encourages aggression against other memes.
Cognitive: ideas perceived as cogent by most in the population who encounter them. Cognitively transmitted memes depend heavily on a cluster of other ideas and cognitive traits already widely held in the population, and thus usually spread more passively than other forms of meme transmission. Memes spread in cognitive transmission do not count as self-replicating.
Motivational: ideas that people adopt because they perceive some self-interest in adopting them. Strictly speaking, motivationally transmitted memes do not self-propagate, but this mode of transmission often occurs in association with memes self-replicated in the efficiency parental, proselytic and preservational modes.
Memes as discrete units
Dawkins initially defined meme as a noun that "conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation".[6] John S. Wilkins retained the notion of meme as a kernel of cultural imitation while emphasizing the meme's evolutionary aspect, defining the meme as "the least unit of sociocultural information relative to a selection process that has favourable or unfavourable selection bias that exceeds its endogenous tendency to change."[24] The meme as a unit provides a convenient means of discussing "a piece of thought copied from person to person", regardless of whether that thought contains others inside it, or forms part of a larger meme. A meme could consist of a single word, or a meme could consist of the entire speech in which that word first occurred. This forms an analogy to the idea of a gene as a single unit of self-replicating information found on the self-replicating chromosome.
While the identification of memes as "units" conveys their nature to replicate as discrete, indivisible entities, it does not imply that thoughts somehow become quantized or that "atomic" ideas exist that cannot be dissected into smaller pieces. A meme has no given size. Susan Blackmore writes that melodies from Beethoven's symphonies are commonly used to illustrate the difficulty involved in delimiting memes as discrete units. She notes that while the first four notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (About this sound listen (help·info)) form a meme widely replicated as an independent unit, one can regard the entire symphony as a single meme as well.[14]
The inability to pin an idea or cultural feature to quantifiable key units is widely acknowledged as a problem for memetics. It has been argued however that the traces of memetic processing can be quantified utilizing neuroimaging techniques which measure changes in the connectivity profiles between brain regions."[9] Blackmore meets such criticism by stating that memes compare with genes in this respect: that while a gene has no particular size, nor can we ascribe every phenotypic feature directly to a particular gene, it has value because it encapsulates that key unit of inherited expression subject to evolutionary pressures. To illustrate, she notes evolution selects for the gene for features such as eye color; it does not select for the individual nucleotide in a strand of DNA. Memes play a comparable role in understanding the evolution of imitated behaviors.[14]
The 1981 book Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process by Charles J. Lumsden and E. O. Wilson proposed the theory that genes and culture co-evolve, and that the fundamental biological units of culture must correspond to neuronal networks that function as nodes of semantic memory. They coined their own term, "culturgen", which did not catch on. Coauthor Wilson later acknowledged the term meme as the best label for the fundamental unit of cultural inheritance in his 1998 book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, which elaborates upon the fundamental role of memes in unifying the natural and social sciences.[25]
Evolutionary influences on memes
Dawkins noted the three conditions that must exist for evolution to occur:[26]
variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements;
heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements;
differential "fitness", or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another.
Dawkins emphasizes that the process of evolution naturally occurs whenever these conditions co-exist, and that evolution does not apply only to organic elements such as genes. He regards memes as also having the properties necessary for evolution, and thus sees meme evolution as not simply analogous to genetic evolution, but as a real phenomenon subject to the laws of natural selection. Dawkins noted that as various ideas pass from one generation to the next, they may either enhance or detract from the survival of the people who obtain those ideas, or influence the survival of the ideas themselves. For example, a certain culture may develop unique designs and methods of tool-making that give it a competitive advantage over another culture. Each tool-design thus acts somewhat similarly to a biological gene in that some populations have it and others do not, and the meme's function directly affects the presence of the design in future generations. In keeping with the thesis that in evolution one can regard organisms simply as suitable "hosts" for reproducing genes, Dawkins argues that one can view people as "hosts" for replicating memes. Consequently, a successful meme may or may not need to provide any benefit to its host.[26]
Unlike genetic evolution, memetic evolution can show both Darwinian and Lamarckian traits. Cultural memes will have the characteristic of Lamarckian inheritance when a host aspires to replicate the given meme through inference rather than by exactly copying it. Take for example the case of the transmission of a simple skill such as hammering a nail, a skill that a learner imitates from watching a demonstration without necessarily imitating every discrete movement modeled by the teacher in the demonstration, stroke for stroke.[27] Susan Blackmore distinguishes the difference between the two modes of inheritance in the evolution of memes, characterizing the Darwinian mode as "copying the instructions" and the Lamarckian as "copying the product."[14]
Clusters of memes, or memeplexes (also known as meme complexes or as memecomplexes), such as cultural or political doctrines and systems, may also play a part in the acceptance of new memes. Memeplexes comprise groups of memes that replicate together and coadapt.[14] Memes that fit within a successful memeplex may gain acceptance by "piggybacking" on the success of the memeplex. As an example, John D. Gottsch discusses the transmission, mutation and selection of religious memeplexes and the theistic memes contained.[28] Theistic memes discussed include the "prohibition of aberrant sexual practices such as incest, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, castration, and religious prostitution", which may have increased vertical transmission of the parent religious memeplex. Similar memes are thereby included in the majority of religious memeplexes, and harden over time; they become an "inviolable canon" or set of dogmas, eventually finding their way into secular law. This could also be referred to as the propagation of a taboo.
Memetics
Main article: Memetics
The discipline of memetics, which dates from the mid-1980s, provides an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept of the meme. Memeticists have proposed that just as memes function analogously to genes, memetics functions analogously to genetics. Memetics attempts to apply conventional scientific methods (such as those used in population genetics and epidemiology) to explain existing patterns and transmission of cultural ideas.
Principal criticisms of memetics include the claim that memetics ignores established advances in other fields of cultural study, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology. Questions remain whether or not the meme concept counts as a validly disprovable scientific theory. This view regards memetics as a theory in its infancy: a protoscience to proponents, or a pseudoscience to some detractors.
Criticism of meme theory
An objection to the study of the evolution of memes in genetic terms (although not to the existence of memes) involves a perceived gap in the gene/meme analogy: the cumulative evolution of genes depends on biological selection-pressures neither too great nor too small in relation to mutation-rates. There seems no reason to think that the same balance will exist in the selection pressures on memes.[29]
Luis Benitez-Bribiesca M.D., a critic of memetics, calls the theory a "pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of consciousness and cultural evolution". As a factual criticism, Benitez-Bribiesca points to the lack of a "code script" for memes (analogous to the DNA of genes), and to the excessive instability of the meme mutation mechanism (that of an idea going from one brain to another), which would lead to a low replication accuracy and a high mutation rate, rendering the evolutionary process chaotic.[30]
British political philosopher John Gray has characterized Dawkins' memetic theory of religion as "nonsense" and "not even a theory... the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors", comparable to Intelligent Design in its value as a science.[31]
Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Deacon[32] and Kull.[33] This view regards the concept of "meme" as a primitivized concept of "sign". The meme is thus described in memetics as a sign lacking a triadic nature. Semioticians can regard a meme as a "degenerate" sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.[clarification needed]
Fracchia and Lewontin regard memetics as reductionist and inadequate.[34] Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr disapproved of Dawkins' gene-based view and usage of the term "meme," asserting it to be an "unnecessary synonym" for "concept," Mayr reasoning that concepts are not restricted to an individual or a generation, may persist for long periods of time, and may evolve.[35]
Applications
Opinions differ as to how best to apply the concept of memes within a "proper" disciplinary framework. One view sees memes as providing a useful philosophical perspective with which to examine cultural evolution. Proponents of this view (such as Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett) argue that considering cultural developments from a meme's-eye view—as if memes themselves respond to pressure to maximise their own replication and survival—can lead to useful insights and yield valuable predictions into how culture develops over time. Others such as Bruce Edmonds and Robert Aunger have focused on the need to provide an empirical grounding for memetics to become a useful and respected scientific discipline.[36][37]
A third approach, described[by whom?] as "radical memetics", seeks to place memes at the centre of a materialistic theory of mind and of personal identity.[38]
Prominent researchers in evolutionary psychology and anthropology, including Scott Atran, Dan Sperber, Pascal Boyer, John Tooby and others, argue the possibility of incompatibility between modularity of mind and memetics.[citation needed] In their view, minds structure certain communicable aspects of the ideas produced, and these communicable aspects generally trigger or elicit ideas in other minds through inference (to relatively rich structures generated from often low-fidelity input) and not high-fidelity replication or imitation. Atran discusses communication involving religious beliefs as a case in point. In one set of experiments he asked religious people to write down on a piece of paper the meanings of the Ten Commandments. Despite the subjects' own expectations of consensus, interpretations of the commandments showed wide ranges of variation, with little evidence of consensus. In another experiment, subjects with autism and subjects without autism interpreted ideological and religious sayings (for example, "Let a thousand flowers bloom" or "To everything there is a season"). People with autism showed a significant tendency to closely paraphrase and repeat content from the original statement (for example: "Don't cut flowers before they bloom"). Controls tended to infer a wider range of cultural meanings with little replicated content (for example: "Go with the flow" or "Everyone should have equal opportunity"). Only the subjects with autism—who lack the degree of inferential capacity normally associated with aspects of theory of mind—came close to functioning as "meme machines".[39]
In his book The Robot's Rebellion, Stanovich uses the memes and memeplex concepts to describe a program of cognitive reform that he refers to as a "rebellion". Specifically, Stanovich argues that the use of memes as a descriptor for cultural units is beneficial because it serves to emphasize transmission and acquisition properties that parallel the study of epidemiology. These properties make salient the sometimes parasitic nature of acquired memes, and as a result individuals should be motivated to reflectively acquire memes using what he calls a "Neurathian bootstrap" process.[40]
Religion
See also: Evolutionary psychology of religion
Although social scientists such as Max Weber sought to understand and explain religion in terms of a cultural attribute, Richard Dawkins called for a re-analysis of religion in terms of the evolution of self-replicating ideas apart from any resulting biological advantages they might bestow.
As an enthusiastic Darwinian, I have been dissatisfied with explanations that my fellow-enthusiasts have offered for human behaviour. They have tried to look for 'biological advantages' in various attributes of human civilization. For instance, tribal religion has been seen as a mechanism for solidifying group identity, valuable for a pack-hunting species whose individuals rely on cooperation to catch large and fast prey. Frequently the evolutionary preconception in terms of which such theories are framed is implicitly group-selectionist, but it is possible to rephrase the theories in terms of orthodox gene selection.
—Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
He argued that the role of key replicator in cultural evolution belongs not to genes, but to memes replicating thought from person to person by means of imitation. These replicators respond to selective pressures that may or may not affect biological reproduction or survival.[6]
In her book The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore regards religions as particularly tenacious memes. Many of the features common to the most widely practiced religions provide built-in advantages in an evolutionary context, she writes. For example, religions that preach of the value of faith over evidence from everyday experience or reason inoculate societies against many of the most basic tools people commonly use to evaluate their ideas. By linking altruism with religious affiliation, religious memes can proliferate more quickly because people perceive that they can reap societal as well as personal rewards. The longevity of religious memes improves with their documentation in revered religious texts.[14]
Aaron Lynch attributed the robustness of religious memes in human culture to the fact that such memes incorporate multiple modes of meme transmission. Religious memes pass down the generations from parent to child and across a single generation through the meme-exchange of proselytism. Most people will hold the religion taught them by their parents throughout their life. Many religions feature adversarial elements, punishing apostasy, for instance, or demonizing infidels. In Thought Contagion Lynch identifies the memes of transmission in Christianity as especially powerful in scope. Believers view the conversion of non-believers both as a religious duty and as an act of altruism. The promise of heaven to believers and threat of hell to non-believers provide a strong incentive for members to retain their belief. Lynch asserts that belief in the Crucifixion of Jesus in Christianity amplifies each of its other replication advantages through the indebtedness believers have to their Savior for sacrifice on the cross. The image of the crucifixion recurs in religious sacraments, and the proliferation of symbols of the cross in homes and churches potently reinforces the wide array of Christian memes.[23]
Although religious memes have proliferated in human cultures, the modern scientific community has been relatively resistant to religious belief. Robertson (2007) [41] reasoned that if evolution is accelerated in conditions of propagative difficulty,[42] then we would expect to encounter variations of religious memes, established in general populations, addressed to scientific communities. Using a memetic approach, Robertson deconstructed two attempts to privilege religiously held spirituality in scientific discourse. Advantages of a memetic approach as compared to more traditional "modernization" and "supply side" theses in understanding the evolution and propagation of religion were explored.
Memetic explanations of racism
In Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology, Jack Balkin argued that memetic processes can explain many of the most familiar features of ideological thought. His theory of "cultural software" maintained that memes form narratives, social networks, metaphoric and metonymic models, and a variety of different mental structures. Balkin maintains that the same structures used to generate ideas about free speech or free markets also serve to generate racistic beliefs. To Balkin, whether memes become harmful or maladaptive depends on the environmental context in which they exist rather than in any special source or manner to their origination. Balkin describes racist beliefs as "fantasy" memes that become harmful or unjust "ideologies" when diverse peoples come together, as through trade or competition.[43]
Architectural memes
In A Theory of Architecture, Nikos Salingaros speaks of memes as "freely propagating clusters of information" which can be beneficial or harmful. He contrasts memes to patterns and true knowledge, characterizing memes as "greatly simplified versions of patterns" and as "unreasoned matching to some visual or mnemonic prototype".[44] Taking reference to Dawkins, Salingaros emphasizes that they can be transmitted due to their own communicative properties, that "the simpler they are, the faster they can proliferate", and that the most successful memes "come with a great psychological appeal".[45]
Architectural memes, according to Salingaros, can have destructive power. "Images portrayed in architectural magazines representing buildings that could not possibly accommodate everyday uses become fixed in our memory, so we reproduce them unconsciously."[46] He lists various architectural memes that circulated since the 1920s and which, in his view, have led to contemporary architecture becoming quite decoupled from human needs. They lack connection and meaning, thereby preventing "the creation of true connections necessary to our understanding of the world". He sees them as no different from antipatterns in software design – as solutions that are false but are re-utilized nonetheless.[47]
Internet culture
Main article: Internet meme
See also: List of Internet phenomena
An "Internet meme" is a concept that spreads rapidly from person to person via the Internet, largely through Internet-based E-mailing, blogs, forums, imageboards like 4chan, social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter, instant messaging, and video hosting services like YouTube.[48]
In 2013 Richard Dawkins characterized an Internet meme as one deliberately altered by human creativity, distinguished from Dawkins's original idea involving mutation by random change and a form of Darwinian selection.[49]
Meme maps
One technique of meme mapping represents the evolution and transmission of a meme across time and space.[50] Such a meme map uses a figure-8 diagram (an analemma) to map the gestation (in the lower loop), birth (at the choke point), and development (in the upper loop) of the selected meme. Such meme maps are nonscalar, with time mapped onto the y-axis and space onto the x-axis transect. One can read the temporal progression of the mapped meme from south to north on such a meme map. Paull has published a worked example using the "organics meme" (as in organic agriculture).[50]
Robertson (2010) [51] used a second technique of meme mapping to create two-dimensional representations of the selves of eleven participants drawn from both individualist and collectivist cultures. Participant narratives were transcribed, segmented and coded using a method similar to grounded theory. Coded segments exhibiting referent, connotative, affective and behavioral dimensions were declared to be memes. Memes that shared connotative, affective or behavioral qualities were linked. All of the maps in Robertson's sample evidenced volition, constancy, uniqueness, production, intimacy, and social interest. This method of mapping the self was successfully used in therapy to treat a youth who had attempted suicide on five occasions (Robertson 2011).[52] The youth and psychotherapist co-constructed a plan to change the youth's presenting self, and her progress in making those changes was tracked in subsequent self-maps.
The Dropping Price of Gold and Oil Is Leading to Martial Law and World War III
by Dave Hodges
You will never see this math problem showing up in the Common Core curriculum. When adds the plummeting price of oil, to the falling price of gold, what does one get?
The answer is "economic collapse" followed by martial law and World War III!
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-dropping-price-of-gold-and-oil-is-leading-to-martial-law-and-world-war-iii/#qRhJx3vzyklUJ83Y.99
Disgusted, Russia Officially Gives Up Any Pretense of "Dialog" With the AngloZionist Empire
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40387.htm
By The Saker
The full address of President Putin to the Federal Assembly is now available online and, since this is a very long text, I will no re-post it here. What I propose to do here is to bring to your attention four verbatim excerpts from his speech with some key segments bolded out.
Most of the speech was on economic and internal matters, but I think that these four points and, especially, the expressions chosen by Putin really "tell the story" of what the Kremlin's position vis-à-vis the West is nowadays. See for yourself:
1) Crimea is Russian forever:
It was an event of special significance for the country and the people, because Crimea is where our people live, and the peninsula is of strategic importance for Russia as the spiritual source of the development of a multifaceted but solid Russian nation and a centralised Russian state. It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity to Rus.
In addition to ethnic similarity, a common language, common elements of their material culture, a common territory, even though its borders were not marked then, and a nascent common economy and government, Christianity was a powerful spiritual unifying force that helped involve various tribes and tribal unions of the vast Eastern Slavic world in the creation of a Russian nation and Russian state. It was thanks to this spiritual unity that our forefathers for the first time and forevermore saw themselves as a united nation. All of this allows us to say that Crimea, the ancient Korsun or Chersonesus, and Sevastopol have invaluable civilisational and even sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism. And this is how we will always consider it.
2) Russia will never become an EU colony:
By the way, Russia has already made a major contribution to helping Ukraine. Let me reiterate that Russian banks already invested some $25 billion in Ukraine. Last year, Russia's Finance Ministry extended a loan worth another $3 billion. Gazprom provided another $5.5 billion to Ukraine and even offered a discount that no one promised, requiring the country to pay $4.5 billion. Add it all up and you get as much as $ 32.5-33.5 billion that were provided only recently.
Of course, we have the right to ask questions. What was this Ukrainian tragedy for? Wasn't it possible to settle all the issues, even disputed issues, through dialogue, within a legal framework and legitimately? But now we are being told that this was actually competent, balanced politics that we should comply with unquestionably and blindfolded.
This will never happen. If for some European countries national pride is a long-forgotten concept and sovereignty is too much of a luxury, true sovereignty for Russia is absolutely necessary for survival.
3) The Empire was Russia's mortal enemy long before Crimea
We remember well how and who, almost openly, supported separatism back then and even outright terrorism in Russia, referred to murderers, whose hands were stained with blood, none other than rebels and organised high-level receptions for them. These "rebels" showed up in Chechnya again. I'm sure the local guys, the local law enforcement authorities, will take proper care of them. They are now working to eliminate another terrorist raid. Let's support them.
Let me reiterate, we remember high-level receptions for terrorists dubbed as fighters for freedom and democracy. Back then, we realised that the more ground we give and the more excuses we make, the more our opponents become brazen and the more cynical and aggressive their demeanor becomes.
Despite our unprecedented openness back then and our willingness to cooperate in all, even the most sensitive issues, despite the fact that we considered – and all of you are aware of this and remember it – our former adversaries as close friends and even allies, the support for separatism in Russia from across the pond, including information, political and financial support and support provided by the special services – was absolutely obvious and left no doubt that they would gladly let Russia follow the Yugoslav scenario of disintegration and dismemberment. With all the tragic fallout for the people of Russia.
It didn't work. We didn't allow that to happen.
Just as it did not work for Hitler with his people-hating ideas, who set out to destroy Russia and push us back beyond the Urals. Everyone should remember how it ended.
4) Russia will not be bullied
No one will ever attain military superiority over Russia. We have a modern and combat ready army. As they now put it, a polite, but formidable army. We have the strength, will and courage to protect our freedom.
We will protect the diversity of the world. We will tell the truth to people abroad, so that everyone can see the real and not distorted and false image of Russia. We will actively promote business and humanitarian relations, as well as scientific, education and cultural relations. We will do this even if some governments attempt to create a new iron curtain around Russia.
We will never enter the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion and the search for enemies. All this is evidence of weakness, while we are strong and confident.
In my opinion what we are seeing a a big "coming out". For a variety of reasons, Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov chose not to say this kind of things in the past, but for several months already we have seen a sense of utter disgust manifest itself more and more openly from the Russian. Today, it finally truly came out in the open.
It is painfully clear that Russia considers the USA a an arrogant bully which Russia can stop and that Russia considers the regimes in power in the EU as voiceless colonies. Equally clear is the fact that the Russians are fed up with trying to plead or reason with anybody in the West. The Americans are too arrogant, the Europeans too spineless.
Unlike the Americans, Russians always talk to their enemies and some form of "talking" with the West will continue. But it is rather obvious that the Kremlin has given up any hope of achieving anything through any kind of dialog. From now on, Russia will mostly rely on unilateral actions. And since Russians never threaten, these actions will always come as a shock and a surprise to the Western plutocracies.
I have said this many times: the AngloZionist Empire has launched a real war against Russia, one in which military forces are less important than the informational war, but a real war nonetheless. What the Empire probably did not realize, is that this would not be a short war, but a long one. And while the Empire has already used most of its weapons, the Russians have just begun their defensive operations. This will be a long war and it will only end when one of the two sides basically breaks down and collapses.
On March 1st of this year I wrote a piece entitled "Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine - now Russia is ready for war". Russia did not want that war, it was imposed on her at a time when Russia was not ready. Nevertheless, today Putin informed us all that Russia refuses to submit, that she accepts the challenge and that she will prevail.
The Saker
Israel must explain airstrikes on Syria – Russia
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/israel-must-explain-airstrikes-on-syria-russia/
The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed grave concern over Israel's recent airstrike against Syria, calling on Tel Aviv to provide explanation regarding the military aggression.
"Moscow is deeply worried by this dangerous development, the circumstances of which demand an explanation," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich.
Russia has sent a letter to the UN complaining about Israel's "aggressive action," stressing that such attacks should not take place in the future, he added.
Israeli warplanes carried out two air assaults against an area of the Damascus International Airport and another airport in the town of Dimas on Sunday.
The Syrian army issued a statement later in the day, saying the airstrikes by Tel Aviv were aimed at helping the ISIL Takfiri terrorists operating in the Arab country.
The Damascus International Airport is located southeast of the Syrian capital near areas such as Eastern Ghouta, where the ISIL militants have gained control over much of the Syrian territory.
Israel has carried out several airstrikes in Syria since the start of the conflict in the country in 2011.
Source: Press TV, 8 December 2014
Propaganda's Triumph over Journalism
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/07/propagandas-triumph-over-journalism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
December 7, 2014
As the world hurtles toward a new Cold War and possibly a nuclear confrontation over Ukraine, the West's "free press" is again serving the role of an obedient propaganda service — demonizing Russia, presenting a one-sided narrative and feeding a dangerous belligerence, as veteran journalist John Pilger explains.
By John Pilger
Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?
Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?
These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war – with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.
The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government." It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.
The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media – a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions. This power to create a new "reality" has been building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual."
I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world.
Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of "me-ism" had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message. In the wake of the cold war, the fabrication of new "threats" completed the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition.
In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, "What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?"
He replied that if we journalists had done our job "there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq."
That's a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer. David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist.
Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in Western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the U.S. and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live.
Those are the words of the senior British official responsible for sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s – a medieval siege that caused the deaths of half a million children under the age of five, reported UNICEF. The official's name is Carne Ross. In the Foreign Office in London, he was known as "Mr. Iraq." Today, he is a truth-teller of how governments deceive and how journalists willingly spread the deception. "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitized intelligence," he told me, "or we'd freeze them out."
The main whistleblower during this terrible, silent period was Denis Halliday. Then Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and the senior UN official in Iraq, Halliday resigned rather than implement policies he described as genocidal. He estimates that sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis.
What then happened to Halliday was instructive. He was airbrushed. Or he was vilified. On the BBC's Newsnight program, the presenter Jeremy Paxman shouted at him: "Aren't you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" The Guardian recently described this as one of Paxman's "memorable moments." Last week, Paxman signed a £1 million book deal.
The handmaidens of suppression have done their job well. Consider the effects. In 2013, a ComRes poll found that a majority of the British public believed the casualty toll in Iraq was less than 10,000 – a tiny fraction of the truth. A trail of blood that goes from Iraq to London has been scrubbed almost clean.
Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers – all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch's empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media.
The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News – but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn't Fox News; it was the New York Times.
The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia – when, in fact, the fascist-led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and NATO.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It's not even news, but suppressed behind a smear-and-scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first Cold War. Once again, the Evil Empire is coming to get us, led by another Stalin or, perversely, a new Hitler. Name your demon and let rip.
The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The biggest Western military build-up in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe since World War Two is blacked out. Washington's secret aid to Kiev and its neo-Nazi brigades responsible for war crimes against the population of eastern Ukraine is blacked out. Evidence that contradicts propaganda that Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner is blacked out.
And again, supposedly liberal media are the censors. Citing no facts, no evidence, one journalist identified a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as the man who shot down the airliner. This man, he wrote, was known as The Demon. He was a scary man who frightened the journalist. That was the evidence.
Many in the Western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.
What the Russian president has to say is of no consequence; he is a pantomime villain who can be abused with impunity. An American general who heads NATO and is straight out of Dr. Strangelove – one General Breedlove – routinely claims Russian invasions without a shred of visual evidence. His impersonation of Stanley Kubrick's General Jack D. Ripper is pitch perfect.
Forty thousand Ruskies were massing on the border, according to Breedlove. That was good enough for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Observer – the latter having previously distinguished itself with lies and fabrications that backed Blair's invasion of Iraq, as its former reporter, David Rose, revealed. There is almost the joi d'esprit of a class reunion. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post are the very same editorial writers who declared the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to be "hard facts."
"If you wonder," wrote Robert Parry, "how the world could stumble into World War III – much as it did into World War I a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire U.S. political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason."
Parry, the journalist who revealed Iran-Contra, is one of the few who investigate the central role of the media in this "game of chicken," as the Russian foreign minister called it. But is it a game? As I write this, the U.S. Congress votes on Resolution 758 which, in a nutshell, says: "Let's get ready for war with Russia."
In the 19th Century, the writer Alexander Herzen described secular liberalism as "the final religion, though its church is not of the other world but of this." Today, this divine right is far more violent and dangerous than anything the Muslim world throws up, though perhaps its greatest triumph is the illusion of free and open information.
In the news, whole countries are made to disappear. Saudi Arabia, the source of extremism and Western-backed terror, is not a story, except when it drives down the price of oil. Yemen has endured 12 years of American drone attacks. Who knows? Who cares?
In 2009, the University of the West of England published the results of a ten-year study of the BBC's coverage of Venezuela. Of 304 broadcast reports, only three mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the government of Hugo Chavez. The greatest literacy program in human history received barely a passing reference.
In Europe and the United States, millions of readers and viewers know next to nothing about the remarkable, life-giving changes implemented in Latin America, many of them inspired by Chavez. Like the BBC, the reports of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and the rest of the respectable Western media were notoriously in bad faith. Chavez was mocked even on his deathbed. How is this explained, I wonder, in schools of journalism?
Why are millions of people in Britain persuaded that a collective punishment called "austerity" is necessary? Following the economic crash in 2008, a rotten system was exposed. For a split second the banks were lined up as crooks with obligations to the public they had betrayed.
But within a few months – apart from a few stones lobbed over excessive corporate "bonuses" – the message changed. The mug shots of guilty bankers vanished from the tabloids and something called "austerity" became the burden of millions of ordinary people. Was there ever a sleight of hand as brazen?
Today, many of the premises of civilized life in Britain are being dismantled in order to pay back a fraudulent debt – the debt of crooks. The "austerity" cuts are said to be £83 billion. That's almost exactly the amount of tax avoided by the same banks and by corporations like Amazon and Murdoch's News UK. Moreover, the crooked banks are given an annual subsidy of £100 billion in free insurance and guarantees – a figure that would fund the entire National Health Service.
The economic crisis is pure propaganda. Extreme policies now rule Britain, the United States, much of Europe, Canada and Australia. Who is standing up for the majority? Who is telling their story? Who's keeping the record straight? Isn't that what journalists are meant to do?
In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, revealed that more than 400 journalists and news executives worked for the CIA. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time and the TV networks. In 1991, Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian revealed something similar in this country.
None of this is necessary today. I doubt that anyone paid the Washington Post and many other media outlets to accuse Edward Snowden of aiding terrorism. I doubt that anyone pays those who routinely smear Julian Assange – though other rewards can be plentiful.
It's clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by illuminating and shaming the media's gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He became not only a target, but a golden goose.
Lucrative book and Hollywood movie deals were struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and its founder. People have made big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.
None of this was mentioned in Stockholm on Dec. 1 when the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, shared with Edward Snowden the Right Livelihood Award, known as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize. What was shocking about this event was that Assange and WikiLeaks were airbrushed. They didn't exist. They were unpeople.
No one spoke up for the man who pioneered digital whistle-blowing and handed the Guardian one of the greatest scoops in history. Moreover, it was Assange and his WikiLeaks team who effectively – and brilliantly – rescued Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and sped him to safety. Not a word. What made this censorship by omission so ironic and poignant and disgraceful was that the ceremony was held in the Swedish parliament – whose craven silence on the Assange case has colluded with a grotesque miscarriage of justice in Stockholm.
"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."
It's this kind of silence we journalists need to break. We need to look in the mirror. We need to call to account an unaccountable media that services power and a psychosis that threatens world war.
In the 18th Century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
It's 100 years since the First World War. Reporters then were rewarded and knighted for their silence and collusion. At the height of the slaughter, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George confided in C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: "If people really knew [the truth] the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don't know and can't know."
It's time they knew.
John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. This article was derived from John Pilger's address to the Logan Symposium, "Building an Alliance Against Secrecy, Surveillance & Censorship", organized by the Centre for Investigative Journalism, London, Dec. 5-7, 2014. Pilger's Web site is: www.johnpilger.com
Israel Acts as ISIS' Air Force ... Repeatedly Bombs Syria
Posted on December 8, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/israel-acts-isis-air-force-repeatedly-bombs-syria.html
Israel has repeatedly bombed Syria over the last couple of days.
The attacks have been close to the Syrian capital Damascus, and have reportedly taken out agricultural facilities and warehouses.
As we've asked for years, why are we and our allies fighting on the same side as terrorists?
Last year, Republican Senator Ted Cruz opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying the U.S. military shouldn't be "Al Qaeda's air force."
Similarly, former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich said that striking Syria would turn the United States military into "al-Qaeda's air force."
I guess Israel doesn't mind being the air force for Al Qaeda. (re-branded as ISIS). Strange bedfellows, indeed ...
Is the oil crash a secret US war on Russia?
16 October 2014 Last updated at 18:11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29651742
Lower oil prices, reflected in falling petrol prices at the pump, have been a boon for Western consumers. Are they also a potent US weapon against Russia and Iran?
That's the conclusion drawn by New York Times columnist Thomas L Friedman, who says the US and Saudi Arabia, whether by accident or design, could be pumping Russia and Iran to brink of economic collapse.
Despite turmoil in many of the world's oil-producing countries - Libya, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria - prices are hitting lows not seen in years, Friedman writes.
Analysts identify a number of possible reasons for the steep drop - increased US production, slowing economies in Europe and China and steady production from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec).
Rather than look at the causes, however, Friedman says to look at the result - budget shortfalls in Russia and Iran - and what it means.
Who benefits? He asks. The US wants its Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia to have more bite. Both the Saudis and the US are fighting a proxy war against Iran in Syria.
"This is business, but it also has the feel of war by other means: oil," he writes.
Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times agrees that both Russia and Iran are starting to feel the squeeze of lower prices, although he doesn't go as far as Friedman in speculating about a secret war.
"The economic pressure isn't expected to change Putin's aggressive efforts to retain strong influence over Ukraine, which he considers non-negotiable," Richter writes. "But they are causing strains in his relations with the Russian elite and business establishment, two pillars of his political support."
As for Iran, he writes, an oil price of anything less than $100 [£62.41] a barrel will create onerous budget deficits and undermine the nation's position in ongoing nuclear negotiations with the West. The closing price on Wednesday was $81.40.
"Iran's economic resurgence had enabled Iranian officials to claim they could get by even if the talks collapsed without providing further relief from tough international sanctions," he writes.
In Russia, the media have taken notice.
"The Russian economy's dependence on energy resources, gas and oil first and foremost, is often compared to drug addiction; people say that it is 'on the oil needle'," write the editors of Nezavisimaya Gazeta (translated by BBC Monitoring).
"In this case, dealings to decrease oil prices on the global market can justifiably be compared to triggering agonies that are no less painful than withdrawal from a drug. And this is being done with obvious geopolitical aims to undermine the country's economy and its influence on the global arena."
Nikolay Makeyev and Konstantin Smirnov write in Moskovskiy Komsomolets that they fear a more severe replay of the 2008-09 economic crisis: "One can only hope that the oil sheikhs will come to their senses, curtail production and stabilise prices at least at $90 per barrel."
Friedman's neo-Cold War theories aren't the only speculation making the rounds at the moment, however. For some analysts, the oil drop has everything to do with increased US production threatening Saudi Arabia's standing as the pre-eminent oil-producing nation.
Russia and Iran, in this formulation, are just not-so-innocent bystanders.
"The Saudis have seen the oil price stable through international geopolitical crises, first by increasing production to accommodate Iran, Syria and Sudan's decreasing production and then by accommodating Iraq's rising production," writes Akhil Handa of the Indian Republic.
That's changed, however, with the 70% increase in US production over the last six years.
"In a bid to restore balance Saudi could be playing its cost advantage against the higher-cost shale oil producers," he continues. "Saudi will perhaps have to let oil prices slide to $75-80 and let it stay there for a while for some US drillers to move out of the businesses and hence pricing power to get restored back with Saudi."
What's clear is that the sharp drop in oil prices is creating very distinct winners and losers on the world stage. What's not so clear is who, if anyone, is pulling the strings.
It's human nature to speculate about the schemes of behind-the-scenes players when the stakes are so high. It can also be comforting - a much preferable alternative to a system where the health of nations is determined by the random permutations of fate and the chaotic fluctuations of an uncontrollable market.
http://www.oil-price.net/
OPEC won't cut production even if oil below $40 – UAE energy minister
Published time: December 15, 2014 09:35
http://rt.com/business/214427-opec-unchanged-below-40/
The UAE Energy Minister Suhail Al-Mazrouei says OPEC will maintain output at 30 million barrels of oil a day, and wants to monitor the price for three months before even considering a meeting about possible changes.
"We are not going to change our minds because the prices went to $60 or to $40," Mazrouei told Bloomberg on Sunday at a conference in Dubai.
"We're not targeting a price; the market will stabilize itself," he said commenting on a statement by a Venezuelan official on Friday who said the country may propose convening an extraordinary meeting of the cartel.
Mazrouei said an emergency OPEC meeting under current conditions isn't justified. "We need to wait for at least a quarter" to consider an urgent session, he said.
OPEC Secretary-General Mohammad El-Badri said Sunday he hadn't heard anything about an emergency meeting. He believes oil prices aren't yet in line with the market and the cartel hasn't set a price goal, so an extraordinary meeting would not help to level the price.
"We will not have a real picture about oil prices until the end of the first half of 2015," El-Badri said. The price will have settled by the second half of next year, and OPEC will have a clear idea by then about "the required measures," he said.
El-Badri added that the cartel's decision isn't aimed at weakening other oil producers or undermining rival economies.
"Some people say this decision was directed at the United States and shale oil. All of this is incorrect. Some also say it was directed at Iran and Russia. This also is incorrect," he said.
The price of oil has lost 20 percent since OPEC's last meeting on November 27. On Monday the price of Brent crude has slightly recovered to $62.29 at 11 AM MSK after hitting a five-year low on Friday, at $61.65 per barrel. The next meeting of the cartel is scheduled for June 5.
Aye, World Events have taken a strange turn with the
now developing "Economic War."
What has been revealed thus far is that:
1. Someone is pulling the strings of the E.U.
2. The U.S. is 'following orders' contrary to the will of
the People as it pursues a course of hegemony and war.
3. Saudi Arabia is once again acting in accordance with
the Zionist will.
Nations which might in future pose a threat to the ability
of the U.S. (as it enforces the will of the Bankers) to effectively
control the World are being targeted for economic destruction.
Who will benefit most if this PLAN succeeds?
The State of Israel which for several decades has used the
might of the U.S. to project its power to accomplish its will.
Things are moving along at an accelerating pace, as it was
foretold they would, in the final days of this present corrupted
System of the World. The End of this System nears. We may
see it and experience it within a decade.
Insights into the situation in the gulf. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108383)
Unintended consequences of the economic war? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108378)
Quote from: muDped on 2014.12.16, 19:43:53
What has been revealed thus far is that:
1. Someone is pulling the strings of the E.U.
2. The U.S. is 'following orders' contrary to the will of
the People as it pursues a course of hegemony and war.
3. Saudi Arabia is once again acting in accordance with
the Zionist will.
Who will benefit most if this PLAN succeeds?
The State of Israel which for several decades has used the
might of the U.S. to project its power to accomplish its will.
Things are moving along at an accelerating pace, as it was
foretold they would, in the final days of this present corrupted
System of the World. The End of this System nears. We may
see it and experience it within a decade.
Revealed to who? you? and of course that evil empire building Israel who trickily is causing all the problems in the world by giving up land for peace and is obviously at the bottom of this accelerating pace of dementia and death being pursued by ISIS, that has nothing to do with Islam, yes the end nears for the guilty parties!
@muDped
QuoteWhat has been revealed thus far is that:
1. Someone is pulling the strings of the E.U.
2. The U.S. is 'following orders' contrary to the will of
the People as it pursues a course of hegemony and war.
3. Saudi Arabia is once again acting in accordance with
the Zionist will.
I wasn't aware the people had a will considering there existence revolves around living in cities doing there 9 to 5 job and watching television, lol. To be honest I don't think they care, I mean most all the people I know don't give a damn about the subjects we talk about and just want to be entertained.
QuoteThe State of Israel which for several decades has used the
might of the U.S. to project its power to accomplish its will.
I know you mention this quite a bit but I just can't wrap my mind around the concept. No offense but most people here consider Israel to be mostly religious extremist goat herders who's primary resource is sand. I understand they like to bitch and whine how oppressed they are to all the media outlets but at the end of the day they are still a very small resource poor country of religious extremists and hardly capable of world domination let alone managing their own affairs. I mean they have been in a thousand year war with their neighbors and if that ain't a sign of extremism if not complete delusion then I'm really not sure what is. Fighting for a thousand years over a small patch of sand in the middle of nowhere is no way to go through life in my opinion.
Can you imagine if aliens visited them?, Mr.Alien---Hmm now let me get this straight Earthling we have travelled thousands of light years through billions of galaxies only to find you have been fighting 1000 years over this little patch of sand on this back water planet and you expect us to take you seriously?... Martha pack your bags were movin on to greener planets because these creatures are whacko.
You have to laugh at how utterly ridiculous it really is in the eyes of the rest of the world and Israel has zero credibility here, nobody even knows where the hell it is on a map and to be honest they don't care to. Not our Circus, not our monkeys.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian
I wasn't aware the people had a will considering their existence revolves around living in cities doing their 9 to 5 job and watching television, lol. To be honest I don't think they care, I mean most all the people I know don't give a damn about the subjects we talk about and just want to be entertained.
Agreed. It is very sad indeed that the vast majority have
fallen under the 'spell' of the Matrix and are quite comfortable
believing that their government provides for all of their needs.
The numbers of thinking people who've retained some sense
of rationality, objectivity and sanity are growing smaller by the day.
Quote
I know you mention this quite a bit but I just can't wrap my mind around the concept. No offense but most people here consider Israel to be mostly religious extremist goat herders who's primary resource is sand. I understand they like to bitch and whine how oppressed they are to all the media outlets but at the end of the day they are still a very small resource poor country of religious extremists and hardly capable of world domination let alone managing their own affairs. I mean they have been in a thousand year war with their neighbors and if that ain't a sign of extremism if not complete delusion then I'm really not sure what is. Fighting for a thousand years over a small patch of sand in the middle of nowhere is no way to go through life in my opinion.
As is always the case upon the stage that we call Our World,
things are never as they seem on the surface. It requires just
a bit of motivation to pierce the veil to find the Truth. Those
who presently inhabit what is known as the State of Israel are
exceedingly adept at the art of deception and manipulation.
Quote
Can you imagine if aliens visited them?, Mr.Alien---Hmm now let me get this straight Earthling we have travelled thousands of light years through billions of galaxies only to find you have been fighting 1000 years over this little patch of sand on this back water planet and you expect us to take you seriously?... Martha pack your bags were movin' on to greener planets because these creatures are whacko.
You have to laugh at how utterly ridiculous it really is in the eyes of the rest of the world and Israel has zero credibility here, nobody even knows where the hell it is on a map and to be honest they don't care to. Not our Circus, not our monkeys.
One who truly understands the agenda of those who seek to
make the World entirely their own.
Another who reveals truth.The Bad Boys are, temporarily, in charge of the World asylum.
When you talk about a specific country, please don't say just Israel, or the UK or the USA or Russia. Say "The Cabal in Israel, UK, USA or Russia. The citizens of all countries are not at fault for anything regardless of their religious tendencies. On the contrary, all citizens of the World are victims of this disease I call "CABALITIS". Such a disease has spawned many outbreaks and symptoms include Zionism, Hitlerism, Jesuitism, Void Brain Academism, American Idolism and a host of others. But these guys are on their last leg because there is a world wide alliance that is fighting against these perverts. If you always go back to the root cause, you will soon realize that this world really does not have any problems but the ones these people have fomented large and wide via their CNN type brainwash techniques, feeding you every reason in the book to go and pound another war on some innocent citizens all in the name of Freedom.
Someone needs to take out and sharpen the Guillotine blade so we are ready when its time to yell "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS".
wattsup
There are cabals for a certainty, but for those who look to
the State of Israel as their "homeland" it runs much deeper.
Trapped in a Terror Trance (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108446)
The Congressional Report (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108461)
How Terrorist Events are made to happen (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108471)
Quote from: wattsup on 2014.12.17, 16:21:28
When you talk about a specific country, please don't say just Israel, or the UK or the USA or Russia. Say "The Cabal in Israel, UK, USA or Russia. The citizens of all countries are not at fault for anything regardless of their religious tendencies. On the contrary, all citizens of the World are victims of this disease I call "CABALITIS". Such a disease has spawned many outbreaks and symptoms include Zionism, Hitlerism, Jesuitism, Void Brain Academism, American Idolism and a host of others. But these guys are on their last leg because there is a world wide alliance that is fighting against these perverts. If you always go back to the root cause, you will soon realize that this world really does not have any problems but the ones these people have fomented large and wide via their CNN type brainwash techniques, feeding you every reason in the book to go and pound another war on some innocent citizens all in the name of Freedom.
There is no clear definition of "Cabal" provided and therefore renders the statement irrelevant.
Quote from: wattsup on 2014.12.17, 16:21:28
Someone needs to take out and sharpen the Guillotine blade so we are ready when its time to yell "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS".
wattsup
Advocating suggestively for the mass decapitation of human beings, while having no clear definition of who those human beings are, is not a sane act.
Free Fall of the Ruble – A brilliant ploy of Russian economic Wizards? Who's chess game?
by Peter Koenig. Thursday, December 18, 2014
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2014/12/free-fall-of-ruble-brilliant-ploy-of.html
The world is still hell-bent for hydrocarbon-based energy. Russia is the world's largest producer of energy. Russia has recently announced that in the future she will no longer trade energy in US dollars, but in rubles and currencies of the trading partners. In fact, this rule will apply to all trading. Russia and China are detaching their economies from that of the West. To confirm this decision, in July 2014 Russia's Gazprom concluded a 400 billion gas deal with China, and in November this year they signed an additional slightly smaller contract – all to be nominated in rubles and yuan.
The remaining BRICS – Brazil, India and South Africa – plus the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan and considered for membership since September 2014 are also India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia, with Turkey also waiting in the wings – will also trade in their local currencies, detached from the dollar-based western casino scheme. A host of other nations increasingly weary of the decay of the western financial system which they are locked into are just waiting for a new monetary scheme to emerge. So far their governments may have been afraid of the emperor's wrath – but gradually they are seeing the light. They are sensing the sham and weakness behind Obama's boisterous noise. They don't want to be sucked into the black hole, when the casino goes down the drain.
To punish Russia for Ukraine, Obama is about to sign into law major new sanctions against Russia, following Congress's unanimous passing of a recent motion to this effect. – That is what the MSM would like you to believe. It is amazing that ten months after the Washington instigated Maidan slaughter and coup where a Washington selected Nazi Government was put in place, the MSM still lies high about the origins of this government and the massacres it is committing in the eastern Ukraine Donbass area.
Congress's unanimity - what Congress and what unanimity? – Out of 425 lawmakers, only 3 were present for the vote http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40489.htm. The others may have already taken off for their year-end recess, or simply were 'ashamed' or rather afraid to object to the bill. As a matter of fact, of the three who were present to vote, two at first objected. Only after a bit of arm-twisting and what not, they were willing to say yes. This is how the 'unanimous' vote came to be, as trumpeted by the MSM – unanimous by three votes! The public at large is duped again into believing what is not.
What new sanctions does this repeatedly propagated bill entail? – It addresses mostly Russian energy companies and defense industry with regard to sales to Syria, as well more anti-Russia propaganda and 'democratization' programs in Ukraine – and Russia; all countries with the objective for regime change.
How do these sanctions affect Russia, especially since all Russian energy sales are no longer dollar denominated? – Sheer propaganda. The naked emperor once more is calling an unsubstantiated bluff. To show his western stooges who is in power. It's an ever weaker showoff.
Now – as a consequence of declining oil prices and of western 'sanctions' – of course, what else? - Russia's economy is suffering and the ruble is in free fall. Since the beginning of the year it lost about 60%; last week alone 20%. As a result and after serious consideration, says MSM, the Russian Central Bank decided a few days ago to increase the interest of reference from 10.5% to 17% to make the ruble more attractive for foreign investors. It worked only for a few hours. Raising the interbank interest was Putin's reply to Obama's bluff – feeding at the same time western illusion about Russia's decline.
The propaganda drums tell you Russia is helpless because the world has lost the last bit of confidence in President Putin – of course. Regime change is on the agenda. Mr. Putin must be blamed as the culprit, hoping to discredit him with his people. He is leading Russia into a deep recession; the worst since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The mainstream media show you interviews with average mainstreet Russians saying they have lost all their savings, their salaries and pensions are worth nothing anymore and they don't know how to survive this coming calamity.
In reality, at least 80% of the Russian population stands solidly behind Vladimir Putin. He has brought them universal education, health care and fixed infrastructure that was decaying after the fall of the Soviet Union. President Putin is literally revered as a hero by the vast majority of Russians – including the country's oligarchy.
In fact, nobody in the western economic system these days is dealing in rubles. In short-sighted connivance with Washington, the treasuries of the western vassals are releasing their ruble reserves – which Russia does not buy, thereby flooding the market. Russia not only has large dollar reserves, plus the ruble is backed by gold, a fact consistently omitted in the MSM. For now, Russia prefers to let the ruble plummet.
Under another 'arrangement' by bully Obama, Middle Eastern oil producing puppets like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are overproducing and flooding the market with petrol and gas, thereby driving the price down to the ostensible detriment of Russia and Venezuela, both countries where Washington vies for regime change. A double whammy thinks Washington, buying kudos with the stooges. The sheiks that control their energy output apparently have been promised enough goodies from Washington to bite the bullet and take their own losses.
Russia needs rubles. That's her currency. That is the currency Russia needs for future trading – detached from the western monetary system.
When Russia deems that her currency has reached rock-bottom, she will buy back cheap rubles in the market with massive amounts of dollars. Russia may then flood the western market – with dollars, and by now we know what that does to a currency – and simultaneously buy back rubles from the West. A brilliant move to reestablish Russia's currency in a new emerging monetary system – which Europe would be welcome to join, but willingly, no by Washington style arm-twisting.
Is this another precursor to war? A nuclear confrontation or Cold War II? – Precursor to a false flag attempting Moscow to fall into the trap? - Not necessarily. Russia is playing a clever chess game, diplomacy at its best. Instead of sabre rattling – Russia is coin rattling. It might lead to a western financial fiasco early in 2015 for the dollar and euro denominated economies. And the winner is...?
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, the Voice of Russia, now Ria Novosti, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Excellent report by Peter Koenig.
The corruption and lies of The West, when fully understood
by the Nations of the World, may result in tremendous
'blowback' to Obongo and the U.S. which may bring about
the "change" which was promised.
But then again, perhaps the corruption and the lies are simply
too deeply rooted to be reversible...
I'm rooting for Russia to win the game! In Putin and the Russian
People I see integrity and the commitment to honest relations.
Ritchie Allen interviews Gordon Duff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eRQ__MWhf6s) discussing 9/11 and the
school massacre in Pakistan, plus more.
Checkmate: Is Russia Selling Oil For Gold?
http://www.silverdoctors.com/checkmate-is-russia-selling-oil-for-gold/
Very few people understand what Putin is doing at the moment. And almost no one understands what he will do in the future.
No matter how strange it may seem, but right now, Putin is selling Russian oil and gas ONLY for physical gold.
How long will the West be able to buy oil and gas from Russia in exchange for physical gold?
And what will happen to the US petrodollar after the West runs out of physical gold to pay for Russian oil, gas and uranium, as well as to pay for Chinese goods?
This is called "Checkmate", ladies and gentlemen. The game is over.
Putin
This article was originally published at InvestCafe.ru in Russian. The translation in English was first published at Gold-Eagle.com.
Very few people understand what Putin is doing at the moment. And almost no one understands what he will do in the future.
No matter how strange it may seem, but right now, Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.
Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!
To understand this, it is enough to look at the dynamics of growth of gold reserves of Russia and to compare this data with foreign exchange earnings of the RF coming from the sale of oil and gas over the same period.
Russia gold puchases Q3 2014
Moreover, in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at an all-time high, record levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined (according to official data)!
In total, the central banks of all countries of the world have purchased 93 tons of the precious metal in the third quarter of 2014. It was the 15th consecutive quarter of net purchases of gold by Central banks. Of the 93 tonnes of gold purchases by central banks around the world during this period, the staggering volume of purchases – of 55 tons – belongs to Russia.
Not so long ago, British scientists have successfully come to the same conclusion, as was published in the Conclusion of the U.S. Geological survey a few years ago. Namely: Europe will not be able to survive without energy supply from Russia. Translated from English to any other language in the world it means: "The world will not be able to survive if oil and gas from Russia is subtracted from the global balance of energy supply".
Thus, the Western world, built on the hegemony of the petrodollar, is in a catastrophic situation. In which it cannot survive without oil and gas supplies from Russia. And Russia is now ready to sell its oil and gas to the West only in exchange for physical gold! The twist of Putin's game is that the mechanism for the sale of Russian energy to the West only for gold now works regardless of whether the West agrees to pay for Russian oil and gas with its artificially cheap gold, or not.
Since Russia has a constant flow of dollars from the sale of oil and gas, it will be able to convert these dollars to buy gold at current gold prices, depressed by all means by the West. This equates gold price, which had been artificially and meticulously lowered by the Fed and ESF many time...via artificially inflated purchasing power of the dollar through market manipulation.
Interesting fact: The suppression of gold prices by the special department of US Government – ESF (Exchange Stabilization Fund) – with the aim of stabilizing the dollar has been made into a law in the United States.
In the financial world it is (generally) accepted as a given that gold is anti-dollar...i.e. the gold price runs inverse to value of the dollar.
In 1971, US President Richard Nixon closed the 'gold window', ending the free exchange of dollars for gold, guaranteed by the US in 1944 at Bretton Woods.
In 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin has reopened the 'gold window', without asking Washington's permission.
Right now the West spends much of its efforts and resources to suppress the prices of gold and oil. Thereby, on the one hand to distort the existing economic reality in favor of the US dollar ...and on the other hand, to destroy the Russian economy, refusing to play the role of obedient vassal of the West.
Today assets such as gold and oil look proportionally weakened and excessively undervalued against the US dollar. It is a consequence of the enormous economic effort on the part of the West.
And now Putin sells Russian energy resources in exchange for these US dollars, artificially propped by the efforts of the West. With these dollar proceeds Putin immediately buys gold, artificially devalued against the U.S. dollar by the efforts of the West itself!
There is another interesting element in Putin's game. It's Russian uranium. Every sixth light bulb in the USA depends on its supply, which Russia sells to the US too...for dollars.
Thus, in exchange for Russian oil, gas and uranium, the West pays Russia with dollars, purchasing power of which is artificially inflated against oil and gold by the efforts (manipulations) of the West. However, Putin uses these dollars only to withdraw physical gold from the West in exchange at a price denominated in US dollars, artificially lowered by the same West.
This truly brilliant economic combination by Putin puts the West led by the United States in a position of a snake, aggressively and diligently devouring its own tail.
The idea of this economic golden trap for the West is probably not authored by Putin himself. Most likely it was the idea of Putin's Advisor for Economic Affairs – Dr. Sergey Glazyev. Otherwise, why seemingly not involved in business bureaucrat Glazyev, along with many Russian businessmen, was personally included by Washington on the sanction list? The idea of an economist, Dr. Glazyev was brilliantly executed by Putin...but with full endorsement from his Chinese colleague – XI Jinping.
Especially interesting in this context looks the November statement of the first Deputy Chairman of Central Bank of Russia Ksenia Yudaeva, which stressed that the CBR can use the gold from its reserves to pay for imports, if need be. It is obvious that in terms of sanctions by the Western world, this statement is addressed to the BRICS countries, and first of all China. For China, Russia's willingness to pay for goods with Western gold is very convenient. And here's why:
China recently announced that it will cease to increase its gold and currency reserves denominated in US dollars.Considering the growing trade deficit between the US and China (the current difference is five times in favor of China), then this statement translated from the financial language reads: "China stops selling their goods for dollars". The world's media chose not to notice this grandest in the recent monetary historic event . The issue is not that China literally refuses to sell its goods for US dollars. China, of course, will continue to accept US dollars as an intermediate means of payment for its goods. But, having taken dollars, China will immediately get rid of them and replace with something else in the structure of its gold and currency reserves. Otherwise the statement made by the monetary authorities of China loses its meaning: "We are stopping the increase of our gold and currency reserves, denominated in US dollars." That is,China will no longer buy United States Treasury bonds for dollars earned from trade with any countries, as they did this before.
Thus, China will replace all the dollars that it will receive for its goods not only from the US but from all over the world with something else not to increase their gold currency reserves, denominated in US dollars. And here is an interesting question: what will China replace all the trade dollars with? What currency or an asset? Analysis of the current monetary policy of China shows that most likely the dollars coming from trade, or a substantial chunk of them, China will quietly replace and de facto is already replacing with Gold.
In this aspect, the solitaire of Russian-Chinese relations is extremely successful for Moscow and Beijing. Russia buys goods from China directly for gold at its current price. While China buys Russian energy resources for gold at its current price. At this Russian-Chinese festival of life there is a place for everything: Chinese goods, Russian energy resources, and gold – as a means of mutual payment. Only the US dollar has no place at this festival of life. And this is not surprising. Because the US dollar is not a Chinese product, nor a Russian energy resource. It is only an intermediate financial instrument of settlement – and an unnecessary intermediary. And it is customary to exclude unnecessary intermediaries from the interaction of two independent business partners.
It should be noted separately that the global market for physical gold is extremely small relative to the world market for physical oil supplies. And especially the world market for physical gold is microscopic compared to the entirety of world markets for physical delivery of oil, gas, uranium and goods.
Emphasis on the phrase "physical gold" is made because in exchange for its physical, not 'paper' energy resources, Russia is now withdrawing gold from the West, but only in its physical, not paper form. China accomplishes this by acquiring from the West the artificially devalued physical gold as a payment for physical delivery of real products to the West.
The West hopes that Russia and China will accept as payment for their energy resources and goods...the "shitcoin" or so-called "paper gold" of various kinds also did not materialize. Russia and China are only interested in real gold and only the physical metal as a final means of payment.
For reference: the turnover of the market of paper gold, only of gold futures, is estimated at $360 billion per month. But physical delivery of gold is only for $280 million a month. This equates to a ratio of trade of paper gold versus physical gold to 1000 to 1.
Using the mechanism of active withdrawal from the market of one artificially lowered by the West financial asset (gold) in exchange for another artificially inflated by the West financial asset (USD), Putin has thereby started the countdown to the end of the world hegemony of petrodollar. Thus, Putin has put the West in a deadlock of the absence of any positive economic prospects.
The West can spend as much of its efforts and resources to artificially increase the purchasing power of the dollar, lower oil prices and artificially lower the purchasing power of gold. The problem of the West is that the stocks of physical gold in possession of the West are not unlimited. Therefore, the more the West devalues oil and gold against the US dollar, the faster it loses devaluing Gold from its not infinite reserves.
In this brilliantly played by Putin economic combination, physical gold from the reserves of the West is rapidly flowing to Russia, China, Brazil, Kazakhstan and India (i.e. the BRICS countries). At the current rate of reduction of reserves of physical gold, the West simply does not have the time to do anything against Putin's Russia until the collapse of the entire Western petrodollar world. In chess the situation in which Putin has put the West, led by the US, is called "time trouble".
The Western world has never faced such economic events and phenomena that are happening right now. The former USSR rapidly sold gold during the fall of oil prices. Today, Russia rapidly buys gold during the fall in oil prices. Thus, Russia poses a real threat to the American model of petrodollar world domination.
The main principle of world petrodollar model is allowing Western countries led by the United States to live at the expense of the labor and resources of other countries...based on the role of the US currency, dominant in the global monetary system (GMS) . The role of the US dollar in the GMS is that it is the ultimate means of payment. This means that the national currency of the United States in the structure of the GMS is the ultimate asset accumulator, to exchange which to any other asset does not make sense.
Led by Russia and China, what the BRICS are doing now is actually changing the role and status of the US dollar in the global monetary system. From the ultimate means of payment and asset accumulation, the national currency of the USA, by the joint actions of Moscow and Beijing is turned into only an intermediate means of payment. Intended only to exchange this interim payment for another and the ultimate financial asset – gold. Thus, the US dollar actually loses its role as the ultimate means of payment and asset accumulation, yielding both of those roles to another recognized, denationalized and depoliticized monetary asset – GOLD!
Traditionally, the West has used two methods to eliminate the threat to the hegemony of petrodollar model in the world and the consequent excessive privileges for the West:
One of these methods – colored revolutions. The second method, which is usually applied by the West, if the first fails – military aggression and bombing.
But in Russia's case both of these methods are either impossible or unacceptable for the West.
Because, firstly, the population of Russia, unlike people in many other countries, does not wish to exchange their freedom and the future of their children for Western kielbasa (meat sausage). This is evident from the record ratings of Putin, regularly published by the leading Western rating agencies. Personal friendship of Washington protégé Navalny with Senator McCain played for him and Washington a very negative role. Having learned this fact from the media, 98% of the Russian population now perceive Navalny only as a vassal of Washington and a traitor to Russia's national interests. Therefore Western professionals, who have not yet lost their mind, cannot dream about any color revolution in Russia.
As for the second traditional Western way of direct military aggression, Russia is certainly not Yugoslavia, not Iraq nor Libya. In any non-nuclear military operation against Russia, in the territory of Russia, the West led by the US is doomed to defeat. And the generals in the Pentagon exercising real leadership of NATO forces are aware of this. Similarly hopeless is a nuclear war against Russia, including the concept of so-called "preventive disarming nuclear strike". NATO is simply not technically able to strike a blow that would completely disarm the nuclear potential of Russia in all its many manifestations. A massive nuclear retaliatory strike on the enemy or a pool of enemies would be inevitable. And its total capacity will be enough for survivors to envy the dead. That is, an exchange of nuclear strikes with a country like Russia is not a solution to the looming problem of the collapse of a petrodollar world. It is in the best case, a final chord and the last point in the history of its existence. In the worst case – a nuclear winter and the demise of all life on the planet, except for the bacteria mutated from radiation.
The Western economic establishment can see and understand the essence of the situation. Leading Western economists are certainly aware of the severity of the predicament and hopelessness of the situation the Western world finds itself in, in Putin's economic gold trap. After all, since the Bretton Woods agreements, we all know the Golden rule:"Who has more gold sets the rules." But everyone in the West is silent about it. Silent because no one knows now how to get out of this situation.
If you explain to the Western public all the details of the looming economic disaster, the public will ask the supporters of a petrodollar world the most horrific questions, which will sound like this:
– How long will the West be able to buy oil and gas from Russia in exchange for physical gold?
– And what will happen to the US petrodollar after the West runs out of physical gold to pay for Russian oil, gas and uranium, as well as to pay for Chinese goods?
No one in the west today can answer these seemingly simple questions.
And this is called "Checkmate", ladies and gentlemen. The game is over.
The above article was translated by Kristina Rus
Phantom Gold Inventories: Has The Comex Already Defaulted?
http://bullionbullscanada.com/gold-commentary/26516-phantom-gold-inventories-has-the-comex-already-defaulted
In the spring of last year, and on the heels of the Cyprus "bail in"; informed investors know there was a global stampede into physical bullion – and out of the banksters' fraudulent paper-called-gold "products". In reporting on those events, regular readers saw the following headline:
Paper-Gold Holders Flee To Real Metal
The evidence seemed conclusive. The Cyprus Steal triggered the realization among the Smart Money that no paper asset in the Western world was safe, any longer. That realization instigated the stampede out of the banksters' paper-called-gold. Total holdings of the largest of the paper-called-gold fraud funds (the SPDR Gold Trust, or "GLD") ultimately fell by approximately 40%.
However, as investors were liquidating 10's of millions of ounces of what the bankers call "gold"; the Comex's gold inventories didn't rise by 10's of millions of ounces. In fact those inventories didn't rise at all – they collapsed. This seemed to indicate that investors were redeeming their GLD paper, and extracting real, physical gold to replace it.
Recent evidence, however, suggests an entirely different interpretation of the precisely synchronized collapse in holdings of the banksters' paper-called-gold and "official" Comex inventories. But before readers can grasp the significance of this new information, it's necessary to first visit the silver market – and revisit an old-but-familiar form of inventory fraud which has been covered extensively in previous commentaries.
Long-time readers of my commentaries are familiar with the charts attached below.
What we notice first is the dramatic, and unprecedented collapse of (Western) silver inventories. In a mere 15-year span (1990 – 2005); we see inventories plummet by more than 90%, from approximately 2.2 billion ounces to (roughly) a mere 200,000,000.
The second thing we notice is that the two charts (from the same source) don't match. The original (and more detailed chart) shows very clearly silver inventories hitting bottom in 2005. The second chart (put out a mere one year later) shows this supposed bottom occurring in 2003, or perhaps even 2002 – it's impossible to determine, as the time-scale has been deliberately made more vague.
Why did the bankers engage in this small, yet clumsy-and-obvious fraud? Naturally, it's to attempt to cover-up a much larger, clumsy-and-obvious fraud. It all centers on one line, posted prominently on both charts:
Inventories Include Silver Backed Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's).
There it is. Not nearly the largest of the One Bank's frauds (in an era of multi-trillion dollar mega-swindles), but perhaps the most incompetent. "Inventories include silver backed exchanged traded funds." Just how does that work?
In the real world; if one buys an ounce of real silver from a real dealer, the dealer's inventories fall by precisely one ounce. Yet in our Wonderland Matrix, and the paper-fraud markets of the bankers; when one buys an ounce of their "silver", official inventories rise by one ounce.
Understand that it would be an obvious fraud if someone were to (supposedly) purchase an ounce of silver, but inventories were merely unchanged. Obviously if a purchaser now has legal title (supposedly) of one ounce of "silver", there must be a corresponding decline of one ounce from the inventories of the vendor. This is arithmetic simple enough for any five-year-old child, but apparently a concept beyond the intellectual grasp of the "regulator" of this market, the CFTC.
So when holders of the i-Shares Silver Trust (SLV) and/or other holders of the banksters' fraudulent paper-called-silver think they are buying an ounce of silver, but "silver inventories" actually rise by one ounce, we are seeing a double-fraud. Yet this is still something which remains invisible to the so-called regulators, and the dim-witted drones of the mainstream media.
Revisiting the charts above; it was only when the One Bank created SLV (in 2005), and began this massive, but incredibly obvious inventory-fraud that the bankers were able to fabricate a "reversal" in the decline of silver inventories. Every "ounce of silver" which has been added to inventories since 2005, and likely millions more ounces of this "silver" are nothing but a gigantic paper-fraud.
It is with this context in mind that we can now look at new developments (and new coincidences) in the gold market. As previously noted; Comex gold inventories and GLD holdings suffered massive and synchronized collapses in total "ounces" of gold. What we are seeing now is a second synchronization, as Comex inventories and GLD holdings both stopped falling and both began rising at virtually the same time.
To the best of my own knowledge; there has never been any official declaration of inventory-fraud in the gold market as there has been in the silver market – meaning that every time someone buys an ounce of ETF-gold, inventories go up by one ounce (in an obvious fraud), rather than down by one ounce (as would occur in any legitimate market).
However, what we are now seeing in the empirical evidence is the apparent duplication of the same inventory-fraud in the gold market as has been going on in the silver market since 2005. Seeing Comex inventories suffer their most-dramatic declines in history at precisely the same time that GLD holdings suffered their most-dramatic declines in history was an extraordinary coincidence.
Seeing Comex inventories and GLD holdings cease their unprecedented collapses, pivot, and begin rising at precisely the same time is simply an obvious fraud. In legitimate markets; Comex inventories and ETF-holdings would always move in an inverse manner to each other. As more people bought GLD "gold"; inventories would fall. As more people sold GLD "gold"; Comex inventories would rise.
Instead, we see Comex inventories and GLD-holdings performing in this orchestrated fraud like a "synchronized swimming" duo. And it raises the equally obvious question: is there any real gold in the Comex's supposed "inventories", or are we now dealing with the same kind of "gold" that is claimed to be in Fort Knox (but which no one has seen in over 50 years)?
The total amount of "gold" supposedly held at the Comex is now roughly 8 million ounces. Total holdings of "gold" which GLD-holders think they own is over 25 million ounces. If we assume the same one-for-one fraud which the banksters have reported in the silver market; this would put total Comex inventories somewhere in excess of -17 million ounces of gold.
In other words, at some point in the past (perhaps the distant past) the Comex actually "defaulted" (at least in the technical sense) on its gold inventories. We've simply never heard of this default because of the serial lies/fraud of the bankers, and the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil complicity of the regulators and operators of these markets.
Paper-gold holders did "flee" from their fraudulent paper, in a stampede of epic proportions, which began in the spring of last year. But if they fled into gold, it wasn't into Comex gold – because there was never any gold there, to begin with.
Introducing Bitgold. Bitcoin backed by gold.
We are proud to announce that Bitreserve's cloud money system now supports gold. Starting today, our members can hold their bitcoin as stable gold value and spend this historic precious metal anywhere bitcoin is accepted.
With our Gold Card, we are reviving gold for the purchase of goods and services. Bitreserve members can convert their bitcoin to bitgold, whose value is substantiated by bullion in our reserve, but still spend it as bitcoin. By creating a bridge between the revolutionary Bitcoin protocol and good old gold bullion, we enable our members to instantly send or spend bitcoin from the ounces of gold held in their Bitreserve wallet.
Our Gold Card makes this ancient store of value instantly transferable, infinitely divisible and accessible to anyone with a networked device. Now anybody with some bitcoin and a Bitreserve wallet can have the Midas touch. Old King Croesus would be chuffed.
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/introducing-bitgold-bitcoin-backed-by-gold/#vqBBXXz5bgiIAJvz.99
The Nuremberg Trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the Allied forces after World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany. The first, and best known of these trials, described as "the greatest trial in history" by Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over it, was the trial of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, the Tribunal was given the task of trying 23 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich, though one of the defendants, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia, while another, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement. Not included were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels, all of whom had committed suicide several months before the indictment was signed. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among these included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on those trials.
The Nuremberg Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
The principles:
Principle I
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle II
"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.
Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Principle VI
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."
Principle VII
"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."
The US must end its illegal war in Libya now
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/06/libya-nato1
President Obama has ripped up the US constitution for Nato's ill-considered Libyan adventure. Congress must restore sense
Dennis Kucinich,
theguardian.com, Wednesday 6 July 2011 14.00 BST
This week, I am sponsoring legislation in the United States Congress that will end US military involvement in Libya for the following reasons:
First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya. The president even ignored his top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the department of justice who insisted he needed congressional approval before bombing Libya.
Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya. The whole operation was terribly ill-considered from the beginning. While Nato supports the Benghazi-based opposition (situated in the oil-rich north-east), there is little evidence that the opposition has support of the majority of Libyans. The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops. Their reckless actions, encouraged by western political, military and intelligence interests, created the humanitarian crisis that was then used to justify the Nato war campaign.
Third, the United States cannot afford it. The US cost of the mission is projected to soon reach more than $1bn, and we are already engaged in massive cutbacks of civil services for our own people.
It is not surprising that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike think the US should not be involved in Libya.
This war is misguided. An invasion would be a disaster. Nato already is out of control, using a UN mandate allowing for protection of civilians as the flimsy pretext for an unauthorised mission of regime change through massive violence. In a just world, the Nato commander would be held responsible for any violations of international law. As a means of continuing the civil war, Nato member France and coalition ally Qatar have both admitted shipping weapons to Libya, in open violation of the United Nations arms embargo.
In the end, the biggest casualty of this game of nations will be the legitimacy of the UN, its resolutions and mandates, and international rule of law. This condition must be reversed. The ban on arms supplies to Libya must be enforced, not subverted by Nato countries. The US must cease its illegal and counterproductive support for a military resolution now.
The US Congress must act to cut off funds for the war because there is no military solution in Libya. Serious negotiations for a political solution must begin to end the violence and create an environment for peace negotiations to fulfil the legitimate, democratic aspirations of the people. A political solution will become viable when the opposition understands that regime change is the privilege of the Libyan people, not of Nato.
Will Russia's Response to Washington's Aggression Be to Release Black Swans?
audio interview at link:
http://kingworldnews.com/dr-paul-craig-roberts-12-20-14/
The Holocaust & Israel
http://www.world-religions-professor.com/holocaust.html
The Holocaust, or shoah, that occurred in Nazi Germany during the years of World War II is a watershed event for Jews and Judaism in general. Approximately 6 million Jews - along with hundreds of thousands of others including homosexuals, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and political dissidents - were rounded up and murdered in extermination camps. The shoah is arguably the worst act of antisemitism in the history of the Jewish religion, and one of the worst human atrocities in the history of the world.
The horrors of this event completed the efforts of zionism to establish a permanent homeland for the Jews in their biblical land called Israel. Zionism - literally, a call or desire for Zion (which is another name for the biblical homeland) - began earnestly in the 19th century after Russian Jews endured pogroms and had to flee for their lives. Many began immigrating to the area now known as Israel, but which was then under Ottoman rule.
After the Holocaust, members of the international community that had been central the ending of World War II exerted the political will to establish a Jewish homeland. Thus, the modern state of Israel was established in 1948. Although Israel's founding included provisions for the founding of a state for native Palestinians in the region, such a state has yet to be established. Moreover, many Palestinians and other nations in the region rejected the establishment of the state of Israel for various reasons.
Therefore - and quite ironically - the state of Israel, which was founded to once and for all provide a safe place for Jews, has been a contested and sometimes besieged state since its founding.
Dr. Jill Carroll is a Houston-based scholar, writer and speaker who specializes in world religions, religion and world politics, religion in public life, and applied life philosophy.
She is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University, where she also directed the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance until June 2009. She is a recognized expert on issues of religious tolerance, philosophy of religion, American religion, and religion in public life. Her areas of specialty include: the role of religion in world politics, comparative world religions, trends in American religion, the impact of religious diversity in global business, and applied life philosophy.
The history of Britain's national debt
http://www.debtbombshell.com/history-of-national-debt.htm
Before the late 17th century, it was customary for the state to fund its war debts by levying new taxes. But by 1694 the Nine Years' War had left the English Government's finances in tatters. We were forced to borrow £1.2 million at a rate of 8% from the newly formed Bank of England and national deficit financing was born.
National debt in the modern sense emerged in the the early 18th century, as banking and financial markets enabled the creation of debt through the issue of bills and bonds. Subsequently, the national debt rose from £12m in 1700 to £850m by the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.
War debt
The First World War saw another major increase, from £650m in 1914 to £7.4bn in 1919. We borrowed heavily to beat the Nazis in World War Two and by 1946 the debt had grown to £24.7bn, or 250% of GDP. The debt then declined rapidly in GDP terms, but the period of high inflation in the 1970s and 80s ensured net debt continued to rise, from £33.1bn in 1970 to £197.4bn in 1988.
Historically, Britain has borrowed on a large scale to finance wars. Our creditworthiness as a nation has long been to our advantage. This graph shows the history of public debt as a percentage of GDP using the traditional National Loans Fund measure. This statistic was discontinued by the Treasury in 2004 as it no longer accurately reflected the true liabilities of the modern state.
Now, after decades of relative peace and prosperity, our national debt is sky-rocketing once more. In 1997 Public Sector Net Debt stood at £352 billion. From there it took only 12 years to double, and the Government forecasts it will double again by 2014. Let's hope we don't need to finance a major defensive war any time soon.
How the CIA Launched the «Financial Pearl Harbor» Attacks on Russia and Venezuela
http://www.strategic-culture.org/pview/2014/12/20/how-cia-launched-the-financial-pearl-harbor-attacks-russia-venezuela.html
Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan's long familiarity with Saudi Arabia, owing to the time he spent there as the CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and his knowledge of Saudi oil operations, has paid off. Petroleum industry insiders claim that Brennan's agents inside Saudi Aramco convinced the firm's management and the Saudi Oil Ministry to begin fracking operations in order to stimulate production in Saudi Arabia's oldest oil fields. The Saudis, who are not known for their hands-on knowledge of their nation's own oil industry, agreed to what became an oil pricing catastrophe which would not only affect Saudi Arabia but oil producing nations around the world from Russia and Venezuela to Nigeria and Indonesia.
By pumping high-pressure salt water into older wells, some at a depth of three to six thousand feet, an inordinate amount of pressure was built up. The CIA's oil industry implants knew what would occur when the fracking operations began. Due to the dangerously high water pressure, the Saudis were forced continuously pump oil until the pressure became equalized. That process is continuing. If the Saudis ceased pumping oil, they would permanently lose the wells to salt water contamination. In the current "pump it or lose it" situation, the Saudis are forced to pump at a rate that may take up to five years before they can slow down production rates to pre-glut levels.
The corporate media, including the Bloomberg and Dow Jones virtual business news monopolies, issued news reports claiming that the Saudis agreed to keep production high at the November meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order to retain their market share amid increased U.S. oil production from fracking.
The net result of the CIA-inspired fracking operations, which the Saudis were warned not to pursue by petroleum engineers working for some foreign-based firms like Schlumberger, is that there will be an oil supply glut for the next 5 years. The glut will be followed by a reduction in Saudi oil production unless new oil fields are brought on line. There is now a major push by U.S. and Canadian oil companies to bring online the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States to offset the expected sharp rise in oil prices in four to five years. But with Canada suffering financially from the drop in oil revenues, the Keystone XL project is also on financially shaky ground.
The CIA operation to frack Middle Eastern oil fields was not only limited to Saudi Arabia. Oil industry sources have revealed that similar fracking caused over production problems in Kuwait and Iraq.
The CIA's sabotage of Saudi and other oil fields is not a first for the agency. In 1982, a massive and devastating explosion of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline was said to have been the work of Trojan horse software implanted by a Canadian company on behalf of the CIA. Former U.S. Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, who served in the Ronald Reagan White House, confirmed the CIA's role in the industrial sabotage. The CIA cooperated with the Israeli Mossad in creating the Flame computer virus that crippled Iran's nuclear enrichment equipment. Another CIA-Mossad virus, Stuxnet, had wreaked havoc on nuclear power plants around the world.
The CIA is believed to have played a part in the crash of the Russian-made Sukhoi Superjet 100 in May 2012 in Indonesia. A Russian military intelligence spokesman said that U.S. industrial sabotage in downing the flight, which killed 45 Indonesian and Russian nationals, was considered a likely cause. The crash came after the head of the Russian space agency, Roskosmos, said he believed that it was possible that the failure of the Phobos-Grunt mission to the moons of Mars may have been caused by American sabotage.
The CIA's use of industrial sabotage against the Cuban sugar industry, the Chilean and Zambian copper industries, and the Haitian rice industry is legendary. Explosions at oil refineries in Iran, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela, pipeline explosions in Syria and Libya, and a Brazilian Petrobras marine oil rig collapse, have been attributed to CIA proxy terrorist groups.
The result of the sudden decline in oil prices has resulted in heavy damage to the economies of the CIA-targeted countries of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Brennan and his economic warfare operatives absolutely banked on the Saudi over-production to harm the economies of all three countries and the CIA has not been disappointed. The CIA figures that «regime change» would bring to power pro-U.S. governments in Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.
Already, from his base in Switzerland, exiled Russian tax evader billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky has called for President Vladimir Putin's violent overthrow and even his assassination. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress took its cues from the CIA and voted to impose devastating economic sanctions on both Russia and Venezuela. President Barack Obama approved the congressional sanctions. Similar congressional legislation to increase sanctions on Iran is pending.
Russia has been harmed the most by the CIA's Saudi oil production scheme. The Russian ruble fell 56 percent in value against the U.S. dollar while Russian interest rates climbed to 17 percent. The price of shares of Russia's largest lending bank, Sberbank, fell 18 percent. Although the Russian economic collapse has resulted in financial ripples around the world, with Austrian and French banks losing their stock values and the value of the Polish zloty and Hungarian forint falling against the dollar, the Obama administration says that there will be no easing on economic sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine. Obama has also put the individual and institutional investments of American holders of Russian bonds in dire jeopardy.
The Pacific Investment Management Company's (PEBIX) Emerging Markets Bond Fund, which holds over $800 million in Russian bonds, has lost almost 8 percent in value in the past few weeks.
Meanwhile, basic staples in Venezuela, including cooking oil, rice, and corn flour, are becoming hard to obtain. On the Venezuelan black market, the U.S. dollar has jumped 1700 percent in value against the Venezuelan bolivar. The CIA is using the financial collapse to push for an undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government and CIA operatives are providing cash payments to Venezuelan opposition politicians and provocateurs.
Iran, which has been under punitive Western economic sanctions for a number of years over its nuclear power program, is probably best able to weather the storm. Iran has built up a rather impressive domestic food production, telecommunications, and oil industry infrastructure to survive the sanctions. However, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears very aware of the Saudi role in the conspiracy to drive down oil prices. Recently, Rouhani said of the drop in oil prices, "The main reason for [it] is political conspiracy by certain countries against the interest of the region and the Islamic world and it is only in the interest of some other countries . . . Iran and people of the region will not forget such conspiracies.»
The economic hardships imposed on oil-producing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has resulted in an opportunity for the Islamic State to gain adherents in the country, especially among the young and unemployed population. The economy of China, which is hoping to begin pumping oil from lucrative marine reserves in the South China Sea, is feeling the strain of lower oil prices. Mexico, wracked with social instability, has also suffered from the CIA's machinations. However, instability in Mexico has always been advantageous for the CIA, which continues to benefit from the illegal drug trade that keeps the agency's slush fund accounts flush with cash.
Brennan's and the CIA's industrial sabotage of the Saudi industry will continue to have far-reaching effects on the world economy. Oil industry insiders fear that the CIA has unleashed something that may deal a devastating blow to the global economy from which it will be difficult to recover.
Seven Reasons Why the "Bad Guys" Keep Winning
By Washington's Blog
Global Research, December 23, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/seven-reasons-why-the-bad-guys-keep-winning/5421355
How Come They Keeping Getting Away With It?
How come the bad guys keep getting away with it ... even after getting caught again and again?
Reason Number 1: Falling for the Big Fib
People are wired to believe our leaders' big statements, even if they are ridiculous:
As Adolph Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true in itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Similarly, Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, wrote:
That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
Science has now helped to explain why the big lie is effective.
As I've previously pointed out in another context:
Psychologists and sociologists show us that people will rationalize what their leaders are doing, even when it makes no sense ....
Sociologists from four major research institutions investigated why so many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it became obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The researchers found, as described in an article in the journal Sociological Inquiry (and re-printed by Newsweek):
Many Americans felt an urgent need to seek justification for a war already in progress
Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.
"For the most part people completely ignore contrary information."
"The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information"
People get deeply attached to their beliefs, and form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.
"We refer to this as 'inferred justification, because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.
"People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war"
"They wanted to believe in the link [between 9/11 and Iraq] because it helped them make sense of a current reality. So voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether we think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at least demonstrate an impressive form of creativity.
An article yesterday in Alternet discussing the Sociological Inquiry article helps us to understand that the key to people's active participation in searching for excuses for actions by the big boys is fear:
Subjects were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.
"Well, I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that."
Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."
Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?
The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.
Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war...
He won't credit [politicians spouting misinformation] alone for the phenomenon, though.
"That kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea ... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty vessels. You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false information in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active processing cognitive agents"...
The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.
"I think we'd all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions," said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study...
"The implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular ways."
Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts ...
The Alternet article links to a must-read interview with psychology professor Sheldon Solomon, who explains:
A large body of evidence shows that momentarily [raising fear of death], typically by asking people to think about themselves dying, intensifies people's strivings to protect and bolster aspects of their worldviews, and to bolster their self-esteem. The most common finding is that [fear of death] increases positive reactions to those who share cherished aspects of one's cultural worldview, and negative reactions toward those who violate cherished cultural values or are merely different.
And what about torture? Even after the Senate Intelligence report said that torture didn't do anything helpful – confirmed by America's top interrogation experts and 1,700 years of history – the American public still believes the big lie.
And I would argue that the fact that the governments of the world have given trillions to the giant banks has invoked the same mental process – and susceptibility to propaganda -as the war in Iraq.
Specifically, many people assume that because the government has launched a war to prop up the giant banks, it must have a good reason for doing so.
Why else would trillions in taxpayer dollars be thrown at the giant banks? Why else would the government say that saving the big boys is vital?
And I would argue that the fear of another Great Depression (an economic death, if you will) is analogous to the fear of death triggered in many Americans by 9/11.
This creates a regression towards old-fashioned thinking about such things as banks and the financial system, even though the giant banks actually do very little traditional banking these days.
In other words, the big lie appears to be as effective in financial as in military warfare.
Reason Number 2: The Urge to Defend Bad Systems
Psychiatrist Peter Zafirides, M.D sent us an excellent article explaining why good people defend bad systems:
From the bust of the housing bubble and mortgage meltdown to Bernie Madoff and Jerry Sandusky, to political candidates and campaigns, it seems not a week goes by before another story of corruption and scandal breaks. And very predictably, the following questions always seem to follow:
"How could they get away with this?"
- or -
"Why didn't someone say or do anything about it?"
In trying to answer these questions, we have to first understand a bit about both individual and group psychology. The answers may potentially surprise or frighten you, but it is through this understanding, that any real (and lasting) change can occur. Beyond these obvious questions lies another stark reality: good people tend to continue to defend bad systems.
Why does this happen? What is going on here?
Why do we stick up for a system or institution we live in—a government, company, or marriage—even when anyone else can see it is failing miserably? Why do we resist change even when the system is corrupt or unjust? A new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, reveals the conditions under which we're motivated to defend the status quo—a psychological process called "system justification."
The Power of the Status Quo
In system justification theory, people are motivated to defend the status quo. There is a need to see it as being good, just and/or legitimate. People not only want to hold a favorable view of themselves and the groups they associate with, but they also hold favorable views of an entire, overarching social system. There is a lot at stake here on an individual psychological level that may not have anything to do with the particular candidate, or government or social issue.
There are consequences for trying to buck the system. What will happen if you try to introduce a different type of political or economic system? You tend to be mocked, marginalized or completely ignored. People need to believe that the systems they believe in are legitimate. But this can cause bias and very dangerous blind spots when it comes to the issue of corruption in these systems.
"Now this is not the same as acquiescence," says Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be."
According to the research, four particular situations significantly increased the likelihood that system justification would occur:
1. When a threat to the system occurred.
2. When one is dependent on the system.
3. When there is no potential escape from the system.
4. When one has low personal control of their lives.
Threat
When we're threatened we defend ourselves—and our systems. Before 9/11, for instance, President George W. Bush was sinking in the polls. But as soon as the planes hit the World Trade Center, the president's approval ratings soared. So did support for Congress and the police. During Hurricane Katrina, America witnessed FEMA's spectacular failure to rescue the hurricane's victims. Yet many people blamed those victims for their fate rather than admitting the agency flunked and supporting ideas for fixing it. In times of crisis, say the authors, we want to believe the system works. This bias is real. The problem is, it may not even be consciously in our awareness.
Dependency
We also defend systems we rely on. In one experiment, students made to feel dependent on their university defended a school funding policy—but disapproved of the same policy if it came from the government, which they didn't perceive as affecting them closely. However, if they felt dependent on the government, they liked the policy originating from it, but not from the school.
Inescapability & Loss of Control
When we feel we can't escape a system, we adapt. That includes feeling okay about things we might otherwise consider undesirable. The authors note one study in which participants were told that men's salaries in their country are 20% higher than women's. Rather than implicate an unfair system, those who felt they couldn't emigrate chalked up the wage gap to innate differences between the sexes. "You'd think that when people are stuck with a system, they'd want to change it more," says Kay. But in fact, the more stuck they are, the more likely are they to explain away its shortcomings.
Finally, a related phenomenon: The less control people feel over their own lives, the more they endorse systems and leaders that offer a sense of order.
Change Is Possible!
The research on system justification should not be overwhelming or demoralizing. If anything it can really help to enlighten those who are frustrated when people don't rise up in what would seem their own best interests. The awareness of this psychological tendency in all of us is the first step in trying to minimize its impact. Awareness is critical if one hopes to meaningfully change systems.
According to Dr. Kay, "If you want to understand how to get social change to happen, you need to understand the conditions that make people resist change and what makes them open to acknowledging that change might be a necessity." This is true whether the change one desires is individual or societal.
But do not despair! Whether on an individual or societal level, change absolutely happen. Awareness and knowledge is the first part of the process.
Never give up the fight.
Never doubt how truly powerful you are.
Reason Number 3: Assuming that the Super-Elite Are "Like Us"
The super-elites are not like us:
Vanderbilt researchers have found that the brains of psychopaths have a dopamine abnormality which creates a drive for rewards at any cost, and causes them to ignore risks.
As PhysOrg writes:
Abnormalities in how the nucleus accumbens, highlighted here, processes dopamine have been found in individuals with psychopathic traits and may be linked to violent, criminal behavior. Credit: Gregory R.Samanez-Larkin and Joshua W. Buckholtz
The brains of psychopaths appear to be wired to keep seeking a reward at any cost, new research from Vanderbilt University finds. The research uncovers the role of the brain's reward system in psychopathy and opens a new area of study for understanding what drives these individuals.
"This study underscores the importance of neurological research as it relates to behavior," Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said. "The findings may help us find new ways to intervene before a personality trait becomes antisocial behavior."
The results were published March 14, 2010, in Nature Neuroscience.
"Psychopaths are often thought of as cold-blooded criminals who take what they want without thinking about consequences," Joshua Buckholtz, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology and lead author of the new study, said. "We found that a hyper-reactive dopamine reward system may be the foundation for some of the most problematic behaviors associated with psychopathy, such as violent crime, recidivism and substance abuse."
Previous research on psychopathy has focused on what these individuals lack—fear, empathy and interpersonal skills. The new research, however, examines what they have in abundance—impulsivity, heightened attraction to rewards and risk taking. Importantly, it is these latter traits that are most closely linked with the violent and criminal aspects of psychopathy.
"There has been a long tradition of research on psychopathy that has focused on the lack of sensitivity to punishment and a lack of fear, but those traits are not particularly good predictors of violence or criminal behavior," David Zald, associate professor of psychology and of psychiatry and co-author of the study, said. "Our data is suggesting that something might be happening on the other side of things. These individuals appear to have such a strong draw to reward—to the carrot—that it overwhelms the sense of risk or concern about the stick."
To examine the relationship between dopamine and psychopathy, the researchers used positron emission tomography, or PET, imaging of the brain to measure dopamine release, in concert with a functional magnetic imaging, or fMRI, probe of the brain's reward system.
"The really striking thing is with these two very different techniques we saw a very similar pattern—both were heightened in individuals with psychopathic traits," Zald said.
Study volunteers were given a personality test to determine their level of psychopathic traits. These traits exist on a spectrum, with violent criminals falling at the extreme end of the spectrum. However, a normally functioning person can also have the traits, which include manipulativeness, egocentricity, aggression and risk taking.
In the first portion of the experiment, the researchers gave the volunteers a dose of amphetamine, or speed, and then scanned their brains using PET to view dopamine release in response to the stimulant. Substance abuse has been shown in the past to be associated with alterations in dopamine responses. Psychopathy is strongly associated with substance abuse.
"Our hypothesis was that psychopathic traits are also linked to dysfunction in dopamine reward circuitry," Buckholtz said. "Consistent with what we thought, we found people with high levels of psychopathic traits had almost four times the amount of dopamine released in response to amphetamine."
In the second portion of the experiment, the research subjects were told they would receive a monetary reward for completing a simple task. Their brains were scanned with fMRI while they were performing the task. The researchers found in those individuals with elevated psychopathic traits the dopamine reward area of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, was much more active while they were anticipating the monetary reward than in the other volunteers.
"It may be that because of these exaggerated dopamine responses, once they focus on the chance to get a reward, psychopaths are unable to alter their attention until they get what they're after," Buckholtz said. Added Zald, "It's not just that they don't appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns."
Has anyone tested the heads of the too big to fails for this dopamine abnormality?
What are the odds that they have it? And if they have it, what are the odds that they will voluntarily start acting responsibly, especially given the broken incentive system?
Experts also tell us that many politicians also share traits with serial killers. Specifically, the Los Angeles Times noted in 2009:
Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.
Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.
But — and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion — these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)
Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.
Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.
"This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," he wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders."
***
"While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
As Jim Quinn notes:
When their bets came up craps, they had the gall to hold the American people hostage for trillions in bailouts. Their fellow psychopaths in Congress gladly forked over the money. Rather than mend their ways, these evil men have returned to their excessive risk taking and continue to pay themselves billions in compensation, while the American middle class is smothered to death under mountains of debt. These evil Wall Street geniuses have shown no remorse as seven million people have lost their jobs and millions more have lost their homes due to the greed and avarice displayed on an epic scale.
Wall Street bankers exhibit the epitome of psychopathic behavior, showing lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness. Psychopaths are highly prone to antisocial behavior and abusive treatment of others. Though lacking empathy and emotional depth, they often manage to pass themselves off as average individuals by feigning emotions. These Wall Street bankers will never willingly accept responsibility for their actions. They continue to use their wealth and power to control the politicians in Washington DC and the misinformation propagated by the corporate media they control. They own and control the Federal Reserve and will print money until the whole system collapses in a spectacular implosion that destroys our financial system. They only care about their own wealth, influence and status. They have no shame.
Studies also show that the wealthy are less empathic than those with more modest wealth, and so:
The idea of nobless oblige or trickle-down economics, certain versions of it, is bull," Keltner added. "Our data say you cannot rely on the wealthy to give back. The 'thousand points of light'—this rise of compassion in the wealthy to fix all the problems of society—is improbable, psychologically."
Those in the upper-class tend to hoard resources and be less generous than they could be.
Given that many in Congress and top government posts are multi-millionaires, the study might help explain why politicians seem only to work to make themselves wealthier and to help their wealthy buddies.
We will remain disempowered if we assume that the super-elites are "like us". Unless we learn to spot "wolves in sheep's clothing", we will continue to fall prey to their scams.
This is not to say that all rich or powerful people are psychopaths. There are some great men and women who are affluent or who serve in Washington, D.C. But many do have psycopathic tendencies.
Reason Number 4: The Life-Or-Death Struggle to Defend Our Beliefs
Alternet points out:
When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
***
In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth. Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn't surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.
They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants' misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired.
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
***
Psychologists call stories like these narrative scripts, stories that tell you what you want to hear, stories which confirm your beliefs and give you permission to continue feeling as you already do.
***
As the psychologist Thomas Gilovich said, ""When examining evidence relevant to a given belief, people are inclined to see what they expect to see, and conclude what they expect to conclude...for desired conclusions, we ask ourselves, 'Can I believe this?,' but for unpalatable conclusions we ask, 'Must I believe this?'"
***
What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.
***
The backfire effect is constantly shaping your beliefs and memory, keeping you consistently leaning one way or the other through a process psychologists call biased assimilation. Decades of research into a variety of cognitive biases shows you tend to see the world through thick, horn-rimmed glasses forged of belief and smudged with attitudes and ideologies.
***
Flash forward to 2011, and you have Fox News and MSNBC battling for cable journalism territory, both promising a viewpoint which will never challenge the beliefs of a certain portion of the audience. Biased assimilation guaranteed.
***
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate
- Francis Bacon
It is very difficult for anyone to really listen to evidence which contradicts our beliefs. But unless we learn how to grit our teeth and do so, we will forever be victims to the divide-and-conquer game which ensures that we have politicians who will ignore our demands, we will be so wedded to one investment strategy that we will forever lose money on our investments, and we will generally be weak and disempowered people.
Reason Number 5: Forgetting that We Don't Live in Tribes
Our brains are wired for tribal relationships:
Biologists and sociologists tell us that our brains evolved in small groups or tribes.
As one example of how profoundly the small-group environment affected our brains, Daily Galaxy points out:
Research shows that one of the most powerful ways to stimulate more buying is celebrity endorsement. Neurologists at Erasmus University in Rotterdam report that our ability to weigh desirability and value doesn't function normally if an item is endorsed by a well-known face. This lights up the brain's dorsal claudate nucleus, which is involved in trust and learning. Areas linked to longer-term memory storage also fire up. Our minds overidentify with celebrities because we evolved in small tribes. If you knew someone, then they knew you. If you didn't attack each other, you were probably pals.
Our minds still work this way, giving us the idea that the celebs we keep seeing are our acquaintances. And we want to be like them, because we've evolved to hate being out of the in-crowd. Brain scans show that social rejection activates brain areas that generate physical pain, probably because in prehistory tribal exclusion was tantamount to a death sentence. And scans by the National Institute of Mental Health show that when we feel socially inferior, two brain regions become more active: the insula and the ventral striatum. The insula is involved with the gut-sinking sensation you get when you feel that small. The ventral striatum is linked to motivation and reward.
In small groups, we knew everyone extremely well. No one could really fool us about what type of person they were, because we had grown up interacting with them for our whole lives.
If a tribe member dressed up and pretended he was from another tribe, we would see it in a heart-beat. It would be like seeing your father in a costume: you would recognize him pretty quickly, wouldn't you.
As the celebrity example shows, our brains can easily be fooled by people in our large modern society when we incorrectly ascribe to them the role of being someone we should trust.
As the celebrity example shows, our brains can easily be fooled by people in our large modern society when we incorrectly ascribe to them the role of being someone we should trust.
The opposite is true as well. The parts of our brain that are hard-wired to quickly recognize "outside enemies" can be fooled in our huge modern society, when it is really people we know dressed up like the "other team".
***
Our brains assume that we can tell truth from fiction, because they evolved in very small groups where we knew everyone extremely well, and usually could see for ourselves what was true.
On the other side of the coin, a tribal leader who talked a good game but constantly stole from and abused his group would immediately be kicked out or killed. No matter how nicely he talked, the members of the tribe would immediately see what he was doing.
But in a country of hundreds of millions of people, where the political class is shielded from the rest of the country, people don't really know what our leaders are doing with most of the time. We only see them for a couple of minutes when they are giving speeches, or appearing in photo ops, or being interviewed. It is therefore much easier for a wolf in sheep's clothing to succeed than in a small group setting.
Indeed, sociopaths would have been discovered very quickly in a small group. But in huge societies like our's, they can rise to positions of power and influence.
As with the celebrity endorsement example, our brains are running programs which were developed for an environment (a small group) we no longer live in, and so lead us astray.
Like the blind spot in our rear view mirror, we have to learn to compensate and adapt for our imperfections, or we may get clobbered.
Grow Up
The good news is that we can evolve.
While our brains have many built-in hardwired ways of thinking and processing information, they are also amazingly "plastic". We can learn and evolve and overcome our hardwiring – or at least compensate for our blind spots.
We are not condemned to being led astray by [banksters and power-hungry sociopaths].
We can choose to grow up as a species and reclaim our power to decide our own future.
Reason Number 6: Pretending We Know
People who don't know much about a subject tend to over-estimate their understanding. Ironically, experts in any subject tend to underestimate their abilities (because the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know.)
Moreover, people who don' t much about a subject are more hesitant to learn about it than people who know something about it.
(This may be learning a sport or a musical instrument. When you get decent at it, it becomes fun ... and learning how to improve is pleasurable. On the other hand, if you make nails-on-chalkboard noises while learning how to play electric guitar or fall a lot while you're learning how to ski, it isn't as fun ... and it is tempting to give up and avoid it if your friends try to "drag you along". The same dynamic might apply to learning as well.)
If we realize that we are resisting learning new information – either because we assume we already know it all, or because we want to avoid the embarrassment of being a beginner – we will remain stuck where we are, and we will never grow wiser or more powerful. If your mind is already "full", you can't fill it any more. Indeed, one of the secrets of really smart people is to adopt a "beginner mind", so that they are open to learning new information.
Reason Number 7: Apathy
The CIA notes that, public apathy allows government officials to ignore their citizens. While it is easy to slip into apathy, we will as a people be ignored by our politicians unless we remain involved.
Reason Number 8: The CIA and Other Government Agencies Control Media, Movies, TV and Video Games
Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists.
A CIA operative allegedly told Washington Post editor Philip Graham ... in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:
You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.
The Church Committee found that the CIA submitted stories to the American press:
The New York Times discusses in a matter-of-fact way the use of mainstream writers by the CIA to spread messages.
The government is paying off reporters to spread disinformation.
A 4-part BBC documentary called the "Century of the Self" shows that an American – Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques.
The Independent discusses allegations of American propaganda.
One of the premier writers on journalism says the U.S. has used widespread propaganda.
Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (the expert has an impressive background).
Of course, the Web has become a huge media force, and the Pentagon and other government agencieshave their hand in that as well. Indeed, documents released by Snowden show that spies manipulate polls, website popularity and pageview counts, censor videos they don't like and amplify messages they do.
The CIA and other government agencies also put enormous energy into pushing propaganda throughmovies, tv and video games.
We intentionally listed propaganda last, because we only fall for propaganda to the extent we fail to learn the first 7 lessons ... i.e. to wake up and think for ourselves.
As Michael Rivero notes:
"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Moral cowards ... or people too lazy to learn how their own minds – and those of the bad guys – work.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape
The Naked Ape, which was serialized in the Daily Mirror newspaper and has been translated into 23 languages, depicts human behavior as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a hunter-gatherer (see nature versus nurture). The book was so named because out of 193 species of monkeys and apes only humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are not covered in hair. Desmond Morris, the author, who formerly was the Curator of mammals at London Zoo, said his book was intended to popularise and demystify science.
The Washington Morons Have Managed To Create A Chinese-Russian Alliance
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/22/washington-morons-managed-create-chinese-russian-alliance/
Tass News Agency
"If the Russian side needs it, we shall offer all possible support." — Chinese Foreign Minister
BEIJING, December 22, TASS. China believes Russia will be able to overcome the current economic problems, and is ready to offer whatever assistance if needed, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in an interview with Hong Kong's Fenghuang television channel on Sunday.
"We believe that Russia has opportunities and knowledge to overcome the current problems in the economy. The Chinese-Russian relations of strategic partnership are at a high level, we are always supporting and helping our friend. If the Russian side needs it, we shall offer all possible support we may have," the foreign minister said.
http://itar-tass.com/en/economy/768328
John Pilger: 'Real Possibility of Nuclear War' - Ukraine Crisis Could Start World War 3
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40537.htm
John Pilger, film-maker and award winning journalist, talks to Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi about the headline events of the year, from CIA torture to the Ukraine crisis. He says the whole tenure of the BBC coverage of the Torture report was 'does torture work?' Modern British history is full of torture, and the British were 'masters' at it. When the OSS become the CIA, it split into 2 sections – one an intelligence gathering section, the other a covert operations arm for the presidency, the central part of which was torture. He warns that the culture of apologising for the state, to minimise its responsibility, has 'burrowed' into the minds of correspondents, citing the defence correspondent on Newsnight failing to mention the role of Britain when appraising why the Middle East was a mess. He also says that parliamentary inquiries like the Nolan inquiry and the Chilcot inquiry are stopped before they can get anywhere, describing it as a 'series of whitewashes.' He talks of a 'consensus' to cover up, citing the arms to Iraq inquiry, where the only person that the judge commended was a Foreign Office official who described the Foreign Office as a 'culture of lying.' He says that the number of high-ups in the British establishment who committed serious offences 'numbered in the dozens,' and the only difference between the US and UK in torture is 'in terms of scale.' The real issue in democracies is 'dissent being constrained' physically on the streets. He believes it is 'dangerous' to protest in the way people did in 2003, whether you are an establishment figure, a journalist, or just a man on the street.
He says the Sydney siege, whilst horrific, still has to be deconstructed to find what's missing from it. He points out that the Australian PM declared it a 'terrorist act' within minutes of it starting, when it turned out to be a lone wolf, and asks why someone with his history was on the loose. He argues that looking at the list of demands, they were all negotiable, and asks why force was used, and says 'it seems very likely that the people in there were killed by the police and not by the terrorist.'
With Russia, he says he has never known the truth 'so inverted' over any one issue. He believes we are in the midst of a cold war more dangerous than the one he grew up with, comparing the raw propaganda of the prior to what we're seeing now, with a 'real possibility' of a nuclear war. He compares it to Iraq, because both involved 'fiction,' the idea that Russia is attacking the West. He says oil prices were driven down by agreement between the US and Saudis, to wreck the Russian economy. He says it was NATO and the US that took over Ukraine, to the point that Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest private gas provider. At a meeting in Yalta in September 2013, the 'takeover of Ukraine was planned' by prominent politicians and multinationals. There was a 'coup stage-managed by the Obama administration,' and blame shifted to Russia, who acted purely defensively. He says there is a 'real prospect of war' with a nuclear power and strong conventional military, and Putin has now started 'talking red lines' himself. He describes 'extraordinary propaganda' promoting tension and demonising Russia, which 'may end up being self-fulfilling.'
John is crowdfunding his new documentary, 'The Coming War between America and China', about the perceived threat to the US from China. You can find out more and contribute at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/john-pilger-the-coming-war-documentary
The 'New World Order' crowd who control America
and its PLAN for World Domination fear that both
Russia and China will develop the power and the
integrity to successfully oppose the sought after
Government by Tyranny.
The dual-national-citizen NeoCons who devise the
various 'regime-changes' are by their nature paranoid.
The power structure in the U.S. has effectively
become the 'iron fist' of the revived Roman Empire
(aka The Empire of Chaos.)
The Neo-Cons care nothing about the loss of life or
'collateral damage' as they go about their 'business.'
The modern concept of warfare which they've
implemented in fact maximizes terror and brutality
as it spills unprecedented innocent blood.
They are very careful not to sacrifice their 'own kind'
as they make war.
Quote from: muDped on 2014.12.25, 21:05:43
The 'New World Order' crowd who control America
and its PLAN for World Domination fear that both
Russia and China will develop the power and the
integrity to successfully oppose the sought after
Government by Tyranny.
I wouldn't be so sure the NWO crowd doesn't also control Russia and China.
They have been playing an excellent game of incrementalism so far and it
is working perfectly. They couldn't have scripted a better plan for complete
and total domination. These guys are shrewd. They know what they want
and are on target to get it.
Just saying, be very careful where you put your support, because neither
side is your friend.
That is of course a very real possibility Matt.
At the present moment, however, The Empire
of Chaos (The West) is conducting itself as the
Iron Fist to forcefully bring nations into submission
to its PLAN.
The actions of Russia and China, on the other hand,
are moderate by comparison and offer an alternative
which permits nations to retain sovereignty and to
seek even handed relations with other nations in
accordance with already established international
law.
A set of laws which The West disregards with impunity.
The next several months, even perhaps years, should
help to clarify matters.
The Lies of the West may catch up and cause blowback.
It certainly is true that the NWO crowd has its hands in
everything. Fortunately, the crowd has factions and
certain elements seem much more reasonable and
conscientious than others.
The faction which is in control of the West (The Empire
of Chaos) prefers to accomplish its business with little
regard for human life; creating brutal terrorist groups
to 'persuade' those who may resist with the spilling of
much blood.
Al-Qaeda calls for 'targeting of Western commercial airliners'
https://www.intellihub.com/al-qaeda-calls-targeting-western-commercial-airliners/
YEMEN (INTELLIHUB.COM) — The new issue of Inspire, an online Al-Qaeda affiliate, pictures the undercarriage of a commercial airliner's fuselage being blown apart, suggesting that Jihad extremists target commercial airliners in the Western world to appease Allah.
Could this Al-Qaeda-backed publication, propaganda, intertwine with the missing airliners from both Indonesia and Malaysia?
ISIS Missiles, and the case for retiring the A-10
http://xbradtc.com/2014/10/27/isis-missiles-and-the-case-for-retiring-the-a-10/
The New York Times has a short but informative piece on ISIS gaining and using Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) in Syria. The MANPADS has been around since the 1960s, with the first generation US Redeye and Soviet SA-7 Grail setting the basic template for those that follow. For the most part, non-state actors have often had access to the SA-7 and similar missiles. But with the exception of the US supplying the far more capable FIM-92 Stinger to the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, few such non-state groups have had access to modern, more capable missiles. For a time, the Stinger was head and shoulders above any other MANPAD system in capability. Judicious use of tactics, and profligate use of countermeasures such as flares minimized the risks MANPADS posed to modern combat aircraft and helicopters. But the times, they are a-changin'. Several late model Russian and Chinese MANPAD systems are quite capable and increasingly in the hands of groups such as ISIS and the Free Syrian Army. With US airstrikes taking place in both Iraq and Syria against ISIS positions, the chances of our airmen facing these advanced MANPADS cannot be dismissed.
Threat to Aircraft: ISIS Downs Mi-35 Chopper Using MANPADS
http://sofrep.com/37370/isis-downs-mi-35-chopper-using-manpads/
According to recent reporting from IHS Janes and the Long War Journal, images released via Twitter by the Islamic State show a militant firing the advanced FN-6 MANPADS (man-portable air defense system) at an Iraqi helicopter conducting operations in the vicinity of the embattled Baiji Refinery in early October. The refinery, one of Iraq's largest and most productive prior to its closure due to ongoing violence around June, was reportedly producing roughly 170,000 barrels per day.
The FN-6, a third-generation system developed by the Chinese and the most advanced of their arsenal on the international market, was allegedly supplied by Qatar to various Syrian insurgent groups as early as last year. IHS Janes reports that the weapons were supplied to select factions by the Qataris, "despite warnings that they could proliferate to more extreme groups like [ISIS]."
FN-6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN-6
The complete FN-6 missile system weighs 16 kg. The missile is 1.495 m in length, and has a diameter of 0.072 m. The weight of the missile is unknown. It uses a single stage solid rocket motor, and can obtain a maximum speed of 360 m/s when flying head-on, and 300 m/s when tail chasing. The missile's operating range is from 500 m to 6 km, and its operating altitude is from 150 m to 3.5 km.
Planes over London!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GRMxMEghW4
The title says it all. Filmed under the approach path to London Heathrow Airport Runway 27L and 27R Hounslow West, Hounslow Central, Osterly., October 2012!
RAF Waddington plane spotters get Typhoon shock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Dg0LxgJH4
Open Border's policy enhances free movement of terrorists and weapon systems into strategic positions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poLhMH5v5fc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsRm8M-qOjQ&feature=youtu.be
Interesting to say the least
regards
Mike 8)
The Outlook for the New Year. The Insanity of Nuclear War against Russia
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, December 30, 2014
PaulCraigRoberts.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-outlook-for-the-new-year-the-insanity-of-nuclear-war-against-russia/5422006
Dear Readers: The conflict that Washington has initiated between the West and Russia/China is reckless and irresponsible. Nuclear war could be the outcome. Indeed, Washington has been preparing for nuclear war since the George W. Bush regime.
Washington has revised US war doctrine in order to initiate conflict with a first strike nuclear attack.
Washington has discarded the ABM treaty in order to build and deploy anti-ballistic missiles that are intended to prevent a retaliatory strike against the US. Washington is engaged in a buildup of military forces on Russia's borders, and Washington is demonizing Russia's government with false charges.
As the Bush/Obama regimes dismantled the safeguards put in place in order to minimize the risk of nuclear war, no protests came from the American public or the media. Washington's European vassal states have also been silent.
Washington's drive for hegemony has brought nuclear insanity to the world.
Moscow and Beijing understand that they are Washington's targets. As Larchmonter explains, Russia and China are conjoining their economic and military capabilities in order to protect against Washington's attack. Read what Larchmonter reports. Open the URL in my column below and run your cursor over the bottom of the page and click "page fit." Choose 50% and readable text will fill your screen.
Washington's demonization of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad were preludes to military attacks on Iraq, Libya, and Syria. In view of these precedents, it is reasonable to regard Washington's demonization of Vladimir Putin as a prelude to military action.
Russia is not Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Russian war doctrine states that Russia can use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or conventional attack on Russia. For the world to sit silent while Washington's arrogance provokes armageddon telegraphs total political failure. Where are the voices in behalf of humanity?
The Outlook for the New Year
Washington has shaped 2015 to be a year of conflict. The conflict could be intense.
Washington is the cause of the conflict, which has been brewing for some time. Russia was too weak to do anything about it when the Clinton regime pushed NATO to Russia's borders and illegally attacked Yugoslavia, breaking the country into small easily controlled pieces. Russia was also too weak to do anything about it when the George W. Bush regime withdrew from the ABM treaty and undertook to locate anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders. Washington lied to Moscow that the purpose of the ABM bases is to protect Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. However, Moscow understood that the purpose of the ABM bases was to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent, thereby enhancing Washington's ability to coerce Russia into agreements that compromise Russian sovereignty.
By summer 2008 Russian power had returned. On Washington's orders, the US and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian army attacked the breakaway republic of South Ossetia during the early hours of August 8, killing Russian peacekeepers and civilian population. Units of the Russian military instantly responded and within a few hours the American trained and equipped Georgian army was routed and defeated. Georgia was in Russia's hands again, where the province had resided during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Putin should have hung Mikheil Saakashvili, the American puppet installed as president of Georgia by the Washington-instigated "Rose Revolution", and reincorporated Georgia into the Russian Federation. Instead, in a strategic error, Russia withdrew its forces, leaving Washington's puppet regime in place to cause future trouble for Russia.
Washington is pushing hard to incorporate Georgia into NATO, thus adding more US military bases on Russia's border. However, at the time, Moscow thought Europe to be more independent of Washington than it is and relied on good relations with Europe to keep American bases out of Georgia.
Today the Russian government no longer has any illusion that Europe is capable of an independent foreign policy. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated publicly that Russia has learned that diplomacy with Europe is pointless, because European politicians represent Washington's interest, not Europe's. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently acknowledged that Europe's Captive Nation status has made it clear to Russia that Russian goodwill gestures are unable to produce diplomatic results.
With Moscow's delusion shattered that diplomacy with the West can produce peaceful solutions, reality has set in, reinforced by the demonization of Vladimir Putin by Washington and its vassal states. Hillary Clinton called Putin the new Hitler. While Washington incorporates former constituent parts of the Russian and Soviet empires into its own empire and bombs seven countries, Washington claims that Putin is militarily aggressive and intends to reconstitute the Soviet empire. Washington arms the neo-nazi regime Obama established in Ukraine, while erroneously claiming that Putin has invaded and annexed Ukrainian provinces. All of these blatant lies are echoed repeatedly by the Western presstitutes. Not even Hitler had such a compliant media as Washington has.
Every diplomatic effort by Russia has been blocked by Washington and has come to naught. So now Russia has been forced by reality to update its military doctrine. The new doctrine approved on December 26 states that the US and NATO comprise a major military threat to the existence of Russia as a sovereign independent country.
The Russian document cites Washington's war doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear attack, deployment of anti-ballistic missiles, buildup of NATO forces, and intent to deploy weapons in space as clear indications that Washington is preparing to attack Russia.
Washington is also conducting economic and political warfare against Russia, attempting to destabilize the economy with economic sanctions and attacks on the ruble. The Russian document acknowledges that Russia faces Western threats of regime change achieved through "actions aimed at violent change of the Russian constitutional order, destabilization of the political and social environment, and disorganization of the functioning of governmental bodies, crucial civilian and military facilities and informational infrastructure of Russia." Foreign financed NGOs and foreign owned Russian media are tools in Washington's hands for destabilizing Russia.
Washington's reckless aggressive policy against Russia has resurrected the nuclear arms race. Russia is developing two new ICBM systems and in 2016 will deploy a weapons system designed to negate the US anti-ballistic missile system. In short, the evil warmongers that rule in Washington have set the world on the path to nuclear armageddon.
The Russian and Chinese governments both understand that their existence is threatened by Washington's hegemonic ambitions. Larchmonter reports that in order to defeat Washington's plans to marginalize both countries, the Russian and Chinese governments have decided to unify their economies into one and to conjoin their military commands. Henceforth, Russia and China move together on the economic and military fronts. http://www.mediafire.com/view/08rzue8ffism94t/China-Russia_Double_Helix.docx
The unity of the Bear and the Dragon reduces the crazed neoconservatives' dream of "an American century" to dangerous nonsense. As Larchmonter puts it, "The US and NATO would need Michael the Archangel to defeat China-Russia, and from all signs Michael the Archangel is aligned with the Bear and its Orthodox culture. There is no weapon, no strategy, no tactic conceivable in the near future to damage either of these rising economies now that they are 'base pairs.'"
Larchmonter sees hope in the new geopolitics created by the conjoining of Russia and China. I don't dispute this, but if the arrogant neoconservatives realize that their hegemonic policy has created a foe over which Washington cannot prevail, they will push for a pre-emptive nuclear strike before the Russian-Chinese unified command is fully operational. To forestall a sneak attack, Russia and China should operate on full nuclear alert.
The US economy–indeed the entire Western orientated economy from Japan to Europe–is a house of cards. Since the economic downturn began seven years ago, the entirety of Western economic policy has been diverted to the support of a few over-sized banks, sovereign debt, and the US dollar. Consequently, the economies themselves and the ability of populations to cope have deteriorated.
The financial markets are based on manipulation, not on fundamentals. The manipulation is untenable. With debt exploding, negative real interest rates make no sense. With real consumer incomes, real consumer credit, and real retail sales stagnant or falling, the stock market is a bubble. With Russia, China, and other countries moving away from the use of the dollar to settle international accounts, with Russia developing an alternative to the SWIFT financial network, the BRICS developing alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, and with other parts of the world developing their own credit card and Internet systems, the US dollar, along with the Japanese and European currencies that are being printed in order to support the dollar's exchange value, could experience a dramatic drop in exchange value, which would make the import-dependent Western world dysfunctional.
In my opinion, it took the Russians and Chinese too long to comprehend the evil that has control in Washington. Therefore, both countries risk nuclear attack prior to the full operational capability of their conjoined defense. As the Western economy is a house of cards, Russia and China could collapse the Western economy before the neoconservatives can drive the world to war. As Washington's aggression against both countries is crystal clear, Russia and China have every right to the following defensive measures.
As the US and EU are conducting economic warfare against Russia, Russia could claim that by wrecking the Russian economy the West has deprived Russia of the ability to repay loans to the European banks. If this does not bring down the thinly capitalized EU banks, Russia can announce that as NATO countries are now officially recognized by Russian war doctrine as an enemy of the Russian state, Russia can no longer support NATO's aggression against Russia by selling natural gas to NATO members. If the shutdown of much of European industry, rapidly rising rates of unemployment, and bank failures do not result in the dissolution of NATO and thus the end of the threat, the Chinese can act.
The Chinese hold a very large amount of dollar-denominated financial assets. Just as the Federal Reserve's agents, the bullion banks, dump massive shorts onto the bullion futures markets during periods of little activity in order to drive down the bullion price, China can dump the equivalent in US Treasuries of years of Quantitative Easing in a few minutes. If the Federal Reserve quickly creates dollars with which to purchase the enormous quantity of Treasuries so that the financial house of cards does not implode, the Chinese can then dump the dollars that they are paid for the bonds in the currency market. Whereas the Federal Reserve can print dollars with which to purchase the Treasuries, the Fed cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy the dollars.
The dollar would collapse, and with it the power of the Hegemon. The war would be over without a shot or missile fired.
In my view, Russia and China owe it to the world to prevent the nuclear war intended by the neoconservatives simply by replying in kind to Washington's economic warfare. Russia and China hold all the cards. Not Washington.
Russia and China should give no warning. They should just act. Indeed, instead of step by step, Russia and China could simultaneously use the counter-measures. With four US banks holding derivatives totaling many times world GDP, the financial explosion would be the equivalent to a nuclear one. The US and Europe would be finished, and the world would be saved.
Larchmonter possibly is correct. 2015 could be a very good year, but pre-emptive economic moves by Moscow and Beijing could be required. Putin's current plan seems to be to turn away from the West, ignore the provocations, and mesh Russia's strategic and economic interests with those of Asia. This is a humane and reasonable course of action, but it leaves the West untroubled and undistracted by its economic vulnerabilities. An untroubled West remains a grave danger not only to Russia and China but also to Americans and the entire world.
Leon Panetta Says Brace For 30 Year War With ISIS
10/08/2014
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-08/leon-panetta-says-brace-30-year-war-isis
"I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.
But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless."
- Glenn Greenwald, in his latest piece for the Intercept
Leon Panetta is pretty much the epitome of a status quo insider. Someone, who due to his influence and mainstream veneer of respectability, is capable of inflicting an almost inconceivable amount of damage to freedom and prosperity in America. In fact, you could say that Mr. Panetta is as responsible as almost anyone else for the banana republic laughing stock that this nation has been transformed into over the past several decades. Why? Because he served in top positions for several of America's Presidents over that time.
He started out working for Richard Nixon, before switching parties and serving nine terms as a Democratic Congressman from California. He then served the Clinton Administration, including as Chief of Staff. Most recently, he was head of the Department of Defense and the CIA under Obama. This is an extremely political animal.
His ties run deepest with the Clintons, and while he criticizes Obama heavily in his new book, he excitedly proclaims that Hilary Clinton would be "great president," and that "one thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done."
I'm sure they do, but get what done exactly. In the case of of Bill Clinton, it was dismantling Glass Steagall, and fully turning over the entire U.S. economy and public policy to financial oligarchs.
Think I am exaggerating? In a recent USA Today interview, we can clearly see exactly what "getting it done" would mean during a Hilary Clinton Presidency: Endless War.
USA Today reports that:
"I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," he says, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.
In the book's final chapter, however, he writes that Obama's "most conspicuous weakness" is "a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause." Too often, he "relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader." On occasion, he "avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities."
Yeah, well Hitler was a pretty passionate leader.
Key Democrats, Led by Hillary Clinton, Leave No doubt that Endless War is Official U.S. Doctrine
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/07/key-democrats-led-hillary-clinton-leave-doubt-endless-war-u-s-doctrine/
Long before Americans were introduced to the new 9/11 era super-villains called ISIS and Khorasan, senior Obama officials were openly and explicitly stating that America's "war on terror," already 12 years old, would last at least another decade. At first, they injected these decrees only anonymously; in late 2012, The Washington Post - disclosing the administration's secret creation of a "disposition matrix" to decide who should be killed, imprisoned without charges, or otherwise "disposed" of - reported these remarkable facts:
"Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."
In May, 2013, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether it should revise the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). A committee member asked a senior Pentagon official, Assistant Secretary Michael Sheehan, how long the war on terror would last; his reply: "At least 10 to 20 years." At least. A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed afterward "that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today — atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted." As Spencer Ackerman put it: "Welcome to America's Thirty Years War," one which – by the Obama administration's own reasoning – has "no geographic limit."
Listening to all this, Maine's independent Sen. Angus King said: "This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today." Former Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith – himself an ardent advocate of broad presidential powers – was at the hearing and noted that nobody even knows against whom this endless war is being waged: "Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made."
All of that received remarkably little attention given its obvious significance. But any doubts about whether Endless War – literally – is official American doctrine should be permanently erased by this week's comments from two leading Democrats, both former top national security officials in the Obama administration, one of whom is likely to be the next American president.
Leon Panetta, the long-time Democratic Party operative who served as Obama's Defense Secretary and CIA Director, said this week of Obama's new bombing campaign: "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war." Only in America are new 30-year wars spoken of so casually, the way other countries speak of weather changes. He added that the war "will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere." And elsewhere: not just a new decades-long war with no temporal limits, but no geographic ones either. He criticized Obama – who has bombed 7 predominantly Muslim countries plus the Muslim minority in the Phillipines (almost double the number of countries Bush bombed) – for being insufficiently militaristic, despite the fact that Obama officials themselves have already instructed the public to think of The New War "in terms of years."
Then we have Hillary Clinton (whom Panetta gushed would make a "great" president). At an event in Ottawa yesterday, she proclaimed that the fight against these "militants" will "be a long-term struggle" that should entail an "information war" as "well as an air war." The new war, she said, is "essential" and the U.S. shies away from fighting it "at our peril." Like Panetta (and most establishment Republicans), Clinton made clear in her book that virtually all of her disagreements with Obama's foreign policy were the by-product of her view of Obama as insufficiently hawkish, militaristic and confrontational.
At this point, it is literally inconceivable to imagine the U.S. not at war. It would be shocking if that happened in our lifetime. U.S. officials are now all but openly saying this. "Endless War" is not dramatic rhetorical license but a precise description of America's foreign policy.
It's not hard to see why. A state of endless war justifies ever-increasing state power and secrecy and a further erosion of rights. It also entails a massive transfer of public wealth to the "homeland security" and weapons industry (which the US media deceptively calls the "defense sector").
Just yesterday, Bloomberg reported: "Led by Lockheed Martin Group (LTM), the biggest U.S. defense companies are trading at record prices as shareholders reap rewards from escalating military conflicts around the world." Particularly exciting is that "investors see rising sales for makers of missiles, drones and other weapons as the U.S. hits Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq"; moreover, "the U.S. also is the biggest foreign military supplier to Israel, which waged a 50-day offensive against the Hamas Islamic movement in the Gaza Strip." ISIS is using U.S.-made ammunition and weapons, which means U.S. weapons companies get to supply all sides of The New Endless War; can you blame investors for being so giddy?
I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.
But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless. Both Bush and Obama officials have explicitly said that the war will last at least a generation. The nature of the "war," and the theories that have accompanied it, is that it has no discernible enemy and no identifiable limits. More significantly, this "war" fuels itself, provides its own inexhaustible purpose, as it is precisely the policies justified in the name of Stopping Terrorism that actually ensure its spread (note how Panetta said the new U.S. war would have to include Libya, presumably to fight against those empowered by the last U.S. war there just 3 years ago).
This war – in all its ever-changing permutations – thus enables an endless supply of power and profit to flow to those political and economic factions that control the government regardless of election outcomes. And that's all independent of the vicarious sense of joy, purpose and fulfillment which the sociopathic Washington class derives from waging risk-free wars, as Adam Smith so perfectly described in Wealth of Nations 235 years ago:
"In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war."
The last thing the Washington political class and the economic elites who control it want is for this war to end. Anyone who doubts that should just look at the express statements from these leading Democrats, who wasted no time at all seizing on the latest Bad Guys to justify literally decades more of this profiteering and war-making.
"The last thing the Washington political class and the economic elites who control it want is for this war to end."
Correct. Trials for war crimes, acts of aggression and crimes against peace come after the war ends!
The "War on Terror" has been designed to be perpetual with an ever shifting enemy that can never be defeated. Where the enemy does not exist, it is created.
The rapid roll out of the police state since 9/11 is designed to control and terrify the population into submission, it's true purpose masked by the False Flag terrorism that was the pretext used to justify it.
The endless propaganda pumped out by the MSM is designed to control your mind, what you think, and how you react.
When the BRICS have finally had enough of Western aggression they will pull the trigger on the financial bomb, the economies of the West will collapse overnight.
What happens then is anybody's guess..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
False Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood
http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flagging-the-world-towards-war/5421649
"The dangerous patriot: The one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism, ...which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory." - James A. Donovan (1916-1970), American lawyer and Commander in the United States Navy Reserve
"Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control." - Lord Acton (1834-1902) (John E. Dalberg), English Catholic historian, politician, and writer
"If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject... " - William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), American academic
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. ... It is our true [foreign] policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington (1732-1799), First President of the United States, (1789-1797), Farewell Address, 1796
These days, militaristic Neoconservatives, or Neocons, have near complete control of the American government under the façade of whoever is president at the time. They direct U.S. policies at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the U.S. Treasury and at the Fed central bank. They are thus in position to influence and frame American foreign policy, military policy, economic and financial policies and monetary policy.
This was not the case before the Ronald Reagan administration (1981-1989) when the latter adopted a neocon-inspired "muscular foreign policy" based on military intervention abroad, perpetual war, arbitrary regime changes, and imperial worldwide governance in any matters deemed to be in American interests and of that of its close allies. Even though they fared less well under the George H. Bush administration (1989-1993), when they were considered the "crazies in the basement", they resumed their ascendance within the American government under the Bill Clinton administration (1993-2001) with the U.S.-led Kosovo war and with the irresponsible dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act, thus paving the way for the 2008 worldwide financial crisis.
The Neocons' greatest success, however, came with the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney administration (2001-2009) when they persuaded the latter to launch the (illegal) 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a war still with us and expanding today, twelve years later. They also drafted the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of (illegal) preemptive wars and of forced political regime changes in other countries.
This was an ideology that the Neocons had long advanced, both when Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense for policy in the George H. Bush administration (1989-1993), even though the latter publicly repudiated it, and in various essays published by a neocon think-tank dubbed "The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)" and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.
After the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991, the warmongering Neocons argued that there should not be any "Peace dividend" for American taxpayers but rather that the United States should seize the opportunity to become the sole world military superpower and should therefore increase and not decrease its military spending. The intention was to establish a military New American Empire for the 21st Century, along the lines of the British Empire in the 19th Century.
Indeed, after the events of 9/11 and the arrival of George W. Bush in the White House in 2001, Paul Wolfowitz, as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld, was in a better position to push for increased U.S. military spending and for the adoption of a new aggressive U.S. foreign policy. What was most troubling is the fact that the PNAC produced a paper in 2000, titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", (of which Paul Wolfowitz was a signatory), which enigmatically noted that only a "new Pearl Harbor" would make Americans accept the military and defense policy transformations that the neocon group was proposing. Then, in September 2001, the "new Pearl Harbor" coincidentally and conveniently morphed into the 9/11 attacks.
The war against Afghanistan, where the 9/11 terrorists had trained (and who came from Saudi Arabia and a few other countries), and the war against Iraq, a country not even remotely connected with the events of 9/11, followed.
At the beginning of 2015, Neocons occupy key positions within the Barack Obama administration and it should be no surprise that U.S. foreign policy is hardly any different than it was under the George W. Bush administration. They are constantly pushing for provocations, confrontations, conflicts and wars. In fact, the year 2015 could be the year when many of the fires they have lit could turn into conflagrations.
Let us look at a few of them.
1. The danger of another major financial and economic crisis
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed an already watered down version of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to reign in financial corruption that brought about the 2008 financial crisis. The new law was supposed to re-establish part of the provisions of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act gutted out by the Clinton administration in 1999, in order to prevent megabanks and insurance companies from using government-insured deposits to build for themselves a pyramid of risky bets on the derivatives market (credit default swaps, commodity swaps, collateralized-debt obligations and other risky derivative financial products, etc.).
But guess what! Only four years later, on December 16, 2014, lobbyists and lawyers working full time for the megabanks persuaded President Obama to sign a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus bill disguised as a Budget Bill and which contains a provision to remove a rule known as the 'swaps push-out' rule, the latter requiring insured banks to establish uninsured subsidiaries to conduct their speculative derivatives trading activities.
As a consequence, American megabanks are now back in business speculating with government-insured deposits. When the entire financial house of cards will blow out again is unknown, but you can be sure that it will, especially if a serious political or economic shock hits the economy.
I would call that 'financial brinkmanship' and I would call Obama's caving in to the megabanks 'political cowardice'. And who do you think will pay in various ways for the economic mess when it occurs? Certainly not the megabanks that transformed their insolvent asset-backed securities into newly printed cold cash after the 2008 financial crisis, but ordinary people.
The U.S. economy and many other economies are still reeling from the 2008 financial crisis brought about by corrupted politicians and bankers with their lax or nonexistent regulations and excessive speculation schemes. Such economies are vulnerable and sensitive to unforeseen financial shocks because debt-to-income ratios are still high in many countries, including in the U.S. where the indebtedness ratio reached a peak of 177 percent just before the 2008-09 economic recession and still now stands at a lofty 152 percent. (Historically, the debt-to-income ratio has remained well below 90 percent.) A sudden rise in interest rates could therefore wreak havoc with many economies.
For one, the European Union (EU), the largest world economy, is teetering on the brink of recession, suffering from various government-imposed austerity programs, from an overvalued euro currency (for those countries in the euro zone) and from the economic blowback of its conflicts with Russia over including Ukraine into NATO. Europe is indeed in the midst of a lost decade of high unemployment, low economic growth and deteriorating social conditions. And, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
China's economy, the third largest world economy, is also slowing down fast, with excess manufacturing capacity while its exports are suffering from a 25 percent appreciation of the Chinese renminbi since 2004 and from weak world demand. Moreover, its financial sector is also vulnerable to the fact that China's debt level is now at a lofty 176 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Chinese economy is also going through structural changes as the Chinese government pursues policies to reduce the country's reliance on foreign markets and to shift from an export-oriented model to more domestic sources of growth.
As for the U.S. economy, it is still weak and unable to generate enough new jobs, despite a rebound during the last few months, while the labor force participation rate has declined from 66.5 percent before the 2008-09 recession to 62.7 percent today. The fact that millions of Americans have part-time jobs and would like to have full-time jobs, and that real wages of those who work are stagnant or falling are also indicators that things have not come back to normal.
Since there is no fiscal policy and no industrial policy originating from the U.S. government, the Fed central bank has been obliged to step in with the most aggressive monetary policy in its history. Indeed, the Fed has quadrupled its bank lending to $4.5 trillion since 2008 and it has pursued a policy of risky zero-rate and low-rate policies.
As a consequence, the Fed has created a gigantic financial asset bubble. The unwinding of such monetary prodigiousness won't be an easy task. What's more, the U.S. government will be paralyzed by a political gridlock over the coming two years, a republican-controlled Congress being pitted against a lame-duck Democratic president, thus making it difficult for the U.S. government to respond adequately to a new financial crisis.
Another ominous sign is the collapse of the velocity of money in the U.S., just as during the late 1920s, right before the start of the Great Depression, and it is now at a nearly 20 year low. That both the American political and financial sectors are unhealthy should be worrisome for the coming years.
2. The real danger of a nuclear war with the rekindling of the old Cold War with Russia
Brinkmanship in financial matters is one thing; brinkmanship with nuclear war is another. Sadly, the neocon-inspired U.S. government is today involved in both.
Indeed, for many years now, the U.S. government has been engaged in an aggressive geopolitical warfare against Russia, first in pursuing a policy of geopolitical and military encirclement of Russia by expanding NATO to its borders with the integration of Ukraine, and second, by implementing a policy of economic warfare against Russia in order to undermine its economy and, eventually, to provoke a regime change in that country. It's a game of "dare you?"
Some of the more lunatic Neocons openly call for a new World War III, presumably with Russia a country against which they seem to have personal animosities. These are some of the lunatics President Barack Obama listens to.
Oil as a geopolitical tool
The 50 percent drop of oil price in 2014 may be part of a wider U.S.-led economic warfare plan to destabilize the Russian economy and provoke an Oil Slump, knowing full well that 50 percent of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas. Above all, policy-makers in Washington D.C. want to break the Gazprom-E.U. supply dependency to weaken Russia and keep control over the E.U. via American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Such an artificial drop in oil price appears to be a complement to the already known decisions to saddle Russia with stiff American-led economic and financial sanctions designed by the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, (an outfit created in 2004 after intensive lobbying by AIPAC) and other attempts by the U.S. government to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas.
Since September, Saudi Arabia, a country with excess oil capacity and low-cost production, (and in a position to manipulate the international price for oil), has suddenly and dramatically decided to sell crude oil at deeply discounted prices and to maintain its oil production at high levels in face of a declining world oil demand.
This is a reversal of what Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries did in the fall of 1973 when they suddenly quadrupled the price for oil and provoked a global economic recession.
This is, however, a strategy similar to what Saudi Arabia adopted in 1986 when it flooded the world with cheap Saudi oil, thus collapsing the international price of oil to below $10 a barrel, after an agreement with the U.S. government. The objective then was to undermine the economies of the Soviet Union and its then Iraq ally, even though other economies such as the Canadian economy suffered greatly from such a gambit.
This time, there seems to be a convergence of interests between the U.S. government and the Saudi kingdom. From a U.S. government's point of view, the main objective is to hurt the Russian and Iranian energy sectors and damage the finances of President Vladimir Putin's Russian government, while securing Saudi Arabia's assistance in fighting the Islamist State (IS) in Iraq and in Syria.
From a Saudi point of view, a world oil price war meets its regional and global objectives in three ways. First, it is well known that the Saudi government wants to dominate oil and gas production in the entire Middle East region and is in opposition to Iran and Syria for securing the rich European market. Second, the Saudi government would also like to pressure Russia to end its support for the Syrian al-Assad government. Third, Saudi Arabia also wishes to regain market shares that it lost to more costly oil from shale oil and oil sands. By lowering oil prices, Saudi Arabia hopes to reduce or even put such competing oil production out of business by making their production less profitable.
However, such a move is bound to severely damage oil production from oil shale in North Dakota in the USA and oil-producing states like Texas may fall into recession, even though the overall U.S. economy will benefit from cheaper oil. Oil production from tar sands in Alberta, Canada will also badly suffer and this means a drop in the Canadian dollar, and possibly a Canadian recession. The shale and tar sands oil industries will be the main innocent victims of the overall geopolitical policy pursued by the U.S. government and its Middle East allies.
Indeed, since the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an American client state, it is most unlikely that such a move to flood oil markets and precipitate a stiff drop in oil price was decided without a tacit, if not an overt, approval by the U.S. government. In fact, there is wide speculation that when U.S. secretary of state John Kerry met with King Abdullah in September 2014, they allegedly struck an overall deal to that effect.
Ukraine as a geopolitical pawn
As to the destabilization of Russia's neighboring Ukraine, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has pretty much confirmed that the U.S. government was deeply involved in overthrowing the legitimate elected Ukrainian government last February, with the avowed objective of installing a U.S.puppet government in that country. This makes a mockery of democracy and only demonstrates how deeply the U.S. government is involved abroad in power politics and in aggressive interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.
Neoconservative Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by President Barack Obama, has publicly confirmed that the U.S. government has "invested" $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine and create a conflict between the latter country and Russia. It is hard not to conclude that the Ukrainian crisis is a made-in-Washington crisis. Her famous and insulting remark about Europe ["f*** the E.U."] is another clear indication that the U.S. government wished to provoke a crisis with Russian not to help Europeans but to serve its own narrow imperial objectives, whatever the costs to the Russian people and to Europeans.
What is most disturbing is the irresponsibility with which the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 758, on December 4, 2014, that is tantamount for all practical purposes to a declaration of war against Russia, based on false premises, distorted facts and false accusations. With that kind of irresponsible leadership, the world is presently in very bad hands.
The truth is that if Soviet missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from U.S. territory, were unacceptable to the U.S. government in 1962, American missiles in Ukraine, on the Russian borders, are unacceptable to the Russian government in 2015. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. For whoever knows history, that should not be too difficult to understand.
Conclusion
If world affairs take a turn for the worse in 2015, the world should know where to point the finger at the culprits. Some people think that world events occur by pure chance and there is no planning behind them. They are wrong. Dead wrong. Bad government policies, misdeeds, false flag operations or simple miscalculations are often at the heart of many geopolitical crises, be they financial, economic or military. Sometimes, it just happens that the "crazies in the basement" are in charge.
It is becoming clearer and clearer, even for the uninformed and the misinformed among us, that the resurgence of the Cold War confrontation with Russia has been engineered in Washington D.C. and that Russia has not been the aggressor, (as the official propaganda wants us to believe), but has rather reacted to a whole series of U.S.-led provocations.
Why have there been so many destabilizing interventions by the U.S. government around the world and who profit the most from this man-made instability? This is a good question that ordinary Americans should ask themselves.
Domestically, should the U.S. economy continue to be run by bankers? Internationally, should the U.S. government pursue its policy of deliberately attempting to drive the Russian government into a corner and takes measures to destroy the Russian economy? These are acts of war. Are ordinary Americans in agreement with such policies? Who will profit the most and who will lose the most if there were to be a nuclear war with Russia? Since Europeans would be at the forefront of such a conflict, this is a question that has also to be answered in Europe.
What the world desperately needs now is a law-governed international environment, not a jingoistic and chauvinistic world empire that looks only after its narrow self-interests.
More fundamentally maybe, we should reject the false ideology of clash between nations. It is a grave and dangerous fallacy that can only lead the world to disaster.
George Carlin ~ The American Dream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
The Privatization of War: Private Mercenaries and the "War on Terror" in American Foreign Policy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/distancing-acts-private-mercenaries-and-the-war-on-terror-in-american-foreign-policy/5421943
"I do this job for the opportunity to kill the enemies of my country and also to get that boat I always wanted. . . . [W]hen engaged I will lay waste to everything around me." – Contractor slogan.
"It's the perfect war... everybody is making money." – US intelligence officer in Afghanistan.
His bulging left bicep featuring a tattoo of a Panther and his right one of the Grim Reaper, Wolf Weiss was a heavy metal guitarist from Los Angeles with fifteen years' military experience who embodied the new type of warrior for the 21st century. Styled "the Heavy Metal Mercenary" by Rolling Stone Magazine, Weiss was hired by a private contractor, Crescent Security, to drive truck convoys in Iraq and admitted to killing several Iraqis in four separate firefights. His team, the Wolverines, was known for provocative displays of force, going by the motto: "strike down thine enemies and vanquish all evil by the right hand of god, strength and honor to all who live by the code of the warrior." In November 2004, en route to Baghdad international airport, Weiss's vehicle was ambushed by U.S. soldiers who mistook him for an insurgent. He was shot in the head and killed. He had told Rolling Stone that "war was one of the few things in the world I can do really well.....A lot of people are calling us private armies – and that's basically what we are. This is not a security company. This is a paramilitary force."1
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.12.31, 02:26:30
... Weiss's vehicle was ambushed by U.S. soldiers who mistook him for an insurgent. He was shot in the head and killed.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I do wonder how many U.S. soldiers Weiss mistakingly engaged as insurgents.
The end (of 2014) is growing near. Any chance of an Everyman Standing Order 04?
A timely recounting of the Weimar disaster that aided Hitler's rise to power
The Weimar story is a lesson from history - what can happen when a nation follows the wrong economic doctrine, says Charles Moore.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7921664/A-timely-recounting-of-the-Weimar-disaster-that-aided-Hitlers-rise-to-power.html
This book, first published in 1975, has just been republished as a warning. It was spotted by Warren Buffett and printed on the internet. Now an enterprising publisher has rushed it out. Concerned citizens have sent copies to central bankers to remind them of what was once, and could be again.
In fact, though, its report of the German hyperinflation is so extreme that it has the perverse effect of making the modern reader feel almost cosy. If the cost-of-living index in Germany stood at one in 1914, it was 15 million in September 1923, 3,657 million in October and, on November 12 1923, 218,000 million. In the 10 days to November 13, government expenditure exceeded revenue by 1,000 times. If you found a case full of banknotes, the sensible thing was to steal the case and leave the money.
Farmers withheld food in order to get higher prices for it, or refused to be paid in what was known as "Jew-confetti". Desperate townspeople went marauding through villages. The value of pensions and savings was utterly wiped out. Some people were murdered; others starved. Even Gordon Brown never got close to this achievement. The Western world today has not suffered total defeat in total war, is not facing strong revolutionary movements from Right and Left, and is not paying crippling reparations (though government debt almost amounts to the same thing). Things aren't that bad, we comfort ourselves.
But the Weimar story does contain plenty of relevant lessons. One is the power of the wrong economic doctrine. In Germany at that time, economic experts simply had no idea of the quantity theory of money. Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank, believed that the incredible inflation of the mark had nothing to do with the fact that he was printing ever more notes. In fact, he turned his job into that of a demented printer, churning out notes which, as Adam Fergusson well puts it, were "far too many yet far too few". His disastrous sway is a cautionary tale for those of us who tend to believe that the independence of the central bank from government is invariably a good thing. Some claim that Alan Greenspan was the modern Havenstein, doing everything he could to ignore basic financial truth and keep asset prices rising.
In Weimar Germany, incomprehension trickled down from the top. When something terrible is happening, and people cannot understand why, their natural reaction is panic. Once inflation really got going, people could see that it was useless to keep money, so they went out on insane spending sprees, buying, for example, pianos which they couldn't play. By the same token the other way round, people's irrationality can have a good effect. Havenstein died in November 1923, and his successor, Schacht, presided over a new medium of exchange called the Rentenmark, guaranteed by mortgages on agricultural property and bonds on German industry. Although they could easily have decided otherwise, people chose to believe what they were told, that a trillion marks equalled a gold mark and a gold mark equalled a Rentenmark. The currency stabilised.
This book also shows the incremental power of a bad phenomenon. Once inflation gets going, many acquire an interest in its continuance. The word "crisis" means the moment when a problem comes to a head, but the trouble with inflation is that it is a way of postponing (and therefore ultimately worsening) that crisis. As Lord D'Abernon, the astute British ambassador to Germany at the time, put it, "Inflation is like a drug in more ways than one. It is fatal in the end, but it gets its votaries over many difficult moments." Today, a similar addiction is shown by those, including our recently defeated government, who try to put off tackling the deficit lest tough action produce slump. When the world has gone mad, making things worse can seem like making them better.
Just now, experts are debating whether the greatest risk to the world is deflation or inflation – 1930s depression or Weimar explosion. I am not qualified to judge, although it seems worth pointing out that it could be first one and then the other. But what is fascinating about the history of economic collapse is that it brings one back to the basis of civilisation. Government and civil society itself depend for their existence on an infinitely complicated web of trust. Money is a prime expression of this. If money cannot be trusted, nor can any but the most primitive exchanges between human beings. You cannot plan, build, save, borrow, bequeath. Your values, both material and moral, radically deteriorate. In extreme cases, only your next meal matters.
Adam Fergusson shows that Germany's material collapse was also a moral one. All authority failed. "My dear lady," said a bank official to a woman inquiring anxiously about her War Loan, "where is the state which guaranteed those securities for you? It is dead." Once it died, people tended to hate and fear anyone who might conceivably be doing better than they: "Germany's capital", Fergusson writes, "had been redistributed in the most cruel way, no longer spread reasonably evenly among millions, but largely in coagulated blobs among the new plutocracy".
At such a point, angry citizens identify those coagulated blobs (usually inaccurately and unfairly) and attack them. Political leaders who stir the hatred seem plausible. It is actually possible to build a new state on the basis of such hatred. After reading this, I understood better than before why anti-Semitism was so important to Hitler: it seemed to explain things.
Charles Moore.
The Destruction Of The Middle Class Is Nearing The Final Stages
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-23/destruction-middle-class-nearing-final-stages
The events of the past few months seem astounding when taken in all at once. The plan to destroy the U.S. dollar and the American middle class is moving at an ever increasing speed.
At the recent G20 meeting the nations agreed that bank deposits would no longer be considered money. These bank deposits become the property of the banking institution and as such can be used any way the bank wants. This means that any money you deposit in a bank now is no longer yours but makes you an investor in the bank and subject to lose that money if a banking crisis takes down the bank.
The spending bill just passed by congress makes the American taxpayer responsible for any derivatives loses that banks may suffer. These derivative holders now have first priority when any funds are paid out and depositors are relegated to last place. FDIC insurance will have to pay out these funds but it has no where near enough money to pay the more than 300 trillion in losses that will be suffered in a banking crisis. That means any depositor has little hope of getting anything back. In order for depositors to get anything back massive money printing would have to take place making any payout amount to only pennies on the dollar.
And if you don't think there is any danger of a banking crisis in America you may want to keep in mind that the Treasury Dept. has recently ordered $200k worth of 72 hr emergency kits for dispersion to every major bank in America. These are known by many as bug-out-bags and are used to support individuals when disaster strikes and they have to care for themselves for the first few days of crisis.
New legislation now gives pension plans the ability to cut benefits to pensioners in the future making the future welfare of these people uncertain. They say it is necessary to prevent these funds from going bankrupt. It will "apply to multi-employer pensions, where a group of businesses in the same industry join forces with unions to provide pension coverage for employees. The plans cover some 10 million U.S. workers," You may be happy to know this will not affect congressional pensions, as long as they are funded by the taxpayers.
The sanctions being placed on Russia are beginning to destabilize the world in many ways. The sudden drop in oil prices will send ripples through many foreign nations and cause an already tense situation to become highly flammable. It seems this is what is wanted to provoke a new world war and hide the complicity of bankers and politicians in the coming destruction of the economy.
For the past few years those elite with knowledge of the coming monetary destruction have been putting their fiat dollars into any hard assets they can find. The recent record prices paid at auction for collectables is just one more indication that those in the know are moving into hard assets as fast as they can to preserve their wealth.
This diversification includes precious metals and land as well. I believe when there are no more metals or suitable properties available for purchase, these entities in control of this game will pull the plug and let everything collapse. Those holding fiat paper, electrons or other paper promises will be devastated as those assets evaporate into thin air.
You may feel some security knowing you have a good job but among the deposits that disappear will be billions in commercial accounts that belong to businesses. When these businesses lose this money, many will likely close destroying many jobs in the process. This will send ripples through the transportation, production and distribution system when it happens. In an economy made up of 70% consumer spending, this will be fast and devastating to those with few resources to fall back on when it happens.
There are three lessons that many people will learn in the coming months. If you do not have it already you may not be able to get it. If you do not have it physically in your hands you do not own it. If you cannot protect it you will not have it for long.
Capitalism in crisis, a warning from history: Eighty years ago, a banking collapse devastated Europe, triggering war. Today, faith in the free markets is faltering again
Dominic Sandbrook, 6 August 2011
Exactly 80 years ago, international capitalism stood on the verge of meltdown.
The collapse of the banking system in the summer of 1931 sent shockwaves through Europe, bringing governments to their knees and thousands out onto the streets.
In the United States, an increasingly careworn president and his congressional critics fought a bitter battle over government spending and tax rises.
And in Britain, with the Labour government broken by the economic crisis, a Conservative-dominated coalition imposed the deepest spending cuts in a generation, slashing benefits in an attempt to restore confidence in the nation's finances.
With the banks refusing to lend, and millions of people thrown out of work, capitalism itself seemed utterly discredited.
In other countries, many turned to the far Right, swelling the ranks of the Nazis and their allies.
In Britain, a generation of intellectuals turned their backs on capitalism, placing their faith in the utopian idealism of Soviet Communism and closing their eyes to the horrors of Stalin's barbaric regime.
For decades afterwards this extraordinary historical moment — when capitalism itself appeared to have failed — was forgotten, and looked like the stuff of ancient history.
But in the summer of 2011, with the eurozone in chaos, the British economy stagnant and the U.S. crippled by debt, with social mobility at a standstill and millions of ordinary families squeezed until they can barely breathe, it feels disturbingly familiar.
In the past two days alone, stock markets have been in free-fall across the capitalist world. With investors manifestly losing confidence in Spain and Italy, two of Europe's biggest economies, a second devastating world recession cannot be ruled out.
Although the share-price plunge does not yet come close to the infamous Wall Street Crash of 1929, this week's market mayhem is a chilling reminder of the sheer fragility of the capitalist system.
If the worst happens, if Spain and Italy go down and the euro crumbles, then the world economy really will be in trouble.
Only 20 years ago, the capitalist West was congratulating itself on victory in the Cold War. The Berlin Wall had come down, the Soviet Empire had broken up, and American intellectuals were even proclaiming the 'end of history'.
Marxism was dead and capitalism triumphant, or so we were told. Having lifted millions in the West out of poverty, having showered them with goods and opportunities, the free-market system could do no wrong.
Today, the picture is very different. For although the Left has never recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union, capitalism has rarely seemed in a more desperate condition.
And with bankers still pocketing gigantic bonuses and Europe swept by a wave of austerity, even the Right are beginning to wonder whether the system is intolerably loaded in favour of rich metropolitan elites.
Only last week, for example, the Tory MP Douglas Carswell suggested that 'the free market all too often turns out not to be a free market at all, but a corporatist racket for the few'.
Modern Conservatives, he said, should be 'as suspicious of Big Business and Corporatism as we have been of Big Government'.
On the surface, this may sound shocking. Yet when you dig a little deeper, it is not hard to see why so many people have lost faith in the free market.
The entire premise of the capitalist system, after all, is that in a free market, hard work will produce its own reward. For capitalists, the important thing is equality of opportunity. If you put in the effort, then you can be whatever you want to be, regardless of your background.
So when Margaret Thatcher, one of capitalism's most passionate champions, ran for the Tory leadership in 1975, she defined her values as 'the encouragement of variety and individual choice, the provision of fair incentives and rewards for skill and hard work, and a belief in the wide distribution of individual private property'.
And when she walked into Downing Street four years later, she promised to ensure that 'hard work pays'.
But you do not have to be a card-carrying Left-winger to see why millions of people — not just in Britain but across the world — feel completely cheated.
When most of us contemplate the results of the bankers' greed, for example, talk of 'fair incentives and rewards' seems a sick joke.
In every corner of Europe, ordinary families, through absolutely no fault of their own, are paying an intolerable price for the outrageous avarice of the financial elite.
Recent figures show that City bonuses came to a staggering £14 billion last year, with one executive, Barclays boss Bob Diamond, pocketing an incredible £6.5 million — and that's on top of his £8 million-plus annual pay package.
Yet at the same time, banks are refusing to lend to ordinary families and small businesses.
Indeed, last month the banks actually took in as deposits £3 billion more than they lent, which goes a long way to explaining why growth is virtually non-existent.
'No wonder economic growth is barely visible to the naked eye,' remarked the Coalition's former Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, 'when the banks keep sucking billions out of the economy.'
These are, incidentally, the same banks, such as RBS and HBOS, that British taxpayers had to save from the consequences of their own reckless gluttony.
Three years ago, the Government spent £500 billion to bail out the collapsing banking system. And now, while the bankers toast themselves with vintage champagne, the rest of us are picking up the bills.
But the bankers' greed is only one symptom of a wider malaise. The stark truth is that millions of ordinary families feel the system gives them no chance of success.
The facts are simply unanswerable. A child born in 1971 has less chance of moving up the social ladder than one born in 1951.
On top of that, the gap between rich and poor has grown steadily since the 1970s, with some of the biggest increases coming during the 13-year New Labour regime.
Half a century ago, during the Fifties and Sixties, grammar schools, job opportunities in manufacturing and the death of deference meant that working-class children felt they had a decent chance of getting on.
And in their different ways, state-school educated prime ministers such as Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and John Major gave the impression that anybody could make it, regardless of their background.
Even in 1931, during the last great crisis of capitalism, Britain was run by a prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who was the illegitimate son of a Scottish labourer and a poor housemaid. At a time when it would have been easy to imagine that power belonged exclusively to the rich, MacDonald was a shining example of social mobility.
Nobody could possibly look at our leaders and draw the same conclusion today.
From Cameron, Clegg and Osborne — respectively the son of a millionaire stockbroker, a banker and the heir to a baronetcy — to Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, one the son of a North London intellectual, the other the privately educated son of a professor, British politics has become the plaything of a tiny self-regarding elite, totally out of touch with ordinary families.
Looking at our political class, you begin to suspect that modern capitalism is loaded in favour of those who already enjoy wealth and power. It has become a closed system, impossible to penetrate unless you are incredibly lucky.
Other facts tell a similar story.
As the Tory minister David Willetts showed in a provocative book last year, Britain's youngsters are being cut adrift. Thanks partly to ferocious competition from Eastern European immigrants, workers in their 20s today earn far less than their parents did at the same age.
And with house prices having soared and banks refusing to lend, they find it impossible to get onto the property ladder.
As a result, the old Conservative dream of a 'property-owning democracy' is increasingly reserved for the silver-haired.
Most experts recognise that home-ownership is one of the keys to a stable, prosperous, hard-working society — yet since 1997, home ownership among people in their 20s has steadily fallen.
Of course there was a time when education offered a leg-up: but those days are becoming a fading memory. Thanks to the unforgivable abolition of the grammar schools, the gap between private and state education has become a chasm.
In a country that claims to value competition, it is nothing less than a disgrace that just four expensive private schools — Eton, Westminster, St Paul's, St Paul's Girls — send as many students to Oxford and Cambridge as 2,000 state schools put together.
Meanwhile, the Government's education reforms mean that working-class children face the prospect of paying back £9,000 a year in tuition fees if they choose to go to university.
And this, of course, comes at a time when fat-cat vice chancellors, already rewarded with grace-and-favour residences and boundless expense accounts, are being paid an average of more than £220,000 each.
On holiday in Tuscany — something well beyond most British families — perhaps David Cameron should spend an afternoon with his great predecessor Benjamin Disraeli's book, Sybil.
In this work, first published in 1845, the greatest Tory statesman of the Victorian era warned that Britain had become 'two nations ... who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor'.
Disraeli was no socialist. But as an outsider himself, born into a Jewish family, he recognised that capitalism could only take root in ordinary people's hearts and minds if it gave them a stake of their own.
At bottom, capitalism is as much a moral enterprise as it is an economic one. If those lucky enough to become successful ignore the virtues of thrift, self-discipline and sobriety, as well as the moral imperative to look after the weak, then capitalism degenerates into cronyism and self-interest.
At its best, the free market is a tremendous liberating force. During the Fifties and Sixties, it gave millions of people opportunities their parents could barely have imagined: happy childhoods, good schools, well-paid jobs and contented retirements.
But when capitalism fails, as in the 1930s, then it allows extremism to thrive.
During that unhappy decade, some were bewitched by the false promise of Stalinist Russia; others flocked to the blood-drenched banners of the Far Right.
Eighty years on, capitalism has once again lost its way. With millions betrayed by their under-performing schools, locked out of the job market, forgotten by the banks and abandoned by their politicians, Britain is in danger of becoming two nations again.
Modern capitalism is not beyond redemption. But it badly needs to rediscover its moral dimension, lost amid the scramble to protect the privileges of a narrow metropolitan elite.
It is time that our politicians cracked down on non-domiciled billionaires, and time they made sure the rich elite paid their fair share of our national tax bill.
And if David Cameron really wants to rekindle the British people's faith in the capitalist system, then he should go further. He should force the banks to lend more money to individuals and small businesses, getting our economy moving again.
He should restore a culture of competition and excellence to our state schools, giving working-class children a genuine sense that they can climb the ladder. And he should make it a priority to encourage real jobs in real businesses, reinvigorating a manufacturing sector that has been abandoned for far too long.
The stakes could not be higher. Unless capitalism opens its arms to the common man, then an entire generation will conclude that it is no more than a fig leaf for the super-rich.
That would be a tragedy. For despite all capitalism's weakness — despite the flaws, inequalities and hypocrisies that are an inevitable part of any human endeavour — it remains the only way to promote real and lasting opportunity.
Other systems have been tried, and they have collapsed in bloodstained ruins. Only capitalism — the free exchange of goods, skills, services and ideas — has proved itself true to the instincts of human nature.
Today, we can only hope that capitalism's champions learn the lessons of history.
For if they fail, then the results could be too dreadful to contemplate.
The Annihilation Of The Middle Class: The Beginning Of The End For Modern America
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-30/annihilation-middle-class-beginning-end-modern-america
Wealth inequality isn't just a political issue - it's a survival issue. When a society hits a certain level of economic disparity, it is set on a path towards destruction. It happened to the Roman Empire, and it will happen to the United States.
If you look at the events leading up to the downfall of the Roman Empire, you would have a hard time not noticing the similarities to the United States. Members of the wealthy classes in ancient Rome fled to the countryside to set up independent fiefdoms for tax evasion purposes. Just before the Facebook IPO in 2012, Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook, renounced his American citizenship and headed to Singapore. This was part of a not so elaborate scheme to avoid capital gains taxes on the sale of Facebook stock. And he's not the only one. In 2004, 158 people renounced their citizenship every 3 months. In 2014, 789 people were leaving every 3 months.
Comment:
McCormick No. 9
What is this socialist claptrap? We have the worst of both worlds- no regulations for the wealthy, instead for them, licenses to steal, and onerous, profit-stealing regulations for the little guy.
Just leave me the fuck aone, and I'll figure out how to make a living. But we are bothered and annoyed for a reason- to steal from us; by the banks, by government, by the insurance companies, by big business...
If this realy was a free country, and the game wasn't completely rigged, I would have a fighting chance. I'm smart enough, capable enough, creative enough... but the PTB have ensured that none of that matters.
If this really was a free country, I wouldn't begrudge the rich what they have. No, you know what? I DON'T begrudge the rich. Good on 'em, that they have billions in stolen treasure. I don;t want what they have, i just want what I've GOT, and I resent people trying to steal it from me. As long as I am a free man, I bow to no-one. But when you come around trying to steal what I have made, and I cannot do anything about it, I just might go all William Wallace.
Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Start fucking with me, and you might not like the consequenses.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.12.31, 05:58:16
The end (of 2014) is growing near. Any chance of an Everyman Standing Order 04?
If I am forced by circumstance to issue ESO 04 everything you hold dear will already be lost, and a future few of us crave will be the reality.
Work tirelessly to prevent that eventuality from occurring, is my advice.
2015 Will See Decisive Battles
The Empire is Crumbling, That is Why it Needs War
by ANDRE VLTCHEK
Last night, in Beijing, I sat in a historic Szechuan restaurant with a friend who happens to be a Chinese diplomat. We exchanged some stories, ordered food, and then, suddenly, my throat felt dry and my eyes got misty.
I bowed and thanked her for the heartfelt offer China made to rescue Russia.
Just before leaving my hotel, I read the news on the RT:
"China's foreign minister has pledged support to Russia as it faces an economic downturn due to sanctions and a drop in oil prices. Boosting trade in Yuan is a solution proposed by Beijing's commerce minister.
'Russia has the capability and the wisdom to overcome the existing hardship in the economic situation,' Foreign Minister Wang Yi told journalists. China Daily reported Monday: 'If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity.'"
By no means was I representing the Russian Federation here, in Beijing, nor was my friend representing China that night, at the dining table. It was an informal meeting attended by just a few friends, nothing more.
Not to mention that I am not really, 'technically' a Russian. Yes, I was born in Leningrad but almost my entire life I spent elsewhere... all over the world, to be precise. And in my veins, not that it really matters; it is also all confused... there circulates an explosive mixture of Russian, Chinese and European blood.
But lately, to be Russian, to me and to many others, is much more than just about blood. 'I am a rebel; therefore I am Russian', to paraphrase Albert Camus. Or: 'I am Russian because I refuse to abandon the struggle.'
'Ya Russkii!' or 'Cubano soy!' It simply feels good, and makes one proud, and stronger.
***
The world is in turmoil. Like in the early 1940's, something tremendous is gaining shape, something irreversible.
Almost all of us who have been analyzing the Empire fighting against the propaganda and nihilism it spreads, and its venomous tentacles extending to every corner of the globe, know that 'appeasing' Western imperialism is clearly impossible, as it is impractical, and even immoral.
Just as George W. Bush (clearly borrowing from fundamentalist Christian rhetoric), liked to say: "You are either with us or against us". Countries are now evidently put on the spot: 'they either accept the Western neo-colonialist doctrine', or they get destroyed, one after another, as were Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
No logic can help, no negotiations, no international mediation from the United Nations. The willingness to compromise is mocked. Appeals for simple human compassion do not move the rulers of the Empire even an inch.
It is clear that the Empire is preparing for the final assault. It will not back down. It will attack, destroy and annihilate. No idea when, but it will. And it will happen sooner rather than later, and with tremendous force.
Some would ask, why now? Why is there suddenly such a rush to fight the final battle for the total control over the planet?
The answer is very clear: for the first time disgust with the Empire is widespread, and worldwide. Many people are getting cured from blindness.
The mask of benevolence and rationality has been torn off by powerful media outlets based in the countries of Latin America, in Russia, China, Iran, but also in North America where the independent media is playing an increasingly important role. It is not even a matter of some elaborate 'objectivity', anymore. To get things right, it is enough to call fascism by its real name, as it is sufficient to identify mass murder perpetrated by the Empire on all continents!
The mask has fallen and what is now exposed is horrifying: the face of a monster, with blood and pus, a greedy grin and merciless fangs. It is a monster that is still in love with itself, unable to see its dreadfulness. It remains proud of its fundamental religious dogma, which it often doesn't even see as 'religious'. It dwells on self-righteousness, and at the same time, on its twisted market-fundamentalist faith that everything and everybody are for sale. It is a monster full of complexes – both those of superiority and inferiority.
It is not a happy monster and the people it produces are mostly miserable, lonely and scared. But it cannot change, it cannot back-up, it cannot let go. It would rather destroy its children and the world, than to admit that it went totally wrong, for years, decades and centuries.
Now many people have had enough, and some have even forgotten how to be scared! And the monster knows it, and it is actually scared itself, of those who are not scared of it.
The voices of the voiceless are now resonating louder and louder – we make sure that they are!
Except in the countries where the intellectuals and 'elites' have totally sold out, like in Indonesia or Malaysia, the horrendous deeds of the colonialism and neo-colonialism of Europe and North America, are finally being discussed, analyzed, and understood.
And the monster, the Empire, knows that it is the beginning of the end.
It cannot live as an equal. Therefore, it will fight its final battle. It will try to win. Or, it will try to destroy the world. Because life is not worth living for it, if it is not in full control; if its God is not in control, if it is not perceived as the enforcer of the divine manifesto.
***
When I visit a barbershop in Beirut or Amman, and am asked 'where are you from?' (It used to be a painfully confusing and complex question to answer, just a few years ago), I now simply reply: "Russia," and people come and hug me and say, "Thank you."
It is not because Russia is perfect. It is not perfect – as no country on Earth could or should be. But it is because it is standing once more against the Empire, and the Empire has brought so many horrors, so much humiliation, to so many people; to billions of people around the world... and to them, to so many of them, anyone who is standing against the Empire, is a hero. This I heard recently, first hand, from people in Eritrea, China, Russia, Palestine, Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, and South Africa, to name just a few places.
And that is why the Empire is now 'in such a hurry', unwilling to wait any longer, trying to provoke Russia, to bring it, metaphorically speaking, into yet another open epic battle, like the one that was fought in ancient times, on the thick ice, by Alexander Nevski.
The Empire is in too much of a rush, it is too scared to think, to understand, to remember, what every invader had to learned the hard way: Russia can be attacked and Russian people can be murdered by millions. There can be devastation and fire; there can be ruins, tears and graves, graves, graves... Mothers burying their sons, and sons returning back home, to only encounter ashes. But Russia cannot be defeated. When the survival of the world is at stake, Russia stands up, enormous, powerful and frightening. And it fights as no other nation can; it fights for humanity, not only for itself. And it wins.
When such a moment comes, there is only one possible way how to defeat Russia: it is to destroy the entire world.
Are you ready for that, Mr. Obama? Are you ready for it, corporate America and Europe? Are you ready for it, Pentecostal Christians, Televangelists and other morally defunct beings?
Think twice. One more step, and you will find yourself facing two enormous nations, and dozens of smaller ones, ready to fight for the survival of a mankind.
Your only strength is in your weapons of mass destruction, and therefore in spreading fear. And most of your arguments have no foundations in truth, only in deception and lies.
This year, I witnessed your deeds in Iraq, in Eritrea, China, Ukraine, all over Africa and the Middle East.
This year, somehow, it appears that you went too far, that the proverbial drop has had fallen on Earth.
Stop! And stop torturing this Earth. Do not provoke, do not trigger yet another world war!
Stop, or there will be a fight. And you will lose, or we will all lose, but you will lose no matter what, because this time, Russia and China, Venezuela and Cuba, and others and many others, will not back down, anymore, while others will join.
***
Despite all of its terror, propaganda and brainwashing called 'education', the Empire is well aware that it is losing its grip on global power. And it is horrified, because it does not know how else to live, except with a whip in its hand. Planet Earth realizes that the ruler is sinister, ruthless and degenerate – some people realize it clearly using logic, others just sense it, intuitively. If there was really a global democracy, the people of our planet would throw the existing power structure straight to the dogs. But there isn't, there still isn't! Just look at the toothless, constantly humiliated United Nations. Almost everywhere, voting has become nothing more than an act of sticking a piece of paper into a box, and not much more.
***
The year 2015 is approaching. During that year, it will become clear who is fighting for the survival of our human race, and who is on the side of oppression, of imperialism, and of the Empire.
Next year, more and more countries will get destabilized or attacked. Perhaps millions of people will get killed, as they get killed every year, but most likely, this time, many more will. The 'opposition movements' manufactured by the West, as well as various Christian groups and other right-wing religious factions, will continue standing firmly on the side of imperialist oppression and market fundamentalism. Conservative petite bourgeoisie in the West and in almost all 'client states' will be battling to uphold their privileges. Fascist family structures will continue intimidating children and young people, preventing them from thinking, from rebelling and from living.
The Empire has many allies, all over the world, but most of them are of an extremely sinister nature. But their closest allies are always ignorance, servility and fear.
While our revolutions, the true ones, as well as the resistance and battles for a better world, are always based on knowledge, and in summary are nothing else other than an act of love.
***
The fight ahead of us will be extremely tough; it will be an epic struggle, involving great nation states, as well as groups and movements.
As the grungy Russian bear is being battered and provoked into a military conflict, great Chinese dragons are determined to form a protective circle, and this time, are declaring indirectly but clearly that they will come to the rescue of weaker nations attacked by the West. As even The New York Times reported:
"Mr. Xi did not mention the United States by name but took an unmistakable jab at Washington, saying, 'The growing trend toward a multi-polar world will not change', a reference to the Chinese view that America's post-Cold War role as the sole superpower is drawing to a close."
The goal is to never allow Western imperialism and colonialism to take control over the planet again, as it mercilessly did at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th, at the cost of tens of millions of human lives.
After the centuries of plunder, rape and occupations, the West has no mandate to govern the world.
After constantly justifying and glorifying its terrible deeds, brainwashing our planet into believing that it actually brings progress and rationality to the savages (the rest of the planet), it cannot be trusted with 'informing' and 'educating' the people.
That is why we now have independent media, as well as powerful state-controlled media outlets based in the countries that are not willing to succumb to European and North American propaganda and indoctrination.
This media and education institutions should and will redraw the entire historical and contemporary narrative.
Some examples?
Instead of glorifying the wisdom of Founding Fathers of the United States, we should recall that North America was created on the unimaginable suffering of the indigenous people, on Christian bigotry and forced conversions, on genocide, and on theft of the land. And that it was not done by some new and extraterrestrial breed or race called 'Americans', but by the same European puritans and religious hordes that had already murdered for centuries, all over Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
'New America', both North and South, was predictably created on fear, violence and on theft.
We should recall the slaves who were brought in shackles from Africa. Most of them died when traversing the Ocean, women raped and humiliated, children raped and marked forever, men with their dignity taken away from them.
Women and young girls were then chained in the fields, becoming sexual toys for those 'puritan' white farmers. Men and children, at least those who survived, were made to work days and nights, until falling dead from exhaustion.
All this done under the shadow of the cross, progress, and 'democracy'!
This is how America was built. This is the true story, the true narrative, of those 'great beginnings of the land of free'!
And those theatres of Europe, cathedrals and churches, palaces and parks – all created from loot and genocides, colonialism and the Crusades, 'military adventures'.
This is how the regime, how the Western establishment always functioned. Rape is love. Indoctrination is education and information. Fear is belief. Slavery is freedom!
Do we want this kind of world for several more decades, even centuries?
I am not asking Parisians, Londoners or New Yorkers. I am not asking corrupt businessmen in Jakarta or deranged preachers in Kinshasa, top military brass in Kigali or the murderous feudal lords in Guatemala.
No humanist, no compassionate human being wants this sort of shit!
And for the first time, people are not afraid to say it, or at least to hear it, or read it!
I am not afraid to write this. Are you scared to read it? I don't think so.
***
The 'peace', we were told about again and again, is something that has to be achieved and upheld by all means.
But what kind of peace are we aiming at, and peace for whom?
The Empire want a 'peace' arrangement, in which countries like Cuba and Russia, Venezuela and China, just back down, give up, and surrender. That is not peace!
We are asked, ordered, to live peacefully in a world ruled by European and North American masters, as some slaves crawling in filth.
Are we expected to succumb to the one and only religious dogma on which this entire racist, imperialist and capitalist system is built?
What a prospect, what a peace!
To them, to the imperialist West, peace means only one thing: unopposed rule over the planet.
If one fights for his people, he is a terrorist, a bandit. Then, it is a war!
The Nazis called resistance fighters in Ukraine or France, 'terrorists'.
The Israeli military calls Palestinian resistance by the same name.
The West calls any legitimate rebellion, 'terrorist'. Even MRTA in Peru was a 'terrorist group'; MIR resistance against Pinochet was 'terrorist'. The mainly social movement in Lebanon – Hezbollah – is defined as 'terrorist', and so is the entire proud Eritrean state.
Shia Muslims are 'terrorists', because the West is supporting Sunni monsters in the Gulf.
Che Guevara was a terrorist, and so were Fidel and sub-commandant Marcos. So was Lumumba.
To the West, to its lackey regimes and NGO's, true peace will come only if all natural resources were offered to the multi-national companies. All left-wing, Communist and socialist movements would be butchered, if Russia were to return to that humiliated and shapeless shit it was converted into, for a short time, under the sneaky and brutal alcoholic Boris Yeltsin, if China turned back to the Deng Xiaoping days of only providing cheap products, labor and almost no global fight against imperialism! If Venezuela was to supply crude and fuck its own people, as it used to, before the heroic revolution of Hugo Chavez, if Cuba sold its women and booze and cigars for a pittance, before its most dignified revolution took place!
'Peace' would be, if billions of miserably poor people were quietly and un-confrontationally dying in their slums, while the capitalists, preachers and landowners several neighborhoods further were enjoying their private clinics and private schools!
But such peace will never again be accepted!
To fight for a better world, and for the oppressed, is like writing a poem.
War is when you plunder and rape, when you murder in order to oppress, and to control others!
Peace can only be based on justice, on social justice especially; otherwise it is not peace.
***
Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics fought for its survival on many occasions. Germans attacked it, then after the Revolution in 1917, the West Europeans and North Americans attacked, and then the Germans again. Tens of millions vanished defending the Motherland. Not one apology ever came from Washington or London!
China was forced open, humiliated, ransacked, including its capital city Beijing. Those who did it, the Brits and French, are now lecturing China about 'human rights' and 'freedom'. It is truly grotesque!
Look at the other nations that are now standing up against Western imperialism!
Iran, colonized, destroyed when it took a socialist path, and then infected by a Suharto-style maniac, the Shah, later attacked by Iraq, after the West had armed Baghdad.
Latin America – was ruined by colonial and neo-colonial expeditions, for centuries, reduced to nothing by the 'Monroe Doctrine', with death squads trained in the US; trained how to kidnap and torture, and how to rape children in front of their parents.
Should we go on? Korea: tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive by US troops in tunnels. It was one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind, aptly described by the most brilliant investigative journalist of the 20th century – Wilfred Burchett.
Indochina – 7 million were killed, bombed to death, or burned alive. Will we ever know how many? Vietnam is now an ally!
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Eritrea...
Yes, this is our alliance. Some 2 billion people who are living in the countries that were terrorized, brutalized, reduced to ashes, but that stood again and decided to fight, rather to live like slaves.
These are all imperfect countries, but countries peaceful to the core, countries that exist mainly in order to improve the lives of their men, women and children... and those all over the world.
And look at the other nations that are resisting Western attacks – Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea – ostracized, surviving countless terrorist attacks, subversions, propaganda, and destabilizing campaigns. And then, when they mobilize, ready to protect themselves, they are designated, and defined as 'hermit states' or 'beastly dictatorships'!
Who forced them into a corner?
It is all twisted. Never again! Enough!
***
Do you hear that silence, after the US decided to 'normalize' its relationship with Cuba? We all know why there is such a terrible silence, don't we? Because we realize that, based on the centuries of US involvement in Latin America, this will be part of a new destructive tactic, a new attack: that Cuba may now actually be facing the greatest danger in decades! We don't know exactly what will happen, but we are somehow certain, that something very terrible will.
Is the West going to manufacture a 'Cigar Opposition Movement' in Cuba? Or is it going to be yet another color?
2015 will see many battles.
But the most important first step has just been made.
China made a great symbolic gesture: calmly, respectfully, but decisively. The message is clear: "You shall not be allowed to destroy others!" Not anymore.
The Empire is decomposing; it is sick, unsustainable.
But it is also toxic, and its illness is contagious. Its propaganda is mighty and its dogmas are violent.
Let us make sure that it goes away, crumbles, step by step, without destroying the world, without dragging it into WWIII.
Let us unite, individuals and nations, movements and parties. At least until the most dangerous period passes.
A Day in the Life of the Civil War
http://lifeofthecivilwar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/asleep-on-duty.html
Asleep On Duty
Union soldier William Scott died April 17th 1862, he was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln for falling asleep on duty, and became known as the "Sleeping Sentinel".
William Scott was born about 1840 in Groton, Vermont.
Scott joined the 3rd Vermont in St Johnsbury, Vermont. While stationed at Chain Bridge near Washington, DC, he was found on August 31st 1861 asleep while on duty. Scott was court martialed and sentenced to be executed. There were appeals made to his superiors to stay the execution which was scheduled to take place on September 9th 1861. Scott was already placed in front of a firing squad and his death sentence read, when a pardon arrived from President Abraham Lincoln.
Scott was sent back to his unit in the 3rd Vermont. His was wounded during the Battle of Lee's Mills. He died from his wounds April 17th 1862 and is buried in the National Cemetery at Yorktown, Virginia.
The pardon reads, "Private William Scott, of Company K. of the Third regiment of Vermont volunteers, having been found guilty by court martial of sleeping on his post while a sentinel on picket guard, has been sentenced to be shot, and the sentence has been approved and ordered to be executed. The commanding officers of the brigade, the regiment and the company, of the command, together with many other privates and officers of his regiment, have earnestly appealed to the Major-General commanding, to spare the life of the offender, and the President of the United States has expressed a wish that as this is the first condemnation to death in this army for this crime, mercy may be extended to the criminal. This fact, viewed in connection with the inexperience of the condemned as a soldier, his previous good conduct and general good character, and the urgent entreaties made in his behalf, have determined the Major-General commanding to grant the pardon so earnestly prayed for. This act of clemency must not be understood as affording a precedent for any future case. The duty of a sentinel is of such a nature, that its neglect by sleeping upon or deserting his post may endanger the safety of a command, or even of the whole army, and all nations affix to the offence the penalty of death. Private William Scott of Co. K. of the Third regiment of Vermont volunteers will be released from confinement and returned to duty."
Jim Willie: Shanghai Shock to Shatter the Gold Market!
http://www.silverdoctors.com/tag/golden-jackass/
The pattern of central bank covering the debt is clear. The lesson is that central banks can apply paper patches to the failed banks, and buy more time, then repeat the process on the next failed bank event. No limit to their bank patches seems to be in force. The banker cabal can continue endlessly since their patches are based on paper solutions, fiat paper money spew, and they control the paper output. They are the masters of the House of Paper.
The paper mache solutions can continue in a seemingly endless manner, but not in the Gold market. The intervention and suppression in the Gold market is finite. It requires Gold bullion, the physical ingot bars, in order to execute the perpetuated interference and alteration to this financial niche market. The manipulation is finite, and it is coming to an end. When the Shanghai shock comes, ALL THE PAPER GOLD STRUCTURES WILL FALL, all the FOREX derivatives will collapse, & all the control rooms will go into panic mode.
Derivative (finance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29
In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity. This underlying entity can be an asset, index, or interest rate, and is often called the "underlying".[1][2] Derivatives can be used for a number of purposes - including insuring against price movements (hedging), increasing exposure to price movements for speculation or getting access to otherwise hard to trade assets or markets.[3]
Some of the more common derivatives include forwards, futures, options, swaps, and variations of these such as collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and mortgage backed securities. Most derivatives are traded over-the-counter (off-exchange) or on an exchange such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, while most insurance contracts have developed into a separate industry. Derivatives are one of the three main categories of financial instruments, the other two being equities (i.e. stocks or shares) and debt (i.e. bonds and mortgages).
Buffett warns on investment 'time bomb'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2817995.stm
The rapidly growing trade in derivatives poses a "mega-catastrophic risk" for the economy and most shares are still "too expensive", legendary investor Warren Buffett has warned.
The world's second-richest man made the comments in his famous and plain-spoken "annual letter to shareholders", excerpts of which have been published by Fortune magazine.
The derivatives market has exploded in recent years, with investment banks selling billions of dollars worth of these investments to clients as a way to off-load or manage market risk.
But Mr Buffett argues that such highly complex financial instruments are time bombs and "financial weapons of mass destruction" that could harm not only their buyers and sellers, but the whole economic system.
Contracts devised by 'madmen'
Derivatives are financial instruments that allow investors to speculate on the future price of, for example, commodities or shares - without buying the underlying investment.
Derivatives generate reported earnings that are often wildly overstated and based on estimates whose inaccuracy may not be exposed for many years
Warren Buffett
Derivates like futures, options and swaps were developed to allow investors hedge risks in financial markets - in effect buy insurance against market movements -, but have quickly become a means of investment in their own right.
Outstanding derivatives contracts - excluding those traded on exchanges such as the International Petroleum Exchange - are worth close to $85 trillion, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.
Some derivatives contracts, Mr Buffett says, appear to have been devised by "madmen".
He warns that derivatives can push companies onto a "spiral that can lead to a corporate meltdown", like the demise of the notorious hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998.
Derivatives are like 'hell'
Large amounts of risk have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers ... which can trigger serious systemic problems
Derivatives also pose a dangerous incentive for false accounting, Mr Buffett says.
The profits and losses from derivates deals are booked straight away, even though no actual money changes hand. In many cases the real costs hit companies only many years later.
This can result in nasty accounting errors. Some of them spring from "honest" optimism. But others are the result of "huge-scale fraud", and Mr Buffett points to the US energy market, which relied for most of its deals on derivatives trading and resulted in the collapse of Enron.
Berkshire Hathaway, the investment group led by Mr Buffett, is pulling out of the market, closing down the derivatives trading subsidiary it bought as part of a huge reinsurance company a few years ago.
In his letter Mr Buffett compares the derivatives business to "hell... easy to enter and almost impossible to exit", and predicts that it will take years to unwind the complex deals struck by its subsidiary General Re Securities.
Warren Buffett, dubbed "the sage of Omaha", from where he controls Berkshire Hathaway, is well-known for both his blunt assessments of the markets and the high returns he delivers to shareholders.
This year, he remains cool towards further share investments, despite the sharp correction in stock market values. Mr Buffett says this "dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of valuations reached during The Great Bubble".
Berkshire backyard barbecues
A good friend of Bill Gates, he famously refused to invest in technology shares during the boom years that came to a sudden end in March 2000. As a result, Berkshire was sitting pretty after the technology bubble burst.
In marked contrast to the hubris of former managers at fallen firms like Enron and WorldCom, Mr Buffett is known for his down-to-earth style, summoning shareholders not to glitzy hotels but "Berkshire backyard barbecues" and baseball games in out-of-the-way Omaha, Nebraska.
But his strategy of identifying undervalued companies with good management in unfashionable retail sectors or the insurance industry and investing in them for the long-term has produced spectacular returns.
During the past 37 years, the company has delivered an average annual return of 22.6%. Since 1965 the company's book value has gone up by 194,936%.
However in 2001, the last year for which detailed numbers are available, heavy losses in the insurance industry worldwide resulted in a $3.77bn loss at Berkshire Hathaway - the first loss in the firm's history under Warren Buffett.
The Confiscation of Bank Deposits and The Derivative Debt: Ellen Brown
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/the-confiscation-of-bank-deposits-and-the-derivative-debt-ellen-brown/
Last month's G20 Summit in Australia came and went without the protests and riots we've come to expect at the summit in recent years. But as author and researcher Ellen Brown notes, the real fireworks happened behind closed doors, where the group rubber stamped new regulations that will make Cyprus style bank bail-ins a worldwide reality.
From Energy War to Currency War: America's Attack on the Russian Ruble
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/12/31/513647-from-energy-war-to-currency-war-americas-attack-on-the-russian-ruble/
The coming century will not be the «American Century» as the neo-conservatives in Washington think. It will be a «Eurasian Century».
A multi-spectrum war is being waged against Moscow by Washington. If there are any doubts about this, they should be put to rest. Geopolitics, science and technology, speculation, financial markets, information streams, large business conglomerates, intelligentsia, mass communication, social media, the internet, popular culture, news networks, international institutions, sanctions, audiences, public opinion, nationalism, different governmental bodies and agencies, identity politics, proxy wars, diplomacy, countervailing international alliances, major business agreements, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), human rights, prestige, military personnel, capital, and psychological tactics are all involved in this multi-spectrum war. On a daily basis this struggle can be seen playing out on the airwaves, in the war theaters in Ukraine and the Middle East, through the statements and accusations of diplomats, and in the economic sphere.
Additionally, the debates and questions on whether a new cold war—a post-Cold War cold war—has emerged or if the Cold War never ended should be put to rest too. The mentality of the Cold War never died in the Washington Beltway. From the perspective of Russian officials, it is clear that the US never put down its war mace and continued the offensive. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, defeating the Soviets and Eastern Bloc, and seeing the Soviet Union dismantled into fifteen republics was not enough for the Cold War warriors in the US. The newly emergent Russian Federation had to be placated in their views.
Petro-politics have been a major feature of this multi-spectrum war too. [1] Not only have energy prices been a factor in this struggle, but so are financial markets and national currencies. The manipulated decline in the price of energy, which has been driven by the flooding of the global market with oil, is now being augmented by a siege on the value of the Russian ruble. This is part of what appears to be a deliberate two-pronged attack on the Russian Federation that seeks to cut Russia's revenues through market manipulation via economic sanctions and price drops. It is what you would call a «double whammy». While sanctions have been imposed on the Russian economy by the US and its allies, including Australia, Canada, the European Union, and Japan, offensives on Russia's main source of revenue — energy — and its national currency have taken place.
Currency Warfare and Inflation
The price of the Russian ruble begun to drop in December 2014 as a consequence of the economic siege on the Russian Federation, the drop in global energy prices, and speculation. «Judging by the situation in the country, we are in the midst of a deep currency crisis, one that even Central Bank employees say they could not have foreseen in their worst nightmares». Interfax's Vyacheslav Terekhov commented on the currency crisis while talking to Russian Preisdent Vladimir Putin during a Kremlin press conference on December 18, 2014. [2] Putin himself admitted this too at the press conference. While answering Terekhov, Putin explained that «the situation has changed under the influence of certain foreign economic factors, primarily the price of energy resources, of oil and consequently of gas as well». [3]
Some may think that the drop in the Russian ruble's value is a result of the market acting on its own while others who recognize that there is market manipulation involved may turn around and blame it on the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. This process, however, has been guided by US machinations. It is simply not a result of the market acting on its own or the result of Kremlin policies. It is the result of US objectives and policy that deliberately targets Russia for destabilization and devastation. This is why Putin answered Terekhov's question by saying that the drop in the value of the Russian ruble «was obviously provoked primarily by external factors». [4]
Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland — the wife of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) co-founder and neo-conservative advocate for empire Robert Kagan—and US Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that the objectives of the US economic sanctions strategy against the Russian Federation was not only to damage the trade ties and business between Russia and the EU, but to also bring about economic instability in Russia and to create currency instability and inflation. [5] In other words, the US government was targeting the Russian ruble for devaluation and the Russian economy for inflation since at least May 2014.
It appears that the US is trying to manipulate the Kremlin into spending Russia's resources and fiscal reserves to fight the inflation of the Russian ruble that Washington has engineered. The Kremlin, however, will not take the bait and be goaded into depleting the approximately $419 billion (US) foreign currency reserves and gold holdings of the Russian Federation or any of Russia's approximately 8.4 trillion ruble reserves in an effort to prop the declining value of the Russian ruble. In this regard, while holding a press conference, President Putin has stated the following on December 18, 2014: «The Central Bank does not intend to 'burn' them all senselessly, which is right». [6] Putin emphasized this again when answering Vyacheslav Terekhov's question by saying that the Russian government and Russian Central Bank «should not hand out our gold and foreign currency reserves or burn them on the market, but provide lending resources». [7]
The Kremlin understands what Washington is trying to do. The US is replaying old game plans against Russia. The energy price manipulation, the currency devaluation, and even US attempts to entrap Russia in a conflict with its sister-republic Ukraine are all replays of US tactics that have been used before during the Cold War and after 1991. For example, dragging Russia into Ukraine would be a replay of how the US dragged the Soviet Union into Afghanistan whereas the manipulation of energy prices and currency markets would parallel the US strategy used to weaken and destabilize Baathist Iraq, Iran, and the Soviet Union during the Afghan-Soviet War and Iran-Iran War.
Instead of trying to stop the value of the ruble from dropping, the Kremlin appears to have decided to strategically invest in Russia's human capital. Russia's national reserve funds will be used to diversify the national economy and strengthen the social and public sectors. Despite the economic warfare against Russia, this is exactly why the wages of teachers in schools, professors in post-secondary institutions of learning and training, employees of cultural institutions, doctors in hospitals and clinics, paramedics, and nurses—the most important sectors for developing Russia's human capital and capacity—have all been raised.
The Russian Bear Courts the Turkish Grey Wolf
The Kremlin, however, has an entire list of options at its disposal for countering the US offensive against Russia. One of them involves the courting of Turkey. The Russian courtship of Turkey has involved the Russian move away from the construction of the South Stream natural gas pipeline from Russia across the Black Sea to Bulgaria.
Putin announced that Russia has cancelled the South Stream project on December 1, 2014. Instead the South Stream pipeline project has been replaced by a natural gas pipeline that goes across the Black Sea to Turkey from the Russian Federation's South Federal District. This alternative pipeline has been popularly billed the «Turk Stream» and partners Russian energy giant Gazprom with Turkey's Botas. Moreover, Gazprom will start giving Turkey discounts in the purchase of Russian natural gas that will increase with the intensification of Russo-Turkish cooperation.
The natural gas deal between Ankara and Moscow creates a win-win situation for both the Turkish and Russian sides. Not only will Ankara get a discount on energy supplies, but Turk Stream gives the Turkish government what it has wanted and desired for years. The Turk Stream pipeline will make Turkey an important energy corridor and transit point, complete with transit revenues. In this case Turkey becomes the corridor between energy supplier Russia and European Union and non-EU energy customers in southeastern Europe. Ankara will gain some leverage over the European Union and have an extra negotiating card with the EU too, because the EU will have to deal with it as an energy broker.
For its part, Russia has reduced the risks that it faced in building the South Stream by cancelling the project. Moscow could have wasted resources and time building the South Stream to see the project sanctioned or obstructed in the Balkans by Washington and Brussels. If the European Union really wants Russian natural gas then the Turk Stream pipeline can be expanded from Turkey to Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, and other European countries that want to be integrated into the energy project.
The cancellation of South Stream also means that there will be one less alternative energy corridor from Russia to the European Union for some time. This has positive implications for a settlement in Ukraine, which is an important transit route for Russian natural gas to the European Union. As a means of securing the flow of natural gas across Ukrainian territory from Russia, the European Union will be more prone to push the authorities in Kiev to end the conflict in East Ukraine.
In more ways than one the Turk Stream pipeline can be viewed as a reconfigured of the failed Nabucco natural gas pipeline. Not only will Turk Stream court Turkey and give Moscow leverage against the European Union, instead of reducing Russian influence as Nabucco was originally intended to do, the new pipeline to Turkey also coaxes Ankara to align its economic and strategic interests with those of Russian interests. This is why, when addressing Nabucco and the rivalries for establishing alternate energy corridors, this author pointed out in 2007 that «the creation of these energy corridors and networks is like a two-edged sword. These geo-strategic fulcrums or energy pivots can also switch their directions of leverage. The integration of infrastructure also leads towards economic integration». [8]
The creation of Turk Stream and the strengthening of Russo-Turkish ties may even help placate the gory conflict in Syria. If Iranian natural gas is integrated into the mainframe of Turk Stream through another energy corridor entering Anatolia from Iranian territory, then Turkish interests would be even more tightly aligned with both Moscow and Tehran. Turkey will save itself from the defeats of its neo-Ottoman policies and be able to withdraw from the Syrian crisis. This will allow Ankara to politically realign itself with its two most important trading partners, Iran and Russia.
It is because of the importance of Irano-Turkish and Russo-Turkish trade and energy ties that Ankara has had an understanding with both Russia and Iran not to let politics and their differences over the Syrian crisis get in the way of their economic ties and business relationships while Washington has tried to disrupt Irano-Turkish and Russo-Turkish trade and energy ties like it has disrupted trade ties between Russia and the EU. [9] Ankara, however, realizes that if it lets politics disrupt its economic ties with Iran and Russia that Turkey itself will become weakened and lose whatever independence it enjoys.
Masterfully announcing the Russian move while in Ankara, Putin also took the opportunity to ensure that there would be heated conversation inside the EU. Some would call this rubbing salt on the wounds. Knowing that profit and opportunity costs would create internal debate within Bulgaria and the EU, Putin rhetorically asked if Bulgaria was going to be economically compensated by the European Commission for the loss.
The Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon
It is clear that Russian business and trade ties have been redirected to the People's Republic of China and East Asia. On the occasion of the Sino-Russian mega natural gas deal, this author pointed out that this was not as much a Russian countermove to US economic pressure as it was really a long-term Russian strategy that seeks an increase in trade and ties with East Asia. [10] Vladimir Putin himself also corroborated this standpoint during the December 18 press conference mentioned earlier when he dismissed—like this author—the notion that the so-called «Russian turn to the East» was mainly the result of the crisis in Ukraine.
In President Putin's own words, the process of increasing business ties with the Chinese and East Asia «stems from the global economic processes, because the East – that is, the Asia-Pacific Region – shows faster growth than the rest of the world». [11] If this is not convincing enough that the turn towards East Asia was already in the works for Russia, then Putin makes it categorically clear as he proceeds talking at the December 18 press conference. In reference to the Sino-Russian gas deal and other Russian projects in East Asia, Putin explained the following: «The projects we are working on were planned long ago, even before the most recent problems occurred in the global or Russian economy. We are simply implementing our long-time plans». [12]
From the perspective of Russian Presidential Advisor Sergey Glazyev, the US is waging its multi-spectrum war against Russia to ultimately challenge Moscow's Chinese partners. In an insightful interview, Glazyev explained the following points to the Ukrainian journalist Alyona Berezovskaya—working for a Rossiya Segodnya subsidiary focusing on information involving Ukraine—about the basis for US hostility towards Russia: the bankruptcy of the US, its decline in competitiveness on global markets, and Washington's inability to ultimately save its financial system by serving its foreign debt or get enough investments to establish some sort of innovative economic breakthrough are the reasons why Washington has been going after the Russian Federation. [13] In Glazyev's own words, the US wants «a new world war». [14] The US needs conflict and confrontation, in other words. This is what the crisis in Ukraine is nurturing in Europe.
Sergey Glazyev reiterates the same points months down the road on September 23, 2014 in an article he authors for the magazine Russia in Global Affairs, which is sponsored by the Russian International Affairs Council—an think-tank founded by the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian Ministry of Education 2010—and the US journal Foreign Affairs—which is the magazine published by the Council on Foreign Relation in the US. In his article, Glazyev adds that the war Washington is inciting against Russia in Europe may ultimately benefit the Chinese, because the struggle being waged will weaken the US, Russia, and the European Union to the advantage of China. [15] The point of explaining all this is to explain that Russia wants a balanced strategic partnership with Russia. Glazyev himself even told Berezovskaya in their interview that Russia wants a mutually beneficial relationship with China that does reduce to becoming a subordinate to Beijing. [16]
Without question, the US wants to disrupt the strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow. Moscow's strategic long-term planning and Sino-Russian cooperation has provided the Russia Federation with an important degree of economic and strategic insulation from the economic warfare being waged against the Russian national economy. Washington, however, may also be trying to entice the Chinese to overplay their hand as Russia is economically attacked. In this context, the price drops in the energy market may also be geared at creating friction between Beijing and Moscow. In part, the manipulation of the energy market and the price drops could seek to weaken and erode Sino-Russian relations by coaxing the Chinese into taking steps that would tarnish their excellent ties with their Russian partners. The currency war against the Russian ruble may also be geared towards this too. In other words, Washington may be hoping that China becomes greedy and shortsighted enough to make an attempt to take advantage of the price drop in energy prices in the devaluation of the Russian ruble.
Whatever Washington's intentions are, every step that the US takes to target Russia economically will eventually hurt the US economy too. It is also highly unlikely that the policy mandarins in Beijing are unaware of what the US may be trying to do. The Chinese are aware that ultimately it is China and not Russia that is the target of the United States.
Economic Terrorism: An Argentina versus the Vulture Funds Scenario?
The United States is waging a fully fledged economic war against the Russian Federations and its national economy. Ultimately, all Russians are collectively the target. The economic sanctions are nothing more than economic warfare. If the crisis in Ukraine did not happen, another pretext would have been funded for assaulting Russia.
Both US Assistant-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Glaser even told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives in May 2014 that the ultimate objectives of the US economic sanctions against Russia were to make the Russian population so miserable and desperate that they would eventually demand that the Kremlin surrender to the US and bring about «political change». «Political change» can mean many things, but what it most probably implies here is regime change in Moscow. In fact, the aims of the US do not even appear to be geared at coercing the Russian government to change its foreign policy, but to incite regime change in Moscow and to cripple the Russian Federation entirely through the instigation of internal divisions. This is why maps of a divided Russia are being circulated by Radio Free Europe. [17]
According to Presidential Advisor Sergey Glazyev, Washington is «trying to destroy and weaken Russia, causing it to fragment, as they need this territory and want to establish control over this entire space». [18] «We have offered cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok, whereas they need control to maintain their geopolitical leadership in a competition with China,» he has explained, pointing out that the US wants lordship and is not interested in cooperation. [19] Alluding to former US top diplomat Madeline Albright's sentiments that Russia was unfairly endowed with vast territory and resources, Putin also spoke along similar lines at his December 18 press conference, explaining how the US wanted to divide Russia and control the abundant natural resources in Russian territory.
It is of little wonder that in 2014 a record number of Russian citizens have negative attitudes about relations between their country and the United States. A survey conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center has shown that of 39% of Russian respondents viewed relations with the US as «mostly bad» and 27% as «very bad». [20] This means 66% of Russian respondents have negative views about relations with Washington. This is an inference of the entire Russian population's views. Moreover, this is the highest rise in negative perceptions about the US since 2008 when the US supported Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi's war against Russia and the breakaway republic of South Ossetia; 40% viewed them as «mostly bad» and 25% of Russians viewed relations as «very bad» and at the time. [21]
Russia can address the economic warfare being directed against its national economy and society as a form of «economic terrorism». If Russia's banks and financial institutions are weakened with the aim of creating financial collapse in the Russian Federation, Moscow can introduce fiscal measures to help its banks and financial sector that could create economic shockwaves in the European Union and North America.
Speaking in hypothetical terms, Russia has lots of options for a financial defensive or counter-offensive that can be compared to its scorched earth policies against Western European invaders during the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War, and the Second World War. If Russian banks and institutions default and do not pay or delay payment of their derivative debts and justify it on the basis of the economic warfare and economic terrorism, there would be a financial shock and tsunami that would vertebrate from the European Union to North America. This scenario has some parallels to the steps that Argentina has taken to sidestep the vulture funds.
The currency war eventually will rebound on the Washington and Wall Street. The energy war will also reverse directions. Already, the Kremlin has made it clear that it and a coalition of other countries will de-claw the US in the currency market through a response that will neutralize US financial manipulation and the petro-dollar. In the words of Sergey Glazyev, Moscow is thinking of a «systemic and comprehensive» response «aimed at exposing and ending US political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining US military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency». [22] His solution includes the creation of «a coalition of sound forces advocating stability—in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty». [23]
The coming century will not be the «American Century» as the neo-conservatives in Washington think. It will be a «Eurasian Century». Washington has taken on more than it can handle, this may be why the US government has announced an end to its sanctions regime against Cuba and why the US is trying to rekindle trade ties with Iran. Despite this, the architecture of the post-Second World War or post-1945 global order is now in its death bed and finished. This is what the Kremlin and Putin's presidential spokesman and press secretary Dmitry Peskov mean when they impart—as Peskov stated to Rossiya-24 in a December 17, 2014 interview — that the year 2014 has finally led to «a paradigm shift in the international system».
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a social scientist, award-winning writer, columnist, and researcher. His works have been carried internationally in a broad series of publications and have been translated into more than twenty languages including German, Arabic, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, Polish, Armenian, Persian, Dutch and Romanian. His work in geopolitical sciences and strategic studies has been used by various academic and defense establishments in their papers and defense colleges for military officers. He is also a frequent guest on international news networks as a geopolitical analyst and expert on the Middle East.
Asymmetric warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.
Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.[1] Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.[2] This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.
The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, less equipped and supported, undermanned but resilient opponent.
Definition and differences
The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J. R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred simply to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power," in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, and so on. Mack's analysis was largely ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s, new research building on Mack's insights was beginning to mature, and, after 2004, the U.S. military began once again to seriously consider the problems associated with asymmetric warfare.[citation needed]
Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, and by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt, or even to the nature of the adversary itself (e.g., "asymmetric adversaries can be expected to ...") rather than to the correlation of forces.[citation needed]
Academic authors tend to focus more on explaining the puzzle of weak actor victory in war: if "power," conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war, then how is the victory of the "weak" over the "strong" explained? Key explanations include (1) strategic interaction; (2) willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs; (3) external support of weak actors; (4) reluctance to escalate violence on the part of strong actors; (5) internal group dynamics[3] and (6) inflated strong actor war aims. Asymmetric conflicts include both interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.[4]
War by proxy
Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give deniability to the state actor. The deniability can be important to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.
INVADING IRAQ 2.0: ISIS propaganda, proxy wars & NATO's 'Blitzkrieg'
https://www.intellihub.com/invading-iraq-2-0-isis-propaganda-proxy-wars-natos-blitzkrieg/
The Western-backed Al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS, has made its way to Iraq through Turkey and over the northeastern border of Syria. This new terror campaign appears to have been rolled out with a decades old objective, which is wrought with violence, propaganda and destabilization funding from the usual sponsors...
We've learned that much of Iraq has 'fallen' into the hands of Sunni militants, as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has pushed their way through to Iraq five months ago, while both Britain's MI6, as well as the CIA, had prior knowledge of the well-funded terror group's movements - allowing their apparent death march to continue after being warned well in advance. According to a Telegraph news release entitled,"Britain and US neglected alert to Iraq jihadist takeover" Kurdish intelligence had specifically disclosed that ISIS displayed a growing terror-grip in the region and that there was a "planned takeover of northern Iraq":
"The head of intelligence for the autonomous Kurdish regional government, which has links with the West, said he had repeatedly tried to send warnings both to the central government in Baghdad and to its allies, Britain and America.
But despite repeated attempts to impress on Washington and London the seriousness of the unfolding situation, he said there was no response from either government."
BBC World Service needs more funds to compete with RT - former chief
The BBC World Service is "financially outgunned" and losing ground to Russia's RT, warns the service's ex-chief. The UK and US may be ceding their dominant position to the "Kremlin propaganda" mouthpiece with a global audience of 700 million, he said.
Peter Horrocks, who stepped down as the top executive of the BBC global news operations earlier this month, told the Guardian that Britain should consider allocating extra funding to counter the growing influence of Russia's global TV news channel RT.
"Medium- to long-term there has to be an anxiety about the spending of others compared to what the BBC are putting into it," Horrocks said. "You can take a view of the overall national interest and things we spend on international influence, like military spending. When you look at that it would take it in a certain direction."
Outgunned & outspent
If Britain wants to combat Moscow's growing influence in global information, the country's ministers had better consider additional funding for the BBC World Service, Horrocks said, revealing that the BBC has already questioned the Foreign Office on "whether there's anything they want to do with development funding for extra programming for Ukraine." No reply has been received so far.
The BBC's future is dependent on supplementary funding if UK authorities want to maintain the World Service as Britain's major influence overseas, insists the former BBC boss.
"We are being financially outgunned by Russia and the Chinese, but there's no way we're being outgunned on the results [global audience]. The role we need to play is an even-handed one. We shouldn't be pro one side or the other. We need to provide something people can trust," Horrocks said.
"It is frightening the extent to which we are losing the information war," the Guardian quoted John Whittingdale, chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as saying.
"On a global scale the BBC are concerned because they are being outspent by the Russians and Chinese on a spectacular scale," said a former ITN CEO, Professor Stewart Purvis. "It's the soft power war that's replaced the Cold War. The Russian and Chinese channels are clearly proxies for their governments and Britain is being vastly outspent," he said.
Rise of RT
RT currently broadcasts in English, Spanish, Arabic and Russian, with plans to launch French and German channels in 2015.
The BBC World Service, a leading international radio and internet broadcaster providing programmes and content in English and 27 other languages, has a budget of £245 million ($382 million) that is funded from UK TV license fees. RT, with its 24-hour TV and internet coverage in English, Spanish, Arabic and Russian, plus French and German services ready to be rolled out in 2015, will reportedly have a combined budget of 15.38 billion rubles ($271 million as at December 22, 2014) for 2015.
The BBC World Service has showed good results recently with a record 265 million viewers a week, despite certain service closures and cuts since 2010. RT is available around the clock to 700 million viewers in more than 100 countries around the globe.
"Russia Today's expansion is part of a big investment in soft power," said Richard Sambrook, director of the Cardiff School of Journalism, and a former head of BBC Global News. Yet while the World Service had "a fraction of the budget" of Chinese and Russian state-run media outlets, it nevertheless remains influential in world news, he claimed.
Ukraine crisis coverage alarmed Europe
The political crisis in Ukraine, which turned into a fully-fledged civil war in 2014, made European politicians ring alarm bells over the news presented by 24-hour RT news channel broadcasting from Moscow.
Unlike EU broadcasters, RT has also been showing the other side of the coin of the Ukrainian unrest: eastern provinces of Ukraine devastated by Kiev troops, neo-Nazi militants ravaging the rebellious Donetsk and Lugansk Regions, an unprecedented number of civilian victims caused by the so-called 'anti-terrorist' punitive operation initiated by the Kiev authorities.
After the issue was raised by leaders in the Baltic States at the G20 summit in Australia, British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed to US President Barack Obama his concerns about Russian news channels "pumping out a distorted picture" of events in Ukraine.
In November, RT UK was threatened with "statutory sanctions" for allegedly breaching the UK's broadcasting code.
UK media watchdog Ofcom threatened RT after it ruled that the TV channel had "failed to preserve due impartiality" in four of its news bulletins aired in March this year and covering events in Ukraine.
RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan responded to the ruling by saying: "We accept the decision of Ofcom... We look forward to Ofcom applying today's ruling impartially to all broadcasters reporting on any government, irrespective of its political leaning."
Gold Wars? Russia And China Vs United States
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/01/gold-wars-china-russia/
"Who owns the gold makes the rules" seems to be what the Chinese and the Russians are thinking. This is why, since the financial crisis of 2008, both countries are in a stampede to fill their coffers with gold as fast as they can. We are aware of the currency wars, but we are a lot less familiar with the gold wars raging between the East and the West and, more particularly, between China and the United States.
Even though since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 the United States is doing everything it can to discourage countries from owning gold as monetary reserves and pushing them to choose instead the US dollar, it does not do it itself (do as I say, not as I do). As it can be seen in graphs #1 and #2, the United States keeps 71.1% of its reserves in gold, and is the second largest holder of gold in the world since the creation of the European Union. The global average of gold reserves is 9%.
Graph #1: World Official Monetary Reserves in Gold – Advanced and Emerging Countries in Total Reserve Percentage
Graph #2: Official Gold Holdings (tonnes) – Advanced Countries and Emerging Countries
We should still keep in mind that these numbers are not up to date. China has not informed the IMF of its gold reserves since 2009. It is also the case for Saudi Arabia and, maybe, other countries. I think China will do it this year, perhaps at the gold conference to be held in September in Beijing, China. I wouldn't be surprised at all if China were to announce holdings larger than that of the United States (if only by a single tonne), which stand at 8,136.5 tonnes. On the other hand, it could announce a lower amount and make another announcement at a strategic future date. A recent study from Bloomberg Industries speculates that China already owns 2,710 tonnes of gold and other studies point to 6,000 tonnes. It all amounts to psychological warfare within this currency/gold wars going on between countries, especially since the 2008 crisis.
If one listens to what Chinese officials have to say, it has become obvious that China has chosen gold as a weapon of choice in these currency wars, in line with the objective of eliminating the "exorbitant privilege" that the United States has since the Bretton Woods Conference and creating a new international monetary system. This "exorbitant privilege" consists in having one's own currency being used as an international reserve currency without even any gold backing, that Nixon abolished in 1971. As of now, the US dollar represents close to 61.4% of global currency reserves, and the euro 24.2%.
Statements of Chinese officials are confirmed by a steady flow of gold from the West to the East. One can see the parabolic rise in Chinese gold imports through Hong Kong in graph #3. In addition, one must not ignore direct buying from local gold mines by China and Russia as well.
According to Alex Stanczyk, from Anglo Far-East, China owns an enormous amount of gold "off the books", by using proxies, in order to keep the amount of its reserves secret. This is very "Chinese", says Alex Stanczyk, if one understands the Chinese mentality. There is a game that the Chinese play, it is called Weiqi, and it is similar to chess. In Weiqi, you have to surround your enemy slowly and lay a trap, and then close the trap all at once. That is the way the Chinese think. They don't really disclose what their plan is; they just move tiny pieces around the board in a seemingly incoherent way, but when all the pieces are lined up that's when the trap is sprung. All of the government party leaders play this game, and the CEO's and chairman of China's largest businesses are all part of the party. Kenneth W. Hoffman, senior analyst in metals and mining at Bloomberg Industries, says that, "based on conversations with officials in China and Mongolia, it's evident that China feels they want as much gold as much as the U.S.".
Graph #3: Net Yearly Chinese Gold Imports From Hong Kong
However, let us not forget the less obvious role that Russia is playing in these gold wars. It has also decided to do all it can to dethrone the US dollar from its pedestal. We observe, in graph #4, that Russia, after the financial crisis, has also decided to increase substantially its gold reserves. Contrary to China, I think Russia is less patient, and is maneuvering behind the scenes for a quicker change to the monetary system. The massive gold buying and geopolitical strategies of Russia do confirm, in my opinion, this speculation.
Graph #4: Russia's Central Bank Gold Reserves
Other countries could be playing secondary roles, albeit strategic ones, in this gold war. As it can be seen in graphs #1 and #2, the European Union is the largest holder of gold reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia is also diversifying its reserves, quietly buying large quantities of gold. Like China, it also announced, four years ago, that its gold reserves had grown sensibly, by a simple account transfer. Because of its importance in the oil market and the relation between oil and gold prices, Saudi Arabia should not be dismissed. It could also follow China with a similar announcement. India is also a large holder of gold, maybe even the largest. Even if India only possesses 557.7 tonnes in its official reserves, it is estimated that there is between 20,000 and 30,000 tonnes of gold in India, if we tally the gold held by individuals and other institutions. It is believed that India, which accounts for 20% of the world population, owns about 20% of the global gold stock.
It is now obvious that there are currency and gold wars between the West and the East with, out in front, the United States and China. The United States, at all costs, wishes to maintain the present system, which is very much in its favor, whereas China and Russia would like to replace it. Central banks' gold reserves are kept secret and it is difficult to know with precision what they really are. Even the United States doesn't want to publish the exact numbers of its gold reserves. We supposedly know the amount, but we don't know how much of it has been leased. As far as China is concerned, there is no information available that would show how much of the significant amount of gold being imported into China is destined to their central bank's reserves. However, one can speculate that it would be most of it.
Gold has always followed wealth and, these days, wealth is shifting from the West to the East. As it can be seen in graph #5, advanced economies (generally in the West) have gotten poorer and, consequently, have increased their levels of debt, whereas emerging economies have gotten richer and have reduced their debt. A similar phenomenon occurred the other way around in 1945 when Europe got weaker (mainly because of two wars) while America got richer. That situation had caused a massive transfer of gold from Europe to America.
Graph #5: Total External Debt (public and private) in GDP percentage : 22 advanced economies and 25 emerging economies, 1970-2011
Notice, in graph #6 below, the acceleration of the increase of Asian gold reserves as a percentage of global gold reserves.
Graph #6: East vs West – World gold reserves vs Asian gold reserves as percentage of world reserves
In conclusion, one must expect, this year or next year at the latest, a major crisis in the international monetary system that will cause a massive selloff of the US dollar and, consequently, a massive loss of its exchange rate. At the same time, I expect the central banks and sovereign funds to accelerate their gold buying, which will cause the price of gold to go higher quickly. This rise will continue until a new monetary system takes place. I am convinced that, within five years, central banks will have augmented their gold reserves from today's 30,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes, which would correspond to the '60s peak (see graph #7). I believe these gold wars between the central banks will push gold toward a level much higher than $5,000.
Ukraine Admits Its Gold Is Gone: "There Is Almost No Gold Left In The Central Bank Vault"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
Back in March, at a time when the IMF reported that Ukraine's official gold holdings as of the end of February, so just as the State Department-facilitated coup against former president Victor Yanukovich was concluding, amounted to 42.3 tonnes or 8% of reserves...
Currency war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_war
Currency war, also known as competitive devaluation, is a condition in international affairs where countries compete against each other to achieve a relatively low exchange rate for their own currency. As the price to buy a particular currency falls so too does the real price of exports from the country. Imports become more expensive. So domestic industry, and thus employment, receives a boost in demand from both domestic and foreign markets. However, the price increase for imports can harm citizens' purchasing power. The policy can also trigger retaliatory action by other countries which in turn can lead to a general decline in international trade, harming all countries.
Competitive devaluation has been rare through most of history as countries have generally preferred to maintain a high value for their currency. Countries have generally allowed market forces to work, or have participated in systems of managed exchanges rates. An exception occurred when currency war broke out in the 1930s. As countries abandoned the Gold Standard during the Great Depression, they used currency devaluations to stimulate their economies. Since this effectively pushes unemployment overseas, trading partners quickly retaliated with their own devaluations. The period is considered to have been an adverse situation for all concerned, as unpredictable changes in exchange rates reduced overall international trade.
According to Guido Mantega, the Brazilian Minister for Finance, a global currency war broke out in 2010. This view was echoed by numerous other government officials and financial journalists from around the world. Other senior policy makers and journalists suggested the phrase "currency war" overstated the extent of hostility. With a few exceptions such as Mantega, even commentators who agreed there had been a currency war in 2010, generally concluded that it had fizzled out by mid-2011.
States engaging in competitive devaluation since 2010 have used a mix of policy tools, including direct government intervention, the imposition of capital controls, and, indirectly, quantitative easing. While many countries experienced undesirable upward pressure on their exchange rates and took part in the on-going arguments, the most notable dimension of the 2010–11 episode was the rhetorical conflict between the United States and China over the valuation of the yuan. In January 2013, measures announced by Japan which were expected to devalue its currency sparked concern of a possible second 21st century currency war breaking out, this time with the principal source of tension being not China versus the US, but Japan versus the Eurozone. By late February, concerns of a new outbreak of currency war had been mostly allayed, after the G7 and G20 issued statements committing to avoid competitive devaluation.
"Crisis was driven...by...derivatives" – WilliamKBlack
http://investmentwatchblog.com/crisis-was-driven-by-derivatives-williamkblack/
The Derivative Time Bomb - a Weapon of Mass Destruction, has been deliberately planted and will go off at some unknown point in the future.
The criminal terrorist's who facilitated this financial genocide have their exit strategy planned, WW3 and "Continuity of Government" will be their saviour.
Continuity of government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_government
Continuity of government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event.
COG was developed by the British government before and during World War II to counter the threat of Luftwaffe bombing during the Battle of Britain. The need for continuity-of-government plans gained new urgency with nuclear proliferation.
Countries during the Cold War and afterwards developed such plans to avoid (or minimize) confusion and disorder in a power vacuum in the aftermath of a nuclear attack.
In the US at least, COG is no longer limited to nuclear emergencies; the Continuity of Operations Plan was activated following the September 11 attacks.
Ted Gunderson Former FBI Chief - Most Terror Attacks Are Committed By Our CIA And FBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ2VpfUqRoo&feature=youtu.be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson
Theodore L. Gunderson (November 7, 1928 - July 31, 2011[1]) was an American Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent In Charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI. According to his son he worked on the Marilyn Monroe and the John F. Kennedy cases.[2][3] He was the author of the best selling book How to Locate Anyone Anywhere.[4]
Britain planned to train and equip 100,000 Syrian rebels
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10945457/Britain-planned-to-train-and-equip-100000-Syrian-rebels.html
Secret initiative planned to train rebels to fight the Assad government a year later by marching on Damascus, a BBC Newsnight investigation discloses
Britain planned to train and equip 100,000 Syrian rebels for a shock and awe campaign to defeat President Bashar al-Assad.
General David Richards, who was then the UK's most senior military officer, drew up the plans two years ago, according to the BBC's Newsnight.
The move was considered by David Cameron, the National Security Council and US officials but the plans were deemed to be too ambitious.
The Prime Minister had at the time being pressing for military intervention in Syria following the use of chemical weapons in the country, but in August 2013 MPs voted against the measure.
At the time the Assad government denied being the perpetrators of the chemical weapons attack and blamed rebels.
The plans have come to light after a BBC Newsnight investigation by Nick Hopkins.
According to the BBC, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, as the former chief of defence staff is now known, believed the initiative could help control civilian bloodshed during the war.
Syrian rebels would have been vetted and trained in bases in bordering countries Turkey and Jordan over a 12-month period and they would then march on Damascus with the cover of Western and Gulf fighter jets.
It would have been a similar tactic to that used in 2003 against Saddam Hussein's military in Iraq and sources told Newsnight Lord Richards, then chief of the defence staff, told the UK government that the only ways to end the civil war swiftly was to let Assad win or to defeat him.
It was hoped this would allow time for an alternative Syrian government formed in exile, David Cameron was told.
However, Professor Michael Clarke, of the Royal United Services Institute think tank, told the BBC it was now too late for the West to get involved.
He said the UK had missed an opportunity train an anti-Assad force that would have had real influence in Syria "when he is removed, as he will be".
The revelations come after the US looked set to significantly step up the country's involvement in the Syrian civil war in a similar plan to Mr Richards's initiative.
The White House asked Congress to approve $500 million (£293 million) to arm and train moderate rebels.
Mr Obama's request in June comes as the US seeks a strategy to confront Isis, the Sunni militant group that has recently seized control of large swathes of Iraq but has had a long presence in Syria.
The UK government did not respond to Newsnight's request for comment but Whitehall sources told the programme the plans had been considered by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve as well as the PM.
It has been three years since civil war broke out in Syria, a nation which was one of the top three most welcoming to refugees according to the UN Refugee Agency in 2010.
But now millions have been displaced, seeking refuge in neighbouring countries including Turkey, and tens of thousands have been killed.
A spokesman for the opposition alliance Syrian National Coalition, Monzer Akbik, said: "A huge opportunity was missed and that opportunity could have saved tens of thousands of lives actually and could have saved also a huge humanitarian catastrophe."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.07, 17:27:54
Britain planned to train and equip 100,000 Syrian rebels ISISish ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10945457/Britain-planned-to-train-and-equip-100000-Syrian-rebels.html
Secret initiative planned to train rebels to fight the Assad government a year later by marching on Damascus, a BBC Newsnight investigation discloses
Britain planned to train and equip 100,000 Syrian rebels for a shock and awe campaign to defeat President Bashar al-Assad. Libya 2.0 ?
General David Richards, who was then the UK's most senior military officer, drew up the plans two years ago, according to the BBC's Newsnight. Before the WMD attack in Syria ?
The move was considered by David Cameron, the National Security Council and US officials but the plans were deemed to be too ambitious.
The Prime Minister had at the time being pressing for military intervention in Syria following the use of chemical weapons in the country, but in August 2013 MPs voted against the measure.
At the time the Assad government denied being the perpetrators of the chemical weapons attack and blamed rebels.
Russia and China: The Dawning of a New Monetary System?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-and-china-the-dawning-of-a-new-monetary-system/5423637
The statement by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 22 December 2014: "If the Russian side needs it, we will provide necessary assistance within our capacity" – is a clear testimony that Russia and China have entered into an economic alliance which will be stronger than the incessant ruble and petrol devaluation manipulations by Washington, aided by the European puppets.
China, leading member of the BRICS, is lining up the bloc of the BRICS and that of the SCO – and their currencies – to support Russia in need. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members – including the soon to become new members – Iran, Pakistan, India (also a BRICS member) and Mongolia – and possibly in some not too distant future also strategically located NATO member Turkey.
In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons will as of immediately no longer be traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies. This will reduce worldwide demand for the petro dollar.
The US is able to maintain pressure on other currencies, currently the ruble, only as long as the petro dollar remains the major world reserve currency. This is the main reason why Washington gets away with a seven-fold indebted dollar (i.e. total outstanding and uncovered commitments are currently more than 7 times higher than the US GDP (US$ 17.6 trillion, 2014 est. – vs. US$ 128 trillion of unmet obligations); making the US worldwide the most indebted country – by far.
Once the demand for the (petro) dollar fades – as hydrocarbons are no longer dealt in dollars – the value of the dollar will decline and at worst may result in hyperinflation in the dollar economies, including those closely linked to the US economy.
In the meantime, Russia has nothing to fear, since the ruble is really not traded anywhere, except sold by western central banks to go along with Washington's criminal scheme of attempting to destroy the Russian economy by flooding an imaginary 'market' with the Russian currency – which they will not achieve.
The Russian central bank is basically not interfering. Why? – Because Russia eventually will need rubles for its new trading alliance – and will buy the rubles back from the flooded market at rock-bottom prices, for artificially boosted dollars and euros and other western linked currencies. In a future Russia-China based monetary system these currencies would at least initially be of secondary or tertiary importance.
Letting the ruble 'collapse' is a superb strategy by the Maestro Chess player, Vladimir Putin. Western investors in Russian shares, mainly but not exclusively of hydrocarbon corporations, dropped also. Western investors became afraid and released their shares on the market – Russia's treasury bought them back at low market prices, increasing their value instantly and – and on top of it Russia reaped the dividends of the newly Russian owned shares. According to a Spiegel Online article, Russia made at least 20 billion dollars' worth of profit with this little gambit alone, plus she repatriated about 30% of foreign-held Russian petroleum shares.
Russia has foreign exchange reserves of close to half a trillion dollars equivalent, more than two times the rubles in circulation. Russia's economy shows a pristine balance sheet with only about 15% debt to GDP, whereas the EU's debt-GDP ratio is close to 100%.
Here comes the link to the US-Saudi manipulated oil price. It just fell to below US$ 50 / barrel, less than half of what it was in June 2014 (US$ 105 – WTI Crude). This criminal act of attempting to destroy sovereign nations' economies is foremost directed at Russia, but is also meant to 'punishes' other non-aligned oil producers, like Venezuela and Iran. 'Aligned' oil producers' suffering might be written off by the empire as collateral damage.
But not only. That's perhaps where Obama miscalculated by shooting his own foot. At these prices domestic unemployment will soar especially in petrol producing states, like Texas and North Dakota. Hardest hit will be Texas. Last week, JPMorgan Chief Economist Michael Feroli, predicted, "We think Texas will, at the least, have a rough 2015 ahead, and is at risk of slipping into a regional recession."
According to Zero Hedge, the US hydrocarbon industry and its nationwide ramification produce almost US$ 1.2 trillion of GDP (7%) and generates more than 9.3 million well-paying permanent jobs throughout the nation. Most affected by the free fall of petrol prices will be the higher cost shale production – the new source that gave the impetus to the oil renaissance 5 years ago. Texas and North Dakota will be the main losers, in terms of job losses and recession. But repercussions will be felt countrywide, as almost all industries are linked to hydrocarbon energy.
Obama may feel that the hike in unemployment may be a small collateral price to pay for ruining other economies around the world. Besides, overall the US economy may profit from lower prices – letting the rich get richer and the poor – well, we know that.
However, there is another element that Obama's and his cronies' shortsightedness did not foresee. The petro-dollar is highly dependent on trading hydrocarbons in dollars – following the 40-year old agreement with the Saudis as head of OPEC in turn for US military security and protection. This alone, the constant demand for US dollars by all nations who needed to trade hydrocarbons, propelled the dollar into a 'permanent' reserve currency – allowing Washington to print dollars at will and to become a financial hegemon.
No longer. These times are gone. Washington's evil attempt to destroy all those who 'are not with us', catalyzed the transition. More than a year ago, Russia started selling her hydrocarbons in rubles and local currencies of her trading partners, like China and other BRICS countries. Today Russia is selling her hydrocarbon in gold – yes, in physical gold. The west did not count with the quick analytical thinking of Mr. Putin's. He will accept artificially inflated dollars and then immediately exchange them for gold, thereby increasing Russia's gold reserves dramatically. Already today, the ruble is backed by gold – a reality the west with its casino currencies is quiet about.
By artificially boosting the value of the dollar against the Euro and lowering the price of gold, the FED and its Wall Street mobsters intend to make the dollar more attractive, say, as the euro which, after all its MSM propagated economic mediocrity, is backed by a much more solid and stable economy than is that of the United States; especially in view of its huge potential to be able to deal with the east – Russia and the Xi Jinping's announced new economic Silk Road, all the way from Frankfurt to Shanghai. – But this would be Europe's call; a sovereign call by a sovereign union and by new leaders with backbone and common sense.
This is still an open decision. Although, it looks like – or should logically appear – that Europe is waking up. Even the most stubborn stooges of Washington are gradually seeing the light. Hungary and Poland, historically not great friends of Russia, are wondering whether they might not be better off with the east, rather than licking Obama's boots. German business is angry about Merkel's obsessiveness with Washington imposed 'sanctions'. They see Russia as the trading partner of the future, as it has been until Washington didn't succeed in Ukraine – today an almost hopeless but still murderous basket case – and wanted to crush Vladimir Putin and his country. Even the spine and brainless Hollande is responding to France's business – 'sanctions' – enough is enough.
Where does that leave Washington? – One move away from checkmate. Washington's criminal attempt to destroy Russia's economy has been largely irrelevant and self-destructive. In the meantime and as Russia's gold reserves increase, Russia has established an alternative SWIFT system. It is currently being tested internally but could go global within a few months – so that any country wanting to avoid the corrupt dollar casino scheme could use the new system for international monetary exchanges.
That combined with ever more countries willing and daring to trade their hydrocarbons in their own currencies or currencies other than the dollar, will further lower demand on the petro-dollar. In addition, under their economic alliance, Russia and China may soon launch a new currency, a basket of currencies that could be joined by other nations ready and willing to abandon the fraudulent western fiat scheme. Immediate candidates would be the other BRICS and the countries of the SCO.
The system could function in the same way as did the Euro at the beginning – as a basket of currencies each valued according to some key indicators of its national economy. – Initially the new monetary system might be gold based – as opposed to the current fiat money with no backing whatsoever. In the long run, however, gold is not a stable or sustainable back-up for any currency. The intrinsic value of gold is only its industrial worth, currently less than 20% of its use. The combined economic output of the nations behind the joint currency – to a lesser degree the numerical growth oriented GDP, but rather social indicators such as public health, standard of education and environmental concerns, capacity of conflict resolution, of living in peace and harmony – might be more indicative of the strength of a sovereign's currency than just gold or a straight GDP.
Such a new monetary system may soon cover 25% to one third of the world economy, thereby becoming fully autonomous. The petro-dollar would further lose its stature as world reserve. Ten years ago 90% of world reserves consisted of dollar-nominated securities. Today that ratio has shrunk to a mere 60%, as currencies like the Yuan is rapidly gaining ground as reserve money, especially in Asia. Even Australia has recently declared it will increase its Yuan holding.
The drop of the dollar as the world's major reserve currency is Washington's biggest nightmare, and has been for the last 15-20 years, when first Iran and then Iraq (Iraq's oil for food program) and Venezuela threatened to sell their hydrocarbon in Euros. At that time this economically strategic move was not so much meant as an affront to the US, but rather a measure of security for their own economies, as worldwide trust in the US dollar was waning then and now.
This is considered one of the major reasons for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – securing the petro dollar as trading currency – and the ensuing war, to take over all of Iraq's hydrocarbon wells – and privatize them. It was also the key reason for Washington's false flag accusation of Iran's plans for manufacturing nuclear weapons. In the meantime this has been proven umpteen times as a lie, including by the 16 major US intelligent agencies.
Washington's relentless aggression on Russia is of course part of the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), to achieve full world hegemony, but at the same time Washington is desperate not to lose its dollar supremacy. The US is in a terminal quagmire. There is no way out. Washington is acting like a wild beast in its last throbs of live. The empire may be capable of destroying the world – including itself – just so that nobody may survive outside of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe.
The emergence of a new 'eastern', dollar detached monetary scheme is therefore becoming increasingly urgent. One might ask, why hasn't it happened before?
The reasons' might be manifold. The key players' – Russia and China – banking and exchange infrastructure might not have been ready. But more likely, to reduce to the extent possible the collateral economic damage a new monetary system may entail to the rest of the world. After all, fair trading among sovereign nations is a noble objective for global peace.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, the Voice of Russia / Ria Novosti, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe.
Though he is avoiding an all-out confrontation, this does not look like a man that is just going to roll over either.
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/Vladimi012.jpg)
At the present moment in these very critical times
it sure does look like Vlad is holding the World
together and preventing the Psychopaths from
carrying out their Plan for Domination of All.
The Plan has just been extended to France. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=109458)
Could this be a glimpse of what is coming in 2015? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=109445)
The West is showing its ugly hands more and more
as the New World Tyranny takes its final shape.
Isn't it just lovely how the War Criminals of the Anglo-Zionist
World Power have rigged the 'system' (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/will-netanyahu-end-up-at-the-hague/) to enable them to
carry out their crimes with impunity?
The U.N. really never has been about Peace and Security for
the common people. Nay, what they crave is peace and
security for the War Criminals - putting them into the realm
of the 'Untouchables.'
The sickos are, and have been, in control for a long time...
Ron Paul: "Reality Is Now Setting In For America... It Was All Based On Lies & Ignorance"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-10/ron-paul-reality-now-setting-america-it-was-all-based-lies-ignorance
Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,
If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.
It didn't happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.
With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.
It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.
The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that's like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society's wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.
Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if "the children" have to suffer. The deception of promising "success" has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough "gravy" for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.
Warfare/Welfare State Requires Police Control
As the size of government grew and cracks in the system became readily apparent, a federal police force was needed to regulate our lives and the economy, as well as to protect us from ourselves and make sure the redistribution of a shrinking economic pie was "fair" to all. Central economic planning requires an economic police force to monitor every transaction of all Americans. Special interests were quick to get governments to regulate everything we put in our bodies: food, medications, and even politically correct ideas. IRS employees soon needed to carry guns to maximize revenue collections.
The global commitment to perpetual war, though present for decades, exploded in size and scope after 9/11. If there weren't enough economic reasons to monitor everything we did, fanatics used the excuse of national security to condition the American people to accept total surveillance of all by the NSA, the TSA, FISA courts, the CIA, and the FBI. The people even became sympathetic to our government's policy of torture.
To keep the people obedient to statism that originated at the federal level of government, control of education was required. It is now recognized that central control of education has actually ruined education, while costs have skyrocketed. National control of medical care has brought a similar result. This has meant more money for bureaucrats, as well as drug, insurance, and health management companies, and less money for medical care. Constantly more police are required to run our lives at greater costs while providing less benefit. "Nationalizing" both medical care and education has provided a great incentive to increase the policing powers of the federal government.
The predictable poverty that results from such a terrible system is now upon us and is a strong motivation for the militarization of local police as part of the expansion of the national police state. Temporary and perceived benefits of government overreach and expanded policing powers end up becoming the real problem. By the time it is understood that these "benefits" are artificial, government power and special interests have gained control of a system designed to serve them and not the people the programs were purported to help. The victims are left hanging and taught that too much freedom is the source of the problem, prompting even more support for the policing power of the state.
Today the failure of central economic planning and of the US as world policeman is everywhere to be found. This is especially noticeable in the police war on the lawbreakers — real and unreal — in America. The failures of social and economic policy of the past 50 years have led to a mounting friction between the local police and the rights of the people. Local police have been militarized and have become an integral part of the national police state. A police culture that accepts the principle of initiating unjustified violence against citizens has become a serious problem.
The news is constant. If it's not Ferguson, it's New York City. If not New York City, it's Chicago or Detroit or Cleveland. And I believe the violence in our cities is only in its early stages. We had a taste of the conflict in the 1960s, but the fundamental values of equal justice and economic opportunity have receded further from reality. Failing to understand why the past 50 years of government expansion to eradicate poverty has only worsened the conditions of our cities will guarantee that the violent conflicts we see erupting today will only get worse.
Fight for Equal Protection Distorted by 'War on Poverty'
Fifty years ago, as a result of Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership in a plea for equal justice, LBJ declared war on poverty. Poverty was seen at that time as the major contributing factor in the plight of those living in the inner city. King's dream was to make sure all people will be judged by the "content of their character" and not by "the color of their skin." Good advice, but it was never followed. Residual racism remains, but the excuse for every shortcoming in the failed cities is said to be due to the color of one's skin.
The very expensive war on poverty has after 50 years only made matters worse, compounding the problems of poverty and inflation while hurting most of the people the "war" was supposed to help. Currently our government spends over $1 trillion per year on anti-poverty programs. Over the past 50 years, over $16 trillion was spent, i.e., wasted. And yet poverty and dire economic conditions remain the major factor in the violence that persists, which incites or gives the police the excuse to overreact to maintain order. The plans and expectations for the war on poverty must have been seriously flawed.
Although the degree of poverty is different for the various races in the United States, all categories — Asian, white, Hispanic, and black — have had a steady increase in real median income from 1964 until the year 2000, when the first of many bubbles started bursting. In all four race categories incomes are lower since then. With the economy moving into the next stage of liquidation of bad investment and debt, we should expect this trend to continue. Economic setbacks and a decrease in real income are not limited to blacks in the inner city. The setback for the young has been dramatically worse than for the older generations, aggravating the problem of violent crime in our cities.
The "progress" of the early years of the war on poverty is understandable because the payment that always must be paid was delayed. The deficits and the borrowing and printing of money were unsustainable. It should not be difficult to understand that the welfare benefits, the bloated government, the excessive salaries, and the promised pensions for thousands of nonproductive bureaucrats in Detroit would lead to bankruptcy. The benefits had to be reduced. If policies don't change and the politicians continue to be elected by wild promises, the disaster will continue. How can the provocateurs blame racism for the plight of the middle class in Detroit?
We must get people to reject flawed economic policy if we want a real war on poverty. LBJ's war on poverty was no more successful than his Vietnam War — or any war since, for that matter. A national government that can print money as needed to finance extraordinary extravagance can function longer than a city, state, or private entity, but it too must eventually "file for bankruptcy" albeit in a different fashion. As we are now seeing, the bankruptcy of a nation also involves poverty for many. This situation will continue to worsen. Since poverty is a major contributing factor to the violence of excessive police militarization, some fundamentals must be understood. The economic theories of Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, John Maynard Keynes, and all those who claim to know how to "regulate" the economy to benefit the poor, must be challenged and abandoned.
So far reality has not yet set in. The poor grow in numbers as the middle class shrinks and the privileged class that benefits from government spending and government control of the monetary system thrives. The political demagogues and the authoritarians feed the flames of resentment that develop between the rich and the poor as class warfare and racial strife take over. They care little and understand less what liberty is all about — the more chaos there is, the more laws they seek to pass.
The Victimized Inner Cities
This social disruption has motivated the enthusiastic growth and militarization of our local police departments. The law and order crowd thrives on excessive laws and regulations that no US citizen can escape. The out-of-control war on drugs is the worst part, and it generates the greatest danger in poverty-ridden areas via out-of-control police. It is estimated that these conditions have generated up to 80,000 SWAT raids per year in the United States. Most are in poor neighborhoods and involve black homes and businesses being hit disproportionately. This involves a high percentage of no-knock attacks. As can be expected many totally innocent people are killed in the process. Property damage is routine and compensation is rare. The routine use of civil forfeiture of property has become an abomination, totally out of control, which significantly contributes to the chaos. It should not be a surprise to see resentment building up against the police under these conditions. The violent reaction against local merchants in retaliation for police actions further aggravates the situation —hardly a recipe for a safe neighborhood.
Though poverty and excessive laws associated with the war on drugs are significant factors in the conflicts that are routine in the inner-city, the overreaction by both sides continues to make the situation much worse. As a result, policing in general is out of control, and anything suggesting racial confrontation leads to rioting, looting, and property destruction. Civil liberties are ignored by the police, and the private property of innocent bystanders is disregarded by those resenting police violence. When police overreact and unfairly enforce the law, it elicits a violent reaction from those on the receiving end. This only escalates the problem. It's an invitation for outside provocateurs to rush in and aggravate the racial tensions — all the while never trying to understand the real reasons behind police militarization and the cause of poverty.
The military-industrial complex now systematically lobbies to provide to local police departments the newest and most sophisticated weaponry — just as they sell weapons to the United States government to fight undeclared wars overseas. Drug laws are pushed by many corporate interests as well. Pharmaceutical companies, alcohol companies, and private prison systems all support of the insane war on drugs. The victims are the poor who suffer with a messed up economy and have no easy access to jobs. A natural temptation is to become a drug dealer. Violent activities arising from the drug war making drug transactions a criminal undertaking create demand in communities for strict law enforcement.
Why do the race baiters have so much success in making this type of conflict a racial problem alone? Unfortunately many of them make a living off stirring up trouble. If the situation were understood in terms of police brutality and poverty, the evening news would be dramatically different. Turning it into strictly a racial conflict narrows the discussion, and the idea of responsibility for one's action no longer needs to be discussed.
The race factor seems to stir up the emotions. Mob-like responses can be achieved, which further inflames the situation. Out of control police and an entire segment of our population taught that responsibility for one's actions is a negative are a volatile mix.
Justice under the law requires that people cannot be punished or rewarded because of the color of their skin, but unfortunately King's claim that only a person's character counts is forgotten.
The entitlement mentality is a source of much anger and misunderstanding. It leads people who see themselves as victims to one conclusion: they are entitled to be taken care of. They believe that more government transfer payments are the solution. They claim that they deserve to be taken care of and that, if they are not, there's trouble to be had — which only opens the door to more police overreactions.
There is agreement with my contention that poverty is a big problem and the source of much trouble. Therefore, it is said, someone must take care of it. If one trillion dollars per year doesn't do the job, then make it $2 trillion. If the war on poverty's $16 trillion hasn't worked, make it $32 trillion. This sentiment reflects the entitlement mentality that has taught many that some people have a "right" to government handouts and that the rich must pay. This is an idea that is deeply flawed, and it stirs up class warfare on top of racial animosities and police brutality.
The blanket demand that all wealthy individuals owe support to the poor through government welfare programs is not an example of equal justice under the law. It is an example of egalitarianism gone awry. Welfare, which is the use of force to transfer wealth from one group to another, is based on a moral principle of equality that in fact is not moral and does not work. The wealthy special interests, such as banks, the military-industrial complex, the medical industry, the drug industry, and many other corporatists, quickly gain control of the system. Crumbs may be thrown to the poor, but the principle of wealth transfer is hijacked and used for corporate and foreign welfare instead of wealth transfers to the poor.
Many people do indeed gain wealth unfairly with today's system, which adds to the envy shared by many and especially the poor. But this is a problem that is not solved by indiscriminately placing blame on successful businesses. The result would be the country and the whole world becoming poorer while resentment rises. Honest profits of successful entrepreneurs are quite different than profits of the corporate elite who gain control of the government and, as a consequence, accumulate obscene wealth by "robbing" the middle class. To blame and destroy those who make an honest living by satisfying consumers without the use of special benefits from the government is destructive to liberty and wealth.
Reforms that are driven by envy of successful people making an honest living will not address the problem of poverty. Poverty is actually made worse by an aggressive sense of victimization.
Many factors are involved in the crisis of our cities, including the following:
Police brutality, militarization of the police, excessive laws, courts and law enforcement efforts ignoring the principles of equal justice,
Racism that exists to some degree on both sides of the conflict,
Rampant crime reflecting structural poverty,
Absence of an understanding of the difference between earned and stolen wealth,
Race baiting,
The entitlement mentality, self-reliance not being a goal for many, and the breakdown of the family unit,
The war on drugs, and
The lack of economic understanding regarding the Federal Reserve, taxes, welfare, economic consequences of constant war, deficits, and excessive government spending.
True satisfaction comes from productive effort and self-reliance and not from a government transferring wealth in an effort to bring about an egalitarian society. The absence of an understanding of the nonaggression principle makes it difficult for positive reforms to develop. Unfortunately hypocrisy has come to equal "common sense." Placing confidence in people who thrive on wielding government power and who spend a lifetime using it to benefit special interests is not a wise policy.
The people have too little confidence that most problems can be solved in a voluntary manner in a society that cherishes civil liberties. There's never an admission that government problem-solving doesn't work. Government-created problems are a road to poverty and resentment. Too many people believe that "free stuff" from the government can solve our problems. They mistakenly believe that deficits don't matter and that wealth can come from a printing press.
The recent high profile episodes of racial conflict involving police killings and the violence in some neighborhoods have been a fertile environment for the demagogues and those who thrive on racial conflict.
Some have suggested that sensitivity training for all police personnel should be required, to teach proper ways to deal with the public. Though there's a lot of extenuating circumstances that provoke overreaction by the police, I'm not optimistic that the problem will be helped much by sensitivity training. Retraining the police won't touch the complex problems that pit the police against the victims of complex social conditions generated by hate, violence and bad economic policies. The high profile episodes of police violence and overreaction are a consequence of conditions that in many ways were generated by government policy.
If social engineering intended to produce economic equality fails, more of the same cannot possibly be the solution. Seeking and promoting equal justice has nothing to do with welfare redistribution. On the contrary: equal justice requires the end of welfare redistribution. Redistribution is a process that is always destined to help a small minority, whether in an economy like ours that endorses central economic planning or in one run by radical fascists or communists. While advocates claim that it's the duty of government to pursue economic equality, all efforts fail to achieve that goal, while gutting the principle of equal justice.
The Rich Are Getting Richer, But Why?
Under an authoritarian regime, those in power take care of themselves. This always leads to poverty and discrepancy in wealth distribution. Eventually the social strife that is predictable leads to an overthrow of the government. The Soviet communist leaders never suffered from want, but even they were routed when the people in the Soviet system decided that they had had enough.
We must realize that we are not exempt from a breakdown of our system. The strife that we are witnessing is a reflection of a growing number of people who are recognizing the discrepancy between rich and poor, the weak and the powerful, Wall Street and Main Street. The courts are obviously failing at meting out justice fairly and impartially. Money and race have a lot to do with how arrests, convictions, and incarcerations are carried out. That provides motivation for some people to become angry and violently strike out against anyone who appears to have more than they do.
While the courts fail to follow the rules of equal justice, those who react violently believe that attacking almost anyone is justifiable in seeking what they claim is justice. Talk of the 99 percent and one percent is not just sloganeering. It reveals a problem generated by government and a situation in which some people believe that they have a "right" to be taken care of rather than just a right to live in a free and just society where all persons are treated equally under the law.
Indeed the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The extreme current inequality is not a consequence of free markets and true liberty. Rather it results from the welfare state that, as always, morphs into a system that provides excesses for the powerful few. Better management of the welfare system does not help. That only changes the types of authoritarians in charge. Both political parties are financed by Wall Street, the big banks, and the military-industrial complex. Getting rich by being part of the government class is the problem. Wealth achieved by hard work is quite a bit different. Opening the door to this opportunity is achievable by following the principle of life, liberty, and property.
The economic interventionist system under which we live today rewards those who benefit from government economic planning by the Federal Reserve, access to government contracts, and targeted special regulations to help one group over the other. The insiders benefit during the bubble phase of the business cycle and are the first ones in line for the bailouts. The poor, for whom welfare is supposedly designed to help and for whom the politicians justify the spending, end up with the crumbs while the Wall Street/banking elites thrive in good times and bad. There are two problems. First is conceding the principle that government has the moral authority to redistribute wealth. Second is believing the redistribution will be managed wisely and without corruption.
All government management ends up being unwise, corrupt, and wasteful. The money interests inevitably prevail. Belief that "good" bureaucrats and politicians can be found to manage the economy and achieve equity in distribution is a dream that always ends up a nightmare. To make even a modest attempt at this goal requires government to use aggression against one group for the benefit of another. This authority must be denied to government. We must limit the government's role to protecting equal justice in defense of life, liberty, and property.
Currently the political system in America and in most of the rest of the world is not motivated to seek this limited goal for government. Thus the move toward unfair concentration of wealth in the few and a dramatic increase in the number of people living in poverty as the middle class shrinks. Since there is little understanding of the economic system that is a major contributing factor to the economic problems, it can be expected to exacerbate social and class conflict. The killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson plus many similar incidents are signs of a serious economic and political crisis that is not limited to police brutality and runaway violence.
Police brutality and militarization may well induce a violent event far beyond what we have seen in Ferguson. It also can serve as an excuse. But it is not the root cause of turmoil. The real cause is poverty, the entitlement mentality, and the breakdown of the rule of law. Moral decay and the national police state are the real culprits.
More police with improved training will not do much to deal with this growing conflict. Bowing to entitlement demands from the "victims" will not be helpful in a bankrupt system. We have too many police, too many laws, and too much exemption of government officials from the crimes they commit. Both adding police and increasing entitlements involve expanding the role of government in an effort to solve problems that too much government has already caused. Government can only be expanded by diminishing the people's liberty. This problem can only be ended by maximizing liberty and getting people to realize that self-reliance, hard work, and the absence of coercive force by individuals and government is the only way to reverse the downward trend from which we are suffering.
The battle will no longer be to get the government to pick sides in a conflict between rich and poor, black and white, young and old, or the lawless police versus the lawless demands of entitlement recipients demanding their "fair share." There has to be an understanding that productive effort and self-reliance on the part of everyone is required for a free society to thrive.
Our Liberties Under Attack
The economic and moral decay of American society is reflected in the loss of liberties. This problem affects all Americans and not just the poor in the inner city. Gradual erosion of personal and economic liberty has proceeded for a century. The loss of our liberty has sharply accelerated since the 9/11 attacks. We have done to ourselves what no foreign enemy could have possibly accomplished.
Government surveillance provides the state with information that enables it to know our every move. The protection of the Fourth Amendment is gone. Many Americans are comfortable with the sacrifice of liberty for safety and accept the notion that government's key responsibility is to keep us safe. It's a nice dream but the truth is it can't do it. One thing for sure: if it tries, it will do so at the expense of liberty.
Welfare, for the rich or poor, cannot exist without the sacrifice of the principal of property ownership. Though it always starts small and justified for the "needy," the principle of wealth transfer incentivizes the special interests and the rich to obtain benefit at the expense of the poor. This occurs in all societies and inevitably grows to a point where the production of wealth is diminished and the system collapses. This is what we are witnessing today.
The growth of the state necessitates government surveillance of all our financial transactions to enhance the collection of tax revenues. Because there is never enough money for the "do-gooders," the tactics of the tax collectors have become more vicious. Violation of our liberties is excused by the majority in order to ensure that all people "pay their fair share." When conditions deteriorate, capital controls are imposed to prevent moving assets out of the country. Our monstrous tax code reflects the hundred-years development of our income tax system and is one of the greatest invitations for our "caring" government to pursue the impossible goal of the fair distribution of all wealth.
The vicious drug war, which dates from the early 1970s, provides another excuse for knowing everything about everybody at all times. Its selling point is to keep people safe from themselves. Pursuing this principle guarantees that liberty will be decimated in the process. It invites the government's interference in our spiritual and intellectual well-being. What one reads and believes becomes of interest to the manipulators who want to care for us for our own good. And they never rest from seeking this goal.
This concession to the state invites controls on everything we put into our bodies: what we eat, drink, or inhale. It takes a lot of bureaucrats, politicians, and money to manage the process. The people, we have been told, are "too stupid" to make their own decisions about their own lives. We are to believe that politicians who invite themselves to rule over us are all-wise and that we should be thankful to sacrifice our liberty for this "service." Authoritarians actually believe that we should be grateful to them for all the good things that they do for us. We must remember that if the people don't rebel against a police state it only grows in size and becomes more ruthless.
In addition to all these trends — which includes the federal government monopolizing and administering medical care and education — government surveillance becomes the darling of the gurus who love the technology that allows the government to know our every move, every day, without limits.
With the disaster of 9/11, an existing acceptance of government monitoring, along with technological advances, helped allow a new age to be ushered in that makes the horrors of George Orwell's 1984 look less threatening by comparison.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/january/08/inner-city-turmoil-and-other-crises-my-predictions-for-2015/
The Federal Government's War on Us
Tolerance is a favorable trait when it means acting without aggression toward others, but tolerance of the monster that has evolved in our government is not good. Instead of adding more government agencies to spy on the American people, we should be talking about eliminating the ones we have, at a cost the American taxpayers of over $80 billion per year.
We have lived with the global war on terrorism for over 13 years now, and the threat of terrorist attacks against Americans and American allies is worse than ever. Though a global threat exists, the greatest dangers for American citizens here at home have been caused by our own government. Our government's attacks on our liberties have been overwhelming and worse than anything any foreign power has ever done.
It's the federal government that leads the charge in all our domestic wars, which, in addition to the global war on terrorism, include the war on drugs, taxpayers, and poverty, all of which contribute to the constant war on our privacy. Today every American is a suspect. Our president has established a policy that an American citizen can be assassinated without even being charged with a crime. The national police are made up of over 100,000 bureaucrats and police officials who carry guns to enforce federal law on the American citizens. The Founders and our Constitution intended that policing powers would be the responsibility of the individual states. That was forgotten a long time ago.
Not only do employees of agencies like the CIA, FBI, and BATF carry guns, employees of OSHA, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and many other agencies enforcing regulations do so as well. The notion of total homeland security being provided by a heavily armed Department of Homeland Security was foreign to America up until just recently. Today, whether it's riots in our cities or chaos after a national disaster like a hurricane, the Feds are there taking charge over all local officials and property owners, . It shouldn't surprise us that our local police departments have become an arm of a runaway federal police mentality that mimics an army.
The Founders did not even want a standing army. They wanted only a militia. Today we endure, at the expense of our liberties, a national police force armed like an invading military force. We are destined to see a continued escalation of violence in our cities as the internal conflicts grow. Instead of the police quelling the violence, they unfortunately have become part of it.
It's evident we have a national police force harassing the people and failing to protect liberty and property. It fails to quell riots while. Too often it incites them. We are also stuck with a huge "standing" army, marching around the world and engaged to some degree in over 150 countries, "making the world safe for democracy" and serving as a private police force for American corporations overseas.
The US Empire: Who Does it Serve?
When Obama announced a shift in geopolitical interest to the Far East —– to keep an eye on China —– one TV anchor pointed out that the move seems quite logical since we have a lot of "business interests" in the region. It is, in fact, far from logical if one looks at the tragic mess US government interventionism has caused in the Middle East and the conflict the US government is stirring up with Russia over Ukraine.
Old-fashioned colonialism was deemed necessary by various European powers to secure natural resources along with control over sea lanes and markets for selling manufactured goods. European-style colonialism — supporting a mercantilistic economy — came to be seen as politically unrealistic and unnecessary. When free-trade principles were utilized, colonialism did not die; it only changed form. Mercantilism in various forms and degrees drove trade policies of nations with strong economies and militaries. Though the United States is the world's military powerhouse, controls the oceans and airspace, and has a presence in the four corners of the earth, few people refer to America as a colonial power. But in many ways it is, which has prompted our interests in oil and mineral rich countries. We are frequently involved in choosing the "elected" leaders, as well as hand-picking dictators, in many countries as well. This is not exactly what the Founders had advised.
International militarization of our policies is just as dangerous to our liberties and economy as is the domestic policy that drives our authoritarian governments to regulate our every move. We are now subject to an out-of-control domestic police force while the US military maintains our Empire overseas.
The "one percenters," generally speaking, are internationalists who are not champions of individual liberty and free trade. They are supporters of managed trade and international institutions like the WTO where the interests of the one percent can influence the rulings that frequently have little to do with advancing advertised goals of low tariffs and free trade.
The international monetary system is a powerful tool for the select few. Easy credit, government guarantees, and generous contracts are a great benefit to those in charge. Non-compliant nations, or any country that is deemed unfriendly, can be punished with severe sanctions without moral or economic justification. US corporations benefit from our military presence worldwide. The military-industrial complex profits not only by selling weapons to the US government, but also by being the world's chief arms provider.
It is a fact that many weapons we send into areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria frequently end up in the hands of our enemies. ISIS obtaining US weapons led to the US military then taking action to destroy the weapons. The military-industrial complex is immediately available to replace the weapons while earning generous profits. This is great if you happen to be an insider manufacturing or selling these weapons. It is quite a lucrative business, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.
The United States military presence around the world provides a "private" police force to protect US and other international companies against any local resistance or leaders that turn unfriendly. Our military presence overseas has nothing to do with protecting our freedoms and defending our Constitution. Those are lies and are used for the purpose of gaining the support of the American people for wars that should never have been fought. After long periods of tragic losses and expense, the American people generally wake up and realize what has happened. But what we need to do is wake the American people up earlier and get them to realize that the resistance has to be heard from the people when the government is preparing for war, not after the war has begun or even ended.
Military personnel are idolized, and, if any one raises a question on whether or not all soldiers are universally "heroes," that person is accused of being unpatriotic, un-American, and unsupportive of the troops. In fact, the real heroes are the ones who expose the truth and refuse to fight foreign wars for the international corporations. Disengaging our troops from around the world and refusing to defend American neocolonialism is pursuing a course compatible with the qualities that Americans claim to stand for.
Liberty at home is never enhanced by war abroad. Preemptive wars are especially antagonistic to the goals of peace, commerce, and honest friendship. War "is the health of the state," it has been said, and the state is the enemy of liberty. Wars overseas justify the wars at home against the American people. It is expected that liberties will be sacrificed when a country is at war. Pro-war neoconservatives are blatantly honest by arguing that for freedom to exist the sacrifice of liberty is required. This admission is truly discouraging. It hardly makes sense that voluntarily sacrificing liberty is worthwhile, if the goal is to preserve liberty. Time is short to reverse this trend.
Not only are our policies destructive to liberty, the economic costs are prohibitive. So far the bills have not been paid, but they are rapidly coming due. Both the deeply flawed policy of military interventionism abroad and the failed errors of central economic planning at home are now threatening our liberties and our general welfare. The recent breakout of violence in our cities between police on one side and people who have been thrust into the stagnation of poverty as a consequence of bad government social and economic policy on the other side should not be a mystery if one could see the forest for the trees. Economic problems are "blowback" and unintended consequences of well-meaning welfare programs that have been usurped by the powerful special interests demanding benefits off the top.
Yes, it's tempting to believe the falsehoods of economists who claim that transferring wealth for fairness sake is beneficial, but history shows that it never works. The same humanitarians argue that all spending is crucial and beneficial, deficits don't matter, borrowing is good, and taxing is the equalizer. If government still comes up short they say just turn on the printing presses. That is the philosophy we have been living with for 85 years, and the evidence is now in. It is clear to most Americans that these policies have not worked. Yet they are not ready to concede that it is less government and more freedom that is the solution.
The obsession with continuing all the same policies has increased our poverty, increased violence between the classes, and lowered the standard of living for all except the elite one percent. And worst of all, the sacrifice of liberty was for naught. Losing both liberty and the right to truly own property undermines the ability to create wealth. When this process gets out-of-control the economy goes into a death spiral, in the beginning of which we currently find ourselves. Without a correction to the basic understanding of the proper role of government, the downward spiral will continue.
Blowback All Around: We Are Less Safe
Economic blowback and unintended consequences is one thing, but blowback from our needless and aggressive policies around the world is another, and every bit as dangerous. As we find ourselves increasingly engaged economically and militarily around the world, we can expect many more attacks on American interests. With so many military personnel abroad, they will be the easiest targets to be hit. But attacks similar in nature to the 9/11 attacks will remain a threat to our homeland. We will not be attacked because we are free and rich. The attacks will come from angry people who have had friends and relatives killed by America's careless and often vicious use of our military force in their countries.
It is not that difficult to feel resentment against a country that comes thousands of miles from home and bombs, invades, and punishes with sanctions, other countries that have never initiated force against it. As long as our foreign policy remains the same we can expect serious blowback attacks — and for them to increase in number as our prowess is diminished. Economic factors will determine this, and the loss of dollar hegemony will aggravate the situation.
The US government's foolishness in foreign affairs has plagued us for 100 years. The escalation of our presence around the world since 9/11 continues. It is a policy "bubble" of gigantic proportions. This "bubble" of intervention is about to burst. Any serious look at our last 13 years of intervention around the world should convince all skeptics of how foolish, dangerous, and expensive it has been. The US operates with an attitude that it has the power and therefore the responsibility to be involved in deciding almost every foreign leader, whether elected or appointed as a dictator.
We have been engaged in picking and financing political factions in revolts in countries including Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Liberia, Georgia, Haiti, and Lebanon.
These involvements impose a huge tax and inflation burden on the American people. Trillions of dollars have been spent, and the debt continues to mount. The abject failure of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan elicits a loud call from the neoconservatives for more money, troops, weapons, and bombs, with zero hope of a successful mission. ISIS, now considered our greatest threat, is not even a country, but our occupation and destruction in the region motivates even a ragtag bunch to expel foreign forces from their homeland. ISIS has rallied enormous support and resources to undermine our allies in the region. That assessment is difficult, of course, since it's hard for anyone to identify exactly who our allies are and distinguish them from our avowed enemies.
US foreign policy has helped create the disastrous situation in Syria. We declared that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad had to go. We supported rebel factions. We armed them. They turned on us and used their American weapons against us with an amazing resistance headed by the ruthless ISIS, an outgrowth of al-Qaeda. It's quite an irony that ISIS is well entrenched in northern Iraq, since before we decided to invade Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein no al-Qaeda were present in Iraq. Now the neocons are getting their way and American forces are returning with reinforcements and weapons to save Baghdad from the jihadists.
No one can make this stuff up. It's too bizarre for fiction. Unfortunately, with the help of the media and our government, the American people have remained oblivious to the stupidity of our policies of the past 13 years. A day will come though when the full cost of this policy is dumped on the American people. Then they will get the message. Then it will be too late to gracefully exit and restore sanity without cataclysmic changes being forced on us. The major challenge will be the survival of our liberties.
What to expect in 2015?
Foreign Affairs
More American troops will be sent overseas to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine. There will be no military victories to brag about. More American military personnel will be killed in 2015 than in 2014. Military contractors will be used in growing numbers and their casualties will not be counted as military casualties.
The Ukraine civil war will not end, and the United States will be further bogged down in this conflict. Relations with Russia will continue to deteriorate. The neocons in Congress will gain even more influence over our foreign policy. Punishing sanctions will continue to be made more severe and push Russia further into China's sphere of influence. Gold will gain credibility as we isolate the Russians from the financial markets.
Sanctions on Russia will alienate Europe against the United States. The British oil industry will suffer from the "conspiracy" of the US and Saudi Arabia to drive oil prices down to punish Russia.
The military-industrial complex will continue to thrive and make even more money with the greater influence of the neocons in the new Congress. Supplemental budgets for the military should be expected, along with covert assistance and additional foreign aid to finance the management of our Empire.
Our enemies' strength will grow and prompt even more abuse of American citizens' privacy and free expression. We should not be surprised if there is a reigniting of the conflict in the Balkans. The first of the color revolutions in 2000 in Serbia can hardly be claimed a permanent victory. Generally, bombs from outsiders don't solve internal problems. Those problems must eventually be solved from within a country rather than from outside interference.
The US and NATO announced that the 13 year war in Afghanistan has ended. There has been neither the pretense of "Mission Accomplished" nor an admission of outright failure, along with an exodus. In reality the war has not ended and instead will continue for a long time. No victory for US policy is possible. The conflict will actually spread and increase in intensity since our goals are undefinable and therefore the war is un-winnable.
Sanity will not return to US leaders until our financial system collapses — an event for which they are feverishly working
Domestic issues
An honest assessment of the economy will not reveal any significant improvement in 2015. Inflation will continue to plague us, possibly even with the government-rigged CPI figures showing an increase. But the true inflation of the Fed's credit creation, as well as the subsequent mal- investment and the various bubbles bursting will accelerate. Debt in all categories will continue to increase at unsustainable rates. The Fed will not permit interest rates to rise — at least on purpose. Eventually the market will demand that rates do rise, however.
Tax revenues will continue to rise, aiding the policy of the government spending the people's money rather than those who earned it. Regulations, even with (or maybe especially with) a Republican Congress will continue to increase and make the Federal Register more incomprehensible. Friction between the middle class and the one percent, many of whom are living off government privileges, will escalate further and be reflected in confrontations especially in the large cities. Financial currency controls will continue to expand especially with cross-border transactions.
Blowback and unintended consequences from our sanctions and foreign policy in general will continue to threaten our domestic security and our economy, as well as our liberties.
Relations with Cuba will be improved with the president's effort to resume diplomatic relations, but the radicals and isolationists who oppose free trade will place roadblocks in the way and slow the process.
A major geopolitical or economic event, greater than the crisis of 2008, is fast approaching. The precipitating event will be a surprise to the majority of politicians and economists. There are many "next shoe to drop" possibilities, and one could happen any time or any place.
Wall Street will be protected, and the trillions of dollars of big banks derivatives will be absorbed by the Fed, the FDIC, and ultimately by the American taxpayers in the next financial crisis. There's no doubt the poor will get poorer and the rich richer until the spirit of revolution in the people calls a halt to the systematic destruction of freedom in America.
Conclusion: Toward a Peaceful Revolution
Authoritarianism has overtaken our economic system as the welfare mentality takes over at every level of government. Once the initiation of force by government is accepted by the people, even minimally, it escalates and involves every aspect of society. The only question that remains is just who gets to wield the power to distribute the largess to their friends and chosen beneficiaries. It's a recipe for steady growth of the government at the expense of liberties, even if official documents and laws written to limit government power are in place. Planting even small seeds of monopoly power in the hands of a few people in government, whether democratically elected or not, will always metastasize like a cancer. This was Jefferson's concern when he advised that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time." He believed the people must warn the rulers that taking up arms against the government is legitimate if the government fails to protect the people's liberty.
This should be a consideration. But if the spirit of liberty is not alive and well in the hearts and minds of the people, violence alone against the government will not be a solution. History has shown that, more often than not, people who rebel against abusive governments, whether run by kings or modern day dictators, do not gain much — overthrowing one dictator and replacing him with another just as bad.
A clear understanding of the nature and source of liberty is required for revolutions to be beneficial. Restraining the few who thrive on the use of force to rule over us is the challenge. Fortunately they are outnumbered by those who would choose liberty yet lack the will to challenge the humanitarian monsters who gain support from naive and apathetic citizens. All positive revolutions must be philosophic in nature to make a difference. Violence alone achieves nothing.
Before we can actually restore our liberties, we most likely will have to become a lot less free and much poorer. This is sad since correct and workable answers are available to us if only the people understood them and demanded liberty and honesty, rather than being dependent on excessive government power and believing the false promises of politicians.
Even with the problems we face today and the bleak outlook for the coming year there's much to encourage us. During this next year there will be the continuation of many more people recognizing the failure of government to create peace and prosperity. More widespread understanding of this truth is required in order to bring about a successful revolution.
The freedom movement, especially with many young people involved, will grow in numbers and influence.
Current monetary policy and the Federal Reserve will continue to lose credibility, especially with the next bailout. Although "too big to fail" will stay in place, it will further alienate Main Street America causing it to rebel against the system.
The real problem of course is that too many "stupid people" are IN our government and have high visibility on the major TV networks. There will be plenty of people, not officially associated with government, who will rebel against various governments around the world. The sentiments supporting secession, jury nullification, nullification of federal laws by state legislatures, and a drive for more independence from larger governments will continue.
We should not be discouraged. Enlightenment is not nearly as difficult to achieve as it was before the breakthrough with Internet communications occurred. Besides we must remember that "an idea whose time has come" cannot be stopped by armies, demagogues, politicians, or even Fox News or MSNBC. The time has come for the ideas of liberty to prevail. I smell progress. Let's make 2015 a fun year for LIBERTY.
Symbolic Vote in France Backs Palestinian State
DEC. 2, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/world/europe/france-vote-recognize-palestine.html?_r=0
Hollande says sanctions on Russia should be lifted
Yahoo India News – Tue 6 Jan, 2015
https://in.news.yahoo.com/hollande-says-sanctions-russia-lifted-183403599.html
Former Scotland Yard detectives say young boys were murdered by Westminster paedophile ring
18 Dec 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845969/Former-Scotland-Yard-detectives-say-young-boys-murdered-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html
The Breaking UK VIP Paedophile Scandal. What We Know So Far (Mainstream Sources). I Just Wanted To Put It All In One Place.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-breaking-uk-vip-paedophile-scandal-what-we-know-so-far-mainstream-sources-i-just-wanted-to-put-it-all-in-one-place/
Britain MUST protect Syrian rebels: William Hague hits back at Boris Johnson
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/408151/Britain-MUST-protect-Syrian-rebels-William-Hague-hits-back-at-Boris-Johnson
WILLIAM Hague has slammed Boris Johnson's stark warned against arming the Syrian rebels, insisting Britain must protect the Syrian opposition from being "exterminated."
The London Mayor today argued Britain will have no means of preventing UK weapons ending up in the hands of "al Qaida-affliated thugs."
However, the Foreign Secretary William Hague hit back saying there are "more than two sides" in the conflict.
UK military's secret plan to train Syrian rebels to topple Bashar al-Assad
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/uk-military-secret-plan-train-syrian-rebels-topple-bashar-al-assad
Then "Je suis Charlie" happened... 07 Jan 2015
Charlie Hebdo shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Paris-style attack scenarios to be exercised in UK following Cameron's terror threat talks
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551482/David-Cameron-asks-security-chiefs-if-more-can-be-done-to-stop-terror
Be sure to read the comments..
Special Forces join police to launch UK's biggest security operation to prevent Paris-style attack
London, Jan 11 (ANI): In the wake of the terror attack on French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, elite Special Forces have joined counter-terror police and 1,900 Army personnel to launch the United Kingdom's biggest security operation since the 2012 London Olympics, a report said.
While some Special Forces personnel will don police uniforms to accompany police officers who visit the homes of "persons of interest" in response to the intelligence provided by MI5, most of the officers will be dressed in civilian clothes, reported The Daily Express.
The report said that a 30-strong Special Air Service (SAS) team, divided into smaller groups, has been allocated to the Police Counter Intelligence Unit by the regiment's inner sanctum, dubbed the Kremlin. Also, an entire squadron of SAS soldiers has been put on permanent standby to react to any incident in the UK.
The news comes as Al Qaeda warned that France was only its third preferred target after Britain and the United States after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
David Cameron to push for more surveillance powers against 'Islamist death cult'
PM to meet intelligence chiefs this morning, as he calls for "more comprehensive" powers to monitor suspects
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11339362/David-Cameron-to-push-for-more-surveillance-powers-against-Islamist-death-cult.html
He said Britain is facing the same threat as France from what he described as "this fanatical death cult of Islamist extremist violence", adding: "We have to confront it in our own country, keeping our security strong but also taking on this poisonous narrative that is radicalising young minds, wherever we find it."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.12, 19:50:36
David Cameron to push for more surveillance powers against 'Islamist death cult'
PM to meet intelligence chiefs this morning, as he calls for "more comprehensive" powers to monitor suspects
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11339362/David-Cameron-to-push-for-more-surveillance-powers-against-Islamist-death-cult.html
He said Britain is facing the same threat as France from what he described as "this fanatical death cult of Islamist extremist violence", adding: "We have to confront it in our own country, keeping our security strong but also taking on this poisonous narrative that is radicalising young minds, wherever we find it."
Quote
Britain MUST protect Syrian rebels: William Hague hits back at Boris Johnson
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/408151/Britain-MUST-protect-Syrian-rebels-William-Hague-hits-back-at-Boris-Johnson
Mr Hague told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:
"Of course it's not easy to take any decision to send arms to a conflict. It's also not easy to take a decision to allow people to be killed who are faced by much superior arms and who may be driven to radicalism and extremism by being placed in that situation."
'Watch your back, American soldiers, we are coming': ISIS hacks US Central Command during Obama security speech leaking dozens of files and personal details of 4-star generals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907040/ISIS-hacks-Central-Command-Twitter.html
The social media accounts of the US military's Central Command in Florida appear to have been hacked by ISIS sympathizers - posting threatening messages against troops, their families and the home addresses of 4-star US generals.
The cyber attack began at around 12.30pm on Monday when a message was posted to CentCom's Twitter account reading, 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the CyberCaliphate continues its CyberJihad.'
The hackers also changed the photograph used on the the Twitter cover page to a masked jihadi with an underline that said 'i love you isis.'
The security breach, which occurred while President Obama was giving a speech on cyber security saw death threats against American soldiers made and war game scenarios for conflicts with North Korean and Iran leaked online.
The CentCom YouTube account also had two propaganda videos for Islamic State uploaded.
One of the ominous posts slapped on the Twitter feed read 'American soldiers, we are coming, watch your back' while another warned, 'We won't stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children.'
*****
I have had enough of this PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT! .
http://www.army.mod.uk/welfare-support/23201.aspx
Service Families' Accommodation
The accommodation is usually close to, or within 10 miles of, their duty station. Most are fully furnished, though tenants may use their own furniture if they wish. Existing householders may decide to continue living in their own home.
and I might add often completely unprotected and no chance of misidentification as those pad's are service family pad's..(which would not be a problem for terrorists as they target the general public anyway.. do they not ?) How come they never targeted a military pad ?? eh ?? probability of success 100%.. does not matter if the base guard turns up and sends them to the afterlife they always die anyway ?? do they not ??. What effect on morale would the massacre of hundreds of family's of innocent women and children have on the military personnel illegally occupying countries after invasion? Your over there murdering with impunity the family's of native men, would it shock you if they came over here and murdered wholesale an entire estate before the military could respond.. would you be so eager to be a mercenary and collect your very fat paycheck then, I wonder..!
Do you understand ?!?
Al Qaeda on 9/11 created a situation where NORAD experienced a complete failure of Command and Control, effectively a complete shutdown of NORAD so the 4 (ahem, *cough*) airplanes could hit WTC 1,2 and 7 as well as the Pentagon... the most defended building in history whose perimeter surveillance systems just happened to all be turned off that day (same as London 7/7)... (apart from 1 camera that shows the missile hitting and took years to leak to the public..), ISIS as Al Qaeda has morphed into.. require no state sponsorship, they have no supply lines (supplies are airdropped to them by accident), they have a market in the EU for their stolen oil which funds them, apparently, how convenient.. They have so far survived the might of the mighty US military machine and the bombardment of the "Allies" in the Middle East without any significant loss to their operational effectiveness.. meanwhile Syrian state infrastructure has been crippled by the constant daily aerial bombing, a war crime..
Only one question left to ask..?
Are you all fuckin' stupid, or what ?
April 14, 2008
American Hegemony Is Not Guaranteed
http://www.globalresearch.ca/setting-the-propaganda-stage-for-an-attack-on-iran-american-hegemony-is-not-guaranteed
Exactly as the British press predicted, last week's congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and Green Zone administrator Ryan Crocker set the propaganda stage for a Bush regime attack on Iran. On April 10 Robert H. Reid of AP News reported: "The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaeda to Iranian-backed 'special groups' as the main threat. ... The shift was articulated by Gen. Petraeus who told Congress that 'unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.'"
According to the neocon propaganda, the "special groups" (have you ever heard of them before?) are breakaway elements of Sadr's militia.
Nonsensical on its face, the Petraeus/Crocker testimony is just another mask in the macabre theater of lies that the Bush regime has told in order to justify its wars of naked aggression against Muslims.
Fact #1: Sadr is not allied with Iran. He speaks with an Iraqi voice and has his militia under orders to stand down from conflict. The Badr militia is the Shi'ite militia that is allied with Iran. Why did the U.S. and its Iraqi puppet Maliki attack Sadr's militia and not the Badr militia or the breakaway elements of Sadr's militia that allegedly now operate as gangs?
Fact #2: The Shi'ite militias and the Sunni insurgents are armed with weapons available from the unsecured weapon stockpiles of Saddam Hussein's army. If Iran were arming Iraqis, the Iraqi insurgents and militias would have armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles. These two weapons would neutralize the U.S. advantage by enabling Iraqis to destroy U.S. helicopter gunships, aircraft, and tanks. The Iraqis cannot mass their forces as they have no weapons against U.S. air power. To destroy U.S. tanks, Iraqis have to guess the roads U.S. vehicles will travel and bury bombs constructed from artillery shells. The inability to directly attack armor and to defend against air attack denies offensive capability to Iraqis.
If the Iranians desired to arm Iraqis, they obviously would provide these two weapons that would change the course of the war.
Just as the Bush regime lied to Americans and the UN about why Iraq was attacked, hiding the real agenda behind false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaeda, the Bush regime is now lying about why it needs to attack Iran. Could anyone possibly believe that Iran is so desirous of having its beautiful country bombed and its nuclear energy program destroyed that Iran would invite an attack by fighting a "proxy war" against the U.S. in Iraq?
That the Bush regime would tell such a blatant lie shows that the regime has no respect for the intelligence of the American public and no respect for the integrity of the U.S. media.
And why should it? The public and media have fallen for every lie the Bush regime has told.
The moral hypocrisy of U.S. politicians is unrivaled. McCain says that if he were president he would not attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics because China has killed and injured 100 Tibetans who protested Tibet's occupation by China. Meanwhile the Iraqi toll of the American occupation is one million dead and four million displaced. That comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. At what point does the U.S. occupation of Iraq graduate from a war crime to genocide?
Not to be outdone by McCain's hypocrisy, Bush declared: "The message to the Iranians is: we will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and/or the Iraqi citizens."
Consider our "Christian" president's position: It is perfectly appropriate for the U.S. to bomb and to invade countries and to send its agents and surrogates to harm Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, Serbians, and whomever, but resistance to American aggression is the mark of terrorism, and any country that aids America's victims is at war with America.
The three-week "cakewalk" war that would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues is now into its sixth year. According to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, the cost of the war to Americans is between three and five trillion dollars. Five trillion dollars equals the entire U.S. personal and corporate income tax revenues for two years.
Of what benefit is this enormous expenditure to America? The price of oil and gasoline in U.S. dollars has tripled, the price of gold has quadrupled, and the dollar has declined sharply against other currencies. The national debt has rapidly mounted. America's reputation is in tatters.
The Bush regime's coming attack on Iran will widen the war dramatically and escalate the costs.
Not content with war with Iran, Republican presidential candidate John McCain in a speech written for him by neocon warmonger Robert Kagan promises to confront both Russia and China.
Three questions present themselves:
(1) Will our foreign creditors – principally China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia – finance a third monstrous Bush regime war crime?
(2) Will Iran sit on its hands and wait on the American bombs to fall?
(3) Will Russia and China passively wait to be confronted by the warmonger McCain?
Should a country that is overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan be preparing to attack yet a third country, while threatening to interfere in the affairs of two large nuclear powers? What sort of political leadership seeks to initiate conflict in so many unpromising directions?
With Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea threatened by American hegemonic belligerence, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario that would terminate all pretense of American power: For example, instead of waiting to be attacked, Iran uses its Chinese and Russian anti-ship missiles, against which the U.S. reportedly has poor means of defense, and sinks every ship in the American carrier strike forces that have been foolishly massed in the Persian Gulf, simultaneously taking out the Saudi oil fields and the Green Zone in Baghdad, the headquarters of the U.S. occupation. Shi'ite militias break the U.S. supply lines from Kuwait, and Iranian troops destroy the dispersed U.S. forces in Iraq before they can be concentrated to battle strength.
Simultaneously, North Korea crosses the demilitarized zone and takes South Korea, China seizes Taiwan and dumps a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasury bonds on the market. Russia goes on full nuclear alert and cuts off all natural gas to Europe.
What would the Bush regime do? Wet its pants? Push the button and end the world?
If America really had dangerous enemies, surely the enemies would collude to take advantage of a dramatically overextended delusional regime that, blinded by its own arrogance and hubris, issues gratuitous threats and lives by Mao's doctrine that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
There are other less dramatic scenarios. Why does the U.S. assume that only it can initiate aggression, boycotts, freezes on financial assets of other countries, and bans on foreign banks from participation in the international banking system? If the rest of the world were to tire of American aggression or to develop a moral conscience, it would be easy to organize a boycott of America and to ban U.S. banks from participating in the international banking system. Such a boycott would be especially effective at the present time with the balance sheets of U.S. banks impaired by subprime derivatives and the U.S. government dependent on foreign loans in order to finance its day-to-day activities.
Sooner or later it will occur to other countries that putting up with America is a habit that they don't need to continue.
Does America really need more political leadership that leads in such unpromising directions?
Terrorism, Immigration and Mass Manipulation
A BREAKING ALL THE RULES Editorial
http://batr.org/reactionary/011315.html
The threat of terrorism and the theatrics of bloodshed are powerful tools in the psychological warfare that is leading up to a final conflagration. Watching Paris is Burning is a sober spectacular for the mass media brainwashed, but for geopolitical observers in the know, the time proven and trusted strategy of using fear over security breaches works every time. Missing in the scores of all the manipulated "situations" is a full appreciation of the grand view of who really benefits from a high anxiety society that always succumbs into a greater level of a police state.
Framing the latest episode, the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, into a clash of civilizations is a tempting vindication to strike back at a villain that is easy to despise. However, such a simplistic response fails to understand what is really going on.
An example illustrates this point. A professional Muslim architect residing in the Middle East posted the following comments after the slaughter in Paris. "I do not blame them. Because "Christianity" is the false sect of real Prophet Messiah's call."
The BATR response was:
"Your comments illustrate that you are your own worst enemy. You will never get any sympathy for your cause with an attitude that rationalized murder. As you are well aware, I am a Christian. If you objectives are to kill people of my faith, why would any of us want to deal with you or your fellow travelers?
You are dead wrong and need to rethink your world view. Maybe you should peddle your wares on groups that have immoral standards."
Now it would be easy to conclude that an Islamic culture that would take satisfaction in the murder of European "infidels" in what little remains of a Christian society is all that needs to be known about followers of Mohammad. Notwithstanding, righteous disgust of an attitude that celebrates execution, ostentatiously for defiling the prophet; the actual beneficiary of the schism between European traditions and Middle East religiosity are the New World Order manipulators, who created the original circumstances to fuel this endless conflict.
The correct Christian canon of judging the case-by-case deeds of individuals, as opposed to the blanket condemnation of a peoples or society, works both ways. Only a blinded person of questionable intelligence or a fool of excessive susceptibility refuses to acknowledge that the interventionist wars waged in the name of "fighting terrorists" are a primary cause on the path to World War III.
Face facts. The creation of law enforcement and intelligent division bureaucracies to fight a supposed terrorism menace has been the biggest growth industry in the stables of the "Nefarious Warrior Organism" that dominates the planet.
All the time the deceived and gullible public buys into the presstitute narrative that protects and shields the mega financial interests that expand their influence and riches from fueling a perpetual conflict.
If puppet Western governments were serious about preventing actual terrorist attacks on their soil, they would not capitulate to the suicidal open borders culture that has turned Europe into a cesspool of foreign interlopers.
For decades the warnings from sages of traditional wisdom have argued the inevitable destruction of the Caucasian race and civilization from the invasion of non Europeans into their societies. The irrational concern of being labeled Xenophobia has made cowards of a continent that has willingly accepted a doomed fate.
It does not take a brilliant demographer to tally the statistics and project the inescapable consequences of opening the gates to incompatible customs, Sharia laws and Jihad politics. This reality is far too painful for most politicians, mainstream media or socialist libertines who are the cultural gatekeepers to admit.
With the systemic denial and cognitive dissonance that pervades this age of globalist suppression of truth and honest history, the dribble that comes out of the corporatist news outlets only serve the power brokers in the establishment order.
Add to the doubt of reported accounts, the carnage on French streets is being dissected for false flag scenarios and video tape recordings are broken down frame by frame. As with most initial reports the strange tale of the unbelievable is being sold once again to ratchet up the rage of the unsophisticated.
Dare not call it conspiracy when the pattern of and litany of past tragedies linger with the stench of lies and deceit. All the time the consolidation of world dominance and permanent warfare become the new normal for the struggling souls who are stripped of their heritage and dignity.
If disseminative impact of destructive immigrants is not enough, factor in the entrenched elements in European countries that feed on the turmoil for purely political interests other than their adopted host nations.
One such fifth column stratum of disruptive influence in continental politics favors the interests of Israel over their domicile country. Is it just a coincident that France's vote in favor of Palestine recognition preceded this Charlie Hebdo slaughter?
The opinionated anti-Zionist site Smoloko asks.
"With France taking measures decisively sympathetic to Islam, why would Muslim Zealots suddenly choose this moment to murder a dozen French citizens, an act that would certainly turn French public opinion against Muslims and in favor of Israel?"
In the orthodox atmosphere of tolerable discourse, the mere asking of such a question lays open the charge of being anti-Semitic. How convenient that the killers of the cartoonists are condemned for executing Free Speech of political caricatures. Contrast with simply questioning the motives and intentions, much less the actual terrorist deeds of Israel, is deemed taboo. Where is Voltaire when he is needed? And where is the same outrage?
The NeoCon chicken hawks back in America are behind much of the insane militarization of homeland insecurity. Their determination to deploy the American Empire's war machine on behalf of Israeli supremacy in the region is obvious to any honorable eyewitness to foreign policy.
If this assessment was not true, why are there no Al-Qaida or ISIS attacks directly on Israel, while much of the rest of the surrounding countries are in full battle mode?
The looking glass is inverted and oozes Mossad characteristics. All these seemingly puzzling terrorist onslaughts need not be fully exposed for the average confused American to ask just who gains the most from targeting the 1.6 billion Muslims as the masterminds behind terrorist operations.
For those crazed jihadists' who are true religious fanatics, how many of them have been trained and equipped with Western special ops support?
This formula works so smoothly that each time it is repeated, the stakes are raised to a higher level. Until people wake up to this game of deception, nothing will change.
Western Europeans have a long experience with the negative outcomes from immigration, whether from the Middle East, African or Eastern Europe. EU governance is tyranny incarnate. Dangling the terrorist boogeyman in the face of ill equipped reality students and dependency docile citizens is important as economic conditions deteriorate further.
When Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle states "Jews are fleeing terror-hit Paris because of growing anti-Semitism in France", the Zionist controlled mass media propaganda is designed to convey victimhood on the kosher community.
Since that aforementioned Muslim professional has similar viewpoint towards Jews as to Christians, what is the inference? Should both Christian and Jew feel mutual solidarity, or should the lesson be that remaining separate and apart be the prudent course of conduct?
The judicious and wise person knows instinctively that maintaining a culture, a country and a community of your own kind is consistent with the natural order. How more politically incorrect can one become?
Government sponsored terror makes up the bulk of the violence that engulf the planet. When the infrequent and well publicized trophy terrorist examples are stuffed down our throats, one is shrewd to be highly skeptical.
No such reservation is needed when advocating the end to destructive immigration. This axiom is valid across all cultures and regions. Immigration in America needs to adopt this veracity just as much a Europe.
Think upon our message in this editorial and ask, do you agree or are you offended and take issue with the substance and validity of the circumstances. Those who routinely discard this advice, the affect of mass manipulation has worked well upon you.
Is the pen still mightier than the sword? Well, that depends, who is reading the content of the text or understands the symbolism in the graphic cartoon. A free people will respond not solely to the right to express free speech, but to the correctness in the truth that terrorism is the best friend of state despotism.
If the NWO elites have their way the sword will hang over you no matter that the odds are astronomically remote, so as to fall and lop off your head. FEAR is the instrument of social control. Immigration of foreigners from cultures that refuse assimilation, are poison to a traditional society. And duel loyalists that demonstrate allegiance to a Zionist regime are enemies of every real American.
SARTRE – January 13, 2015
"Je suis Ali Abbas": The Forgotten Victims of State Terrorism
Je suis Ali Abbas. We are humanity, trampled to death by the European, and soaked in his hypocrisy.
Ed.note: Dr. Halpin's summary in this case, encapsulates the terror of state origin – the US and the UK in particular.The UK almost always manages to present a beatific face – at first glance.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/13/514334je-suis-ali-abbas-the-forgotten-victims-of-state-terrorism/
by Dr. David Halpin
Massive terrorist attacks were hatched soon after the pretext of cinematographic 'terrorist' attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 9th 2001.
The state broadcaster in the UK pumped out the propaganda for these with all vigor and its usual guile. The people of Afghanistan were first in line, that winter bombing and invasion had been planned for some months before smoke billowed up from the Twin Towers.
Iraqi humans were to be next. Perle, Wolfowitz, Edelman, Bolton and other Zionists were sitting in our homes as bold as brass. People like Tom Mangold frightened the old ladies with stories about the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo tube and how Sarin in a bursting light bulb could kill in seconds.
'Free speech, fraternitė, and democracy' were in the mix, but only a small part of broadcasting time was given over to speakers who were against terrorism by states. They naively thought the Nuremberg protocols and the Charter of the UN had meaning in international law.
The psychopathic cabal in No 10 got the cogs turning in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and MI6. A 'dossier' was produced in September 2002 but it turned out to be a ridiculous cut and paste job of a PhD 'thesis' from LA. To laugh in the faces of those with any power of analysis is usual. And there were the anthrax attacks in the 'land of the free'.Those were surely false flags, and lo, Perle claimed that they originated from Iraq.
Alistair Campbell, Director of Communications and Strategy for prime minister Tony Blair between 1997 and 2003.
The war machinery was gathering pace in spite of a majority of British citizens which tried quite hard to throw a spanner in the works. The smiling, paramount psychopath and war criminal Blair, was undeterred.
A second 'dossier' was washed many times through the MoD and No 10 computers. Another psychopath and ex-Mirror journalist Alistair Campbell was the editor it seems. Saddam, the terrorist, could hit UK forces in Cyprus after a 45 minute order to launch.
This planned holocaust – the mass killing of humans by humans, as usual, gained its own momentum.
A Danish freighter, the MV Barbara, had cast off 1st February from Torquay, Devon, with four Britons aboard bound for Palestine.
(1) A symbolic fifty tonnes of food, medical supplies etc were in the hold. The purpose was to share our common humanity with our sisters and brothers in Gaza and to shout against the looming war upon the people of Iraq. As we steamed eastwards in the Mediterranean, the war and supply ships overtook us on their course for Suez. On one day the officer of the watch on our ship was interrogated five times by 'coalition' terrorists. (2)
On the 16th of March, brothers met to share blood. The trio who were flown to the Azores consisted of Bush, the capo di tutti capo, Blair and Aznar. (3) In fact, the attack had already started; Australian special force terrorists were already in theatre – as they say.
On the 22nd March, massed terrorists from 39 nations including Arab ones, streamed from Kuwait by land and by air, and with cruise missiles, into Iraq.
They were not wielding AK47s but were tooled up with everything. They had come to liberate the nineteen million humans in Babylon. This would include liberation of their limbs from their bodies. The altruistic and ultimate aim was to usher in a golden democracy, as experienced in those 39 nations like Saudi Arabia, the UK and the US, and in the 'only democracy' in the Middle East, the Zionist entity. But the plan laid out by Oded Yinon was central.
A splinter of this terror came to Ali Abbas, then 12 years of age and formerly of the village of Zafaraniya, near Baghdad about 10 days after the shocking and 'aweing' started. (4)
His arms were incinerated and the front of his trunk burned to a depth of an inch.
His mother who was six months pregnant, his father, brother and at least 10 other relatives were incinerated by the coalition of willing terror.
It had been reported that, just after midnight on 30 March 2003 and 10 days into "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a weapon or two weapons exploded.
The village lay directly alongside the Al Rasheed camp. The 6th Special Republican Guard Battalion was stationed there. The airbase was served by an 8,300 foot long runway. According to the Gulf War Air Power Survey, there were 10 hardened aircraft shelters at Rasheed of 1991.
This had been an RAF base after 1922 from where, ironically and probably, the British had terrorized the native people. It also lay about 15 km from Baghdad airport. (5)
There had been a big battle for the bridgehead of Baghdad airport, the Special Republican Guard fighting the US 7th Infantry Division.
The Three images of Ali – view from the side, view from his feet and Ali pictured in Kuwait after amputation of his arms and excision of the deep trunk burn.
If one looks carefully one sees :-
• That his head and neck, groins and legs are unblemished. It would seem that he was irradiated through a rectangular window aperture.
• That it is appropriate to describe his arms as incinerated. The bones of some fingers are naked and white.
• That the burn over the front of his chest and abdomen tapers off down each side of his trunk. If massive thermal or nuclear radiation had been applied en face the 'burning' would be like this. Given the much higher thermal capacity of the trunk cf with the arms, the same energy would have required a longer time to incinerate the trunk.
• He had not moved, otherwise there would have been loss of this symmetry. Thus the incineration by the most intense nuclear irradiation took place in milliseconds.
Imagine his pain and the pain of then knowing that his mum and dad had been killed.
What was the agent of this terror?
The energy was either thermal or nuclear. A neutron shell was the most likely source. This weapon, developed by Samuel T Cohen at Livermore (6 &7) has limited blast and destroys living tissue as opposed to material like concrete or steel. It does produce radioactive isotopes.
This story, and others, which reports the removal of 'topsoil' (8) from Baghdad airport ( and also from Fallujah in other articles) lends support to the strong belief that 'Enhanced Radiation' was used on the inhabitants of Zafaraniya.
Conclusion
This act of terrorism on this family went unreported. Ali's terrible injuries were presented as an accident of war. This was but a fragment of the conjoined terrorism of Himalayan magnitude. It has sat easily on the consciences of the Europeans and other nations from soon after Iraq was turned from blood and loss, into chaos, blood and loss.
It is noteworthy that although I have published these images several times, I have received only one comment – 'napalm'!
Je suis Ali Abbas. We are humanity, trampled to death by the European, and soaked in his hypocrisy.
I am a Palestinian (9)
David S. Halpin : Retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon age 74. Fighting for justice for the Palestinian people since 2002. Fighting for justice in many other places as well, including for an inquest into Dr David Kelly's unnatural death. Chartered a ship and sailed to Palestine in February 2003. This, the Voyage of the Dove and the Dolphin, was a cry for Palestine and a great shout against the looming war on Iraq. Founded the charity of the same name. Been back to Gaza 8x since. On the 10th attempt, two days into the greater shoah, I was on the Dignity when it was rammed 30 December 2008, with the clear intention of drowning the 16 of us. Planned to return to Gaza but the entity would not allow this.
*****
The horrific images of the injuries, both mental and physical that 12 year old Ali Abbas sustained, are horrifying. You never saw this broadcast on the MSM when the cameras came rolling through showing the "Liberation of Iraq" during Operation Iraqi Freedom...
I can never stop seeing images like this, as I was there before the burnt and mutilated bodies of once human being's were cleared away. I saw some of what we did with my own eyes and as a result it is burned into my memory only to be erased by mental deterioration or death. My sentence is a life sentence for what I have done, and I shall suffer it until my last breath on this planet. I do not totally blame myself for my part in this, I was lied to the same as you and I joined the Army because it was a good option for me at the time and I wanted to protect people. The Allied military members currently serving can no longer justify what they do in the name of freedom for they have access to the same public information I do. I made my choice to leave the Army and fight for peace, a hardship to be endured for sure, but if I can do it.. so can they.. every single one of them that wants to believe they are a decent soul can prove it, and have the opportunity to do so in every moment.
Ali Abbas reflects ten years on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9939885/Iraq-war-victim-Ali-Abbas-reflects-ten-years-on.html
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.13, 00:04:52
Only one question left to ask..?
Are you all fuckin' stupid, or what ?
stu·pid (sto͞o′pĭd, styo͞o′-)
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied: felt stupid after taking the pain medication.
5. Used to express disparagement or exasperation: Take your stupid notebook and go home.
n.
A stupid or foolish person.
BBC Documentary - Stupidityhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDsnCrSfzCQ
Are we all stupid sometimes ? Will that tendency to be stupid destroy the world ?Idiocracyhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakes five centuries in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive.
Social engineering (political science)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29
Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media or private groups. Social Engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon. As Dr. R. D. Ingthorsson alluded to, a human being is a biological creature from birth but is from then on shaped as a person through social influences (upbringing/socialisation) and is in that sense a social construction.
A social engineer is one who tries to influence popular attitudes, social behaviors, and resource management on a large scale. Social engineering is the application of the scientific method for social concern. Social engineers use the methods of science to analyze and understand social systems, so as to arrive at appropriate decisions as scientists, and not as politicians. In the political arena, the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering.
Decision-making can affect the safety and survival of literally billions of people. As expressed by German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies in his study The Present Problems of Social Structure, society can no longer operate successfully using outmoded methods of social management. To achieve the best outcomes, all conclusions and decisions must use the most advanced techniques and include reliable statistical data, which can be applied to a social system. In other words, social engineering is a data-based scientific system used to develop a sustainable design so as to achieve the intelligent management of Earth's resources with the highest levels of freedom, prosperity, and happiness within a population.
For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance has the effect of seeking to change behavior and could be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.
America's perfect, self-sustaining terror machine: Why we're forever doomed to a national security state
Decades after the Cold War, fear of foreign enemies real and imagined still dictates American foreign policy
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/08/americas_perfect_self_sustaining_terror_machine_why_were_forever_doomed_to_a_national_security_state_partner/
As 2015 begins, let's take a trip down memory lane. Imagine that it's January 1963. For the last three years, the United States has unsuccessfully faced off against a small island in the Caribbean, where a revolutionary named Fidel Castro seized power from a corrupt but U.S.-friendly regime run by Fulgencio Batista. In the global power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union in which much of the planet has chosen sides, Cuba, only 90 miles from the American mainland, finds itself in the eye of the storm. Having lost Washington's backing, it has, however, gained the support of distant Moscow, the other nuclear-armed superpower on the planet.
In October 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower instituted an embargo on U.S. trade with the island that would, two years later, be strengthened and made permanent by John F. Kennedy. On entering the Oval Office, Kennedy also inherited a cockamamie CIA scheme to use Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro. That led, in April 1961, to the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in which, despite major Agency support, the exiles were crushed (after which the CIA would hatch various mad plots to assassinate the new Cuban leader). What followed in October 1962 was "the most dangerous moment in human history" — the Cuban missile crisis — a brief period when many Americans, my 18-year-old self included, genuinely thought we might soon be nuclear toast.
Now, imagine yourself in January 1963, alive and chastened by a world in which you could be obliterated at any moment. Imagine as well that someone from our time suddenly invited you into the American future some 52 Januaries hence, when you would, miracle of miracles, still be alive and the planet still more or less in one piece. Imagine, as a start, being told that the embargo against, and Washington's hostility toward, Cuba never ended. That 52 futile years later, with Cuba now run by Fidel's "younger" brother, 83-year-old Raul, the 11th American president to deal with the "crisis" has finally decided to restore diplomatic relations, ease trade restrictions, and encourage American visitors to the island.
Imagine being told as well that in Congress, more than half a century later, a possible majority of representatives remained nostalgic for a policy that spent 52 years not working. Imagine that members of the upcoming 2015 Senate were already swearing they wouldn't hand over a plug nickel to the president or the State Department to establish a diplomatic mission in Havana or confirm an ambassador or ease the embargo or take any other steps to change the situation, and were denouncing the president — who, by the way, is a black man named Barack Obama — as a weakling and an "appeaser-in-chief" for making such a move.
Perhaps that American visitor from 1963 would already feel as if his or her mind were being scrambled like a morning egg and yet we're only beginning. After all, our visitor would have to be told that the Soviet Union, that hostile, nuclear-armed communist superpower and partner of Washington in the potential obliteration of the planet, no longer exists; that it unexpectedly imploded in 1991, leaving its Eastern European empire largely free to integrate into the rest of Europe.
One caveat would, however, need to be added to that blockbuster piece of historical news. Lest our visitor imagine that everything has changed beyond all recognition, it would be important to point out that in 2015 the U.S. still confronts an implacably hostile, nuclear-armed communist state. Not the USSR, of course, nor even that other communist behemoth, China. (Its Communist Party took the "capitalist road" in the late 1970s and never looked back as that country rose to become the globe's largest economy!)
Here's a hint: it fought the U.S. to a draw in a bitter war more than six decades ago and has just been accused of launching a devastating strike against the United States. Admittedly, it wasn't aimed at Washington but at Hollywood. That country — or some group claiming to be working in its interests — broke into a major movie studio, Sony (oh yes, a Japanese company is now a significant force in Hollywood!), and released gossip about its inner workings as well as the nasty things actors, producers, and corporate executives had to say about one another. It might (or might not), that is, have launched the planet's first cyber-gossip bomb.
And yes, you would have to tell our visitor from 1963 that this hostile communist power, North Korea, is also an oppressive, beleaguered, lights-out state and in no way a serious enemy, not in a world in which the U.S. remains the "last superpower."
You would, of course, have to add that, 52 years later, Vietnam, another implacable communist enemy with whom President Kennedy was escalating a low-level conflict in 1963, is now a de facto U.S. ally – and no, not because it lost its war with us. That war, once considered the longest in U.S. history, would at its height see more than 500,000 American combat troops dispatched to South Vietnam and, in 1973, end in an unexpectedly bitter defeat for Washington from which America never quite seemed to recover.
2015 and Baying for More
Still, with communism a has-been force and capitalism triumphant everywhere, enemies have been just a tad scarce in the twenty-first century. Other than the North Koreans, there is the fundamentalist regime of Iran, which ran its Batista, the Shah, out in 1979, and with which, in the 35 years since, the U.S. has never come to terms — though Barack Obama still might – without ever quite going to war either. And of course there would be another phenomenon of our moment completely unknown to an American of 1963: Islamic extremism, aka jihadism, along with the rise of terrorist organizations and, in 2014, the establishment of the first mini-terror state in the heart of the Middle East. And oh yes, there was that tiny crew that went by the name of al-Qaeda, 19 of whose box-cutter-wielding militants hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, and destroyed two soaring towers (not yet built in 1963) in downtown New York City and part of the Pentagon. In the process, they killed themselves and thousands of civilians, put apocalyptic-looking scenes of destruction on American television screens, and successfully created a sense of a looming, communist-style planetary enemy, when just about no one was there.
Their acts gave a new administration of right-wing fundamentalists in Washington the opportunity to fulfill its wildest dreams of planetary domination by launching, only days later, what was grandiloquently called the Global War on Terror (or the Long War, or World War IV), a superpower crusade against, initially, almost no one. Its opening salvo would let loose an "all-volunteer" military (no more draft Army as in 1963) universally believed to be uniquely powerful. It would, they were sure, wipe out al-Qaeda, settle scores with various enemies in the Greater Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and leave the U.S. triumphant in a way no great power had been in history. In response to a few thousand scattered al-Qaeda members, a Pax Americana would be created on a global scale that would last generations, if not forever and a day.
Washington's enemies of that moment would have been so unimpressive to Americans of 1963 that, on learning of the future that awaited them, they might well have dropped to their knees and thanked God for the deliverance of the United States of America. In describing all this to that visitor from another America, you would, however, have to add that the Global War on Terror, in which giant ambitions met the most modest of opponents any great power had faced in hundreds of years, didn't work out so well. You would have to point out that the U.S. military, allied intelligence outfits, and a set of warrior corporations (almost unknown in 1963) mobilized to go to war with them struck out big time in a way almost impossible to fathom; that, from September 2001 to January 2015, no war, invasion, occupation, intervention, conflict, or set of operations, no matter how under-armed or insignificant the forces being taken on, succeeded in any lasting or meaningful way. It was as if Hank Aaron had come to the plate for a more than a decade without ever doing anything but striking out.
For our by now goggle-eyed visitor, you would have to add that, other than invading the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada against no opposition in 1983 and Panama against next to no opposition in 1989, the mightiest power on the planet hasn't won a war or conflict since World War II. And after explaining all this, the strangest task would still lie ahead.
Our American beamed in from 1963, who hadn't even experienced defeat in Vietnam yet, would have to be filled in on the two wars of choice Washington launched with such enthusiasm and confidence in 2001 and 2003 and could never again get out of. I'm talking, of course, about Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that would barely have registered on an American radar screen 52 years ago, and yet would prove unparalleled quagmires (a Vietnam-era term our observer wouldn't have yet run across). We would need to explain how the "lone superpower" of the twenty-first century would transform each of them into competitors for the "longest American war" ever.
Washington's Iraq War began in 1991, the year the Soviet Union would disappear, and in one form or another essentially never ended. It has involved the building of major war-making coalitions, invasions, a full-scale occupation, air wars of various sorts, and god knows what else. As 2015 begins, the U.S. is in its third round of war in Iraq, having committed itself to a new and escalating conflict in that country (and Syria), and in all that time it has won nothing at all. It would be important to remind our visitor from the past that Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 on the promise of getting the U.S. out of Iraq and actually managed to do so for three years before plunging the country back in yet again.
The first American war in Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a CIA Cold War operation that began in 1979 just after the Soviets invaded the country and was meant as payback for Vietnam. And yes, to confuse that visitor even more, in its first Afghan War, the U.S. actually supported the crew who became al-Qaeda and would later attack New York and Washington to ensure the launching of the second Afghan War, the one in which the U.S. invaded and occupied the country. That war has been going on ever since. Despite much talk about winding it down or even ending the mission there 13 years later, the commitment has been renewed for 2015 and beyond.
In both countries, the enemies of choice proved to be lightly armed minority insurgencies. In both, an initial, almost ecstatic sense of triumph following an invasion slowly morphed into a fear of impending defeat. To add just a fillip to all this, in 2015 a Republican majority in the Senate as well as in the House — and don't forget to explain that we're no longer talking about Eisenhower Republicans here — will be baying for more.
The National Security State as a Self-Perpetuating Machine
So far, America's future, looked at from more than half a century ago, has been little short of phantasmagoric. To sum up: in an almost enemy-less world in which the American economic system was triumphant and the U.S. possessed by far the strongest military on the planet, nothing seems to have gone as planned or faintly right. And yet, you wouldn't want to leave that observer from 1963 with the wrong impression. However much the national security state may have seemed like an amalgam of the Three Stooges on a global stage, not everything worked out badly.
In fact, in these years the national security state triumphed in the nation's capital in a way that the U.S. military and allied intelligence outfits were incapable of doing anywhere else on Earth. Fifty-three years after the world might have ended, on a planet lacking a Soviet-like power — though the U.S. was by now involved in "Cold War 2.0" in eastern Ukraine on the border of the rump energy state the Soviet Union left behind — the worlds of national security and surveillance had grown to a size that beggared their own enormous selves in the Cold War era. They had been engorged by literally trillions of taxpayer dollars. A new domestic version of the Pentagon called the Department of Homeland Security had been set up in 2002. An "intelligence community" made up of 17 major agencies and outfits, bolstered by hundreds of thousands of private security contractors, had expanded endlessly and in the process created a global surveillance state that went beyond the wildest imaginings of the totalitarian powers of the twentieth century.
In the process, the national security state enveloped itself in a penumbra of secrecy that left the American people theoretically "safe" and remarkably ignorant of what was being done in their name. Its officials increasingly existed in a crime-free zone, beyond the reach of accountability, the law, courts, or jail. Homeland security and intelligence complexes grew up around the national security state in the way that the military-industrial complex had once grown up around the Pentagon and similarly engorged themselves. In these years, Washington filled with newly constructed billion-dollar intelligence headquarters and building complexes dedicated to secret work — and that only begins to tell the tale of how twenty-first-century "security" triumphed.
This vast investment of American treasure has been used to construct an edifice dedicated in a passionate way to dealing with a single danger to Americans, one that would have been unknown in 1963: Islamic terrorism. Despite the several thousand Americans who died on September 11, 2001, the dangers of terrorism rate above shark attacks but not much else in American life. Even more remarkably, the national security state has been built on a foundation of almost total failure. Think of failure, in fact, as the spark that repeatedly sets the further expansion of its apparatus in motion, funds it, and allows it to thrive.
It works something like this: start with the fact that, on September 10, 2001, global jihadism was a microscopic movement on this planet. Since 9/11, under the pressure of American military power, it has exploded geographically, while the number of jihadist organizations has multiplied, and the number of people joining such groups has regularly and repeatedly increased, a growth rate that seems to correlate with the efforts of Washington to destroy terrorism and its infrastructure. In other words, the Global War on Terror has been and remains a global war for the production of terror. And terror groups know it.
It was Osama bin Laden's greatest insight and is now a commonplace that drawing Washington into military action against you increases your credibility in the world that matters to you and so makes recruiting easier. At the same time, American actions, from invasions to drone strikes, and their "collateral damage," create pools of people desperate for revenge. If you want to thrive and grow, in other words, you need the U.S. as an enemy.
Via taunting acts like the beheading videos of the Islamic State, the new "caliphate" in Iraq and Syria, such movements bait Washington into action. And each new terrorist crew, each "lone wolf" terrorist undiscovered until too late by a state structure that has cost Americans trillions of dollars, each plot not foiled, each failure, works to bolster both terrorist outfits and the national security state itself. This has, in other words, proved to be a deeply symbiotic and mutually profitable relationship.
From the point of view of the national security state, each failure, each little disaster, acts as another shot of fear in the American body politic, and the response to failure is predictable: never less of what doesn't work, but more. More money, more bodies hired, more new outfits formed, more elaborate defenses, more offensive weaponry. Each failure with its accompanying jolt of fear (and often hysteria) predictably results in further funding for the national security state to develop newer, even more elaborate versions of what it's been doing these last 13 years. Failure, in other words, is the key to success.
In this sense, think of Washington's national security structure as a self-perpetuating machine that works like a dream, since those who oversee its continued expansion are never penalized for its inability to accomplish any of its goals. On the contrary, they are invariably promoted, honored, and assured of a golden-parachute-style retirement or — far more likely — a golden journey through one of Washington's revolving doors onto some corporate board or into some cushy post in one complex or another where they can essentially lobby their former colleagues for private warrior corporations, rent-a-gun outfits, weapons makers, and the like. And there is nothing either in Washington or in American life that seems likely to change any of this in the near future.
An Inheritance From Hell
In the meantime, a "war on terror" mentality slowly seeps into the rest of society as the warriors, weapons, and gadgetry come home from our distant battle zones. That's especially obvious when it comes to the police nationwide. It can be seen in the expanding numbers of SWAT teams filled with special ops vets, the piles of Pentagon weaponry from those wars being transferred to local police forces at home, and the way they are taking on the look of forces of occupation in an alien land, operating increasingly with a mentality of "wartime policing." Since the events of Ferguson, all of this has finally become far more evident to Americans (as it would, with some explanation, to our visitor from 1963). It was no anomaly, for example, that Justice Department investigators found a banner hanging in a Cleveland police station that identified the place sardonically as a "forward operating base," a term the military uses, as the New York Times put it, "for heavily guarded wartime outposts inside insurgent-held territory."
In the wake of Ferguson, the "reforms" being proposed — essentially better training in the more effective use of the new battlefield-style gear the police are acquiring — will only militarize them further. This same mentality, with its accompanying gadgetry, has been moving heavily into America's border areas and into schools and other institutions as well, including an enormous increase in surveillance systems geared to streets, public places, and even the home.
In the meantime, while a national security state mentality has been infiltrating American society, the planners of that state have been rewriting the global rules of the road for years when it comes to torture, kidnapping, drone assassination campaigns, global surveillance, national sovereignty, the launching of cyberwars, and the like — none of which will, in the end, contribute to American security, and all of which has already made the planet a less secure, more chaotic, more fragmented place. In these last years, in other words, in its search for "security," the U.S. has actually become a force for destabilization — that is, insecurity — across significant swaths of the planet.
Perhaps one of these days, Americans will decide to consider more seriously what "security," as presently defined by the powers that be in Washington, even means in our world. There can, as a start, be no question that the national security state does offer genuine security of a very specific sort: to its own officials and employees. Nothing they do, no matter how dumb, immoral, or downright criminal, ever seems to stand in the way of their own upward mobility within its structure.
As an example — and it's only one in an era filled with them — not a single CIA official was dismissed, demoted, or even reprimanded in response to the recent release of the redacted executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report. It hardly mattered that the report included actual criminal behavior (even by the degraded "enhanced interrogation" standards green-lighted by the Bush administration) and the grimmest kinds of abuse of prisoners, some quite innocent of anything. In an America in which, economically speaking, security has not exactly been the gold standard of the twenty-first century, it is hard to imagine any group that is more secure.
As for the rest of us, insecurity will surely be the story of our lives for the rest of the twenty-first century (as it was, of course, in 1963). After all, on August 6, 1945, when we consciously entered the age of the apocalyptic possibility at Hiroshima, we had no way of knowing that we had already done so perhaps 200 years earlier as the industrial revolution, based on the burning of fossil fuels, took off. Nor almost 20 years later, did that American of 1963 know this. By 1979, however, the science adviser for the president of the United States was well aware of global warming. When Jimmy Carter gave his infamous "malaise" speech promoting a massive commitment to alternative energy research (and got laughed out of the White House), he already knew that climate change — not yet called that — was a reality that needed to be dealt with.
Now, the rest of us know, or at least should know, and so — with what is likely to be the hottest year on record just ended — would be obliged to offer our visitor from 1963 a graphic account of the coming dangers of a globally warming world. There has always been a certain sense of insecurity to any human life, but until 1945 not to all human life. And yet we now know with something approaching certainty that, even if another nuclear weapon never goes off (and across the planet nuclear powers are upgrading their arsenals), chaos, acidifying oceans, melting ice formations, rising seas, flooding coastal areas, mass migrations of desperate people, food production problems, devastating droughts, and monster storms are all in a future that will be the definition of human-caused insecurity — not that the national security state gives much of a damn.
Admittedly, since at least 2001, the Pentagon and the U.S. Intelligence Community have been engaged in blue-skies thinking about how to give good war in a globally warming world. The national security state as a whole, however, has been set up at a cost of trillions of dollars (and allowed to spend trillions more) to deal with only one kind of insecurity — terrorism and the ever-larger line up of enemies that go with it. Such groups do, of course, represent a genuine danger, but not of an existential kind. Thought about another way, thetrue terrorists on our planet may be the people running the Big Energy corporations and about them the national security state could care less. They are more than free to ply their trade, pull any level of fossil fuel reserves from the ground, and generally pursue mega-profits while preparing the way for global destruction, aided and abetted by Washington.
Try now to imagine yourself in the shoes of that visitor from 1963 absorbing such a future, bizarre almost beyond imagining: all those trillions of dollars going into a system that essentially promotes the one danger it was set up to eradicate or at least bring under control. In the meantime, the part of the state dedicated to national security conveniently looking the other way when it comes to the leading candidate for giving insecurity a new meaning in a future that is almost upon us. Official Washington has, that is, invented a system so dumb, so extreme, so fundamentalist, and so deeply entrenched in our world that changing it will surely prove a stunningly difficult task.
Welcome to the new world of American insecurity and to the nightmarish inheritance we are preparing for our children and grandchildren.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, "Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World" (Haymarket Books), has just been published.
The Swiss That Broke the Camel's Back
https://www.perpetualassets.com/news/2015/01/20/the-swiss-that-broke-the-camels-back/
By Will Lehr
This is it. The hammer has fallen, the line in the sand is breached, and the camel's back is fractured. The foundation of the financial house of cards just gave it's first tremor. The move by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) to unpeg the franc from the euro will go down in history as the first shot in this war. The likelihood that a derivatives time bomb has been lit is near certain. Currency market moves are often the most sensitive, the most deeply tied into the interwoven system of financial 'trading'.
Interest rate swaps, which are prevalent in the currency markets, are the largest pool of derivative leverage in the markets. These markets have literally trillions of dollars in daily turnover – source BIS. The leverage on top of these massive trades is even bigger. Most currency exchange (FX) trading accounts have 10 to 1 leverage, often 50 to 1! Currency moves are typically expressed in basis points, hundredths of a percent. When the SNB removed the franc's peg to the euro, the currency moved about 30%. This is unprecedented.
It's no secret that the financial world is interconnected. When there are massive disruptions in one small area, they can trigger a shakedown of the entire system- think sub-prime mortgage market in 2008. The trigger of derivative losses in sub-prime loans almost took down the system. One of the largest investment banks of the time, Lehmann Brothers took the fall, and the rest of the financial system needed a trillion dollar bailout.
A decade earlier in 1997, mimicking the events of last week, the central bank of Thailand unpegged the Thai baht from the US dollar. The event spread into the Asian Contagion. Southeast Asian economies collapsed. Russia went into a bond default, which caused the collapse of a large US hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management (LCTM), whose losses were $3.6 billion, for which Greenspan arranged a bailout.
Unlike the famed US taxpayer bailout of the banks in 2008, Greenspan convinced the largest banks to buy LTCM outright, and stop the bleeding. Although the US treasury didn't stroke the check, a bailout was necessary to keep the system afloat. Per the maestro himself, had the bailout not been arranged the world economy could have collapsed.
"Had the failure of LTCM triggered the seizing up of markets, substantial damage could have been inflicted on many market participants, including some not directly involved with the firm, and could have potentially impaired the economies of many nations, including our own."
~FRB Testimony, 10/1/1998
The Thai unpeg occurred in 1997. The global financial system was much healthier then. Confidence was high, participation was great, leverage was lower. The Thai baht was also a very thinly traded currency, whereas the Swiss franc is one of the heaviest traded currencies in the world today. The implications of the Swiss unpeg are incredible, the losses will be paramount. The damage done to interest rate swap derivatives is not even known yet. Stay tuned as the victims should surface soon. Look for big name banks and big numbers.
Noam Chomsky: Are We on the Verge of Total Self-Destruction?
If you ask what the world is going to look like, it's not a pretty picture.
What is the future likely to bring? A reasonable stance might be to try to look at the human species from the outside. So imagine that you're an extraterrestrial observer who is trying to figure out what's happening here or, for that matter, imagine you're an historian 100 years from now -- assuming there are any historians 100 years from now, which is not obvious -- and you're looking back at what's happening today. You'd see something quite remarkable.
For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That's been true since 1945. It's now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.
And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.
How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying
The question is: What are people doing about it? None of this is a secret. It's all perfectly open. In fact, you have to make an effort not to see it.
There have been a range of reactions. There are those who are trying hard to do something about these threats, and others who are acting to escalate them. If you look at who they are, this future historian or extraterrestrial observer would see something strange indeed. Trying to mitigate or overcome these threats are the least developed societies, the indigenous populations, or the remnants of them, tribal societies and first nations in Canada. They're not talking about nuclear war but environmental disaster, and they're really trying to do something about it.
In fact, all over the world -- Australia, India, South America -- there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it's a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand. The strongest of any country with regard to global warming is in Bolivia, which has an indigenous majority and constitutional requirements that protect the "rights of nature."
Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, is the only oil exporter I know of where the government is seeking aid to help keep that oil in the ground, instead of producing and exporting it -- and the ground is where it ought to be.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died recently and was the object of mockery, insult, and hatred throughout the Western world, attended a session of the U.N. General Assembly a few years ago where he elicited all sorts of ridicule for calling George W. Bush a devil. He also gave a speech there that was quite interesting. Of course, Venezuela is a major oil producer. Oil is practically their whole gross domestic product. In that speech, he warned of the dangers of the overuse of fossil fuels and urged producer and consumer countries to get together and try to work out ways to reduce fossil fuel use. That was pretty amazing on the part of an oil producer. You know, he was part Indian, of indigenous background. Unlike the funny things he did, this aspect of his actions at the U.N. was never even reported.
So, at one extreme you have indigenous, tribal societies trying to stem the race to disaster. At the other extreme, the richest, most powerful societies in world history, like the United States and Canada, are racing full-speed ahead to destroy the environment as quickly as possible. Unlike Ecuador, and indigenous societies throughout the world, they want to extract every drop of hydrocarbons from the ground with all possible speed.
Both political parties, President Obama, the media, and the international press seem to be looking forward with great enthusiasm to what they call "a century of energy independence" for the United States. Energy independence is an almost meaningless concept, but put that aside. What they mean is: we'll have a century in which to maximize the use of fossil fuels and contribute to destroying the world.
And that's pretty much the case everywhere. Admittedly, when it comes to alternative energy development, Europe is doing something. Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn't have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn't even have renewable energy targets. It's not because the population doesn't want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It's institutional structures that block change. Business interests don't want it and they're overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one.
So that's what the future historian -- if there is one -- would see. He might also read today's scientific journals. Just about every one you open has a more dire prediction than the last.
"The Most Dangerous Moment in History"
The other issue is nuclear war. It's been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It's well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was.
We've just passed the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was called "the most dangerous moment in history" by historian Arthur Schlesinger, President John F. Kennedy's advisor. Which it was. It was a very close call, and not the only time either. In some ways, however, the worst aspect of these grim events is that the lessons haven't been learned.
What happened in the missile crisis in October 1962 has been prettified to make it look as if acts of courage and thoughtfulness abounded. The truth is that the whole episode was almost insane. There was a point, as the missile crisis was reaching its peak, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy offering to settle it by a public announcement of a withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. missiles from Turkey. Actually, Kennedy hadn't even known that the U.S. had missiles in Turkey at the time. They were being withdrawn anyway, because they were being replaced by more lethal Polaris nuclear submarines, which were invulnerable.
So that was the offer. Kennedy and his advisors considered it -- and rejected it. At the time, Kennedy himself was estimating the likelihood of nuclear war at a third to a half. So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we -- and only we -- have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others -- and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does.
Kennedy did, however, accept a secret agreement to withdraw the missiles the U.S. was already withdrawing, as long as it was never made public. Khrushchev, in other words, had to openly withdraw the Russian missiles while the U.S. secretly withdrew its obsolete ones; that is, Khrushchev had to be humiliated and Kennedy had to maintain his macho image. He's greatly praised for this: courage and coolness under threat, and so on. The horror of his decisions is not even mentioned -- try to find it on the record.
And to add a little more, a couple of months before the crisis blew up the United States had sent missiles with nuclear warheads to Okinawa. These were aimed at China during a period of great regional tension.
Well, who cares? We have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world. That was one grim lesson from that era, but there were others to come.
Ten years after that, in 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert. It was his way of warning the Russians not to interfere in the ongoing Israel-Arab war and, in particular, not to interfere after he had informed the Israelis that they could violate a ceasefire the U.S. and Russia had just agreed upon. Fortunately, nothing happened.
Ten years later, President Ronald Reagan was in office. Soon after he entered the White House, he and his advisors had the Air Force start penetrating Russian air space to try to elicit information about Russian warning systems, Operation Able Archer. Essentially, these were mock attacks. The Russians were uncertain, some high-level officials fearing that this was a step towards a real first strike. Fortunately, they didn't react, though it was a close call. And it goes on like that.
What to Make of the Iranian and North Korean Nuclear Crises
At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.
Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West -- not in the Arab world, not in Asia -- the gravest threat to world peace. It's a Western obsession, and it's interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I'll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that's been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly.
The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn't be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this. What happened?
You won't read about it in the newspapers because it wasn't reported -- only in specialist journals. In early November, Iran agreed to attend the meeting. A couple of days later Obama cancelled the meeting, saying the time wasn't right. The European Parliament issued a statement calling for it to continue, as did the Arab states. Nothing resulted. So we'll move toward ever-harsher sanctions against the Iranian population -- it doesn't hurt the regime -- and maybe war. Who knows what will happen?
In Northeast Asia, it's the same sort of thing. North Korea may be the craziest country in the world. It's certainly a good competitor for that title. But it does make sense to try to figure out what's in the minds of people when they're acting in crazy ways. Why would they behave the way they do? Just imagine ourselves in their situation. Imagine what it meant in the Korean War years of the early 1950s for your country to be totally leveled, everything destroyed by a huge superpower, which furthermore was gloating about what it was doing. Imagine the imprint that would leave behind.
Bear in mind that the North Korean leadership is likely to have read the public military journals of this superpower at that time explaining that, since everything else in North Korea had been destroyed, the air force was sent to destroy North Korea's dams, huge dams that controlled the water supply -- a war crime, by the way, for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And these official journals were talking excitedly about how wonderful it was to see the water pouring down, digging out the valleys, and the Asians scurrying around trying to survive. The journals were exulting in what this meant to those "Asians," horrors beyond our imagination. It meant the destruction of their rice crop, which in turn meant starvation and death. How magnificent! It's not in our memory, but it's in their memory.
Let's turn to the present. There's an interesting recent history. In 1993, Israel and North Korea were moving towards an agreement in which North Korea would stop sending any missiles or military technology to the Middle East and Israel would recognize that country. President Clinton intervened and blocked it. Shortly after that, in retaliation, North Korea carried out a minor missile test. The U.S. and North Korea did then reach a framework agreement in 1994 that halted its nuclear work and was more or less honored by both sides. When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn't producing any more.
Bush immediately launched his aggressive militarism, threatening North Korea -- "axis of evil" and all that -- so North Korea got back to work on its nuclear program. By the time Bush left office, they had eight to 10 nuclear weapons and a missile system, another great neocon achievement. In between, other things happened. In 2005, the U.S. and North Korea actually reached an agreement in which North Korea was to end all nuclear weapons and missile development. In return, the West, but mainly the United States, was to provide a light-water reactor for its medical needs and end aggressive statements. They would then form a nonaggression pact and move toward accommodation.
It was pretty promising, but almost immediately Bush undermined it. He withdrew the offer of the light-water reactor and initiated programs to compel banks to stop handling any North Korean transactions, even perfectly legal ones. The North Koreans reacted by reviving their nuclear weapons program. And that's the way it's been going.
It's well known. You can read it in straight, mainstream American scholarship. What they say is: it's a pretty crazy regime, but it's also following a kind of tit-for-tat policy. You make a hostile gesture and we'll respond with some crazy gesture of our own. You make an accommodating gesture and we'll reciprocate in some way.
Lately, for instance, there have been South Korean-U.S. military exercises on the Korean peninsula which, from the North's point of view, have got to look threatening. We'd think they were threatening if they were going on in Canada and aimed at us. In the course of these, the most advanced bombers in history, Stealth B-2s and B-52s, are carrying out simulated nuclear bombing attacks right on North Korea's borders.
This surely sets off alarm bells from the past. They remember that past, so they're reacting in a very aggressive, extreme way. Well, what comes to the West from all this is how crazy and how awful the North Korean leaders are. Yes, they are. But that's hardly the whole story, and this is the way the world is going.
It's not that there are no alternatives. The alternatives just aren't being taken. That's dangerous. So if you ask what the world is going to look like, it's not a pretty picture. Unless people do something about it. We always can.
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including Hopes and Prospects, Making the Future, and most recently (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).
[Note: This piece was adapted (with the help of Noam Chomsky) from anonline video interview that Javier Naranjo, a Colombian poet and professor, did for the website What, which is dedicated to integrating knowledge from different fields with the aim of encouraging the balance between the individual, society, and the environment.]
GERALD CELENTE – The Whole System Is About To Collapse. Think For Yourself, Dont Trust Authority
http://investmentwatchblog.com/gerald-celente-the-whole-system-is-about-to-collapse-think-for-yourself-dont-trust-authority/
Virtually everything that you do is being watched. Do you drive a car? Do you watch television? Do you use a cell phone? As you do any of those things, information about you is being recorded and tracked. We live at a time when personal privacy is dying. And it is not just governments that are doing this.
In fact, sometimes private companies are the biggest offenders. It turns out that gathering information about all of us is very, very profitable. And both government entities and private companies are going to continue to push the envelope when it comes to high tech surveillance until people start objecting to what they are trying to do. If we continue down the path that we are currently on, it is inevitable that we will end up living in an extremely restrictive "Big Brother" police state where basically everything that we do is very closely watched, monitored, tracked and controlled. And such a day may be much closer than you think.
Russia and China 'Furiously' Buying Up Gold As "a Global Currency Crisis – Albeit Unstated – is Underway"
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/russia-and-china-furiously-buying-up-gold-as-a-global-currency-crisis-albeit-unstated-is-underway_01202015
A larger global currency shift is underway...
And it may be happening much more quickly than anyone has realized.
Things are definitely in motion. Call it a game of musical chairs, or an exercise in rearranging chairs on the Titanic, or just that a tilting balance of power. Just don't make the mistake of thinking this is all routine.
As Michael Snyder just reported:
The absolutely stunning decision by the Swiss National Bank to decouple from the euro has triggered billions of dollars worth of losses all over the globe.
[...]
And these are just the losses that we know about so far. It will be many months before the full scope of the financial devastation caused by the Swiss National Bank is fully revealed. But of course the same thing could be said about the crash in the price of oil that we have witnessed in recent weeks. These two "black swan events" have set financial dominoes in motion all over the globe. At this point we can only guess how bad the financial devastation will ultimately be.
The key to understanding how the hammer will fall may lie in: gold.
In the material world that governs politics and economics, there has always been one golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.
Put China at the top of the next generation of rule makers, then.
China has been quietly stockpiling gold for years now. In fact, it is stockpiling so much gold that many have speculated that it may be building a gold-backed yuan currency that would make the Dollar pale in comparison on the global market.
Bottom line: no one knows just exactly how much gold China has amassed:
Buying surreptitiously allows Beijing to buy bullion at bargain prices; if the world knew how much gold China was really amassing, a run on gold the likes of which the globe has never seen would likely ensue. "We believe China is controlling the gold price because it is buying in such a way so as not to push prices up." That's the opinion of respected precious-metals analyst Julian Phillips of The Gold Forecaster, along with a host of other informed sources. (source)
It is widely believed that China has accumulated larger – possibly much larger – reserves since. (source)
Lots of other countries are rapidly buying up gold, too, including – Serbia, Greece, Ecuador, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
But reportedly no one is buying gold at a faster pace than Russia.
Back in August it was reported that:
Russia's increase is the most dramatic, according to the recent report from the IMF. The Russian central bank has almost doubled its gold holdings within the last 5 years to 1,094.8 tonnes in June of this year. China's Central Bank followed with an increase of 75% from its holdings in 2009.
Bloomberg reported in November:
The country has tripled its gold reserves since 2005 and is holding the most since at least 1993, IMF data show.
There is little doubt that gold plays a major factor in Russia's posturing during a global showdown that involves proxy war and military tensions in the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and other parts of the globe.
Moscow's purchase of bullion and the assault on the bank can be seen as tactics of a single strategy designed to break the monopoly of the dollar. Gold is Russia's hedge against that hegemony; it can't be hacked.
More than that, Putin has been positioning his motherland to team up with China to solidify the emerging BRICS system which aims to thwart decades of Anglo financial dominance with a un-dollar currency system that will also include a development bank.
Russia's response has been to buy gold and turn east, cementing deals with China and, it would seem, firing the opening salvos in a cyber currency war with the U.S. (source)
Warnings have sounded about a tipping of the global balance:
Russia is also increasing its gold reserves. China and Russia have been exchanging their U.S. dollar reserves and buying physical gold. Last year we speculated that this dynamic would create a shortage in gold leading to much higher prices. Russia and China now rank in the top ten countries by gold reserves.
With Russia now in what appears to be a currency war with the U.S., they may find a willing partner in China to create an alternative international financial system that does not rely upon or use the dollar. Irrespective of either country's intentions, their physical gold buying sprees continue unabated. (source)
To that end, Russia has been amassing as much gold as possible, in a bid to outmaneuver its enemies in a silent economic war to hold onto its independence and further project its status.
Nearly every bit of gas and oil that Russia sells to neighbors in Europe and Asia is converted from dollars into gold reserves – and even with the collapsing oil price, that amount could still be staggering.
Many have pointed to the gold and oil trade off as Putin's grand chess strategy:
Thus, the Western world, built on the hegemony of the petrodollar, is in a catastrophic situation. In which it cannot survive without oil and gas supplies from Russia. And Russia is now ready to sell its oil and gas to the West only in exchange for physical gold! The twist of Putin's game is that the mechanism for the sale of Russian energy to the West only for gold now works regardless of whether the West agrees to pay for Russian oil and gas with its artificially cheap gold, or not.
If it ever comes to throwing down the gold and putting everyone's cards on the table – ounce for ounce, and ton for ton, China and Russia will be major contenders in the global system, worthy of the kind of respect that equates both sovereignty and diplomatic power.
Keep in mind that China is also the world's leading gold miner, producing more than 420 metric tons in 2013 numbers, with Russia ranked behind the U.S. as the fourth largest with 220 tons produced each year.
BRIC by BRIC a new system is being erected.
China has quietly declared war on the U.S. worthless dollar but can you blame them? They already have in place Chinese Yuan Swap facilities, which started the non U.S. dollar trade practice years ago. In 2012 China completed trade agreements with most nations they trade with called BRICS. They also have a BRIC Development Fund with a reported $200 billion already funding infrastructure needs and to deal with their toxic U.S. T Bonds. They will be busy replacing these bonds with gold and the chartered bank (Bank of China, Peoples Bank of China) will compete with the IMF and World Bank. (source)
The strings that come with IMF and World Bank loans give the U.S. and Europe leverage over developing countries, and thus, control. With a competing development bank, China and Russia will literally be building the infrastructure for growing global control.
Germany Has Already 'Called' – The World Second Largest Holder of Gold Has Demanded Repatriation of Its American Holdings
The elephant in the room of this entire affair is, of course, the United States. Ostensibly, they are far and away the world's largest holder of gold, officially holding more than 8,000 tons of gold, and further housing thousands of tons of gold for various allies – especially in Europe.
However, very serious speculation has arisen about the veracity of U.S. claims to gold possession. No audit has taken place of Fort Knox, where the gold is held, since the Eisenhower administration, and many believe that significant portions have been lent or sold on the market to meet other obligations. Conventional wisdom, touted by such official mouthpieces as CBS, asserts that despite lacking confirmation of this gold through an audit, the question of who holds the gold just doesn't matter anymore:
Fort Knox began losing its luster when the United States went off the gold standard in 1971. Before that, gold bars packed into a secure vault gave people faith in the country's currency. Today, however, Fort Knox's gold is now an asset on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, not a key part of our monetary system.
With decades of the U.S. dominating world finance through the petrodollar, no one was in a position to demand answers to this plaguing question, including the European nations with substantial deposits there.
However, things have changed since the 2008 financial crisis. The petrodollar is fading, and with it, American hegemony. Numerous European countries are now demanding, politely or not, to repatriate their gold.
For Germany, it has become an important question economically as well as politically. Nominally, it is the world's second wealthiest in gold reserves, with more than 3,300 tons. However, the vast majority of its holdings have been kept in New York and London, due to post-World War II spheres of influence in Europe. With worries about the future of global economics, and a keen eye on the demise of the dollar, Germany has become decisive about keeping its gold closer to home.
Despite a 2012 decision in Germany to repatriate more than 600 tons of gold being held by the New York Federal Reserve, only 5 tons had actually been transferred across the Atlantic at the start of 2014, with the Bundesbank reassuring the German people that all is well, despite delays in the process.
Was their gold actually there, or have the delays been due to the need to buy back physical gold to meet demands on their 'call'?
While this remains officially unclear, a fresh report yesterday claimed that Germany's gold repatriation was still underway, and supposedly 'on schedule':
"The Bundesbank successfully continued and further stepped up its transfers of gold," the central bank said in a statement.
"In 2014, 120 tonnes of gold were transferred to Frankfurt from storage locations abroad: 35 tonnes from Paris and 85 tonnes from New York."
According to the German central bank's own data, 1,447 tonnes are stored at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, 438 tonnes at the Bank of England in London and 307 tonnes at the Banque de France in Paris.
Under the Bundesbank's new gold storage plan in 2013, it decided to bring back 674 tonnes from abroad by 2020 and store half of its gold in its own vaults.
The Dutch were apparently more successful in quickly repatriating some 122 tons of gold from the New York Fed back in November:
As the debate regarding whether or not Switzerland should keep the bulk of its gold reserves at home on Swiss soil reaches it's climax – the referendum takes place on Sunday – it is telling that the Dutch announced on Friday that they have just secretly repatriated 122 tonnes of their sovereign gold reserves from New York back to Amsterdam.
The Dutch Central Bank went so far as to state that the action was designed to install public confidence in the ability of the central bank to manage crises. The prospect of further shipments from the U.S. remains open as they are keeping the logistical details secret.
Meanwhile, during this silent drama, the Ukraine has been rapidly emptied out of its gold reserves.
Following the coup in Ukraine, the nation's gold reserves mysteriously plummeted to "near zero", with reserves depleting from from about $1.8 billion in gold reserves to "near zero," raising speculation that it was transferred to the U.S. Meanwhile, some $874 million in gold was officially sold in October 2014 to service its debts. Did the Federal Reserve steal Ukraine's gold to meet calls on its lacking gold reserves?
And Now the Swiss...
The recent shock announcement that the Swiss are decoupling from the Euro is the latest domino to fall, and could set off the long-feared chain reaction.
Many are asking if it signals the end of the Euro as a currency... and if so, what else after that?
The Swiss had vowed to not allow the franc to rise beyond 1.20 francs per euro. With the removal of that cap, the franc soared as much as 30% against the euro on Thursday, an unheard-of move in the currency markets.
It tells the world loudly that a global currency crisis – albeit unstated – is underway ... that Western economies and Western sovereign debt is so out of whack that the only ammo left in the arsenal is currency.
Currencies are now being sacrificed in an effort to save economies. And the only winner in that environment is gold. (source)
If possession is said to be 9/10ths of the law, and he who has the gold makes the rules, what does that tell you about fiat currencies, digital currencies and the balance of global power?
Are you prepared?
Is anyone?
Brace yourself...
The US Military's Stunning Conspiracy Theory Emerges From The Archives: "ISIS Leader Does Not Exist"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-20/us-militarys-stunning-conspiracy-theory-emerges-archives-isis-leader-does-not-exist
Having noted that voter angst has been riled, propagandized, and fear-mongered to the point at which the most pressing priority for Congress is to 'fix' terrorism, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that we discover - deep down in the archives - that giving the public someone to 'hate' as opposed to something may have been an entire fiction. As The New York Times exposed in 2007, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, the titular head of the Islamic State, according to Brigadier General Kevin Bergner - the chief American military spokesman at the time - never existed (and was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima).
Via The New York Times (2007),
For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.
As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.
On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi's ability to escape attack: He never existed.
Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.
The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.
The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.
The evidence for the American assertions, Bergner announced at a news briefing, was provided by an Iraqi insurgent: Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, who was said to have been captured by American forces in Mosul on July 4.
According to Bergner, Mashadani is the most senior Iraqi operative in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. He got his start in the Ansar al-Sunna insurgent group before joining Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia more than two years ago, and became the group's "media emir" for all of Iraq. Bergner said that Mashadani was also an intermediary between Masri in Iraq and bin Laden and Zawahiri, whom the Americans assert support and guide their Iraqi affiliate.
"Mashadani confirms that al-Masri and the foreign leaders with whom he surrounds himself, not Iraqis, made the operational decisions" for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Bergner said.
...
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a Middle East expert, said that experts had long wondered whether Baghdadi actually existed. "There has been a question mark about this," he said.
Nonetheless, Riedel suggested that the disclosures made Wednesday might not be the final word on Baghdadi and the leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Even Mashadani's assertions, Riedel said, might be a cover story to protect a leader who does in fact exist.
"First, they say we have killed him," Riedel said, referring to the statements by some Iraqi government officials. "Then we heard him after his death and now they are saying he never existed. That suggests that our intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq is not what we want it to be."
American military spokesmen insist they have gotten to the truth on Baghdadi. Mashadani, they say, provided his account because he resented the role of foreign leaders in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They say he has not repudiated the organization.
Ironman 3 anyone?
* * *
So he was a ghost back then.... is he a ghost again, a propaganda test-tube baby designed purely to put a face on ISIS and the biggest bogeyman of the current global anti-terrorist mania, so necessary to boost global QE in lieu of a world war (for now)?
It's certainly easier for an average joe to 'hate' a demonic leader than an amorphous 'thing' called 'Radical Islam' - just ask President Obama.
Russia and Iran Sign Military Cooperation Agreement
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-and-iran-sign-military-cooperation-agreement/514626.html
Russia and Iran have signed a military cooperation agreement following Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu's visit to the Islamic Republic on Tuesday, news agency RIA Novosti reported.
Shoigu said after the signing ceremony in Tehran that Russia and Iran — both of which have been sanctioned by the West — had been growing closer in recent years, and that the new military cooperation agreement is "a significant step in strengthening these relations."
The agreement lays out "a theoretical framework of cooperation in the military sphere," he said.
Shoigu said the agreement featured an increase in naval cooperation, including visits by Russian and Iranian naval forces to each other's ports.
No mention was made of any breakthrough in arms trade negotiations, which was said to be a part of Shoigu's official negotiations with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Dehghan.
Analysts told The Moscow Times before the meeting that a breakthrough on arms sales would not happen if Russia continued to deny Iran's demand for the delivery of S-300 air defense systems, which were suspended in accordance with U.N. sanctions against Tehran in 2010.
Shoigu will next travel to India, where he is expected to hold similar negotiations with his Indian counterparts. Russia and India are much closer military and military-industrial partners than Moscow and Tehran.
Russia Could Supply Iran With S-300 Air Defense System
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-could-supply-iran-with-s-300-air-defense-system/514652.html
Russia might deliver a long-overdue S-300 air defense missile system to Iran, honoring a contract that was canceled in 2010 following strong pressure from the West, Iranian and Russian media said on Tuesday.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is visiting Tehran and signed an agreement with Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan to boost cooperation, Iran's Fars semi-official news agency said.
Russia's TASS news agency quoted Shoigu as saying the agreement hashed out a "theoretical framework of cooperation in the military sphere," and also features an increase in naval cooperation, particularly visits by Russian and Iranian naval forces to each other's ports.
Although Shoigu made no mention of a breakthrough in arms negotiations with the two countries — which have both come under western sanctions — Iran's Fars said that Moscow and Tehran would resolve problems with the delivery of the advanced missile system.
Russian state news agency RIA Novosti confirmed the issue was under discussion.
"A step was taken in the direction of cooperation on the economy and arms technology, at least for such defensive systems such as the S-300 and S-400. Probably we will deliver them," RIA Novosti quoted Colonel General Leonid Ivashov as saying.
Ivashov is the former head of the defense minister's department of international cooperation.
No further details were immediately available.
Dmitry Medvedev, then the Russian president, canceled a contract to supply Tehran with the advanced missile system in 2010 in the wake of United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
The United States and Israel heavily lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran's nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes. Iran in turn has taken Russia to arbitration to finalize the sale.
Ivashov said that Russia's ties with Iran had strengthened recently due to Western sanctions that they are both now facing and added that the two countries were looking to expand their cooperation in other areas.
The S-300 advanced missiles have a 125-mile (200-km) range and Russia has stoked tensions with the West by trying to sell the system to other Middle Eastern countries, including Syria.
Russia's ties with the West are at Cold War lows over the conflict in Ukraine, where Kiev says Moscow has sent troops and arms to support pro-Russian rebels in the country's east. Russia denies the allegations.
Democide
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/democide
Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder." Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars.[1][2][3] Rummel presents his definition without referencing any previous uses, but the term democide was defined and used in English more than 40 years earlier by Theodore Abel.[4] In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death (according to Rummel).[5]
Definition
Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats. According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty on genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate or greatly hinder the group. Looking back on history, one can see the different variations of democides that have occurred, but it still consists of acts of killing or mass murder. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[6]
The objectives of such a plan of democide include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity; and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[7]
Rummel defines democide as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder". For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from "intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life"; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.[8]
He has further stated: "I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease."
Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in a famine killing millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies. Famine is classified by Rummel as democide if it fits the definition above.
For instance, Rummel only recently classified Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward as democide. He had believed that Mao's policies were largely responsible for the famine, but that Mao was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies. Therefore, thought Rummel, it was not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, claims from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's controversial Mao: the Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn't care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on the book's claims, Rummel now views the famine as intentional and a democide.[9]
Research on democide
Rummel's sources include scholarly works, refugee reports, memoirs, biographies, historical analyses, actual exhumed-body counts and records kept by the murderers themselves. He estimates the death-toll for each country over the course of a century, along with a low- and a high-end estimate to account for uncertainty. These high-end estimates might be considered absurd estimates by others.
Rummel's counts 43 million deaths due to democide inside and outside the Soviet Union during Stalin's regime.[citation needed] This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million. Rummel has responded that the 20 million estimate is based on a figure from Robert Conquest's 1968 book The Great Terror, and that Conquest's qualifier "almost certainly too low" is usually forgotten. Conquest's calculations excluded camp deaths before 1936 and after 1950, executions from 1939–1953, the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps and their deaths 1939–1953, the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941–1944 and their deaths, and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944–1945. Moreover, the Holodomor that killed 5 million in 1932–1934 is also not included.[citation needed]
His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.
One of his main findings is that liberal democracies have much less democide than authoritarian regimes.[10] He argues that there is a relation between political power and democide. Political mass murder grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. At the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. According to Rummel, "The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom." Rummel concludes that concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth."
Several other researchers have found similar results. "Numerous researchers point out that democratic norms and political structures constrain elite decisions about the use of repression against their citizens whereas autocratic elites are not so constrained. Once in place, democratic institutions — even partial ones — reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno/politicide."[11]
For books, articles, data, and analyses regarding democide, see Rummel's website. In particular, he has an extensive FAQ. He has also made his many sources and the calculations used, from a pre-publisher manuscript of his book Statistics of Democide, available online.
Researchers often give widely different estimates of mass murder. They use different definitions, methodology, and sources. For example, some include battle deaths in their calculations. Matthew White has compiled some of these different estimates.
The UN Plan to Disarm Civilians
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/14887-the-un-plan-to-disarm-civilians
In Global Gun Grab: The United Nations Campaign to Disarm Americans, William Norman Grigg exposes the UN's worldwide campaign to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms and explains the dangers facing Americans.
William Norman Grigg, a senior editor of The New American, has covered numerous United Nations events, including the 1994 population summit in Cairo, the 1995 social development summit in Copenhagen, the 2000 Millennium Forum at UN headquarters in New York City, and the 2001 small arms conference, also at UN headquarters. Like many who have toured the UN, he has seen firsthand the statue of a Colt Python revolver (a civilian weapon), its barrel twisted into a knot, in a courtyard in front of the UN building. He has also seen the UN's "Meditation Room" and the pagan imagery near its entrance, which symbolize the UN's contempt for traditional Judeo-Christian morality every bit as much as the anti-gun statue symbolizes its antipathy for civilian-owned firearms.
Grigg has spent many hours listening to speakers and panelists at UN meetings, where the would-be architects of world government are generally much more explicit in venting their authoritarian designs than they are when they address the "unwashed." He has also spent countless hours studying UN documents. He knows that the UN is not, and was never intended to be, a mere forum for debate. It is instead, and was always intended to be, part of the framework for an eventual world government.
Grigg is not only a capable researcher but an accomplished writer and thinker. Regular readers of The New American are well acquainted with his powerful prose, having read innumerable articles by him in the pages of this magazine. They are also familiar with his mastery of a range of issues, including the UN.
But more and more, it is becoming impossible to address other important issues — from federal land grabs to abortion — without taking into account the intended transfer of power from the U.S. to the UN. In 1995 Grigg wrote his blockbuster book Freedom on the Altar, which exposed the UN's war against God and family. In his just-released book, the subject of this review, he explains that "in matters of disarmament, all roads lead to the UN."
In Global Gun Grab, Grigg reveals the real intent behind the UN's call for "general and complete disarmament." That intent, he convincingly demonstrates, has much more to do with acquiring a monopoly of power than with eliminating all armaments. Whether the armament in question is a weapon of mass destruction or a Colt Python revolver, the UN seeks a globalized police apparatus that will enable it to impose its will on all the nations and peoples of the Earth. That apparatus will control the world's armaments. And those armaments, Grigg persuasively argues, will be used, not to enforce world peace, but to impose world tyranny.
Grigg also shows how the UN game plan has been unfolding, not only in faraway lands where civilian populations have been disarmed, but even here in the United States of America.
From Rwanda to America
Grigg's small book is tightly written and fast-paced. The reader is whisked from the killing fields of Rwanda to Hometown, U.S.A. It is therefore impossible, in a short review, to provide the reader with a comprehensive summary. A few examples will have to suffice.
To put the UN threat in its proper perspective, Grigg shows how the UN, rather than usurping power directly, is instead the beneficiary of power that is being transferred to it by globalist insiders. He notes the role of the Council on Foreign Relations, the ubiquitous private organization that has long dominated our foreign policy establishment. He also discusses Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the State Department document that President John F Kennedy submitted to the UN in September 1961.
Grigg recalls that in "the third stage of the Freedom From War plan, 'States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a UN Peace Force.' Stage III further provided that the 'manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.' " The Freedom From War scenario, Grigg points out, remains to this day "the official framework for U.S. arms control policy."
That policy is frightening in light of the historical record of oppression by tyrannical governments of disarmed populations. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, who coined the term "democide" to describe the systematic murder by governments of their subject populations, calculates that at least 170 million human beings were killed by their governments during the 20th century, making (in Grigg's words) "the unrestrained, lawless state in all of its manifestations" the "single largest source ... of lethal violence." Indeed, "mass murder is the only field of endeavor in which the state outperforms its private sector competition."
Of course, the danger of gun confiscation leading to mass murder exists even if the initial gun restrictions are put in place by sincere liberals who are attempting (however foolishly) to reduce crime. In Hitler's Germany, for example, the gun laws that "proved so useful to the Nazi regime were enacted by its predecessor, the liberal Weimar Republic." "Once a population has been disarmed by a relatively humane government," Grigg warns, "it is deprived of the most valuable means of resisting the rise of a more corrupt ruling elite."
He also explains why "tyrants who seek to disarm their would-be subjects physically must first disarm them psychologically." So-called gun "buy-back" (or "turn-in") programs, which entice peaceful citizens to surrender firearms in exchange for cash or other enticements, are part of the psychological ploy. A key objective is to "demonize guns as intrinsically evil," thereby "preparing the public for more aggressive civilian disarmament measures."
Another aspect of psychological disarmament is the outlandish "zero tolerance" school policy that seeks to "indoctrinate children in the belief that guns and other weapons are such evil objects that they can't be touched, seen, spoken of, alluded to, or even thought of by students, upon penalty of expulsion and incarceration." Grigg cites numerous examples, including instances of suspension or other punishment for drawing pictures of guns, playing "cops and robbers," and possessing tiny replicas of firearms.
In a chapter devoted to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Grigg details the role played by Kofi Annan, who was then chief of UN peacekeeping operations. At least 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered by the Hutu-dominated government and its killing squads. On one occasion, Canadian Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, commander of UN military forces deployed to Rwanda in 1993 to administer a cease-fire, sought permission to raid a government weapons cache. He had been briefed by a defector from the Hutu regime, who also warned that the government planned to register all Tutsis in the capital of Kigali, possibly to pave the way for their extermination. Incredibly, Grigg writes, General Dallaire was not only forbidden "to disarm the government killing squads," but ordered "to share his information with the Hutu government." The fax order, it was determined later, was authored by Annan.
The Rwandan genocide occurred in large part because the "civilian population was disarmed, except for militia units under central government control." The UN peace accord had "called for efforts to confiscate 'all weapons distributed to or illegally acquired by civilians,"' but before the killing began "the Hutu-dominated government had distributed automatic rifles and hand grenades to official militias and paramilitary gangs. It was this firepower that made the genocide possible."
Grigg also describes UN "peacekeeping" campaigns in Croatia and Somalia, concluding that from those actions "we can piece together the UN's civilian disarmament 'escalation ladder': First comes the psychological disarmament campaign to persuade civilians to turn in their guns; then comes a show of force to intimidate them into giving up their weapons. Typically, it is only after these efforts fail that lethal military force ... would be used."
Grigg contends that those Americans "who expect an apocalyptic invasion by blue-helmeted UN troops are fixating on the wrong threat. A much more plausible scenario is that UN civilian disarmament policies would be enforced by Americans against Amen cans." The main threat posed by the UN "is not invasion, but subversion," and in the foreseeable future "the chief impact that the UN will have upon American institutions and policies will come in the form of 'harmonization' — meaning that our laws and governmental policies will be adjusted to conform with our nation's supposed 'international obligation' as defined in UN treaties and conventions." The most serious threat we face "comes not from the UN itself but from American institutions that are being corrupted and placed at the service of the UN's agenda — particularly the U.S. military and our law enforcement agencies."
Call to Action
In the final chapter of his captivating overview of the UN gun grab, Grigg argues that the goal of gun owners and the American people as a whole must be to get the U.S. out of the UN in order to remove the UN threat. Reform is not the answer.
Noting the "active and growing constituency for American withdrawal from the world body," Grigg reminds his readers of the tireless work of the John Birch Society "to educate and mobilize the American people at the grass-roots level." The Society, he states, "devotes its efforts to the strategy employed by the Founding Fathers in the decades leading up to American independence: educating the citizenry in sound principles of government; warning the public about the existence of an organized, covert threat to our liberties and free institutions; and mobilizing patriots in an organized, principle-centered effort to defeat the enemies of freedom."
In short, Grigg's book is not just a compact digest of vital information, it is also a call to action. This reviewer could not recommend it more highly.
Citizen shoots trailer park gunman, saves Texas officer
An armed Good Samaritan grabbed his pistol to help take out a suspect who shot at an officer
Aug 31, 2012
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5939904-Citizen-shoots-trailer-park-gunman-saves-Texas-officer/
By PoliceOne Staff
EARLY, Texas — An officer under fire in a tense trailer park standoff was saved when an armed Good Samaritan grabbed his pistol to help take out the suspect.
The incident began when Charles Ronald Conner shot and killed two neighbors and their dogs in an quickly-escalating argument over excrement found on his property, according to KENS 5.com. As Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department arrived at the bloody scene, Conner hid behind a tree and fired at the officer from an assault rifle.
Means took cover behind his police cruiser and returned fire using his own assault rifle, but neighbor Vic Stacy, 66, said that from inside his trailer, it appeared the officer might have difficulty getting a clear shot — so he leant a hand.
"I thought 'he's fixin' to kill that boy,'" Stacy told the Brownwood Bulletin. "And that's why I squared off and hit him in the leg and knocked him down."
Police estimate Stacy was about 150 feet away when he fired his .357 magnum pistol, striking Conner four times. Investigators determined as Conner returned fire to Stacy, Means also hit Conner at least twice — and a combination of their bullets killed him.
Police praised Stacy for his outstanding shooting in the incident, which happened July 29, and willingness to step in to a dangerous confrontation.
"The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there," Brown County Sheriff Bobby Grubbs said. "Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don't know what the outcome would've been."
Gun Owner Saves Cop's Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman! (VIDEO)
http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/
PROPAGANDA & FEAR MONGERING WORKS
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/01/19/propaganda-fear-mongering-works/
When I see the results of polls like the one below, I realize there is no chance the majority will do anything to reverse the course of our nation in terminal decline. It will take a complete collapse and bloody reset before we have a chance at putting this country back on a sustainable rational course.
How the fuck can Americans actually think terrorism should be Obama and Congress' top priority? Are Americans really that stupid? WTF do they want Obama and Congress to do? Double the DHS budget? Increase electronic surveillance on our communications? Give local police more military hardware? Ban guns? Repeal the 4th Amendment?
Do the ignorant masses know their actual chances of being killed by a terrorist? To say the chances are astronomically miniscule is an understatement. See for yourself:
You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are 23,528 times more likely to die from obesity than from a terrorist attack
You are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.
You are 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.
You are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.
You are 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.
You are 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.
You are 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.
You are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.
You are more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.
You are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
The fact Americans think terrorism is our top priority proves that Edward Bernays was an evil genius. The combination of mass media and propaganda can convince the willfully ignorant and dumbed down populace of anything. Facts are unnecessary when fear and feelings are far more powerful. We are truly doomed.
South by Southwest: Arrest in deadly vehicle crash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26571991
Police have arrested a man suspected of driving through a pedestrian area at the South by Southwest festival, killing two and injuring 23.
Jerusalem Pedestrians Are The New Intifada Target
Palestinian militants are using cars as weapons of mass destruction on Israeli pedestrians
http://www.vocativ.com/world/israel-world/car-intifada/
Jerusalem natives are looking over their shoulders as they walk the streets due to an increase in so-called "Run-down" attacks targeting pedestrians. Two attacks in as many days have seen Palestinian militants plow vehicles into gatherings of pedestrians at high speed, causing death and injury. The latest attack, which took place on Wednesday, left one dead and 14 injured, when a minivan slammed into a group of pedestrians at a tram crossing.
The lo-fi attacks are unnervingly simple, and the fact that they don't involve any weaponry or explosives means that every car in Jerusalem with a motivated individual behind the wheel is now viewed as a potential weapon of mass destruction—and impossible for security forces to screen. The technique is far from new—Israel has seen dozens of similar attacks since the end of the 80's. But in the context of Jerusalem's heightened tensions, with many saying a "third intifada" is just around the corner, this accessible means of causing terror has found favor with Palestinian militant groups again.
Cars as Weapons of Mass Destruction?
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/cars-as-weapons-of-mass-destruction
A couple weeks ago, I posted about Islamist terrorists using a car (rather than a gun or bomb) to commit a mass killing. Did you know that the same thing has occurred in the United States as well?
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/terrorist-attack-in-china
I'm betting that most of you folks didn't hear about the Islamist terrorist attack in China. If you don't know anything about it, pay attention...
Details are reported http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/Police-say-Beijing-car-incident-was-terrorist-attack-detain-5-suspects/shdaily.shtml. Remember, this terrorist attack happened in China (where guns are outlawed)....
Terrorists drove their car into a crowd of people and then set themselves and the car on fire with gasoline. Three dead. 40 more injured.
I look for more of these "unconventional" terrorist acts in the future. Think about what you might do to prevent something like this. Not much, huh?
There really isn't anything anyone can do to prevent something like this. Are you going to outlaw cars and gasoline?
That's why the terrorists will choose to go this route in the future. It's up to you to figure out how not to become a victim.
Putin playing with fire in Europe: Brzezinski
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/21/394182/Putin-playing-with-fire-Brzezinski
US foreign policy pundit Zbigniew Brzezinski says Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing with fire in Europe, adding that the United States and its allies should deploy troops to the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to stop Russia from capturing them.
Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that Putin might attempt to take over Baltic countries in a sudden attack.
The three northern European countries are called the Baltic states because they are located east of the Baltic Sea.
Brzezinski, known for his animosity towards Russia and its leaders, said a nightmare scenario could be that "one day -- and I literally mean one day -- he [Putin] just seizes Riga and Tallinn," referring to the capitals of Latvia and Estonia.
"And then we'll say how horrible, how shocking, how outrageous. But, of course, we can't do anything about it," said the Polish American geostrategist, the author of The Grand Chessboard.
Brzezinski also called on Washington to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons to deter Russia.
He said that by not providing that assistance to Ukraine "simply increases Russia's intentions to escalate tensions. In Europe, Putin is playing with fire, financing and arming a local rebellion."
"We need to do something to make Putin question before he escalates," he said.
Brzezinski went on to say that "I do recommend pre-positioning of some forces," in the Baltic countries.
The US accuses Russia of arming troops fighting alongside pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. Moscow denies any involvement in the fighting.
Amid escalating US-Russia tensions over Ukraine during the past months, the Pentagon in April 2014 sent hundreds of troops to the ex-Soviet Baltic states and Poland.
US President Barack Obama also travelled to Estonia in September to meet with the leaders of Baltic states.
European NATO allies have sent hundreds of troops for exercises to the Baltic region in recent months. The alliance has also boosted its air force presence in the region.
Putin to Barroso: "If I want, I'll take Kiev in two weeks"
http://investmentwatchblog.com/putin-to-barroso-if-i-want-ill-take-kiev-in-two-weeks/
Ukraine, Putin's blackmail on the European summit: 'If I want to take Kiev in two weeks "
He says that when he asked about the military boundless in Ukraine, the Russian leader went to the threats: "The problem is this – it's the answer told by Tsar Barroso – but what if I want to take Kiev in two weeks." As if to say, do not provoke me to anger with new sanctions. Even the British Cameron – that in view of the NATO summit Thursday in Cardiff is working in a multinational force of 10 thousand men to send a signal to the Kremlin – is drastic: "This time we can not meet the demands of Putin, has already taken the Crimea and we can not allow that to take over the country, we risk repeating the mistakes made ??in Monaco in '38, do not know what will happen next. " Prophetic since yesterday Putin has suggested negotiations to crystallize the situation in Crimea and other areas controlled by the separatists. Several delegations confirm the dialogue between the leaders, but in many invite you to weigh carefully since during an exchange "frank" behind closed doors often the concepts are forced to support their position. Renzi invites colleagues to calm, said to understand the but concerns that Russia remains a strategic from the point of view of economic, energy and theaters of crisis in Syria and Iraq
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2014/09/01/news/ucraina_il_ricatto_di_putin_sul_vertice_europeo_se_voglio_prendo_kiev_in_due_settimane-94791280/
Here's the summary of the article:
The article says that 3 countries oppose new sanctions, Hungary, Slovakia and Cyprus. Lithuanian president was harsh saying again that "Russia is at war with Europe".
Apparently Merkel is infuriated at Putin for not doing what he said he would (heh) and stressed the need for new sanctions. She said they need to act otherwise Russia might start trouble in Lithuania or Estonia (at this point the room is silent and the scenario described is scary).
Then Barroso takes the stand and basically says that Putin told him if he (Putin) wants, he can take Kiev in 2 weeks. Cameron is pissed as always.
Renzi asks everyone to calm down and says that Russia is important for us economically, energetically and strategically (helps with Syria and Iraq). They say "no" to providing weapons to Kiev but gives the 7 day ultimatum of "3rd level sanctions". This will target the financial and banking sector.
Washington and Bruxelles don't want to harm the Russian population but instead go for the oligarchs.
Journalist Educated to Lie and Betray - Confession and Book
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/journalist-educated-to-lie-and-betray-confession-and-book
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, author of the book, "Bought Journalists", reveals his insight as working in Europe in the journalism industry. He asserts that he has been bribed by western influences like the CIA to promote their propaganda.
'German politicians are US puppets'
German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, former correspondent from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest German newspapers. He has published a book, Gekaufte Journalisten ("Purchased Journalists"), in which he describes how American and German politicians sway the German media, so that those journalists give the desired spin to world events. Ulfkotte claims that reporters are urged to bias their writing primarily to favor the American position and to oppose Russia. Udo Ulfkotte spoke to about how exactly this occurs and about the path his life is taking today after these revelations were made public.
The ISIS comedy continues...
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2015/01/isis-comedy-continues/
ISIS's string pullers in Washington and Tel Aviv are trying to drag the whole world into their farcical stage-play. Thanks to a slew of 'beheading videos' and contrived 'terror incidents' that struck a number of Western capitals in recent months, much of the Western world has reluctantly signed up with America's counterfeit crusade against the radical group.
One can't help but laugh at the way in which our loathsome leaders try to pull the wool over our eyes time and again.
These cowards in high places have resorted to fantastical lies and clownish frauds to keep us complacent and ignorant.
This latest chicanery should make you grin.
Just hours after Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made an "anti-terrorism" pact with Israel and pledged $200 million towards the anti-ISIS coalition led by the United States, ISIS released a video threatening to kill two Japanese hostages.
The infamous British-accented Islamic State fighter, who allegedly beheaded a string of hostages over recent months including American photojournalist James Foley, appears in a new video demanding a ransom of $200 million in exchange for the release of the two Japanese captives. Slattery observes that,
"The video seems to be a composite as the three men were clearly not filmed in the same place at the same time. The hostage of the left, free-lance journalist Kenji Goto, has shadows on the right side of his face, while self-styled military consultant and former homeless person Haruna Yukawa has shadows on the left side of his face. Also, Yukawa's jumpsuit billows in the wind, while Goto's is mostly still. Furthermore, both hostages fail to show the slightest emotion as the masked man points a knife at each of their heads and threatens to kill them."
All of ISIS's HBO-quality productions look to be shot in some sort of professional studio, perhaps even in Hollywood. Everything about the group, from its menacing black flags, Toyota trucks and masked Kalashnikov-wielding 'bad-guys,' appears calibrated to fit a cinematic stereotype of the 'Muslim radical' and 'violent Arab.' This is not reality, it is carefully choreographed theater, produced and directed by the US-Israeli Military Industrial Complex.
The lead antagonist of this mediocre action flick, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may not even exist at all. According to a New York Times report, the self-styled 'caliph' may have been a fictional character from the outset.
Entitled "Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says," the 2007 Times report explains that Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, the head of 'Islamic State in Iraq' (precursor to ISIS), was a wholly fabricated personality whose public declarations were voiced by an elderly Iraqi actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.
US military spokesman Brigadier General Kevin Bergner acknowledged this fact, but tried to lay the blame for the hoax on al-Qaeda itself, suggesting that the purpose of the ruse was to put an 'Iraqi face' on a foreign-backed group, thereby drawing in more recruits from local militants opposed to the US invasion.
But even if that is to be believed, al-Qaeda itself, from its inception, was nothing more than a loose conglomeration of Jihadist mercenaries on the payroll of the CIA. The group's leaders are, for the most part, double agents for the CIA, Mossad and MI6, fronting as 'Islamic radicals'; a phantom enemy manufactured to serve the geopolitical objectives of the true 'Axis of Evil' – the US, Britain and Israel.
Is this phantom 'al-Baghdadi' from 2007 the residual chieftain of ISIS? If the previous head of 'Islamic State in Iraq' was merely a performer putting on a spectacle for the credulous masses, as the US military admits, then what makes this latest incarnation of the shadowy terror kingpin any less chimeric?
"Debunkers" will of course say that the admittedly mythical 'al-Baghdadi' and his present-day doppelganger are two different persons. But absent any kind of hard evidence that the terrorist ringleader is a real person with a real background, and considering his group's dubious antecedents, it would be foolish to have any faith in the whole delusory affair.
All of this follows a pattern of US and Israeli intelligence psy-ops. In 2002, Israel exposed its hand behind a bungled operation to establish a counterfeit 'al-Qaeda cell' in the Gaza Strip. In December of that year Ariel Sharon asserted the presence of al-Qaeda in the Strip, and then had Mossad agents go out and recruit Gaza Arabs into a fake faction of al-Qaeda loyalists with promises of money and other allurements. The existence of the phony 'terror cell,' cultivated by Mossad itself, was then used by Sharon and company as a pretext to attack the beleaguered coastal enclave.
That Israeli deception signifies a broader stratagem of duplicity employed by Western secret services that willingly do Israel's bidding free of charge. In the name of 'exporting democracy' – code speak for 'eliminating threats to Israel' – the Zionist-controlled West fakes threats and engineers crises in order to steer their populations into the neocon ideological fold, thereby easing the public into consenting to endless wars of aggression and constant curtailments of civil liberties.
It's the same old game, over and over again, but people keep falling for it.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.22, 20:54:04
It's the same old game, over and over again, but people keep falling for it.
Do you think it is a matter of people falling for it, or is it more likely people inherently know they have lost control of their government and no longer care anymore?
I seriously think we are at a point in history where our self-appointed leaders could stop with all the charades, simply come out on television, say exactly what they are going to do, then do it. No one would stop them.
We are only a razor's edge away from the complete elimination of advertising, as a cost saving measure, where corporations simply contact your bank, take whatever money they want and call it good. Individuals have no recourse as it is now.
What I see happening at the corporate level, based on my current employment, is these corporations simply feed each other. They have little interest in the individual. And with the fascist merger of business and government, the little guy is all but dead, only kept around to do the grunt work of the corporations. Once all this work has been farmed out to sweat shops overseas or replaced by robotics, corporations will be completely untied from human involvement. You will have a few suits and that will be it. Everyone else will be left to starve to death.
Anyway, back to the point, I feel that people see the writing on the wall. They know their days are numbered. They continue to do what they do because there seems to be no other option for them. I'm sure they hate it and feel hopeless, but the feeling isn't strong enough to make any serious effort to change course. I'm not even sure they could if they wanted to. With the full-on assault destroying their lives, day by day, how can people muster the fortitude to fight back in any meaningful way.
Soon, you won't be seeing all this propaganda, it won't be needed. The real power on this planet will simply do as it wants, when it wants and how it wants, with zero resistance. They may even tell you plainly in advance, just to fulfill some inner sickness. Yes, I think what they have planned for us will become as apparent as the nose on our face. This ship is too big to stop or turn around now. We can only hope it runs aground, or tears a hole in its hull and sinks.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.22, 20:54:04
The ISIS comedy continues...
ISIS's string pullers in Washington and Tel Aviv are trying to drag the whole world into their farcical stage-play. Thanks to a slew of 'beheading videos' and contrived 'terror incidents' that struck a number of Western capitals in recent months, much of the Western world has reluctantly signed up with America's counterfeit crusade against the radical group.
people keep falling for it.
This should be renamed the '911 BS thread - hike your pants' You obviously don't know anything about Islam or you too are a Muslim propagandist. Before talking like this why don't you learn about what you are talking about.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.01.22, 22:34:22
This should be renamed the '911 BS thread - hike your pants' You obviously don't know anything about Islam or you too are a Muslim propagandist. Before talking like this why don't you learn about what you are talking about.
The comments to which you refer, were not mine. I merely re-posted the article to allow people to make up their own minds about the truth of the matter. The author of the comments is clearly indicated in the source link, so I suggest you take the issue up with him.
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of Intifada-Palestine.com or any other I. P. authors.A Muslim propagandist indeed... you have no idea how silly that makes you look! I smell desperation! ;D
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desperation <---- That is a source link ;)
des·per·a·tion
(dĕs′pə-rā′shən)
n.
1. The condition of being desperate.
2. Recklessness arising from despair.
About the AuthorBrandon MartinezBrandon Martinez is an independent writer and journalist from Canada who specializes in foreign policy issues, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. For years he has written on Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. His articles and analysis have appeared on Press TV, Veterans News Now, Media With Conscience News, Whatsupic, Intifada Palestine, Information Clearing House, What Really Happened, and other alternative media outlets. He is the co-founder of Non-Aligned Media (http://nonalignedmedia.com)
and the author of an upcoming book addressing Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks. ;) Readers can contact him at martinezperspective[at]hotmail.com or visit his blog at http://martinezperspective.com
@ea
The desperation is not mine, if you don't believe in what your posting why are you posting it? You must think the same way.
Knowledge of islam goes along way when trying to descern the truth.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.01.23, 04:50:45
The desperation is not mine
I respectfully disagree! The timing of your post is crucial, and people are starting to understand just how critical timing is..
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.01.23, 04:50:45
if you don't believe in what your posting why are you posting it?
I have already answered this question, see the quote below.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.23, 00:37:41
I merely re-posted the article to allow people to make up their own minds about the truth of the matter.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.01.23, 04:50:45
You must think the same way.
In some respects I do, and in some respects I do not. You make many assumptions that are not backed up by credible source's, or critical thought.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.01.23, 04:50:45
Knowledge of islam goes along way when trying to descern the truth.
Yes, knowledge of Islam is a part of the journey when studying global geopolitics across many centuries, and even millennia. I agree it is a small part of trying to discern the truth, and a small part of the big picture. Note I used the word "
small"..
Debunking the "The Saudis did 9-11" nonsense!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/debunksaudis.php#axzz3PfSK8ws2
The official story of 9-11 is collapsing almost as fast as the Obamacare website. Most Americans are now well aware of the strange collapse of WTC Building 7, the video that captures the sound of the actual explosion that initiates the collapse of WTC7, the very strange behavior of the Secret Service as President Bush read about goats at Booker Elementary School. We have all seen the photographs that confirm the remains of demolition "cutter charges" in the remains of the towers. And we all know how the BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed 26 minutes before it actually happened. indicating a script was being followed (but alas, not carefully enough).
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
There is a great deal of evidence that implicates the nation of Israel as a co-conspirator with the Bush administration. First, there was the massive Israeli spy ring uncovered in the United States just before 9-11, and how some of the "Dancing Israelis" arrested after being seen cheering and dancing as the World Trade Towers collapsed turned out to be Mossad spies! Then there was the strange case of Odigo, an Israeli-owned company whose New York offices received a warning about the attacks before the planes used in the attacks had even left the ground! All four of the hijacked planes departed from airport gates whose security was provided by the same Israeli security company. Israel has a long track record of playing dirty tricks against the United States and other countries, including the Lavon affair (framed on Egypt), Israel's attack on the USS Liberty (initially framed on Egypt), and Israel's smuggling a radio transmitter into Libya that was used to send fake messages that tricked President Reagan into bombing Libya.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel's numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel's "useful idiots" launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims, and a secret report that Representatives Stephen F. Lynch and Walter B. Jones are demanding be made public; a report that purportedly claims Saudi arabia was behind 9-11. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. Likewise, the report the Representatives wish to make public appears to be the US Government's attempt to "get ahead of the ball" and craft a new lie to replace the one that has failed. At the very least these two pieces of propaganda are intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just as Saddam's nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria's government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn't. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn't is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
George Bush had a motive to do 9-11. He needed that "new Pearl Harbor" to enrage Americans into the century of war called for by the Project For The New American Century. Israel certainly had a motive to do 9-11 and frame Muslims for it, to trick Americans into siding with Israel's continued land grabs and wars against Israel's enemies, with Israel's agenda being (as it was with the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty, and the Libyan radio hoax) that Americans fight those wars for them!
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The "useful idiots" trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, was still alive after 9-11 and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don't need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a "one size fits all" excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
At the very least, even if you accept the new claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, then it means the US Government was lying when they claimed Afghanistan and then Iraq were behind it! So why would you trust them now?
The text in red indicates source link's at original article location for further study, plus Video of George W Bush admitting they lied about Iraq being involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."
Noble's comments came only moments after the official opening of the 82nd annual gathering of the Interpol's governing body, the General Assembly. The session is being held in Cartagena, Colombia, and is being used to highlight strides over the last decade in Colombia's battle against the notorious drug cartels that used to be the real power in the country.
The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as "an evolution in terrorism." Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.
At least 67 were killed over a period of days at the Westgate mall, more than 60 of the dead were civilians. The Somalia-based al Qaeda-allied terror group al-Shabab claimed responsibility for the attack as it was ongoing but investigators are still trying to determine exactly who planned the strike, where they are and what is next for them. U.S. authorities in Uganda, fearing another similar incident in Africa, issued a warning late last week.
Citing a recent call for al Qaeda "brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups," Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.
"How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters. "It's Interpol's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries ... to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists."
In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.
"Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."
Graphic Video: The Only Proof You Need That Guns Save Lives: "I Did The Right Thing"
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/graphic-video-the-only-proof-you-need-that-guns-save-lives-i-did-the-right-thing_01232015#comments
What would you do if you were minding your own business in the comfort of your own home and a machete-wielding maniac started kicking in your door?
If you don't have a firearm you'd likely panic, pick up the phone, and hope that 9-1-1 can get a police officer to your house in the next 15 seconds.
If you are an armed homeowner, however, you've not only given yourself a fighting chance, but you have the distinct advantage of being on your own turf and capable of dispatching the threat with near instantaneous results.
This is exactly the scenario James Cvengros was presented with recently when his insane neighbor Twain Thomas started screaming and becoming violent in the hallway of the apartment building in which Cvengros lives. Cvengros turned on a camera and pointed it at his front door just in case. As you'll see in the video below, Thomas can be heard causing quite a ruckus outside, prompting Cvengros to take a look. He quickly closed and locked his door and waited.
Sure enough, a few seconds later Twain Thomas' foot can be seen coming through his front door, at which point Cvengros warns that he has a gun. The would-be attacker, with machete in hand, would not be deterred.
As he comes through the door Cvengros discharges three bullets into Thomas' chest.
Cvengros: "I didn't want to do that... You were gonna kill me"
Thomas: "You're right, I was"
Cvengros: "Well then I did the right thing"
In the aftermath of the shooting Twain Thomas can be heard gurgling and writhing in pain. A fitting result for someone who intended to do harm to the two innocent people who were doing nothing more than spending an evening at home.
Had there been no firearm in this home things could have gone a totally different direction and it's quite possible the Cvengros, his wife, as well as Thomas' partner with whom he was arguing could all be dead.
In the right hands, guns save lives. They are the great equalizer.
No further evidence is necessary.
Update: Twain Thomas survived his wounds and has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, aggravated battery and aggravated burglary.
*****
When the stormtrooper's come around kicking in dissident's door's during the planned western democide, they do not want to get shot, hence the rabid pursuit of gun control and the mass murder of children to achieve that agenda. (rapid manpower shortage is a problem, it stops the machine)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
The case for a judicial inquiry into Libyan rendition is now undeniable
The evidence is clear that MI5 and MI6 were involved in the abduction and torture of Gaddafi's opponents – someone must be held to account
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/23/judicial-inquiry-libya-rendition-mi5-mi6-abduction
On 16 December 2003, in a private room in the Travellers Club on Pall Mall, a group of MI6, CIA and Libyan intelligence officials had a very long lunch. They were waiting for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear weapons programme.
By the evening Gaddafi finally sent a message that he agreed, giving the green light to an astonishing turnaround in relations between Britain and the Libyan dictator. From being a villain – the man who supplied arms to the IRA, the man responsible for the Lockerbie disaster, one of whose agents had killed the police officer Yvonne Fletcher in London's St James Square in 1984 – Gaddafi immediately became a useful, and profitable, friend.
The door was opened to huge and lucrative British deals with Libya: Shell signed a large gas exploration contract; and BP signed a £15bn oil drilling contract with Libya which became known as "the deal in the desert".
"Dear Muammar," Blair wrote to Gaddafi in June 2007, "you have led a genuine transformation in relations between our two countries in recent years, from which both our peoples stand to benefit."
But Gaddafi's welcome in from the cold was not limited to commerce, and not everyone was to benefit. As Ian Cobain describes in detail in the Guardian, it led to MI6 and MI5's close involvement in the secret abduction of Gaddafi's opponents, connivance (wittingly or not) in their subsequent torture, an active role in their interrogation, and in the intimidation of Libyan dissidents in Britain.
Such actions fly in the face of repeated denials and assurances by ministers to parliament and the public. They would probably have never come to light had they not been revealed in the files of Gaddafi's intelligence chief Moussa Koussa (who became a close colleague of Sir Mark Allen, head of counter terrorism at MI6, later appointed a BP director) that were blown open by Nato-led air strikes in Tripoli in 2011.
The files show that Gaddafi's agents recorded MI5 warning in September 2006 that the two countries' intelligence agencies should take steps to ensure that their joint operations would never be "discovered by lawyers or human rights organisations and the media". Their attempt to keep these activities secret has been shattered, and a bid by UK government lawyers to have claims for damages by 12 Gaddafi opponents (who were allegedly kidnapped and tortured) struck out was dismissed on Thursday by Mr Justice Irwin, who described the allegations as "of real potential public concern".
In 2010 David Cameron promised a judge-led inquiry into evidence that had emerged in court that MI5 and MI6 were involved in the secret rendition, abuse and torture of UK citizens and residents accused of planning terror plots. An inquiry by former judge Sir Peter Gibson was abandoned after evidence emerged that Libyan dissidents Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi had been abducted and rendered to Tripoli in a joint MI6-CIA operation.
Despite Cameron's promise, he dumped a new inquiry into the hands of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, the very body that previously wrongly concluded that there was "no evidence that the UK agencies were complicit" in such operations.
Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told MPs in December 2005: "There is simply no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop." After the Libyan renditions came to light, he said: "No foreign secretary can know all the details of what its intelligence agencies are doing at any one time." Government officials, insisting on anonymity, say MI6 was following "ministerially authorised government policy". Blair said he didn't have "any recollection at all" of the Belhaj-Saadi renditions.
A file on the two renditions has been sent by Scotland Yard to the Crown Prosecution Service, which describes the allegations as "complex" and requiring "careful consideration". Whatever the CPS decides, there is now plenty of evidence out there to justify an independent judicial inquiry into these sordid activities for which no one has yet been held to account.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.01.23, 19:03:28
When the stormtrooper's come around kicking in dissident's door's during the planned western democide, they do not want to get shot, hence the rabid pursuit of gun control and the mass murder of children to achieve that agenda. (rapid manpower shortage is a problem, it stops the machine)
As I recall in the aftermath of the Boston Bombing, no one was willing to reduce some of the "manpower" ransacking people's homes as they supposedly searched for their planted patsy. All of that charade was a test balloon to confirm their tactics are sound and that they can do it again anytime they want.
Guns in the hands of a weak and pathetic society is worthless. I would bet cyanide pills in these same hands would prove far more effective--at least this would reduce some of the tax base feeding these monsters.
You know as well as I do had Cvengros leveled his sights on the middle guy of a seven man sweeper team, you wouldn't be reading about this story. They would have pulverized anything that walked or crawled in that home. These monsters don't have "Get out of jail free" cards, they have "Kill anything you want as long as you don't make the judge look dumb" cards.
This is war, this is combat. People don't think like General George S. Patton Jr. They have no idea how to win; most don't even know they are at war.
How about this for a standing order: FIGHT OR DIE!
And if uncertain what to do next, ATTACK!
Just to be clear EA, these statements are not aimed at you. They are aimed at the limp wristed populace that can't get it through their thick skulls things are changing. The evidence of where things are headed is voluminous. What is it going to take? Does the President have to plainly announce: "I am going to eliminate all citizens using the tools at my disposal" Would that be enough to get people off their butts? I'm not certain anymore. I'll bet people would think it was a hoax and ignore it. Who knows, we may get to find out in the near future.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.01.24, 00:57:43
And if uncertain what to do next, ATTACK!
To not make a decision is always the wrong decision to make.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.01.24, 00:57:43
Just to be clear EA, these statements are not aimed at you.
I understand that. I am not an advocate of violence as a solution, however, historically it has always been necessary to restore balance. This time might just be different, and the stakes have never been higher. My previous comment I feel is still relevant:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2014.12.31, 22:10:56
If I am forced by circumstance to issue ESO 04 everything you hold dear will already be lost, and a future few of us crave will be the reality.
Work tirelessly to prevent that eventuality from occurring, is my advice.
Read the comments on the Gaurdian article I posted a few posts back. There is not much time left, so redouble your efforts for a peaceful solution before all hell breaks loose.
Press Rebellion in the UK – British Media Launches Protest Against Spying, as GCHQ Places Investigative Journalism in Same Category as Terrorism
http://www.silverdoctors.com/press-rebellion-in-the-uk-british-media-launches-protest-against-spying-as-gchq-places-investigative-journalism-in-same-category-as-terrorism/#more-50133
Emails from the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, the Sun, NBC and the Washington Post were saved by GCHQ and shared on the agency's intranet as part of a test exercise by the signals intelligence agency.
The journalists' communications were among 70,000 emails harvested in the space of less than 10 minutes on one day in November 2008 by one of GCHQ's numerous taps on the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet.
New evidence from other UK intelligence documents revealed by Snowden also shows that a GCHQ information security assessment listed "investigative journalists" as a threat in a hierarchy alongside terrorists or hackers.
Submitted by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:
– From the Guardian article: GCHQ Captured Emails of Journalists from Top International Media
Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, is the United Kingdom's equivalent to the NSA. As you might expect, it is no less immoral or shady than its domestic counterpart. While most of the surveillance related posts here at Liberty Blitzkrieg have focused on the NSA, GCHQ has been front and center from time to time. For example, see the following from 2014:
How British Spies "Seed the Internet with False Info, Control YouTube Pageviews and Manipulate Online Polls"
In the most recent blockbuster article from the Guardian, we get an inside look at how the British spy agency sees investigate journalists. In two words: The Enemy.
From the Guardian:
GCHQ's bulk surveillance of electronic communications has scooped up emails to and from journalists working for some of the US and UK's largest media organizations, analysis of documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Emails from the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, the Sun, NBC and the Washington Post were saved by GCHQ and shared on the agency's intranet as part of a test exercise by the signals intelligence agency.
The journalists' communications were among 70,000 emails harvested in the space of less than 10 minutes on one day in November 2008 by one of GCHQ's numerous taps on the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet.
New evidence from other UK intelligence documents revealed by Snowden also shows that a GCHQ information security assessment listed "investigative journalists" as a threat in a hierarchy alongside terrorists or hackers.
More than 100 editors, including those from all the national newspapers, have signed a letter, coordinated by the Society of Editors and Press Gazette, to the UK prime minister, David Cameron, protesting at snooping on journalists' communications.
Ripa has been used to access journalists' communications without a warrrant, with recent cases including police accessing the phone records of Tom Newton-Dunn, the Sun's political editor, over the Plebgate investigation. The call records of Mail on Sunday reporters involved in the paper's coverage of Chris Huhne's speeding row were also accessed in this fashion.
The GCHQ document goes on to warn that the fact that billing records "kept under Ripa are not limited to warranted targets" must be kept as one of the agency's most tightly guarded secrets, at a classification known as "Top secret strap 2".
That is two levels higher than a normal top secret classification – as it refers to "HMG [Her Majesty's government] relationships with industry that have areas of extreme sensitivity".
One restricted document intended for those in army intelligence warned that "journalists and reporters representing all types of news media represent a potential threat to security".
It continued: "Of specific concern are 'investigative journalists' who specialize in defence-related exposés either for profit or what they deem to be of the public interest.
GCHQ information security assessments, meanwhile, routinely list journalists between "terrorism" and "hackers" as "influencing threat sources", with one matrix scoring journalists as having a "capability" score of two out of five, and a "priority" of three out of five, scoring an overall "low" information security risk.
Terrorists, listed immediately above investigative journalists on the document, were given a much higher "capability" score of four out of five, but a lower "priority" of two. The matrix concluded terrorists were therefore a "moderate" information security risk.
Go ahead and read that last paragraph again. In some respects,terrorists are viewed as a lower priority than investigative journalists by the GCHQ. More proof that the "war on terror" is a total sham, and that governments around the world see transparency, truth and their own citizenry as the real enemies.
This is precisely why UK Prime Minister David Cameron wasted no time in exploiting the tragic attacks in Paris in order to call for a banning of encryption, i.e., private communications. In case you need to get up to speed:
Britain's "War on Terror" Insanity Continues – David Cameron Declares War on Encryption
Manufactured Terrorism – U.S. Officials Claim Credit for Stopping Another Terror Attack Created by the FBI
Fortunately, it appears GCHQ tyranny has finally slapped journalists squarely and unapologetically in the face enough times local media is starting to notice. Specifically, more than 100 editors have signed a letter co-ordinated by Press Gazette and the Society of Editors calling for an end this fascist behavior.
The Press Gazette reports the following:
Every national newspaper editor has backed the Press Gazette Save Our Sources campaign and signed a joint letter of protest to Prime Minister David Cameron over police spying on journalists' phone records.
More than 100 editors have signed a letter co-ordinated by Press Gazette and the Society of Editors to warn that the draft code of practice on use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act puts journalists' sources at risk.
Politicians promised new controls in the code, but instead the new draft guidance states that police can continue to secretly view journalists' phone records provided they give "special consideration" to the "proportionality" of doing so.
The draft code appears to encourage police to access journalists' phone records by stating that they are not "privileged information".
Society of Editors executive director Bob Satchell said: "Politicians say that terrorism laws should be used where relevant and proportionate. The police have used RIPA when it was neither. Journalism is not terrorism nor criminal.
"A powerful group of senior national, regional and local editors and broadcasters who frequently have different opinions are united in their concerns about RIPA.
"This is not about terrorism it is about the police using a law for purposes Parliament never intended.
"Ministers should take note."
Press Gazette editor Dominic Ponsford said: "It is unprecedented in my experience for every national newspaper editor to agree on anything. So it is highly significant that here they have said with once voice that RIPA needs tougher controls to protect journalists' sources.
"Giving police the ability to secretly view the phone records of law-abiding journalists is not compatible with an open democratic society."
A further 1,649 individuals, mostly journalists, have signed the Press Gazette Save Our Sources petition which is also to be submitted today as part of the RIPA consultation.
The consultation on the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice closes tomorrow (20 January).
Iceland overthrew its government and indicted bankers after economic collapse
HOW TO BEAT THE 1%
Iceland Did It, So Can We
BANKERS JAILED, POLITICIANS REPLACED, NO SHOTS FIRED
2008 - CITIZENS FORCE THE RESIGNATION OF BOTH THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT.
2010 - THE PRIME MINISTER WAS INDICTED, OVER 200 CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST THE BANKERS, AND ALL OF THE FORMER CEO's OF THE 3 BIGGEST BANKS WERE ARRESTED. OTHERS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
2010 - AN ASSEMBLY IS ELECTED TO WRITE A NEW CONSTITUTION TO AVOID ENTRAPMENT OF DEBT. TWENTY FIVE CITIZENS ARE CHOSEN - "WITH NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION". THE ONLY QUALIFICATIONS FOR CANDIDACY ARE ADULTHOOD AND THE SUPPORT OF 30 PEOPLE.
2010 - THE MAIN BANK OF ICELAND WAS NATIONALIZED.
2010 - THE NEW GOVERNMENT FORGAVE DEBT EXCEEDING 110% OF HOME VALUES.
The example set by Iceland is a good one, however for the Nations of the West it must go much further.
The network of terror that has been set up must be dismantled, every single individual that was involved must be investigated and punished suitably, with the right to a fair trial paramount.
However, as the people that have committed the offences control the very structures that would be relied upon to provide the evidence in their prosecution, they are compromised and virtually useless. Foreign nations will most likely be relied upon to provide the evidence for the prosecution, as well as whistleblowers turning State's Evidence. If the accused are not on record beforehand having demonstrated their integrity by their actions, then they are guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately, this is the situation we find ourselves in due to the compromised structures previously mentioned.
Additionally, crimes extend well beyond the official state with the poisoning of our ecosystems and the destruction of our health, to name just a tiny fragment of the crime's committed. The people responsible must be investigated which raises once again the question of who is to do the investigating.. I personally do not trust a single one of them unless and until they can convince me otherwise. If any integrity remains in these structures it will be on record by now and will be self evident in the individual persons file, those that have accrued no integrity credit thus far have a very small window of opportunity to do so.
The buggering and murder of children is an especially reprehensible crime for which the entire establishment is currently responsible, all must face investigation on this issue and prove their innocence and non complicity in the crime.
It will take decade's to repair the human condition but it is a job that must be done. The alternative is for individuals to independantly target and engage soft target's and start lopping off heads, a practice that has support amongst some of the population as evidenced in these very pages by the calls for "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS", an act I neither support nor condone, but may well become an eventuality should the sane approach not be chosen.
There is much more to say on this subject, and it must be discussed openly and publicly. Above all a council of elders must be formed to lead and instruct in these troubled times, similar to Iceland's self determination choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes
Hedge fund managers are preparing getaways by buying airstrips and farms in remote areas, former hedge fund partner tells Davos during session on inequality
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015?CMP=share_btn_fb
With growing inequality and the civil unrest from Ferguson and the Occupy protests fresh in people's mind, the world's super rich are already preparing for the consequences. At a packed session in Davos, former hedge fund director Robert Johnson revealed that worried hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes. "I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway," he said.
I know hedge fund managers who are buying airstrips in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway
Robert Johnson
Johnson, who heads the Institute of New Economic Thinking and was previously managing director at Soros, said societies can tolerate income inequality if the income floor is high enough. But with an existing system encouraging chief executives to take decisions solely on their profitability, even in the richest countries inequality is increasing.
Johnson added: "People need to know there are possibilities for their children – that they will have the same opportunity as anyone else. There is a wicked feedback loop. Politicians who get more money tend to use it to get more even money."
Global warming and social media are among the trends the 600 super-smart World Economic Forum staffers told its members to watch out for long before they became ubiquitous. This year, income inequality is fast moving up the Davos agenda – a sure sign of it is poised to burst into the public consciousness.
Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and a Davos star attraction after giving the closing address in 2014, said he had spent a lot of time learning from the leaders behind recent social unrest in Ferguson. He believes that will prove "a catalytic event" which has already changed the conversation in the US, bringing a message from those who previously "didn't matter".
But as former New Zealand prime minister and now UN development head Helen Clark explained, rather than being a game changer, recent examples suggest the Ferguson movement may soon be forgotten. "We saw Occupy flare up and then fade like many others like it," Clark said. "The problem movements like these have is stickability. The challenge is for them to build structures that are ongoing; to sustain these new voices."
So what is the solution to having the new voices being sufficiently recognised to actually change the status quo into one where those with power realise they do matter?
Clarke said: "Solutions are there. What's been lacking is political will. Politicians do not respond to those who don't have a voice In the end this is all about redistributing income and power."
She added: "Seventy five percent of people in developing countries live in places that are less equal than they were in 1990."
The panellists were scathing about politicians, Wallis describing them as people who held up wet fingers "to see which way the money is blowing in from."
Author, philosopher and former academic Rebecca Newberger-Goldstein saw the glass half full, drawing on history to prove society does eventually change for the better. She said Martin Luther King was correct in his view that the arch of history might be long, but it bends towards justice.
In ancient Greece, she noted, even the greatest moralists like Plato and Aristotle never criticised slavery. Newberger-Goldstein said: "We've come a long way as a species. The truth is now dawning that everybody matters because the concept of mattering is at the core of every human being." Knowing you matter, she added, is often as simple as having others "acknowledge the pathos and reality of your stories. To listen."
Mexican micro-lending entrepreneur Carlos Danel expanded on the theme. His business, Gentera, has thrived by working out that "those excluded are not the problem but realising there's an opportunity to serve them."
He added: "Technology provides advantages that can lower costs and enable us to provide products and services that matter to the people who don't seem to matter to society. And that's beyond financial services – into education and elsewhere."
Which, Danel believes, is why business was created in the first place – to serve. A message that seemed to get lost somewhere in the worship of profit.
Half of Humanity Now Forms the 'Resistance'
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/30/half-of-humanity-now-forms-the-resistance/
by ANDRE VLTCHEK
A day before leaving Srinagar, in the 'Indian administered Kashmir', my comrades asked me to address a small gathering of local as well as progressive visiting Indian intellectuals. They mainly wanted to hear about the state of the resistance against Western imperialism. And Western imperialism is what India is now trying to join so eagerly and shamelessly.
It was dark outside, literally and metaphorically. Kashmir has been bleeding horrifically. At least 80,000 people have died, most of them from the terror spread by the fascist Indian state. The victims have been mainly civilians. At least 8,000 people have been "disappeared". There have been countless, predominantly unreported, rapes and cases of beastly, unimaginable torture. Much of it has happened in just the last two decades.
I am going to write about this, soon, next week. But before I do, let me tell this story.
During that dark night, several men and women were gathered in a cramped room, asking me one simple and essential question: "Could the brutality of the Empire be prevented, and if not prevented, could it be stopped?"
I replied that "Yes!" And "Yes!" again.
Because no matter how dark the night appears to be, no matter how hopeless the struggles seems to be, the world had changed in the last several years; and it had changed profoundly.
***
When I stood in the middle of the street on 26th January 2015, just with my camera, right between stone-throwing youth and heavily armed Indian security forces, I was the only person willing to report the event. Later a Kashmiri human rights activist explained to me: "Foreigners don't dare to do this, local reporters would be, as always, beaten up by the Indian security forces, and if Indians were to dare and come, they would encounter the wrath of those indignant stone-throwing youth."
And so I was alone there.
But was I really?
Behind me – not visibly behind – but psychologically not too far away, stood a comrade who has been working for a huge international press agency. He couldn't be here with me, but before I went, he offered his support, contacts, and expertise. Without his help and backing, my work would be next to impossible, or at least much more dangerous than it already was.
The struggle for justice, for true freedom, and above all, for the survival of humanity, is becoming increasingly broad, joined by countries located on all the continents and by individuals from all walks of life.
Two decades ago we lived in a totally different world. The lackeys of the West, with Boris Yeltsin leading the pack, boozed the Soviet Union out. Eastern Europe was mostly led by the children of former elites, such as Vaclav Havel. China was still very far from reversing its moderately toxic pro-market 'reforms' introduced by Deng Xiaoping. And Latin America: it was in total disarray, either engaged in civil wars and conflicts, recovering from monstrous pro-Western dictatorships, or run by the market-fundamentalists, or all the above. In Africa and in the Middle East, right-wing dictatorships were consolidating their power, and in many Asian nations, the elites were busy re-grabbing power, applauded by their own private press, as well as by the Western mainstream media.
Language and terminology, the linguistics, had been totally perverted or at least confused. Fascism was called 'democracy'. Terms like 'socialism' and 'communism' were determinedly and constantly smeared.
What a world it used to be!
But no more: everything has totally changed.
***
In Kashmir, I told my friends about the new and powerful media; that of Latin America, in Russia, in China, and Iran. It is not 'alternative', anymore. In a way it is 'mainstream', because in many parts of the world, exposing the crimes committed by the West, by its Empire and by its 'client states' like India, Indonesia, Kenya, Rwanda or Uganda, has become something that is considered absolutely natural, something that is to be expected and demanded by the people.
But above all, I explained that just a few years ago, maybe just one decade back, I only had a few close people like Noam Chomsky, 'covering my back'. Now there are many, from all classes, professions and continents!
One of the greatest international lawyers, Chris Black from Toronto, Canada, and a former World Bank economist, Peter Koenig, are now writing a book with me. Both understood and turned around to confront fascism. Both are overflowing with practical knowledge, because they used to work 'inside the system'.
Just two months ago I was invited to Eritrea, a great and brave African country that is fighting the direct intimidation and embargos of the Empire. The lady who hosted me, used to work in South Sudan, for the World Bank. She got so disgusted with what she was expected to do – destroying her fellow African people – that she left her highly paid job, just a year ago, in order to set up her own progressive organization, defending the Horn Of Africa. She set up its headquarters in the capital of her native Eritrea, Asmara. Since then she has been courageously fighting for her people, and for those in this totally abused and tortured part of the world.
I have met and worked with countless staff-members of the United Nations: educators and statisticians, academics, economists and other professionals. Some are just lamenting about how the dream of the "World Government" degenerated and gone to the dogs. But others are actively fighting, often behind the scene, breaking countless rules and regulations.
Some quit, unwilling to compromise.
I have to mention my deceased friend, Australian lawyer Michael Hourigan, a former UN genocide investigator from ICTR, who managed to identify those who shot down the airplane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, in 1994. He was forced to fly to The Hague, and literally ordered to shut up, by a high UN official. That was because all the evidence was pointing at the Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his Tutsi army, RPF. Kagame has been a brutal Western implant, responsible for millions of dead people in the plundered Democratic Republic of Congo.
The shooting down of the Presidential 'Falcon' jet triggered the epic 1994 violence, and terrible inter-tribal bloodletting.
Michael Hourigan resigned, in disgust, and returned to his native Adelaide in Australia. He passed the evidence on to me, during the filming of my feature documentary, "Rwanda Gambit".
Another horror story I was asked to tell to the world, was by Ms. Masako Yonekawa, a former UNHCR head in Goma, perhaps the most tattered and terrorized part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and of Africa in general.
Ms. Yonekawa resigned from the UN, and then went on record, testifying in my film, about the brutality of the RPF, about the Western support for the RPF, and about the UN staff, particularly the Indian peacekeepers, who had been involved in the smuggling of raw materials from the DRC.
There were others, many others, who managed to identify the genocide in the DR Congo, particularly those UN staff members who wrote and consequently 'leaked' the reports (including the 'Mapping Report') on the involvement of both Rwanda and Uganda in the genocide in Goma and other parts of the DRC.
Two UN statisticians helped me, when I was writing my book on the horrors of modern, post-Suharto Indonesia, "Indonesia – Archipelago of Fear."
Not everyone has the guts to 'go public', or to resign. But I know: whenever great matters are at stake, there are thinkers and teachers, doctors and pilots, UN experts, economists, lawyers, even some government officials and soldiers, who are ready to risk their careers, and support me, or people like me, and therefore directly or indirectly joining the struggle.
These days I never feel desperate or hopeless. Some of the greatest individuals are on our side.
Just look at the "BRussells Tribunal"! Or look at the 'composition', the list of those who are writing for The Counterpunch or The Greanville Post.
Of course, the journey, the process, is not without those who betray it. There are always people who put their petty fears and interests above the great struggles. They betray individuals, the fighters, and they also betray entire concepts. But nothing is, or should be 'perfect'.
Those who betray will, one day, face their own conscience, if they have any at all. They will not be at peace with themselves. As for the honest fighters, traitors will certainly hurt them, but after a while, they will get up, straighten themselves again, and march forward.
***
There is great hope, everywhere. And not too see it, not to sense it, would take truly great 'discipline'.
Russia got up from its knees and confronted the Empire. China did the same, in many ways returning to Socialist, even Communist designs. Both big nations are increasingly 'internationalist' when it comes to their foreign policy. Both are also deeply concerned with the lives of their people.
Latin America broke the shackles of Western imperialism and of the racist 'Monroe Doctrine'. Each one of these great nations: Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, is going its own way, but in brilliant solidarity with each other, and as a bloc. Each one is also forging closer and closer links with China and Russia.
Those nations that have been overrun by the West, recently: Paraguay and Honduras are seen clearly as scarecrows. Nobody in their sane mind would like to follow their 'examples'.
Africa, the most injured continent on Earth, is standing tall at least at its two extremes: South Africa and Zimbabwe in the South, and Eritrea in the north.
As complex as the situation is there, North Korea, Vietnam and Laos are still in the camp of the rebels, and have to be taken seriously.
Were India not to betray the BRICS, were it not to jump into an horrific embrace of the West and Israel, as well as its own grotesque religious and cast-driven nationalism, at least one half of the planet would now be standing firmly against the Empire and its sinister design to fully control the world.
***
I spoke to my Kashmiri friends about all of this.
But Kashmir is bleeding, from torture and rape, from extra-judicial killings. There, India is conducting joint exercises with both the US and Israel. It is learning how to massacre, control and torture, and it is often outdoing its gurus.
The victims of the bestiality committed by the Empire and its client states are our allies. We will not hide the facts! We will not maneuver. We will speak openly and clearly. If we have any 'ideological differences', we will take care of them later. But our message, for now, is clear: enough of torture, enough of rape, enough of genocides.
I told them, to my friends: "Kashmir is not alone. We will stand by you, we will struggle with you, and if needed, we will risk our lives for you!"
The era of cowardice is over. A new age of solidarity has arrived.
As Indian guns were pointed at me, I felt calm. "If anything happens to me, many others will take my place", I thought. I am not a hero, I don't believe in heroism, but I am not a coward, either. And after learning what has been taking place in Kashmir, every pore of my body was supporting the victims.
In Kashmir I felt that Leningrad and Beijing, Caracas, Havana, Asmara and Quito are behind me. The songs of resistance from Srinagar were the songs of resistance of the Russian, Chinese, African and Latin American people.
We are all connected. And that is why I was standing there, in the middle of the road, in Srinagar, facing the soldiers of the Indian state – those lackeys of the Empire.
"He is really coming with us!" one of the boys said, in disbelief.
"Yes!" I said, squeezing my camera. As always, I wanted to survive. I wanted to survive so much! But not by all means! Not as a slave, not as a lackey.
"Half of humanity is now with us", I thought, as the bandits, those security forces of India, trained openly by US and Israeli began closing in on us, firing teargas canisters, not into the air but directly at people's heads. "And many more will be joining, soon."
Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His critically acclaimed political revolutionary novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear" (Pluto). He just completed feature documentary "Rwanda Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website.
Waging A Phony War on Terror. "Terrorists R US" Defines U.S. Foreign Policy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/waging-a-phony-war-on-terror-terrorists-r-us-defines-u-s-foreign-policy/5424112
Waging it isn't new. Enemies are needed. When none exist they're invented.
Reagan denounced the "evil scourge of terrorism." Specifically state-sponsored international terrorism. The "plague of the modern age," he said.
His Secretary of State George Schultz called it "modern barbarism. (A) form of political violence. (A) threat to Western civilization. (A) menace to Western moral values."
GW Bush declared war on terrorism. To "rid the world of evildoers. (N)ot let evil stand."
Orwell said political rhetoric defends the indefensible. So-called wars on terrorism are wars of terrorism. State-sponsored. Against designated individuals, groups or nations.
The late Howard Zinn asked "(h)ow can you make war on terrorism if war is terrorism." Governments are the greatest terrorist threats.
US Code defines terrorism as activities involving:
(A) "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;"
(B) are intended to -
(i) "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...."
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37, 1984) calls it "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."
Political terrorism is worst of all. State-sponsored. Including premeditated wars of aggression. Direct and proxy.
Compromised civil liberties. Gross human rights abuses. Committing violent or other extrajudicial acts to advance a political agenda.
Claiming national security concerns. Promoting democracy. America's most dangerous export.
Calling aggressive wars self-defense. Good v. evil. America arrogates to itself the right to be the world's sheriff, judge and hangman.
Its sole decider. Publicly supporting right over wrong. Spurning fundamental rule of law principles. Its rules alone apply. Justifying the unjustifiable.
In his book titled "America's War on Terrorism," Michel Chossudovsky calls it a complete fabrication.
"(B)ased on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted" America's entire intelligence establishment.
Waging war on terrorism is a pretext for permanent New World Order wars of conquest. Carving up whole continents for profit and dominance.
Serving monied interests. At the expense of popular ones. Using America's resources for unchallenged US hegemony. No matter the human cost.
Fictitious enemies are created. Wars on terrorism follow. At home and abroad. Especially post-9/11.
What Project for a New American Century (PNAC) neocons called a "catastrophic and catalyzing event...like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to advance US hegemonic aims.
Changing rules of engagement. From rule of law observance to anything goes. America declared war on Islam.
Muslims are targets of choice. Terrorism is what they do. Not us. Nazis claimed they were protecting populations from terrorists directed from abroad.
Imperial Japan targeted "Chinese bandits." Claiming an agenda to create an "earthly paradise."
Reagan ignored the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) June 1986 condemnation of "unlawful (US) use of force." As well as Security Council resolutions calling on nations to observe international law.
Vetoed by Washington. General Assembly ones affirming the same principles ignored.
Congress significantly increased funding for US-backed Central American death squads. Engaged in "the unlawful use of force."
At the time, State Department legal advisor Abraham Sofaer explained why America is entitled to disregard World Court rulings.
Saying when most states oppose Washington's agenda, we "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we'll act.
Policies pursued fall "within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined (solely) by the United States."
Washington's war on terror creates what it claims to oppose. At home and abroad. On an unprecedented scale.
Supported by rogue Western partners. Israel. Other extremist states. Allied against freedom. Making the world safe for monied interests.
At the expense of millions of lost lives. Unspeakable human misery. Unlimited wealth, power and privilege. Genocide is a small price to pay.
America's human rights record is far and away the world's worst. Truman administration diplomat George Kennan was Wshington's leading Cold War architect.
He advised on "dispen(sing) with all sentimentality and daydreaming..."
Urged focusing solely on "national objectives...(D)ispensing with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of high-minded international altruism."
"We should (stop talking about) unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization."
"The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."
"The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (ideas and practices), the better."
Ravaging one nation after another followed. Multiple direct and proxy wars. Homeland ones against freedom.
Militarized madness and then some. Heading things perhaps for armageddon. America, other Western states and Israel are more battlegrounds than homelands.
Anyone can be arrested, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned. On spurious terrorism charges.
Others or none at all. Held indefinitely. Designated state enemies have no rights. Police states operate this way.
Democracy is pure fantasy. Existing in name only. Raw power rules. Challengers risk persecution, imprisonment or death.
Thousands of political prisoners languish in America's gulag. The world's largest by far. Israel operates the same way. So do other Western nations.
After retiring from public life, George Kennan softened his views. On the Progressive Radio News Hour, Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff explained.
Citing a line from Goethe. Warning about being destroyed by monsters of our own creation.
In his 1978 Harvard commencement address, Alexander Solzhenitsyn attacked Kennan. For refusing to apply moral values to politics.
Saying "we mix good and evil, right and wrong, and make space for the absolute triumph of absolved evil in the world."
In a post-9/11 world, what would Solzhenitsyn say now? Fascism dominates Western and Israeli policy. Masquerading as democracy.
Terrorists R us. Kennan believed people can't be trusted to do the right thing. Their nature dictates otherwise.
We need to be realists, he said. Because we're not moralists. John Adams once said: "Power always thinks it has a great soul."
US policymakers believe they deserve it. In retirement, Kennan said the "tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vainglorious and undesirable."
He lived to age 101. Remained intellectually alert to the end. Dying in March 2005. Opposed war in Vietnam.
Clinton's Balkan wars. The rape of Yugoslavia. At age 98, he warned of unforeseen consequences of war on Iraq. Saying it bore no relation to fighting terrorism.
What he said about Iraq applies broadly. Warning "(a)nyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before..."
"In other words, war has a momentum of its own, and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it."
"Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end."
Kennan expressed fears about worsening US/Russian relations. Called NATO enlargement a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions."
Warned against exporting US policies. Argued against subordinating other states to an international juridical regime.
Advocated for balanced power globally. The best way to protect America's security, he believed.
Historian Wilson Miscamble said "(o)ne can only hope that present and future makers of foreign policy might share something of his integrity and intelligence."
Not in America. Other Western societies. Israel. Hardline extremism rules. Phony war on terrorism persists.
Last week's Paris killings are its latest manifestation. Expect more incidents like it ahead. Wall Street Journal editors warned of "the next Islamic rampage."
A "new offensive by homegrown jihadists carrying European or US passports...(I)nspired by al Qaeda or Islamic State."
Journal editors urged "more aggressive interventions..." Against anyone "show(iing) signs of embracing jihad."
Perhaps they mean all-out war. Ignoring the world's greatest threat. US-state-sponsored terrorism. Possible nuclear war.
In October, FBI director James Comey warned of radicalized Islamists planning attacks on US soil.
Saying they're "looking to do it very, very soon. (W)e know they're serious people bent on destruction."
In his book titled "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terror," Trevor Aaronson chronicled so-called terrorist incidents in America over the last decade. Saying one common theme defines them.
"The organization responsible for more terrorist plots over the last decade than any other is the FBI."
"Through elaborate and expensive sting operations, involving informants and undercover agents posing as terrorists, the FBI has arrested and the Justice dept. has prosecuted dozens of men government officials say posed direct – but by no means credible or immediate – threats to the United States."
Terror plots are invented. Innocent patsies used advantageously.
Part of America's fear-mongering campaign. Manipulating public opinion. Supported by scoundrel media misinformation.
Big Lies. Getting people to believe nonexistent terrorists threaten their security. Implementing repressive policies. Eviscerating civil liberties. Waging phony wars on terrorism.
According to Aaronson:
"(G)overnment-described terrorists were able to carry forward their potentially lethal plots only because FBI agents and informants provided them with all the means..."
"(I)n most cases delivering weapons and equipment...(I)n some cases even paying rent and doling out...spending money to keep the suspects on the hook."
"In cities around the country where terrorism stings have taken place, (key is whether) the FBI catch(es) terrorists or create(s) them."
Terrorists R us defines US policy. Expect more false flag "terrorist" plots to follow Paris killings.
In European countries. America. Israel. Elsewhere. Expect Washington to be centrally involved.
Complicit with its rogue partners. At what this writer calls the most perilous time in world history.
US hegemonic plans may destroy planetary life. Lunatics infesting Washington, European capitals and Israel make the unthinkable possible.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
US Officials Blow the Whistle on Secret CIA, Mossad Operation in Syria
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/us-officials-blow-whistle-on-secret-cia.html
Aaron Nelson
Activist Post
Detonating a car bomb in a civilian-populated area and denying any involvement in the attack is called terrorism when our enemies do it.
But what if the terror attack is backed by Israel and the United States?
Speaking only under the condition of anonymity, 5 former U.S. intelligence officials told The Washington Post that the Central Intelligence Agency tracked Imad Mughniyah for at least a year before killing him in a joint operation with the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.
By studying Mughniyah's daily routine, a strategy for the attack was masterminded and carried out in secret by the 'good guys'. A truth which remained untold until last week.
According to their report, it was Israel who initially approached the CIA about the joint assassination, but former U.S. President George W. Bush is who authorized the operation after securing approval from the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Adviser, and the Justice Department.
It's also illegal.
–EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333, signed into law by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on December 4th, 1981.
"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination."
–EXECUTIVE ORDER 12036, signed into law by U.S. President Jimmy Carter on January 24, 1978.
"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."
–EXECUTIVE ORDER 11905, created and signed into law by U.S. President Gerald R. Ford on February 18, 1976.
"No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
After testing the bomb more than 25 times at the CIA's Harvey Point base in North Carolina, the CIA provided the device to the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service to plant in a spare tire on Mughniyah's car.
"The way it was set up, the U.S. could object and call it off, but it could not execute," a former U.S. official said.
Following the assassination, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema called the car bombing an act of terror. Hezbollah leader Nasrallah blamed the assassination on Israel. The investigation carried out by the Syrian government into the attack did not identify a culprit, but determined Mughniyah was killed by a car bomb that was detonated by remote.
As it turns out, this is exactly what these five U.S. officials are now claiming had happened. The device was triggered remotely from Tel Aviv by agents with the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service in communication with CIA operatives on the ground. Facial recognition technology was used to identify Mughniyah as he walked out of a restaurant minutes before the bomb was detonated.
Following the attack, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied any Israeli involvement with the car bombing.
"Israel rejects the attempt by terror groups to attribute to it any involvement in this incident. We have nothing further to add," said former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, following the attack.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials celebrated the news of Mughniyah's death.
The acting U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, suggested the Syrian government, or perhaps internal Hezbollah factions, were responsible for the assassination. As it turns out, this narrative was nearly the opposite of reality.
At the time, McConnell claimed U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating his 'conspiracy theory'. Now many will now surely recognize it as 'CIA propaganda' designed to manipulate the narrative told by U.S. corporate media outlets in 2008 while covering the car bombing assassination of Mughniyah.
"There's some evidence that it may have been internal Hezbollah. It may have been Syria. We don't know yet, and we're trying to sort that out." – Mike McConnell
For decades, U.S. officials accused Imad Mughniyah of masterminding several attacks, most notably the bombing of the 1983 U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed several CIA agents, though no legitimate evidence of his role has been released.
The extraordinarily close cooperation between the CIA and the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service suggests that secret assassination operations by these intelligence agencies, a tactic considered by many to be a 'terrorist act', are probably not uncommon.
Aaron Nelson writes for the TheAntiMedia.org, where this first appeared. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST.
9/11 Conspirator Admits Saudi Royal Family Funded Al-Qaeda Attacks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-04/911-conspirator-admits-saudi-royal-family-funded-al-qaeda-attacks
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," appears to be the 'do-nothing-stupid' strategy that Washington continues to play in The Middle East. How else to explain the continuing 'close-ally' relationship with Saudi Arabia given that, as Reuters reports, Zacarias Moussaoui - a former al Qaeda operative imprisoned for life for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks - has told lawyers for victims of the attacks that members of the Saudi royal family supported the Islamic militant group. Saudi officials were quick to denounce these statements as those of "a deranged criminal whose own lawyers presented evidence that he was mentally incompetent," as he included some "extremely famous" Saudi officials as 'donors' during Osama bin Laden's tenure.
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0L81T020150204?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Moussaoui made his statements in October at the super-maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado, where Moussaoui has been held since being sentenced to life in 2006. He wrote a letter offering to testify.
Families of Sept. 11 victims allege that Saudi Arabia and a government-affiliated charity knowingly provided funding and other material support to al Qaeda that helped it carry out the attacks.
Plaintiffs include families of the nearly 3,000 people killed, as well as insurers that covered losses suffered by building owners and businesses.
Most of the 19 attackers were Saudi nationals who hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers revolted.
Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Entire Oil Collapse Is All About Crushing Russian Control Over Syria
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/another-conspiracy-theory-becomes-fact-entire-oil-collapse-all-about-crushing-russia
While the markets are still debating whether the price of oil is more impacted by the excess pumping of crude here, or the lack of demand there, or if it is all just a mechanical squeeze by momentum-chasing HFT algos who also know to buy in the milliseconds before 2:30pm, we bring readers' attention back to what several months ago was debunked as a deep conspiracy theory.
Back then we wrote about a certain visit by John Kerry to Saudi Arabia, on September 11 of all days, to negotiate a secret deal with the now late King Abdullah so as to get a "green light" in order "to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory, it "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."
We concluded:
Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?
Because at the end of the day it is all about energy. We made as much very clear one month later when in mid-October we said "If The Oil Plunge Continues, "Now May Be A Time To Panic" For US Shale Companies." The panic time has long since come, but only after we laid out the problem clearly enough for all to grasp:
... while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the "deal" with Obama's White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the "costs" meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency.
As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with "costs", he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession.
It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama's career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale "miracle" next.
Of course, all of the above was purely in the realm of the conspiratorial, because the last thing the administration would admit is that the tradeoff to its bargain with Saudi Arabia to implement a (largely failed) foreign policy regarding ISIS (which has grown in size since the coalition campaign) was to put at risk the entire US shale miracle, a miracle which is evaporating in front of everyone's eyes. And all thanks to that "closest" of US allies in the middle east: Saudi Arabia.
It was conspiratorial, that is, until today, when thanks to the far less "tinfoil" NYT one more conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, following a report that "Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices."
From the NYT:
Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices."
As we predicted, correctly, in September: it was all about Syria:
"If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don't see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal," a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.
So what would it take for the price of oil to finally jump? Not much: Putin's announcement that Syria's leader Bashar is no longer a strategic ally of Russia.
Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft. Saudi officials have said publicly that the price of oil reflects only global supply and demand, and they have insisted that Saudi Arabia will not let geopolitics drive its economic agenda. But they believe that there could be ancillary diplomatic benefits to the country's current strategy of allowing oil prices to stay low — including a chance to negotiate an exit for Mr. Assad.
...
"Russia has been one of the Syrian president's most steadfast supporters, selling military equipment to the government for years to bolster Mr. Assad's forces in their battle against rebel groups, including the Islamic State, and supplying everything from spare parts and specialty fuels to sniper training and helicopter maintenance."
Will Putin relent?
"Mr. Putin, however, has frequently demonstrated that he would rather accept economic hardship than buckle to outside pressures to change his policies. Sanctions imposed by the United States and European countries have not prompted Moscow to end its military involvement in Ukraine, and Mr. Putin has remained steadfast in his support for Mr. Assad, whom he sees as a bulwark in a region made increasingly volatile by Islamic extremism."
Actually that's not it: Syria, as we have been explaining for nearly two years is the critical transit zone of a proposed natural gas pipeline, originating in Qatar, and one which would terminate somewhere in central Europe. The same Qatar which was the "mystery sponsor of weapons and money to Syrian mercenary rebels" who eventually became ISIS. The same Qatar which is now directly funding ISIS. Of course, if Putin were to handover Syria to the Saudi princes (and to Qatar), he would effectively shoot himself in the foot by ending any leverage Gazprom has over Europe.
This too is very well known to Putin. For now he has shown that he has no intention of abdicating Syria, and losing critical leverage when it comes to being the provider of last resort of European gas:
The Saudis have offered economic enticements to Russian leaders in return for concessions on regional issues like Syria before, but never with oil prices so low. It is unclear what effect, if any, the discussions are having. While the United States would support initiatives to end Russian backing for Mr. Assad, any success by the Saudis to cut production and raise global oil prices could hurt many parts of the American economy.
After the meeting in Moscow in November between Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, and Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov rejected the idea that international politics should play a role in setting oil prices.
"We see eye to eye with our Saudi colleagues in that we believe the oil market should be based on the balance of supply and demand," Mr. Lavrov said, "and that it should be free of any attempts to influence it for political or geopolitical purposes."
Which, in retrospect puts the Ukraine conflict, and the western isolation of Russia in a very simple spotlight - the whole point is to inflict as much pain as possible, so Putin has no choice but to hand over Syria.
Russia is feeling financial pain and diplomatic isolation because of international sanctions stemming from its incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, American officials said. But Mr. Putin still wants to be viewed as a pivotal player in the Middle East. The Russians hosted a conference last week in Moscow between the Assad government and some of Syria's opposition groups, though few analysts believe the talks will amount to much, especially since many of the opposition groups boycotted them. Some Russia experts expressed skepticism that Mr. Putin would be amenable to any deal that involved removing support for Mr. Assad.
Saudi Arabia's leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenues. "If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well," said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M's Bush School of Government and Public Service.
As for Assad, the Syrian president "has shown no inclination to step aside. He said in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine that the true threat in Syria comes from the Islamic State and Qaeda-affiliated groups that, in his words, make up the "majority" of rebellion. American and Arab officials said that even if Russia were to abandon Mr. Assad, the Syrian president would still have his most generous benefactor, Iran. Iranian aid to the Syrian government has been one of the principal reasons that Mr. Assad has been able to hold power as other autocrats in the Middle East have been deposed.
And as a major oil producer, Iran would benefit if Saudi Arabia helped push up oil prices as part of a bargain with Russia.
"You are going to strengthen your enemy whether you like it or not, and the Iranians are not showing any flexibility here," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi royal family.
But the military aid that Russia provides to Syria is different enough from what Damascus receives from Iran, its other major supplier, that if "Russia withdrew all military support, I don't think the Syrian Army could function," a senior Obama administration official said.
The conclusion:
A number of Arab nations have been pushing for the Saudis and Russians — polar extremes in their positions toward Mr. Assad — to find common ground on the matter as a step toward ending the carnage of Syria's civil war, now almost four years old. But, as one Arab diplomat put it, "This decision is ultimately in Putin's hands."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the great oil collapse of 2014/2015 is all about. For those who want to know when to buy oil, the answer is simple: just after (or ideally before) Putin announces he will no longer support the Assad regime. If, that is, he ever does because that act will effectively destroy all leverage Putin may ever have over Europe, and in the process, also end - quite prematurely - his career.
Until then, every single HFT-induced spike in oil is one to be ultimately faded, because as the past few months have shown, it is the Saudis who set the price, and they will not take no for an answer, even if it means crippling the entire US shale, and energy, industry in the process.
Guest Post: Organizing Against Tyranny
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-04/guest-post-oragnizing-against-tyranny
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog:
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2495-organizing-against-tyranny
My work and my thoughts lately have turned toward a now constant focus on the concepts of organization, more in respect to underlying philosophy rather than hard, fast rules and structures. If you are one of the slithering acolytes of political theory elitist Saul Alinsky (and you haven't felt the inclination to jump face first into the nearest punji pit), then the primary tool of organization for you is to lie, and to lie often. Tricking people into action using false premises, telling people what they want to hear rather than opening their eyes to reality, is perhaps the easiest way to build a movement. Of course, that movement will eventually destroy itself as the lies begin to inhibit progress rather than inspire it. But in most cases, by the time the organization self-destructs it has already been exploited for the nefarious purpose it was intended.
For the liberty movement, the movement against globalization and forced centralization of financial and political power, lies are simply not an option. The internationalists have already cornered the market on lies, so we must take a completely contrary approach. We must organize around the truth, no matter how painful it happens to be. This is a much more difficult prospect, one many people don't understand or appreciate.
There are a lot of complaints in the movement about the lack of what they consider effective organization, and the frustration is in some ways beginning to evolve into fear. Here are some core inconsistencies I believe are at the heart of organizational problems within the liberty movement and what we can do to solve them.
Re-examining Our Concept Of Real Organization
For multiple generations, Americans and most of the rest of the world have been conditioned to believe that organization is a top-down affair that requires a central leadership that hands orders across the ranks of a rigid structure. The people within the structure operate as parts of a greater machine, and the success of the machine is (supposedly) directly related to how close the smaller parts (people) work together and follow those orders. Unfortunately, many activists in the liberty movement also assume that this is what an organization is and how it works.
Surely, there is a need for people with a talent to inspire others to thought and to action. But these men and women are nothing unless they can motivate individuals to eventually take their own initiative without orders. A true leader is a teacher — nothing more. And if he really cares about the future prosperity of the people he is teaching, that teacher's objective will be for his students to exceed his own capabilities and to become independent in their accomplishments.
For a movement driven by a desire for the preservation of freedom and sovereignty, organization requires structure, but not rigidity or centralized leadership. The collectivist model of the human machine or hive is a flawed model that oppresses individual contributions that could be revolutionary. The corporate model, for instance, is a perfect example of an organization built mostly on lies (just look at the inconsistencies of real debts versus real profits for most major companies) and that fuels itself on the integration of people as replaceable gears and bolts on a rusted, shuddering Ferris wheel ride. Corporations might appear to make money, but they never meet their ultimate potential as organizations because most of the people within them could not care less about the purpose or even health of the system as long as they continue to draw a paycheck. When an organization merely limps along on the thin thread of the survival principle, this is the opposite of success.
The liberty movement has to abandon outmoded and ill-conceived notions of mainstream organizational models and take more stock in decentralized activity. A lack of an arbitrarily designated pecking order or the pyramid scheme of top-down branching management is a good thing for our cause, not a disadvantage.
Legitimate Structure And Purpose
Just because a movement is decentralized does not mean it should lack a foundation, and that foundation should be composed of a primary purpose and a primary plan of action. This is where some liberty activists seem to become most nihilistic in their thinking.
They have been looking for top-down leadership, which doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.They have been looking for a set plan of attack, which no one can seem to agree on. And they moan relentlessly about what they see as the lack of a singular, universal vision of what the ultimate goal should be. I have heard the argument more than once that the liberty movement will fail because victory would require us to all agree on one ideological vision and a rather singular strategy. What they don't appear to realize is that a vision and strategy already exist that most of us agree on.
Again, our society has been conditioned to see through only a very narrow window of what constitutes organization that demands we adhere to the top-down philosophy. However, most liberty activists already agree on the bottom-up goal of self-reliance and self-sufficiency in all things, from food and water to education, security and governance.
There will be no mass majority movement on Washington in a "V for Vendetta"-style march led by some heroic masked man. And even if there were, it would accomplish nothing unless the top of the globalist pyramid was toppled (Occupy Wall Street is a good example of how such theatrics fail). This goal of a mass awakening is a common fantasy and an impractical one; but self-sufficiency, mutual aid and mutual defense are realistic efforts, given the likely short amount of time we have left. The universal vision is right in front of our faces and always has been: to break away from the corrupt mainstream system, to remove our dependency, to provide our own necessities and, thus, to remove our consent.
Every liberty proponent in America should be able to pursue this goal without prompting from any centralized leadership, and it encompasses every aspect of the fight against tyranny. Make your family self-sufficient and secure without aid of government. Make your neighborhood self-sufficient and secure. Make your town or county self-sufficient and secure. If the elites try to stop you, fight back and from a position on the moral high ground. If enough communities defend themselves the prospect of martial law or totalitarian control becomes systemically impossible, politically and strategically. I rarely run into liberty advocates who disagree with this plan, yet they do nothing and refuse to even make the attempt because they are still waiting around for someone to give them a plan. Stop waiting around for the next Gandhi or George Washington and do what you already know needs to be done. It is truly as simple as that.
Changing Our Idea Of Leadership
As stated earlier, you do not need a man on a white horse to ride in and save you from the terrifying idea of self-responsibility. If you are waiting for someone to come down off the mountain with magical stone tablets and lead you to the promised land, you are going to find yourself rather disappointed. Despite popular belief, men do not organize other men; only ideas given focus organize men. Men rally around that which they love or that which they hate. Leadership is often incidental, or sadly, manipulative.
So, by extension, we can conclude that to develop a strong organization, the ideal must be honest and honorable, the plan must be decentralized and natural for individuals to implement, and those who coordinate the organizational efforts must do so with the realization that they are stewards of the principles of that movement and that those principles are more important than their glory. If activists plan to become followers of anything, it should be solid principles. Leaders are secondary.
Destructive Egomania
In my time in the movement, I have seen relatively good men with sound ideals exhibit insane behavior and absurd motives when exposed to a mere 15 minutes of fame. Ego is truly the greatest Achilles' heel of any activist organization. This is a fact that corrupt governments are highly aware of.
If you look into the history of the FBI's subversive Cointelpro efforts from the 1950s onward, you will find a common tactic used to dismantle anti-establishment groups, which is to sow discord among organizers and coordinators by feeding egos and turning them against each other. Like the ring of power in the "Lord of The Rings" books, the desire for leadership can blind people to the greater cause. They develop delusions of grandeur, thinking they are the next guru, the next prophet, the next man to lead the charge to permanent historical stardom. Each person believes that if only he had the ring, if only he were the leader, he could resist the temptations of power and achieve what others could not. And so he refuses to work with others or to share the stage, or he even attempts to subvert or co-opt the legitimate accomplishments of more capable men.
The only solution is to cast off the ring forever, to care nothing for the supposed glories of leadership and to work only for the betterment of others.
I have also seen people within the movement fall victim to the admiration of their own fan base. Positive feedback from readers is certainly helpful, but I would be writing everything I write now even if every email I received were laced with vitriol (sometimes they are). The truth does not require fans; it functions fine without them. Liberty champions do, on occasion, receive letters of adoration — from being compared to Thomas Paine all the way to being labeled the next Jesus (the former being flattering and the latter being just plain weird). The problem is not public appreciation; it is the cult of celebrity that many Americans have grown too attached to, as well as the fact that some activists in more public positions have a hard time handling positive attention without their heads expanding 10 sizes too big.
The fact is I don't matter, liberty leaders and personalities don't matter, the limelight doesn't matter, and the level of our fan base doesn't matter. All that matters is how effectively and efficiently we can get the facts to the public. Organization suffers when the cult of celebrity takes over, whether in the minds of activists or in the minds of the people who represent them in the media.
Fear Of Risk Leads To Inaction
In my work with groups such as Oath Keepers and its Community Preparedness Team program, I have taken what some might consider sizable risks, and I have witnessed others who have gone even further. And in this risk I have seen the kinds of progress in organization I have never seen anywhere else. Without risk, there can be no organization against tyranny and, thus, no chance of success. If you are afraid to be put on the naughty list in the National Security Agency database, if you are afraid you might lose your job, if you are afraid you might be labeled an "extremist" or if you are afraid of uneducated public perception and this has prevented you from building mutual aid and defense groups where you live, then you have already lost everything. Fear leads to inaction, and inaction is death.
I have even witnessed members of organizations attempt to prevent others from taking positive measures like training for community defense because they are so fearful of what might happen due to their affiliation they will actually work against the better goals of the people around them. All I can say is that fear-driven people have to be removed from organizational environments, or they will poison the waters until the entire venture flatlines. Risk is inevitable. It is unavoidable. All anti-establishment, anti-tyranny movements depend on it. The more people willing to take risks, the more effectively "safe" that risk becomes. This includes the fear of defense and the fear of losing one's life in the process. Every scenario, even the worst-case scenario, has to be considered and then set aside as irrelevant. Fear has no place in the minds or actions of liberty champions. Remove fear, and world-changing organization becomes possible.
SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/sec-government-destroyed-documents-regarding-pre-911-put-options.html
If Your Name Is On This List, Prepare To Be Audited (Or Worse)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/if-your-name-list-prepare-be-audited-or-worse
Over the weekend we got the latest confirmation that when it comes to enabling of tax evasion and parking of criminal money, HSBC is second only to US real estate in catering to shady offshore oligarchs, dictators, rock stars, monarchs, and even outright criminals.
What happened was the following: The French newspaper Le Monde obtained a version of the tax authority data, which covers accounts of more than 100,000 clients (individuals and legal entities) from more than 200 countries. The newspaper shared it with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the agreement that it would assemble a global team of journalists to explore the data and produce this reporting project.
The data comes from three types of internal bank files from different time periods. One reflects clients and their associated private accounts at the Swiss branch of the bank mostly from 1988 to 2007. Another is a snapshot of the maximum amounts in the client accounts during 2006 and 2007. The third is of notes on clients and conversations with them made by bank employees during 2005.
The files show the accounts to hold more than $100 billion in total, from $12.6 billion held in the name of governmental institutions from the oil rich nation of Venezuela under the late former leader Hugh Chávez, to amounts recorded as zero. The confidential files also provide a wealth of other detail, such as secretive offshore companies linked to some accounts.
As Bloomberg reminds us today, the HSBC leak began as a rogue operation by a computer technician, Herve Falciani, who left the company in 2008 with five disks of confidential information. A self-described whistle-blower, Falciani provided details on the 100,000-plus accounts to French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, now head of the International Monetary Fund. She passed details from the cache -- which came to be known as the Falciani List or Lagarde List -- to governments around the world.
The "Swiss Leak" was the topic of last night's 60 Minutes (which was missed by pretty much everyone who was focusing on the brain mush that is the Grammys instead).
More information on link and some disturbing, but predictable, comments..
"Seems like a perfect assassin's list. Anybody got a .30-06 that's just collecting dust?"
It seems people have just about had enough. If the fiat financial problems were not enough to push civilisation over a cliff, the use of ISIS as a proxy "terrorist army" to justify illegal wars abroad, and usher in the police state at home is a step too far. Our 'elected' leader's along with the entire establishment are engaged knowingly, or unknowingly (the ones planning to use the "i am stupid defense" at Nuremburg Trials 2), in acts of terrorism and propaganda for geopolitical and personal gain. Things are going to start getting real ugly soon, a significant % of the intelligent people know what's going on and the deliberately planned WW3 is the only way out for the terrorists that created this thrust for world hegemony and personal power. They cannot fight WW3 in Eurasia, and also an asymmetric guerrilla civil war at home if the intelligentsia that know of the deception remain alive. So, do the math..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia
The Russian Revolution polarized the Russian intelligentsia, together with all other strata of the society. Some of them emigrated, some joined the White movement, some joined the Bolsheviks (and some were Bolsheviks from the very beginning), some tried to oppose Bolsheviks within the political framework of Soviet Union, some remained passive. Eventually the Bolsheviks got rid of all opponents by various means, ranging from forced deportation to execution. The remaining intelligentsia were supposed to serve "the cause of working class". While the importance of this class was not underestimated, it was treated with reservation.
42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
Amongst the comments we find many people who cannot read the title and at the same time process context meaning, and specific emphasis... "42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks".. c'mon people think.. We do however find a legal eagle with a very important philosophy to share:
"With a list this long it is only reasonable to assume that when ANY dramatic event takes place that the first reaction should be to question the legitimacy of it on face value. The only reasonable view point is to assume it is a false flag until concrete evidence to the contrary is laid out in FULL discovery."
The humbling of David Cameron: On a momentous night, Tory rebellion forces Prime Minister to rule out military strike against Syria... and plunges him into a deep political crisis
PM David Cameron loses major Commons test over his policy on Syria
Insisted action to deter chemical weapons is different to 2003 Iraq invasion
US intelligence does not have 'smoking gun' linking attack to Assad regime
Labour accused of giving 'succour' to Assad by opposing UK government
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405633/Syria-conflict-David-Cameron-humiliated-losing-Commons-vote-possible-military-action.html
The terrorists did not get their False Flag proxy war kicked off with this event... so a year later we got ISIS proxy instead... and as the right honourable Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron threatened through the media:
"We have to fight 'monstrous' ISIS terrorists or face 'mayhem on our own streets', warns Cameron"
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41084#msg41084
Now with the ISIS monster in full swing and having not only survived the wrath of the Western military machine, it has actually grown stronger.. go figure.. and now we get mission creep:
2,000 UK troops, RAF spy plane bound for Jordan to combat ISIS
http://rt.com/uk/230571-uk-jordan-military-support/
The UK will send 2,000 specialist troops and a spy plane to Jordan to aid its efforts to defeat the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), a government source has revealed.
The decision follows criticism from the Commons Defence Select Committee that the UK was not committing sufficient troops or resources to the area.
Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS
Secret Jordan base was site of covert aid to insurgents targeting Assad
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.
ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and "slaughter" King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.
WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.
WND further reported that, according to a Shiite source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group that has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad also was training fighters in Turkey.
The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of the group Iraq of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, the ISIS, is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located.
He called Obama "an accomplice" in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government the U.S. helped establish through the Iraq war.
The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria to join the effort to establish an Islamic caliphate subject to strict Islamic law, or Shariah.
'Mainstream media orchestrate appetite for war' – editor Oliver Tickell
http://investmentwatchblog.com/mainstream-media-orchestrate-appetite-for-war-editor-oliver-tickell/
Afshin Rattansi goes underground on media misrepresentation of the situation in Ukraine. Oliver Tickell, editor of The Ecologist magazine, warns mainstream media are beating the 'drums of war' by portraying an inaccurate picture of Russia as the aggressor, and are part of the international security machine that enables war to happen.
War with Isis: Jordan's pledge to fight militants on the ground is coup for US and its allies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-jordans-pledge-to-fight-militants-on-the-ground-is-a-coup-for-us-and-its-allies-10024632.html
Amman's promised offensive would solve huge problem for the West as MPs call for beefed-up British response
Hours after one of his pilots was seen being burned alive, an impassioned and angry King Abdullah told members of the US Congress that Jordan would be stepping up air strikes against Isis.[/b] "The only problem we are going to have," he declared, "is running out of fuel and bullets." Around the same time on Tuesday, US officials were forced to admit that the United Arab Emirates, a crucial ally, had dropped out of the mission.
The full ramifications of recent shocking events, the burning alive of Flight Lieutenant Muath al-Kasaesbeh and the grim retribution taken by Jordan with the hanging of two Iraqis convicted of terrorism are yet to be seen. But what happened has become, for many in the Middle East and beyond, a reason to take stock of the war on Isis.
The decision by the UAE to stop the air raids came after Lt Kasaesbeh's F-16 was shot down near Raqqa in December. The US, the Gulf state demanded, must dramatically improve search-and–rescue efforts, by placing V-22 Osprey aircraft, which can take off and land like helicopters, closer to the battleground.
But in his dressing down of the new American ambassador, Barbara Leaf, Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan also dwelt at length on the major role that Iran was now playing in the campaign against Isis in Iraq. The same concern about the rise in Shia influence was expressed by Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud during a visit to London in December. He was worried that Tehran will use its leverage in the military campaign to win concessions over its nuclear programme.
It is, of course, essential that the US and the West keeps the regional coalition together. This is not just because air strikes must, for diplomatic reasons, include Sunni states as well as Western ones, but what must follow if Isis and its allies are to be defeated – a land campaign. The training camps for "moderate" rebels are being set up in Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in tandem with similar facilities for the Peshmarga and Iraqi forces in Kurdistan and Iraq.
US and Australian, as well as a relatively small number of British special forces, are on the ground. Although their role has been mainly confined to surveillance and calling down air strikes, some have reportedly been involved in setting up ambushes on insurgent convoys carrying "high value targets".
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, claimed recently that more than 50 per cent of Isis leadership had been "eliminated". That level of attrition cannot be done by air raids alone. However, taking and holding ground from Isis would mean the involvement of regular forces.
General Martin Dempsey, the head of the US military, and other Western commanders have repeatedly acknowledged that a counter-insurgency campaign cannot be won by air strikes alone. The fighters on the ground must be Iraqi and Syrian and not American and European. The commanders also acknowledge that it will take far longer to train these forces than initially envisaged. The Syrian border town of Kobani has been recaptured from Isis by Kurdish fighters, but it took months despite the intense air strikes.
The taking of Kobani, was a symbolic and morale-boosting victory for the disparate groups facing the Islamist extremists. But Isis and its allies seized more territories in the Homs, Raqqa, Idlib province and the Aleppo hinterland, mainly from other rebel groups.
One possibility mooted had been to put troops from regional states, such as UAE and Jordan, into Syria to support "moderate" rebels. But it is by no means certain that these governments would be willing to take that risk, with significant internal opposition to joining the US-led venture and fears now, following the terrible death of Lt Kasaesbeh, of what may happen to captured prisoners.
Samir al-Nasri, an Egyptian political analyst, pointed out: "The Arab Street, as the West likes to characterise it, is a volatile place. At present there is great anger against Daesh [Isis] but that anger might go in other directions. The West has to be careful not to get drawn into another Iraq war, but rulers in this neighbourhood have to be careful as well."
So far, the only officially acknowledged engagement between Western forces and Isis took place last month when Canadian soldiers went to the aid of Iraqi troops. With hundreds more US forces arriving, these clashes are likely to take place much more – "mission creep".
It seems highly unlikely, however, that British troops will get involved. A report by the Commons defence committee due out today is scathing in its criticism of the Cameron government's efforts so far. On a visit to Iraq in December, the MPs found that there were only three UK personnel outside the relatively safe Kurdish areas compared with 400 Australians and 280 Italians, let alone the Americans. The RAF, they discovered, had carried out just 6 per cent of air strikes.
The committee chairman, Rory Stewart, was disheartened that the UK is wasting the experience it gained in the country, especially of the Shia south. A commander, who has extensive experience of Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, cautioned against the murder of Lt Kasaesbeh influencing strategy. Major General Jonathan Shaw, a former head of special forces and British commander in Iraq, said: "It was a terrible thing and obviously one has utmost sympathy for his family. But it was the death of just one man and this should not shape policy.
"This is a long war. Isis has made gains, but it is having huge problems as well. The extremists are being damaged, they are turning on each other, not just in Iraq and Syria, but elsewhere. We are seeing Isis followers killing Taliban commanders in Afghanistan, Isis killing al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda killing Isis.
"The lead in fighting the extremists must come from the regional players, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE. It would be a dreadful mistake to put Western, Christian, ground forces back into Iraq and the region."
War with Isis: If Saudis aren't fuelling the militant inferno, who is?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-if-the-saudis-arent-fuelling-the-militant-inferno-who-is-10024324.html
With Riyadh increasingly suspected of funding the terrorist group, the West may have to rethink its relationships, says Robert Fisk
The image of a Muslim burned alive is more terrible for millions of Muslims than that of an "unbeliever" burned alive. So just who are the Muslims who support the immolation of a young Jordanian? And, more to the point, who are their masters? Jordanians, more than half of whom are Palestinians, must now debate the dichotomy of tribal loyalty and religion, and ask a simple question: who are their real allies – and their real national enemies – in the Middle East? The searchlight beam of their attention, and of Washington's, will now again pass over the Gulf and that most Wahhabi of nations, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Put bluntly, should the world blame the Saudis for the inflammable monster that is Isis?
The US, where the State Department and the Pentagon have themselves been divided over Saudi Arabia's foundational role in Salafist violence – the former happy to stroke the monarchy as a pro-Western "moderate force for good", the latter suspecting that all Islamist roads lead to Riyadh – may now have to recalculate its relationship with the Kingdom. While President Obama predictably talked of Isis "barbarism" this week, The New York Times was revealing that the so-called "20th 9/11 bomber", Zacarias Moussaoui, wishes to testify that he once delivered letters from Osama bin Laden to Crown Prince Salman – now the Saudi King – and that prominent Saudi royals were helping to fund al-Qaeda.
The report was compiled by Scott Shane, who specialises in "security" reporting, and Moussaoui's allegations refer to events that happened well over 13 years ago. Moussaoui himself was arrested before the 9/11 attacks. It also seems unlikely that a comparatively lowly al-Qaeda functionary would have personal contacts with a Saudi crown prince, or handle a database of al-Qaeda donors which allegedly included Prince Turki al-Faisal, then the intelligence majordomo in the Kingdom, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi ambassador to the US but now out of favour.
But Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabist state whose 18th-century puritan morality defined the Taliban – which received moral and financial support from Saudis – and whose misogyny and grotesque public beheadings after unfair trials parallel the cruelty of Isis punishments. The Saudis always declare their innocence – sometimes through their lawyers – of any involvement in "terrorism". But bin Laden was himself a Saudi, who in the 1990s did have a personal meeting with Prince Turki in Pakistan. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi citizens. And within months of the US attacks, a classified Pentagon briefing was told by an analyst for the Rand Corporation – set up in 1945 with the help of the US military – that Saudi Arabia was the "kernel of evil" in the Middle East and was "active at every level of the terrorist chain".
Deciding who is funding Isis – and who should take the heat for its survival – depends upon the degree to which the world believes that the "Islamic State" is self-financing. Western governments have detailed the production of oil wells in Isis territory and the vast amounts of cash supposedly stolen from Mosul banks after Isis took over, but smuggling fuel and ransacking vaults can hardly sustain an Islamist "nation" which controls an area larger than the UK.
Millions of dollars must be arriving in Isis hands from outside Iraq and Syria, and the question must be asked: if it doesn't come from within Saudi Arabia – or Qatar – who on earth is providing the wherewithal? Iceland? Peru?
C.C
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg44592#msg44592
Debunking the "The Saudis did 9-11" nonsense!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/debunksaudis.php#axzz3PfSK8ws2
The official story of 9-11 is collapsing almost as fast as the Obamacare website. Most Americans are now well aware of the strange collapse of WTC Building 7, the video that captures the sound of the actual explosion that initiates the collapse of WTC7, the very strange behavior of the Secret Service as President Bush read about goats at Booker Elementary School. We have all seen the photographs that confirm the remains of demolition "cutter charges" in the remains of the towers. And we all know how the BBC reported that Building 7 collapsed 26 minutes before it actually happened. indicating a script was being followed (but alas, not carefully enough).
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
There is a great deal of evidence that implicates the nation of Israel as a co-conspirator with the Bush administration. First, there was the massive Israeli spy ring uncovered in the United States just before 9-11, and how some of the "Dancing Israelis" arrested after being seen cheering and dancing as the World Trade Towers collapsed turned out to be Mossad spies! Then there was the strange case of Odigo, an Israeli-owned company whose New York offices received a warning about the attacks before the planes used in the attacks had even left the ground! All four of the hijacked planes departed from airport gates whose security was provided by the same Israeli security company. Israel has a long track record of playing dirty tricks against the United States and other countries, including the Lavon affair (framed on Egypt), Israel's attack on the USS Liberty (initially framed on Egypt), and Israel's smuggling a radio transmitter into Libya that was used to send fake messages that tricked President Reagan into bombing Libya.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel's numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel's "useful idiots" launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims, and a secret report that Representatives Stephen F. Lynch and Walter B. Jones are demanding be made public; a report that purportedly claims Saudi arabia was behind 9-11. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. Likewise, the report the Representatives wish to make public appears to be the US Government's attempt to "get ahead of the ball" and craft a new lie to replace the one that has failed. At the very least these two pieces of propaganda are intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just as Saddam's nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria's government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn't. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn't is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
George Bush had a motive to do 9-11. He needed that "new Pearl Harbor" to enrage Americans into the century of war called for by the Project For The New American Century. Israel certainly had a motive to do 9-11 and frame Muslims for it, to trick Americans into siding with Israel's continued land grabs and wars against Israel's enemies, with Israel's agenda being (as it was with the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty, and the Libyan radio hoax) that Americans fight those wars for them!
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The "useful idiots" trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, was still alive after 9-11 and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don't need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a "one size fits all" excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
At the very least, even if you accept the new claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, then it means the US Government was lying when they claimed Afghanistan and then Iraq were behind it! So why would you trust them now?
The text in red indicates source link's at original article location for further study, plus Video of George W Bush admitting they lied about Iraq being involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Venezuela announces defeat of US-funded coup attempt
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/13/397370/Venezuela-US-funded-coup-bid-thwarted
Venezuela's president has announced the defeat of a US-bankrolled coup attempt against the country, which was being plotted by five aviation officers.
Speaking in the capital Caracas on Thursday, Nicolas Maduro said, "We have broken up and foiled a coup attempt against democracy and the stability of our country."
Upon potential realization, the coup, financed by the United States and directed "from Washington," would have seen an aerial attack on the presidential palace or another target, he said.
"This was an attempt to use a group of military aviation officers to provoke a violent event," added the Venezuelan chief executive.
Maduro further said one of those detained was "an aviation general called Hernandez, alias el Oso (the bear)," adding that he had plotted along with four other officers.
Caracas has repeatedly stated that the opposition seeks to launch a coup d'état in the South American country with the backing of Washington.
Maduro said last December that he had "recordings" which reveal the US was seeking to corrupt Venezuelan government officials.
Caracas and Washington remain at odds since late Hugo Chavez became president in 1999. Both sides have refused to exchange ambassadors since 2010. The countries have chargé d'affaires running their respective embassies.
SAS rushed in to guard our streets as Al Qaeda warns 'you're next'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551356/SAS-rushed-guard-streets-Al-Qaeda-warns-you-re-next
SAS troops are patrolling the streets of Britain to prevent a Paris-style terrorist outrage.
The elite Special Forces have joined counter-terror police and 1,900 Army personnel in the biggest security operation since the 2012 London Olympics.
The news comes as Al Qaeda warned that France was only its third preferred target after Britain and the US.
Most of the Special Forces will be wearing civilian clothes, while some have donned police uniforms to accompany police officers who visit the homes of persons of interest in response to intelligence leads by MI5.
The security operation was rolled out after the Paris atrocities, in which 17 people, including three police officers, were killed as Islamic gunmen ran amok across the French capital over three days.
The bloodshed, masterminded by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, sent shockwaves around the world.
On Wednesday, fanatical brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi ambushed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, known around the world for its regular depictions of the prophet Muhammad.
In the slaughter, 12 people were killed including five cartoonists, two police officers and the editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier.
In a chilling threat laid bare on news website The Intercept, an Al Qaeda spokesman said: "Why is France so thick in learning from its past mistakes. You come third in the target list, after US and Britain. If I were the latter, I would rather pull my sleeves up."
The Sunday Express has learned that a 30-strong SAS team, divided into smaller groups, has been allocated to the Police Counter Intelligence Unit by the regiment's inner sanctum, dubbed the Kremlin.
They form part of a "liaison plan" in which SAS troops work with the police in order to make sure that if required they already have good contacts.
An entire squadron of SAS soldiers is on permanent standby to react to an incident in the UK. Helicopters attached to 7 Squadron RAF were last night primed to rapidly transport the elite force.
Separately, members of a covert "human intelligence" unit based in the Midlands are working alongside police and intelligence officers to identify threats.
The "Humint" unit is thought to consist largely of Asian and Muslim operatives, and was used extensively in Afghanistan.
In addition members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment were last night engaged in intercepting mobile communications.
A further 120 commandos of the Special Boat Service have also been called on to provide "maritime counter measures" to the Home Office.
Their task is to provide an immediate reaction force against the threat of a tanker or major vessel being hijacked off Britain's coastline.
Regular exercises are held across the country and ports where local authorities, the police, military and Home Office test their procedures.
Last night senior sources confirmed that an additional 1,900 regular soldiers would be on standby as soon as they are selected from high-readiness regiments by Army HQ in Andover, Hampshire.
They will guard key installations with specialist intelligence units supporting the Home Office along with surveillance and electronic interception operations.
MI5 chief Andrew Parker warned that Al Qaeda radicals working out of Syria were planning mass casualty attacks in Britain and the West, targeting iconic landmarks.
A senior Army source said: "We are on firm footing – and at the state of readiness we were at the height of the security operation during the Olympic Games."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said any contingency plans were not a result of Paris. He added: "As you would expect, potential responses to threats are regularly reviewed as part of prudent planning."
French-Algerians Said, 34, and his brother Cherif, 32, had long-established terror links.
They escaped to an industrial unit 25 miles north-east of Paris where they were shot dead during a fire fight with French Special Forces on Friday afternoon.
The pair belonged to the same Paris jihadi underground network as Amedy Coulibaly, who stormed a Jewish grocery store in the east of the city on Friday taking 15 hostages and killing four.
Coulibaly, 32, who was also shot dead by commandos, murdered rookie policewoman Clarissa Jean-Philippe after blasting her in the head on Thursday.
It emerged yesterday that the wife of the extremist who mentored two of the terrorists lives in a taxpayer-funded house in Britain.
Djamel Beghal, once accused of being Osama Bin Laden's chief recruiter in Europe, groomed Cherif Kouachi in jail and also knew Coulibaly. Beghal's wife Sylvie, 45, moved to Leicester because she wanted to bring up their children in an Islamic environment.
Last night Jewish communities fearing a rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe were urged by Israel to emigrate, where they would be "welcomed with open arms".
The Intelligence Corps
http://www.army.mod.uk/intelligence/intelligence.aspx
http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/20140917-Int_Corps_Soldier_Leaflet.pdf
I was trained to do a job, and I am doing it, to the best of my ability.. my soul is not for sale!
I am not a terrorist, I am not a mercenary.
There are not many like me who do this kind of work.
Clampdown on Social Media in Britain
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/clampdown-on-social-media-in-britain/
When several thousand Muslims crowded into Downing Street to protest the latest anti-Muslim cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo magazine, it was an angry and indignant protest. But as with gunman breaking into a Paris office and murdering cartoonists, it was a display of powerlessness and political impotence more than anything else.
If you wanted to see real power at work, you only needed to just click on the BBC where it was revealed that an All Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-semitism had resolved to introduce legislation outlawing "anti-semitism" on social media.
The cross-party inquiry wants prosecutors to examine whether prevention orders like those used to restrict sex offenders' internet access could be used against "anti-semites". With the weight and power of the organised Jewish lobby behind it, this now stands a good chance of becoming law and thus another avenue of criticism about Jewish power could be about to be closed off in Britain.
Predictably, the BBC put an optimal spin on this, saying that the Muslims too could benefit as they are under attack from Islamophobes. All this is less than two years after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby and only a month after Charlie Hebdo.
Indeed, the environment for free speech of all kinds continues to deteriorate in the UK. Just today the Guardian reports that police are questioning newsdealers to get the names and addresses of people who bought the first post-massacre issue of Charlie Hebdo.
After demanding that the laws of the land be changed for the convenience of a community of less than a quarter of a million, the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis continued to up his demands. He wants "a government fund to be set up to cover the costs of security at synagogue. Fresh research on identifying and explaining anti-semitic language and finally, guidance for teachers on how to handle the Middle East conflict in the classroom" — the last presumably a plea to make the talking points of the Israeli right part of the British school curriculum.
It is interesting to note that the only piece of political violence in Britain of any note recently was inflicted by Jewish Zionists against the pro-Palestinian MP George Galloway. Far-leftist Galloway is one of the oddities of British politics. He was a Labour MP for decades until he was pushed out of the party because of his opposition to the Iraq war. He is now effectively a one-man band and represents an overwhelmingly Muslim constituency in Bradford. He is anti-White and usually to the fore when Muslim issues are concerned, whether it is Guantanamo, education or anything else. While no friend of White nationalist causes, he is a relentless and unstinting critic of Israel on the Palestinian issue.
His strange place in the political firmament — a critic of Israel from the left — allows him a certain amount of latitude on the political scene. His appearance on BBC's Question Time was one to remember, not least because the organised Jewish community tried to get him thrown off the panel, saying it was insensitive to Jews.
He got a rough ride as can be seen in this video from about 39 minutes in. Why is anti-semitism rising in the UK? The moment he opens his mouth he is shouted down, which shows the limits of discourse about Israel: only from the left and then in only a very circumscribed manner.
He described how he had been assaulted on the street (a Jew has been jailed for the attack) and, while being strongly heckled, says to the Jews in the audience:
You are in favour of some political violence and against some political violence. You are in favour of freedom of speech for some people but not for all people. Not a single Jewish community spokesman or newspaper has condemned the assaults on me ... for which one man has been imprisoned and two fined.
Indeed so. Here is Ben Cohen, an analyst for JNS (Jewish and Israel News).org, in a 'reflection' on the Galloway assault:
I will readily admit that, like many Jews, my reaction to the news was one of unbridled joy, tempered by the guilty realization that, in a democracy, violence is rightly frowned upon as a means of dealing with one's political opponents. However distasteful someone's views—and Galloway's views are, without question, highly distasteful—there are legal and constitutional channels available to challenge them.
And here is some more nobility and humanity from the Jewish Press blog. And if you think this is bad, then go and read the comments underneath it.
Galloway has been released from the hospital, but it is doubtful that the attacker was able to beat some sense into his head. The MP, who has built his political career on loving Saddam Hussein and Hamas and hating Jews and Israel, was posing for pictures in west London Friday night when the attacker jumped on him while calling him "Hitler."
The name of his one-MP party is Respect, which indicates his ignorance of the English language. The party's name is a very contrived acronym for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism. A more accurate acronym would be "Racist, Extremist, Satanic, Pisher, Ethnic=hating, Crude and Twisted.
We wish Galloway a speedy recovery and hope that some of the medicine he needs is made in Israel.
And remember the Rev Stephen Sizer, the vicar who was suspended from his job after he tweeted his scepticism about Israel and 9/11? Well the joint Board of Jewish Deputies/ Church of England investigation has decided to be lenient on him. He will keep his job but is banned from using social media for six months.
The Diocese of Guildford launched an investigation after the Church of England vicar posted a link to an article entitled "9/11: Israel did it", and reportedly wrote: "It raises so many questions." Doubtless the fulsome apology from the Rev Sizer helped him to hang onto his job.
This sustained clampdown on social media is reminiscent of what happened in France in 2013 when French Jewry effectively forced Twitter to begin censoring content critical of Jewish power in that country.
A Jewish student union asked Twitter to reveal information that could be used to identify what they insisted on calling "anti-semitic" tweeters. Twitter refused; the social-media company prides itself on its protection of free speech, and argued that taking down the individual tweets was enough. The student group took the case to court. Twitter lost and a civil court in Paris ruled that the company must hand over the names, or other identifying information, of the users who had tweeted anti-semitic content, so that they can be prosecuted.
And of course TOO readers will only too readily remember the case of the 21-year-old Merseyside man Garron Helm who made fun of a Jewish female MP who was crowing about Labour's mass immigration policy. Twitter not only revealed Garron Helm's identity but he was jailed for a month. For his tweets.
Forget a bloody massacre by unhinged desperadoes. Forcing Twitter to hand over user information, that is real power.
DHS Is "Positioning" to Secretly Arrest American Dissidents In Preparation for World War III
http://investmentwatchblog.com/dhs-is-positioning-to-secretly-arrest-american-dissidents-in-preparation-for-world-war-iii/
In my article this morning, I stated that Americans are war weary and when the anger related to the tragic death of Kayla Mueller subsides, Americans will resist supporting the commitment that World War III will require of all us in terms of labor, capital and the sacrifice of personal liberties. And make no mistake about it, the coming war is not about Kayla Mueller as a war is never about the death of one person.
When American forces pursue ISIS into Syria, Putin will respond in force. Putin has previously threatened to nuke the United States if it invaded Syria in violation of international law. Syria is critical to the Russians on a number of fronts. For a complete explanation of the dynamics related to Putin's threat and the Federal Reserve's overt strategy to invade Iran and how Syria factors into this equation, please click here. This is the beginning of World War III.
America Jails War Protesters
Through the 20th century, America has been a nation which has jailed war protesters in ever-increasing numbers (e.g. World War I, internment of Japanese-American CITIZENS in World War II, and of course during the Vietnam where deadly force was even used at Kent State in 1970). Even Lincoln jailed citizens and journalists who have dared to object to the draft during the Civil War.
History Will Soon Repeat Itself
America is about to engage in the same behavior of citizen subjugation in preparation for a coming war. Only this time, protesting will not be permitted and protesters will be "dealt with". Along these lines, I am in receipt of the following which is very troublesome:
"SAN FRANCISCO — President Obama will announce a new executive order on the sharing of cybersecurity threats and information at Friday's cybersecurity summit at Stanford University, the White House said.
Most importantly to Silicon Valley, the president's proposal is expected to cement the role of the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the National Security Agency, as the government lead for information-sharing with the private sector."
One of my colleagues in the media sent me the press release. Within 15 minutes, I had two very high level confirmations of what this meant. One of the sources is a high ranking government official with oversight responsibilities and the other is an ex-military intelligence asset with multiple and strong connections to dissident military types serving today. However, this is a story that writes itself. I really do not need unnamed sources in order to demonstrate where this is likely headed. The President's intention to transfer intelligence information on American citizens from the NSA to the DHS is both ominous and the purpose is self-evident. My sources simply serve to reinforce the obvious intent. Also, this information is beginning to leak out in the independent media.
Anyone who has read my articles over the past two years knows that I have obtained information that the NSA's massive data mining of every person is inextricably tied to creating a Threat Matrix Score for each and every American based on key word analyses of their cell phone conversations, emails, social media statements, etc. Also, a "known associates" file is maintained to determine the amount social reach a potential dissident has. For example, the bigger their reading audience or listening audience or Facebook following, the higher a person's Threat Matrix Score.
This is Old News
Visionaries such as Steve Quayle and Doug Hagmann have been warning us for decades about the creation of a so-called "Red List". The Red List is a modern-day interpretation of Nixon "Enemies list". However, what is happening today is much more nefarious. The "Red List" is a "dissident removal list" and it will be conducted with extreme prejudice.
The people who have referred to such lists and those brave enough to expose them, as "fear-mongers", may soon change their tune. After reading this article, these people are going to have a little harder time sleeping tonight.
Why Is Obama Transferring Intelligence Gathering on American Citizens from the NSA to the DHS?
This is the $64 million dollar question. When the NSA gathers information on Dave Hodges, the information may be shared with the Fusion Threat Centers and various domestic law enforcement agencies. However, the NSA's intelligence is not immediately actionable. For NSA intelligence to be acted upon, a second generation set of agencies have to be involved. This is cumbersome and slow.
Who has the ability to oversee intelligence gathering and simultaneously act upon the intelligence? It is none other than the Department of Homeland Security. It is also the DHS that has, in the past two years, acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition as well as 2700 armored personnel carriers, not the NSA. It is clear that DHS is the army of the central bankers who have hijacked our government and they are preparing to remove dissidents.
Keep in mind that this coming war is a war to preserve the Petrodollar and it will be waged at all costs. All opposition will be eliminated.
The optimistic part of me would like to believe that this transfer of power is only about streamlining our war on terror, then I am reminded who started al Qaeda and ISIS.
Dissident Roundups Are Coming
Through several conversations I have had in the 45 minutes prior to writing this article, I have learned the following:
There are two programs designed to round up people who are viewed as a danger to the status quo. The two operations are labeled "Operation BOA", as in boa constrictor, and "Operation Lightening". I have some operational details, but at this point they are still sketchy. Suffice it to say that Operation Lightening is the 3AM round up of all perceived dissident journalists and even some local politicians. This will be accomplished on a single night of terror. Operation BOA is a more deliberate process and will focus on more non-media threats such as outspoken veterans, gun rights activists, etc.
There Will Be No Martial Law Declaration
Martial law will not be called martial law, it will be labeled as "Continuity of Government". The announcement of the procedures designed to enhance the "Continuity of Government" policies will be made by a four star General from NORTHCOM.
There is no definitive timeframe for this announcement. Logic would dictate that it will come in close proximity to launching new ground operations in the Middle East against the CIA created ISIS.
What Can Be Done?
There is no need for you to be concerned about what you say on Twitter, Facebook, on the phone or in print, that ship has already sailed. You already have a Threat Matrix Score and that score could eventually hold very significant consequences for you and your family.
Can anything be done? Probably not. However, the only thing that I think that may actually back up the enforcement of this plan is if enough people express awareness and outrage as to these violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights. As I wrote about in this morning's article, this actionable intelligence will be supported by the NDAA and Executive Order 13603 which involves civilian round-ups (NDAA) and civilian conscription (EO 13603).
In the interest of self-preservation, it would be a good idea to circulate this article and the dozens that will certainly follow on this topic.
How many people do we have to reach? The magic number needed to enact significant social change is 10% according to social psychology research. That means we have a short window to head this off.
USA: 'State Dept planned Ukraine coup alongside NATO and EU' – Ron Paul
http://investmentwatchblog.com/usa-state-dept-planned-ukraine-coup-alongside-nato-and-eu-ron-paul/
The US State Department, alongside NATO and the EU, was instrumental in the 2014 Ukrainian coup, said former Member of Congress and presidential nominee Dr. Ron Paul in Washington D.C. on Friday.
Sec. of Defense Spokesman gets Called out on NATO's Aggression which is Being Propagandize in the American Media as Russian Aggression.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/sec-of-defense-spokesman-gets-called-out-on-natos-aggression-which-is-being-propagandize-in-the-american-media-as-russian-aggression/
Journalists grill Chuck Hagel's recent claims that Russia is on the doorstep of NATO during the daily State Department briefing.
It appears there are still a few journalists around interested in the facts, and are not afraid to point those facts out. Well done Sir!
Guest Post: The Great War Of The American Empire
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-15/guest-post-great-war-american-empire
Submitted by Michael S Rozeff via LewRockwell.com,
Looking at a map of current American military engagements overseas, one cannot help but notice their wide geographical spread and their seemingly interminable nature. Battles have raged in Europe (Yugoslavia and Ukraine), in Africa, in the Middle East, and in central Asia. The American Empire has launched this country into a series of battles that have no end in sight and no location that may not become a focal point of military force. These battles, each a war in its own right, have drawn in forces and resources from U.S. allies in Europe through NATO and even drawn in Japan. The scope of this war is global. In fact, one part of this war has been called the Global War on Terror. To understand this war and grasp its meaning, in the hope of bringing it to an end, a descriptive name is needed that tells us what this war is about. The name suggested here is the "Great War of the American Empire". Since World War I, another disastrous war that America joined, is called the Great War, we can refer to the Great War of the American Empire also as Great War II.
Great War II comprises a number of sub-wars. The American Empire is the common element and the most important driver in all the sub-wars mentioned below. American involvement has never been necessary in these sub-wars, but the decisions to make them America's business have come from the Empire's leaders. The name "Great War of the American Empire" emphasizes the continuity of all the sub-wars to produce one Great War, and the responsibility of the American Empire in choosing to participate in and create this Great War. Had America's leaders chosen the radically different path of non-intervention and true defense of this continent, rather than overseas interventions, Great War II would not have occurred and not still be occurring.
The Great War of the American Empire began 25 years ago. It began on August 2, 1990 with the Gulf War against Iraq and continues to the present. Earlier wars involving Israel and America sowed the seeds of this Great War. So did American involvements in Iran, the 1977-1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Even earlier American actions also set the stage, such as the recognition of Israel, the protection of Saudi Arabia as an oil supplier, the 1949 CIA involvement in the coup in Syria, and the American involvement in Lebanon in 1958. Poor (hostile) relations between the U.S. and Libya (1979-1986) also contributed to a major sub-war in what has turned out to be the Great War of the American Empire.
The inception of Great War II may, if one likes, be moved back to 1988 and 1989 without objection because those years also saw the American Empire coming into its own in the invasion of Panama to dislodge Noriega, operations in South America associated with the war on drugs, and an operation in the Philippines to protect the Aquino government. Turmoil in the Soviet Union was already being reflected in a more military-oriented foreign policy of the U.S.
Following the Gulf War, the U.S. government engages America and Americans non-stop in one substantial military operation or war after another. In the 1990s, these include Iraq no-fly zones, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Zaire, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Liberia, Albania, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia. In the 2000s, the Empire begins wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and gets into serious military engagements in Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria. It has numerous other smaller military missions in Uganda, Jordan, Turkey, Chad, Mali, and Somalia. Some of these sub-wars and situations of involvement wax and wane and wax again. The latest occasion of American Empire intervention is Ukraine where, among other things, the U.S. military is slated to be training Ukrainian soldiers.
Terror and terrorism are invoked to rationalize some operations. Vague threats to national security are mentioned for others. Protection of Americans and American interests sometimes is made into a rationale. Terrorism and drugs are sometimes linked, and sometimes drug interdiction alone is used to justify an action that becomes part of the Great War of the American Empire. On several occasions, war has been justified because of purported ethnic cleansing or supposed mass killings directed by or threatened by a government.
Upon close inspection, all of these rationales fall apart. None is satisfactory. The interventions are too widespread, too long-lasting and too unsuccessful at what they supposedly accomplish to lend support to any of the common justifications. Is "good" being done when it involves endless killing, frequently of innocent bystanders, that elicits more and more anti-American sentiment from those on the receiving end who see Americans as invaders? Has the Great War II accomplished even one of its supposed objectives?
The Great War of the American Empire encompasses several sub-wars, continual warfare, continual excuses for continual warfare, and continual military engagements that promise Americans more of the same indefinitely. There is a web site called "The Long War Journal" that catalogs events all over the globe that are part of the Great War II, what the site calls the Long War. This site is a project of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies", which is a neocon organization that is promoting the Great War of the American Empire.
What they see, and accurately see, as a Long War is a portion of what is here called the Great War of the American Empire. The difference is that all the interventions and sub-wars of the past 25 years and all the military outposts of the U.S. government that provide the seeds of future wars and interventions are included in the Great War II. They all spring from the same source, even though each one has a different specific character.
* * *
Of course, none of this looks set to improve (or even stop escalating) following President Obama's Force Authorization this week (as Ron Paul recently exclaimed)
The president is requesting Congress to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution against ISIS. Congress has not issued a similar resolution since 2002, when President Bush was given the authority to wage war against Iraq. The purpose of this resolution is to give official authority to the president to do the things that he has already been doing for the past six years. Seems strange but this is typical for Washington. President Obama's claim is that he does not need this authority. He claims, as have all other recent presidents, that the authority to wage war in the Middle East has been granted by the resolutions passed in 2001, 2002, and by article II of the Constitution. To ask for this authority at this time is a response to public and political pressure.
It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years.
Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all "associated forces." A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.
The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.
We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no "mission accomplished." Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.
Even if our policies led to no boots on the ground, the unintended consequences of blowback and the enemy obtaining more American weapons will continue. The CIA has said that 20,000 foreigners are on their way to Iraq and Syria to join the ISIS. Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams. Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.
It's my opinion that giving additional authority to wage war in the Middle East is a serious mistake. Instead, the authority granted in 2001 and 2002 should be repealed. A simple and correct solution would be for our elected officials to follow the rules regarding war laid out in the Constitution.
Ironically there may well be some Republicans in the Congress who will oppose this resolution because of their desire to have an all-out war and not be limited in any way by the number of troops that we should be sending to this region. The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it's in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.
There is no doubt that ISIS represents a monstrous problem – a problem that should be dealt with by the many millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region. ISIS cannot exist without the support of the people in the region. Currently it is estimated that their numbers are in a range of 30,000. This is not the responsibility of American soldiers or the American taxpayer.
Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts. Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire. Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.
Wesley Clark: "Our friends and allies funded ISIS to destroy Hezbollah"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98
http://whatreallyhappened.com/#axzz3S5ZumoWg
General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Putin: West already supplies arms to Kiev
http://investmentwatchblog.com/putin-west-already-supplies-arms-to-kiev/
U.S. Agrees To Serve As Al Qaeda's Air Force
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/u-s-agrees-al-qaedas-air-force.html
Why Are We Backing the Bad Guys?
Republican and Democratic Congressmen have warned that the U.S. shouldn't be "Al Qaeda's Air Force" in Syria. And see this and this.
In reality, there aren't any moderate rebels in Syria (and see this, this and this). Virtually all of the arms – and humanitarian aid – end up in the hands of the most brutal Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists. Even the CIA warned Obama that arming rebels likely wouldn't work.
And yet the U.S. government has now decided to allow Syrian rebels to call in airstrikes from U.S. B-1B bombers. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
The U.S. has decided to provide pickup trucks equipped with machine guns and radios for calling in U.S. airstrikes to some moderate Syrian rebels, defense officials said.
***
The plan comes as the U.S. prepares to start training moderate rebels, who are waging a two-front fight against the extremists and the Syrian regime.
***
A team of four to six rebels will each be given a Toyota Hi-Lux pickup, outfitted with a machine gun, communications gear and Global Positioning System trackers enabling them to call in airstrikes. The fighters will also be given mortars, but the administration hasn't decided to provide the teams with more sophisticated antitank weapons.
***
Officials say the moderate forces will never outnumber Islamic State extremists or regime forces. Reflecting that, the Pentagon believes the moderate forces must have superior training as well as support from U.S. warplanes.
***
U.S. officials also don't know whether American planes will be able to provide air support if the moderate forces it trains get in a fight not with Islamic State, but with forces loyal to the Syrian president.
Because the U.S. isn't at war with Syria, U.S. military lawyers are wrestling with whether U.S. warplanes would have legal authorization to strike Mr. Assad's forces, even to support a U.S.-trained rebel force.
***
The planes would drop 500- and 2,000-pound guided bombs, a typical load for the B-1s that have operated in Afghanistan as well as Syria.
Is the U.S. turning into Al Qaeda's air force? It's obvious that the U.S. has long tried to overthrow the Syrian government.
Sadly, America has truly switched sides in the war on terror.
Telegraph's Peter Oborne resigns, saying HSBC coverage a 'fraud on readers'
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers
Ex-chief political commentator launches blistering attack on paper, saying it put bank's interests before readers to save ad contract
The Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator has resigned and launched a blistering attack on the paper's management and owners over its lack of coverage of the HSBC tax story, which he described as a "fraud on its readers".
Peter Oborne, associate editor of the Spectator and a familiar face on Channel 4 Dispatches documentaries, claimed the paper deliberately suppressed stories about the banking giant, including last week's revelations that its Swiss subsidiary helped wealthy customers dodge taxes and conceal millions of dollars in assets, in order to keep its valuable advertising account.
He said it was a "most sinister development" at the broadsheet title, which he described as "the most important conservative-leaning newspaper in Britain", but where he alleged the traditional distinction between the advertising and editorial departments had collapsed.
Oborne claimed it was a pattern that could be seen elsewhere in the paper's reporting, including its coverage of last year's protests in Hong Kong.
Oborne said the Telegraph's coverage of HSBC, by putting the interests of a major international bank above its duty to report the news, was a "form of fraud on its readers".
"There are great issues here. They go to the heart of our democracy, and can no longer be ignored," he said in an article on the open Democracy website.
Oborne said the paper had discouraged stories critical of HSBC since the start of 2013, when the bank suspended its advertising with the paper following a Telegraph investigation into accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. He said one former Telegraph executive told him HSBC was "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend".
A later joint investigation into HSBC by the Guardian, the BBC, Le Monde and other media outlets revealed earlier this month that its Swiss banking arm had helped wealthy customers dodge taxes and conceal millions of dollars of assets, doling out bundles of untraceable cash and advising clients on how to circumvent domestic tax authorities.
Before the latest HSBC revelations were published, and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian's parent company, Guardian News and Media, "on pause".
HSBC - the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend
Telegraph executive
Oborne said he had told Murdoch MacLennan, the chief executive of the paper's parent company, the Telegraph Media Group, that he was resigning in December last year. He said he had intended to leave quietly, but had a "duty to make all this public" following the Telegraph's HSBC coverage, which "needed a microscope to find".
"The Telegraph's recent coverage of HSBC amounts to a form of fraud on its readers," he said. "It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers. There is only one word to describe this situation: terrible."
A Telegraph spokesperson said: "Like any other business, we never comment on individual commercial relationships, but our policy is absolutely clear.
"We aim to provide all our commercial partners with a range of advertising solutions, but the distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business. We utterly refute any allegation to the contrary. It is a matter of huge regret that Peter Oborne, for nearly five years a contributor to the Telegraph, should have launched such an astonishing and unfounded attack, full of inaccuracy and innuendo, on his own paper."
Oborne, who joined the Telegraph from the Daily Mail five years ago, accused it of a "collapse in standards" under its owners, the Barclay brothers, the reclusive multi-millionaire owners of the Ritz hotel, who bought it in 2004.
Oborne said the paper's reporting of HSBC – he said his own investigation into the bank had been rejected late last year – was "part of a wider problem".
"It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed," he said.
He described a comment piece on the democracy protests in Hong Kong as "bizarre" and said it had been followed by a commentary in the paper by the Chinese ambassador whose "headline was beyond parody: 'Let's not allow Hong Kong to come between us'."
He also highlighted a feature in the paper about Cunard's Queen Mary II liner – "Cunard is an important advertiser" – and what he regarded as its lack of coverage of the Tesco false accounting story last September. He said the paper's coverage of HSBC meant he had a "duty to make all this public".
"Three years ago the Telegraph investigations team received a tipoff about accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. Essentially this investigation was similar to the Panorama investigation into the Swiss banking arm of HSBC," he said.
"This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph," he said. "Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months."
Oborne said interference by management in stories involving the bank was happening "on an industrial scale".
He had urged MacLennan, in a chance meeting in the queue of mourners at Margaret Thatcher's funeral, not to take the paper's readers for granted, and said he was told: "You don't know what you are fucking talking about."
Oborne said events at the paper became "more and more dismaying", including the firing last year of its editor, Tony Gallagher, with whom he had worked at the Mail.
The introduction of a "click culture" in which the merit of stories was judged by online visits rather than importance was typified, he said, by a story on 22 September last year about a "woman with three breasts".
"I am not saying that online traffic is unimportant," he said. "But over the long term such episodes inflict incalculable damage on the reputation of the paper."
Oborne said he told MacLennan that he was resigning as a matter of conscience. "It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here," he said. "The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone-hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon.
"All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone hacking. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson ... as director of communications at 10 Downing Street."
He said: "Telegraph readers are intelligent, sensible, well informed people. They buy the newspaper because they feel that they can trust it. If advertising priorities are allowed to determine editorial judgments, how can readers continue to feel this trust?
"Imagine if the BBC – so often the subject of Telegraph attack – had conducted itself in this way. The Telegraph would have been contemptuous. It would have insisted that heads should roll, and rightly so."
Oborne later stepped up his criticism, saying that he was speaking on behalf of the "vast majority" of Telegraph staff in saying that they had no confidence in MacLennan or the Barclay brothers.
He told Channel 4 News: "I do think the Telegraph needs to explain to us, why its coverage of HSBC has been skewed, and not just to us. The really important people they need to explain this to is the readers of the Daily Telegraph. They are the people who trust the paper."
German Editor Confirms Mass Media is Controlled
http://henrymakow.com/2014/10/German-Editor-Confirms-Media-is-controlled.html
Mockingbird Lives! - The Myth of the Free Press
Udo Ulfkotte, left, a former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (one of Germany's largest and most respected newspapers), has confirmed that he and fellow journalists are bribed and controlled by intelligence agencies.
We know that intelligence agencies like the CIA, BND, MI-6 and Mossad are arms of the Masonic Jewish Illuminati banking cartel. Utflotte says he went public because the Illuminati is prepping for a war with Russia by using the media to incite hostility.
Operation Mockingbird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire.
UK Guardian, Bank of England: 'Banks create money as debt.' Translation: debt-free money, at-cost credit create instant prosperity
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/uk-guardian-bank-england-banks-create-money-debt-translation-debt-free-money-cost-credit-creates-instant-prosperity.html
The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it
David Graeber
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" ... "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.
The 9/11 USAF Stand Down
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html
"This is America, the most advanced military technologically capable country in the world, and it is just impossible to believe that they could have been that incompetent." - Michael Meacher, UK MP.
The US military has spent billions of dollars developing stealth aircraft which are invisible to radar so they can mount surprise attacks on adversaries, but it seems they should have saved their money and bought a fleet of airliners because they appear to be far more effective.
On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to the location of rogue airliners in it's airspace for over an hour, and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the situation of hijackers using these planes as flying bombs
This confusion resulted in fighter jets flying around aimlessly whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3000 lives.
All that was required to overcome America's military might on 9/11 were 19 hijackers on 4 airliners.
Does this sound plausible to you?
It's what you're expected to believe.
Obama's "Fake War" against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic State is Protected by the US and its Allies
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-fake-war-against-the-islamic-state-isis-the-islamic-state-is-protected-by-the-us-and-its-allies/5432163
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Since August 2014, the US Air Force with the support of a coalition of 19 countries has relentlessly waged an intensified air campaign against Syria and Iraq allegedly targeting the Islamic State brigades.
According to Defense News, over 16,000 airstrikes were carried out from August 2014 to mid January 2015. Sixty percent of the air strikes were conducted by the US Air Force using advanced jet fighter and bombing capabilities (Aaron Mehta, "A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties". Defense News, January 19, 2015.)
The airstrikes have been casually described by the media as part of a "soft" counter-terrorism operation, rather than an act of all out war directed against Syria and Iraq.
This large scale air campaign which has resulted in countless civilian casualties has been routinely misreported by the mainstream media. According to Max Boot, senior fellow in national security at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Obama's strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working... [ because] the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained". (Newsweek, February 17, 2015, emphasis added).
Americans are led to believe that the Islamic State constitutes a formidable force confronting the US military and threatening Western Civilization.
Obama should get his act together in confronting the "outside enemy" of America. According to CFR Max Boot, military escalation is the answer: what is required is for the president "to dispatch more aircraft, military advisers, and special operations forces, while loosening the restrictions under which they operate." (Ibid)
What kind of aircraft are involved in the air campaign? The F-16 Fighting Falcon,(above right) The F-15E Strike Eagle (image below) , The A-10 Warthog, not to mention Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor stealth tactical fighter aircraft.
Question for Our Readers
Why has the US Air Force not been able to wipe out the Islamic State which at the outset was largely equipped with conventional small arms not to mention state of the art Toyota pickup trucks?
From the very outset, this air campaign has NOT been directed against ISIS. The evidence confirms that the Islamic State is not the target. Quite the opposite.
The air raids are intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria.
The USAF-15E Strike Eagle
We call on our readers to carefully reflect on the following image, which describes the Islamic State convoy of pickup trucks entering Iraq and crossing a 200 km span of open desert which separates the two countries.
This convoy entered Iraq in June 2014.
What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out an ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities?
Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails.
If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have "carpet" bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June.
The answer is pretty obvious, yet not a single mainstream media has acknowledged it.
The Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map right). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16) it would have been –from a military standpoint– "a piece of cake", a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.
Instead what we have witnessed is an ongoing drawn out six months of relentless air raids and bombings, and the terrorist enemy is apparently still intact.
(In comparison, the NATO bombing raids of Yugoslavia in 1999 lasted about three months (March 24-June 10, 1999).
And we are led to believe that the Islamic State cannot be defeated by a powerful US led military coalition of 19 countries.
The air campaign was not intended to decimate the Islamic State.
The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One "State Sponsor of Terrorism".
The Islamic State is not only protected by the US and its allies, it is trained and financed by US-NATO, with the support of Israel and Washington's Persian Gulf allies.
10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/10-signs-that-isis-is-a-scripted-psyop?xg_source=activity
Has the ISIS psyop calmed down a bit? Before it dies out let's examine some incredible ironies and oddities surrounding CIA's ISIS. After all, the ISIS psyop deserves a thorough analysis from every angle, so I thought it appropriate to outline for the sake of humanity. Hopefully, humanity can use the ISIS psyop as a tool for the final or further awakening. It may be wishful thinking, but it is worth exposing every crack and corner of this psyop and let government know that we are not going for it this time.
I declare humanity too intuitive to buy into this psychological operation and hopefully I'm right. So while the core TV-watching, mainstream media-believing community drinks the government Kool Aid, let us get started by pointing out several glaring observations regarding the ISIS psyop.
Glancing ahead, the ISIS kids have knowledge of things that require you to have education, modern technical skills, a little bit of decency, structure, conformity to societal norms and somewhat transparent connection to the outside world. What are these things and what are some of the surreal oddities surrounding ISIS? Let's examine:
1. Professional Camera, Editing Software and Skills
Incredibly, despite being savages that only want to kill for apparently no specific burning reason other than that fact that you are not ISIS, ISIS has at least some kind of production department that can skillfully provide what could be considered Hollywood-style editing (of supposed beheading videos) with multiple camera angles, consistent daylight on their subjects and proper daylight mode video exposure. They clearly have the skills for setting up multiple cameras and using those precise angles for their production department. In order to put out these supposed beheading videos, they also had to make sure that the sounds were just right and that there was no shaking of the camera.
Someone then had to take the various video angles and properly edit the footage so as to make it look professional. The editor, apparently a man of class and decency, then is careful not to show any actual action and blood. Savage killers who are ALSO respectful and classy about being too disturbing with their videos. Instead they courteously (but sloppily) cut from the early hand action of their British-sounding supposed lead man, to the post beheading amazingly clean shot of a head sitting on a corpse with the classic Photoshop drop shadows. In Hollywood style, reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock films, the editor essentially leaves the action to the viewer's imagination. Even though this beheading movie created by ISIS is not being submitted for any film festivals, they carefully comply with techniques that would make this film fully acceptable into almost any gore film festival.
To those who want to point out to viewers the amazing lack of blood during those first critical throat slices of James Foley's neck, sorry, exposing this lack of blood is in itself apparently too grotesque by YouTube standards and should you post such a video it will be conveniently removed.
2. Professional Image Editing Software and Skills.
Like the editing software, the ISIS production team shows off their skills in Photoshop image editing software, which often requires an extended learning period, resources, and practice. Despite a few imperfections, the ISIS production department seems to know how to cut and splice out sections of images to produce the desired effect of disconnecting a head from the body. Even if obtaining and using the software is believable, let's remember we're talking about savage "terrorists" that are supposedly inhumane. In other words, these are clinically, factually documented psychopaths and not your average person according to government legend. Let's keep this in mind (psychopaths) when speaking about ISIS.
3. Internet Connection, Video Uploading Capabilities, and Social Media Accounts.
According to U.S. "intelligence sources" mouthpieces, ISIS has all the above including social media capabilities. Amazingly, these covered-face killers have unraveled the secret of how to outsmart every world power including the U.S. Empire with regard to every form of communication. They have stomped out the U.S. military, NSA, CIA, NATO, U.N. and the intelligence of Israel, U.K. and every other nation that surrounds them. You may think it's not every day that a small group of young face-covered kids can outsmart the world, but this could be attributed to pure luck if you believe in the ISIS psyop. Just to be able to say that you've outsmarted the U.S. Empire 13 years after they accelerated their plans to rule the world outlined in The Project for the New American Century document titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses." According to the ISIS psyop, that accomplishment alone is worthy of historic recognition.
Here's a group of young kids with covered faces who maintain Internet accounts without any past due balances, they have wide open social media accounts (Facebook? YouTube? Twitter?) that are also apparently well maintained. They must understand and be properly following the rules of these social media accounts. But wait, if they have social media accounts doesn't that mean that the social media providers are terrorists too? Unless these geniuses called ISIS are also fooling them as well. I suppose this would be realistic according to the government narrative since ISIS has apparently outsmarted everyone else.
Okay, forget social media, how is ISIS able to log on to the Internet? Do they have their own ISIS hackers?? Who do they pay their Internet bill with? Without Internet aren't they lost? No social media and no way of knowing what is going on right? I doubt they have analog TV in their convoys? Doesn't this present a communication problem? ISIS again quietly has overcome this problem in a flawless and mysterious manner.
4. ISIS Intelligence Operation Apparently Far Superior to CIA/Mossad
Amazingly this group of geniuses who have outsmarted the entire global intelligence community seem to have all the capabilities to put the U.S. Empire's CIA and their globalist partner Israel's Mossad to shame. ISIS has put on a clinic and has officially handed the U.S. and Israel their butts in the intelligence department. They not only formed right below their noses, they did it quickly, they figured out unanimously what their mission would be and all agreed on it. Football teams and all sports team for that matter throughout the world could learn from ISIS. ISIS apparently is teaching the world how a team works together. Imagine, the CIA's mainstream media would have us believe that ISIS is powerful and high in numbers. Really? How would you get that many people to agree on anything? Every NCAA coach would learn a lot from ISIS. Here's a group of young face-covered men who actually agree on everything. They even all agree not to attack Israel for no reason at all.
How quickly ISIS rose to power and fame and how they operate in such unity should strike everyone as very odd, yet the ISIS psyop narrative continues without missing a beat in regards to these technicalities and finer points. Any way we slice it, the ISIS psyop narratives has a group of kids with hidden faces who have revolutionized the concept of the "intelligence" operation. They solved the CIA Mossad and NSA problems and now are laughing at the global intelligence community. They did this at a time, by the way, even as uncharged innocent prisoners sit in George W Bush's Guantanamo illegal prison for life. Can you imagine what is going on in the minds of the men in Guantanamo hearing about ISIS?
5. Super Secret Database Holding the Secret Names and Identities of Their Members
Have you noticed that no one knows who ISIS is? What are their names? Why not snag up one or two of them and let the identities come out? No, not ONE member of ISIS is capturable or identified to the world. It's like they never existed. Not one wife, sister, brother, father, cousin, nephew, aunt, or uncle is speaking out. Apparently they never lived anywhere and never told their friends that they were going to join ISIS. Not one of the has a girlfriend or a spouse that would have spoken by now. No one has come out testifying that ISIS tried recruiting them. Oddly, we haven't even heard of an angry former girlfriend speaking out about the initial call, the recruiting effort or anything whatsoever. But without a powerful recruiting effort how did they recruit? Somehow they got around this one too. No one knows how. They simply came into being. Let that sink in.
6. Anti Surveillance Technology- Able to Avoid All Existing Surveillance
In the age of super advanced government biometric surveillance, tracking and spying, ISIS has one less problem than anyone in America. Unlike Americans who are constantly under the threat of being surveilled and spied on by the U.S. empire, ISIS lives free of the threat of technological surveillance of any kind. For some reason, their images, faces, voices and actions are not surveilled, tracked or recorded by those who can do it.
"Intelligence sources" are powerless in the face of ISIS. All of the U.S.'s NASA, NSA and USAF technology and equipment makes no difference when it's ISIS. Despite all this, amazingly we hear nothing about the U.S. military or NSA trying to steal or decode the ISIS counter surveillance technology. Oddly, the topic of ISIS's amazing counter-surveillance technological abilities is not talked about by anyone in the media or in Washington.
7. Endless Secret Water, Food, Farming and Meals Supply
Anyone who has served in the military knows that being a soldier makes you hungry. ISIS fighters definitely require lots of food and drinks that keep their energy up. You can't go around killing people just for not being part of ISIS without having plenty of energy and lots of water and drinks. Even in the military, working in the mess hall for some was a career. Why? Because someone has to do it.
When I was in the military I remember the supply specialists; their full time job was tagging along on our field trips, making sure the unit had enough food and water. When necessary, the supply guys had to go to work to make sure everything went smooth. So where is ISIS getting their supplies? Who's feeding them with food and water? Do they also own the farms? Do they grow their own food? Amazingly, according to the ISIS psyop they do. Or perhaps their food and water suppliers are all part of a secret operation being hidden by the world's new leader of counter intelligence, ISIS. And speaking of supplies, who's supplying their actual bullets? Ammunition? Guns without ammo are useless, so the question is where are they getting their bullets from?
8. All American Timing! - Common Enemies, Lucky Gift
ISIS is a unique group from which almost all their goals fit in perfectly with the Bush Neocon plans to militarily control the world. I covered this topic in a recent article. Amazingly, ISIS now happens to hate Russia, too, just like the United States. What are the odds? Bush Neocons controlling Obama and the globalists benefit greatly from more, not less, terrorism. An end to the War on Terror would leave the U.S. without the planned conquering of Syria and Iran and re-conquering Iraq. Without a bogeymonster like ISIS to provide the pretext for invading these countries (in some cases, again) the plan has no legs. That ISIS fits in perfectly with the Bush Neocon plans is merely a coincidence according to the ISIS psyop narrative. Like Lucky Larry Silverstein taking the day off only on 9/11/01 to go to an appointment after never missing work for years if ever at all. Luck, the narrators of the ISIS psyop would have you believe, is something that just happens and should be accepted without question.
But wait, ISIS is so close to Israel, they may attack Israel any given day. Given how fast they move, how well they operate together, their skillful blend of technology and brute force surely they could cause a historic massacre in Israel overnight and leave their trail of blood through large sections of Israel. Isn't that the stated goal of ISIS? IDF and Mossad have already failed to detect or stop ISIS in any way shape or form so I wouldn't expect them to provide much of a challenge for the ISIS powerhouse terror group. Given how brave they are, I would imagine they wouldn't have any problems getting the young men to volunteer for the big Israel attack.
The big Israel attack would gain them all the PR and Marketing they need. Isn't that the goal when someone opens up a social media account? Hasn't ISIS demonstrated in the supposed beheading videos that they are serious, they want everyone to know who they are and they want certain things? An attack on Israel would get them everything they want; yet, for another lucky reason (luck of the U.S. and Israel) ISIS doesn't seem motivated about pulling off the big damage/low-cost attack on Israel.
The irony gets even crazier here. According to U.S. politicians pushing the ISIS psyop narrative, ISIS is not only unwilling to attack Israel, which they could do in a day or two, they instead prefer to make plans to travel all the way to the other side of the world to attack the world's most powerful Empire of all time. Yes, they would rather risk getting caught, imprisoned or killed traveling halfway around the world than to go for an easy quick strike at Israel. And, for good measure, as if to flaunt their super counter-intelligence capabilities, they are willing to announce ahead of time their travel plans to fly halfway across the world to attack American cities.
So this previously incredible intelligence organization that outsmarted all of the world's intelligence agencies at once, is now giving away their plans before they even happen. Doesn't that sound like a monumental change in intelligence strategy from such a stellar counter-intelligence skilled violent organization? Apparently in the "new" ISIS philosophy they now give away their plans ahead of time knowing that NOT giving away their plans worked pretty well during their secret and rapid rise to power under everyone's noses. Keep in mind ISIS uses U.S. military gear which they accidentally "found" in Iraq. The military gear - including tanks, artillery weapons and high-powered guns - all just happened to work perfectly, and for good measure they apparently have all the ammunition to go with these weapons.
But wait, you might say, how can ISIS transport huge military equipment to the U.S. for an attack? Not one U.S. "intelligence source" seems to know the answer to this. Apparently ISIS is not just lucky like lucky Larry, they also have a lot of money (that no one seems to know the origin of) and they are very versatile. The ISIS engineers are apparently working on brand new smaller, easier to hide weapons that are not detectable by airport scanners or surveillance cameras. Is ISIS starting to sound like James Bond yet?
9. Complete Ongoing Immunity and Hidden Identities
Amazingly, ISIS is unknown to anyone (as mentioned in number 6). Even if their database is never discovered, ISIS is skilled at knowing when to wear their masks. I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught without your mask right? And if you are caught without your mask and someone videotapes you, does that mean they kill you? No big deal? How does that work? One thing we know is that ISIS thus far (and they have been around allegedly a few years) has been perfect at hiding their faces. Not ONE video or photo exists where one member of ISIS showed his face. Amazing? Yes, for a group that has regular social media and Internet access. Where are the images of these men that belong to ISIS and why hide your face anyway? This amazing stroke of luck of not having even one member show his face or having his identity known to the world is an amazing accomplishment given all the technology and media available as mentioned before.
With this ongoing face-hiding playing out to perfection, once again ISIS is schooling the world on how to be a criminal in the face of the global police state and get away with it. Do you realize someone you know or someone they know could be part of ISIS without anyone knowing? Is ISIS really Blackwater? Academi? You know, the U.S.'s private mercenary organization that likes to change its name all the time. Is this the reason why "ISIS" covers their face? Even James Bond could not successfully hide his identity for very long and he's just one person. Remember, we're talking about supposedly thousands if not tens of thousands of young men working as one without one of these men making a mistake. Try to imagine how ridiculous this really sounds. Ultimately, as long as secrecy of the faces of ISIS is maintained, we really don't know for sure just who ISIS really is. We know what the federal government would have us think, but humanity as a whole is now moving past this type of solution for procurement of legitimate information.
10. Untraceable Money and Endless Spending
Yes, according to government mouthpiece "experts" like Colonel Anthony Shaffer and others, we (the U.S. "intelligence sources") know a lot about ISIS. They have money, they are organized, etc. But think about it, how come they "know" so much about ISIS's financial abilities but don't "know" who funded them or what bank accounts they currently have?? U.S. and its allies' intelligence only "know" enough to scare you with ISIS but not enough to act to actually stop their banking activity. That would actually stop ISIS dead in its tracks wouldn't it? But nope, we don't want ISIS to go away too quickly. The script needs to play out doesn't it?
This script is indeed playing out, and America and the world is the audience watching the show. Those that are awakened stand in dismay at the level of propaganda we are seeing and are wondering what ridiculous narrative will the globalists spin next to get into Syria and continue into Iran? Others who wanted to believe mainstream media news but perhaps are intuitive enough to not be fooled yet again are scratching their head. We call that The WTF Moment.
While sadly others have seen this script before and for some reason they kind of liked it before. Perhaps they love the post-9/11 feeling of believing government and looking to it for protection from terrorism. Perhaps they love the police state and maybe they are comfortable being surveilled 24/7. Perhaps they know that the only way to maintain their sanity and their lifelong and hard-fought-for paradigm is to simply believe whatever mainstream media news says. This third group will welcome the CIA script.
It is this group (those that welcome the mainstream media script) that makes this next (information war) chess game between humanity's awakened segment and humanity's governing segment very interesting. This third (asleep) segment of humanity is playing out the last bit of fantasy left in their personal paradigms. Some of them would probably rather die than face reality. Some of them think they are "saving" themselves from reality. Reality, with some of these people, thus takes on the role of sin in that they want to save themselves from this consciousness. For others the same reality takes on a role of "insanity". The goal thus becomes to "preserve" their consciousness from this "insanity" or tin foil, crazy, lunatic, "conspiracy theories"- you get the picture.
That is how the ISIS psyop divides itself upon humanity. Recognizing the three primary forms of consciousness will help us arrive at a consensus on how to move forward to fix this problem. Let's hope that we (humanity) can figure it out quickly this time and with the fewest amount of lost lives. Let us pray for humanity and for the survival of the human race. Let's remember that all those logos, flags, ideologies, and concepts of governments are all just artificial agreements. Let's all try to see the biggest picture, which is that we are all part of a species (humanity) which is actually trying to kill itself off. Let's not let tiny individual samples of our own species ruin it for all of us. They've tried everything they have, so they have to start repeating their tactics. They are making the script easier for us all. Let's take advantage of this weakness they are showing. The weakness of lack of creativity. This lack of creativity is glaringly obvious to all of us now. The globalists are not very creative and they like to repeat their tactics. This is why history is a great tool to expose the globalists and their new world order.
Its been said and I declare again that those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat it; never has this been more true than today. Here's a word of caution to those who still believe government's ongoing War on Terror. Look at the past, look at attacks of 9/11/01, don't you agree it didn't work out very well for us? And on top of that they took all our liberties away. This is a failed government. Are you going to trust them at a game where you are always the loser? Ask yourself, how did their phony war on terror improve your life last time? Why would this next round of ISIS be expected to be any different? Don't you want to thrive while you are alive? Then let go of government-engineered lies and narratives and see the greater agenda now for yourself. Then share this message with someone.
Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.
ISIS was created by the CIA and Mossad
http://investmentwatchblog.com/isis-was-created-by-the-cia-and-mossad/
Video at link.
Former Ambassador Robert Ford Admits "Conspiracy Theorists" Were Right - Jihadists Are Majority Of Rebels
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/former-ambassador-robert-ford-admits.html
Death squad operative Robert Ford has turned a number of heads recently with his surprising indictments of the so-called "moderate" rebels operating in Syria. Ford, who has long been one of the most vocal cheerleaders of the jihadists – having played a crucial role in organizing and arming them early on – is now openly admitting much of what many in the alternative media have been saying since the beginning of the crisis in 2010 – that al-Qaeda, Nusra, and other jihadist forces make up the overwhelming majority of the alleged "rebellion."
Of course, there never was anything remotely "moderate" about any of the "rebels" operating under Ford's tutelage or NATO's direction. Despite the propaganda necessities of NATO and the US, a "moderate rebel" has yet to have been produced for analysis.
Ford's willing deceitful adherence to the State Department line of the existence of such ephemeral and mysterious beings known as "moderate rebels" notwithstanding, his admission of the fact that jihadists and al-Qaeda fighters make up the majority of fighters in Syria is something that alternative media journalists and researchers have been labeled as conspiracy theorists for suggesting for years. After having been badgered and mis-labeled by mainstream media propagandists for nearly five years, the establishment may now freely admit what the alternative media analysts have known and reported the entire time.
As McClatchy News writes,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/18/257024/once-a-top-booster-ex-us-envoy.html
Ford today sounds like a different person from the optimist who only six months ago wrote an essay in Foreign Policy that began: "Don't believe everything you read in the media: The moderate rebels of Syria are not finished. They have gained ground in different parts of the country and have broken publicly with both the al Qaida affiliate operating there and the jihadists of the Islamic State."
Now, however, on panels and in speeches, Ford has accused the rebels of collaborating with the Nusra Front, the al Qaida affiliate in Syria that the U.S. declared a terrorist organization more than two years ago. He says opposition infighting has worsened and he laments the fact that extremist groups now rule in most territories outside the Syrian regime's control.
Ford said part of the problem was that too many rebels – and their patrons in Turkey and Qatar – insisted that Nusra was a homegrown, anti-Assad force when in fact it was an al Qaida affiliate whose ideology was virtually indistinguishable from the Islamic State's. The Obama administration already has suffered a string of embarrassments involving supplies it's donated to the rebels ending up in the hands of U.S.-designated terrorist groups.
"Nusra Front is just as dangerous, and yet they keep pretending they're nice guys, they're Syrians," Ford said. "The second problem is, some of our stuff has leaked to them."
So does this make Ford a conspiracy theorist too? Such claims certainly warranted the label of anyone in the alternative media or any of the few braves souls in the mainstream who suggested these very ideas – that Turkey and Qatar were involved in the funding, directing, and training of al-Qaeda and Nusra fighters for the purposes of overthrowing the secular government of Bashar al-Assad, that al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS are indistinguishable, and that the weapons provided to the allegedly "moderate" rebels is merely one stop on the way to ISIS.
Yet, for those who suggest that Ford may be abandoning the strategy of arming al-Qaeda, his subsequent statements should eliminate any such suspicion.
Again, as McClatchy reports,
"The size of the assistance is still too small," he said. "What are they going to do with 5,000 guys? Or even 10,000 in a year? What's that going to do?"
The Assad regime is eager to present itself as an alternative, but Ford said the Syrian military had been severely weakened and that it was doubtful the regime could pull off a successful campaign against the extremists. Then there's the political and moral fallout that would come from a U.S. détente with a man American officials have described since 2011 as a butcher who's lost the legitimacy to rule.
Ford said the time had come for U.S. officials and their allies to have a serious talk about "boots on the ground," though he was quick to add that the fighters didn't need to be American. He said a professional ground force was the only way to wrest Syria from the jihadists.
In other words, Ford is not admitting the fundamentalist and jihadist nature of the opposition to Assad as a means to suggest an end to supporting them, he is admitting it so as to suggest the commitment of a "professional ground force" to Syria. Although he states that this professional ground force does not need to be American, what other professional fighting force could he be referring to? The jihadist "moderates" that the US is currently seeking to train? Ford has already downplayed them and their potential effect. Does he mean military contractors? Does he mean the military of other NATO countries or of NATO as a collective force? Ford was much more elusive in this regard.
Regardless, it should be remembered that Robert Ford is no mere former Ambassador and terrorist cheerleader. Nor has his treachery been isolated to Syria.
Robert Ford served in Iraq at the same time that the death squads were beginning to make their bloody mark on the cohesion of the Iraqi "insurgency," after being appointed political counselor to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Ford remained in this post from 2004-2006 where he worked closely with John Negroponte, a death squad expert in his own right who was also heavily involved in the organization of the death squads in Iraq. Ford was instrumental in helping make "contacts" with these individuals as well as developing and maintaining relations with them for other purposes such as continued and future terror campaigns.
In fact, Ford was once described by Negroponte as "one of these very tireless people . . . who didn't mind putting on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet contacts." In short, Ford acted as a foot soldier in death squad formation.
Attempting to summarize the death squad plan, Michael Hirsh and John Barry of Newsweek wrote in 2005:
One Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called 'snatch' operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries.
Commenting further on the Newsweek article, the Times Online added, "Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme – the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm's length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it."[1]
Although the focus of these articles revolve around the question of CIA/Pentagon death squads in Iraq, it is important to notice that, as far back as 2005, it was admitted that there were clear plans to create, fund, and operate death squads in Syria.
Consider also the article entitled "The Redirection" by Seymour Hersh written in 2007 for The New Yorker Magazine. In this article Hersh wrote,
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Ford's later action in Syria served the exact same purpose as his presence in Iraq only a few years previous. This time, however, Ford took on a more central role in the affair. Indeed, many Syrians, if not aware of the more sinister acts of Ford, were at least aware that he had been instrumental in fomenting violent rebellion and negative Western public opinion against the ruling government. This is why Ford's convoy was attacked by "pro-government" Syrians as he rode through town meeting with his terrorist pets.
Ford's very presence in Syria was nothing more than a destabilization tactic. Indeed, he drew quite a bit of international attention to himself by traveling across the country at will, "meeting with protestors" and turning terrorists into martyrs in the minds of the gullible Western public.
Logically, by "meeting with protestors" one can read "instigating terrorism." The mainstream media, however, reported Ford's terror encouragement tour as a heroic act of solidarity with "the people."
Eventually, after a succession of terror tours the Assad regime finally slapped restrictions on Ford's travel, requiring him not to leave the boundaries of Damascus. However, Ford openly disregarded those limitations and brazenly began traveling all over Syria, meeting with his terrorist brethren.
There Are No Moderate Rebels In Syria
In reality, the so-called "opposition" in Syria is anything but moderate. As Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, "In Syria, There Are No Moderates,"
. . . . . there were never, nor are there any "moderates" operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria's borders as "divided" along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria's borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.
Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard wrote in April, 2013,
In Syria's largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
Even one of the FSA commanders, Bassel Idriss, recently admitted to openly collaborating with ISIS and al-Nusra, revealing yet another example of the fact that the "moderate rebels" are not moderate at all.
In an interview with the Daily Star of Lebanon, Idriss stated "We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army's gatherings in . . . Qalamoun . . . . Let's face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values."
Idriss also admitted that many FSA fighters had pledged allegiance to ISIS. He said, "[ISIS] wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area. After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA's retreat into the hills [around Arsal], many units pledged allegiance [to ISIS]".
Abu Fidaa, a retired Syrian Army Colonel who is now a part of the Revolutionary Council in the Qalamoun, corroborated Idrisss' statements by saying that "A very large number of FSA members [in Arsal] have joined ISIS and Nusra. In the end, people want to eat, they want to live, and the Islamic State has everything."
Not only the FSA, but also the Syrian Revolutionary Front has also openly admitted to working with Nusra and al-Qaeda. The leader of the SRF, Jamaal Maarouf admitted that his brigades coordinate with Nusra and al-Qaeda regularly.
ISIS Is Controlled By The U.S. And NATO
It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.
As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article "Implausible Deniability: West's ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,"
Beginning in 2011 - and actually even as early as 2007 - the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.
Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey's borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward - this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.
ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The "non-lethal aid" the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.
They didn't "take" this gear from "moderates." There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon - current and former officials - interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.< Hersh's 9-page 2007 report, "The Redirection" states explicitly:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
"Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam" and are "sympathetic to Al Qaeda" - is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh's report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region's Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.
While Hersh's report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled "The Salvador Option."
Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, "NATO's Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,"
In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran's arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.
Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders.
Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in Syria to fight against Assad. The numbers were said to be expected to reach about 10,000 fighters when the reports were issued in March, 2013. Although Western and European media outlets would try to spin the operation as the training of "moderate rebels," subsequent reports revealed that these fighters were actually ISIS fighters.
Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of American weapons and equipment. As Business Insider stated, "The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of 'significant quantities' of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings 'Property of US Govt.'" The article also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally.
ISIS Timing
Remember, when the United States was "debating" the idea of becoming more directly involved in Syria and Iraq, particularly in the form of bombing civilian and government infrastructure and openly funding the death squads they claim to be fighting, a video allegedly showing the beheading of James Foley was released resulting in widespread anger and indignation amongst a general public who were temporarily yanked away from reality TV long enough to view it.
Likewise, when the British seemed hesitant to directly join the imperialist bombing coalition, a video was released allegedly showing the beheading of a British citizen, Alan Henning , also causing widespread indignation amongst the public and shoring up support for British military involvement in Iraq and Syria.
When the French seemed hesitant to join the bombing, ISIS releases a third video of an alleged beheading of a Frenchman, which provided justification for French involvement.
Such convenient timing was also present when NATO was considering "targeted airstrikes" in Syria but were concerned about Assad's sophisticated air defense systems. Shortly thereafter, ISIS manages to capture Taqba air base in Raqqa, Syria, eliminating the air defense systems in the entirety of the eastern part of the country.
In addition, such "convenient" timing took place when NATO was once again pushing for a "No-Fly Zone" inside Syria but many members of the public and even Congress were confused about the necessity of such a zone due to the fact that ISIS has no air force. Very soon after, reports appeared in the news allegedly showing ISIS pilots flying stolen Syrian aircraft.
ISIS IS Al-Qaeda
It is important to remember that the so-called leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Voltaire Net describes Baghdadi,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.
On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the IEI.
Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria.
When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSA's movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family.
An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows:
Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army?
ISIS Detainee: I don't know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command.
Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders?
ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.
Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian government that they do, in fact, a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world.
Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis' involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world.
Note also that Voltaire Net describes al-Nusra, a documented al-Qaeda connected group, as merely an extension of the IEI (Islamic Emirate of Iraq) which itself was nothing more than a version of Al-Qaeda In Iraq. Thus, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, came the IEI, which then became the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. IEIL then became ISIS/ISIL which is now often referred to as IS.
In other words, Nusra=Al-Qaeda-IEI=IEIL=ISIL=ISIS=IS.
With the information presented above regarding the nature of the Free Syrian Army and the so-called "moderate rebels," it would be entirely fair to add these "moderate" groups to the list as well.
Although too lengthy of a study to be presented in this article, it is important to point out that al-Qaeda is entirely a creation of the West, created for the purpose of drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan in the 1970s and a host of other geopolitical goals in the Middle East and around the world, 9/11 being the most memorable instance of Western intelligence al-Qaeda mobilization.[2]
Conclusion
While peace is no doubt to be desired in Syria, Western powers should not be allowed to use the concept as a weapon against the Syrian government or the Syrian people.
The United States, UK, France, NATO, and the UN do not want peace. They want a reprieve for their proxy forces.
If the ISIS fighters encircled in Aleppo want peace, they should have the option of unconditional surrender. Amnesty, upon surrender, could also be discussed at the pleasure of the Syrian government.
Otherwise, the encirclement should continue and the liberation of Aleppo must necessarily follow.
Fake peace agreements and politically based "truces" are no longer acceptable and they are no longer credible in the eyes of any informed observer.
Only true and total peace, stability, and reconstruction are acceptable options for Syria.
US Ground Troops Likely to Join Iraq's Attack on Mosul
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/19/us-ground-troops-likely-to-join-iraqs-attack-on-mosul/
Offensive Could Begin as Soon as April
Despite official denials, the US war on ISIS has been careening toward another ground war in both Iraq and Syria. The latest reports suggest the ground component of this war could be very soon to beginning.
US officials are now saying that the offensive against the ISIS-held city of Mosul will be supported by the US, with both airstrikes and "if necessary" US ground troops backing the Iraqi military. This offensive could begin as soon as April.
The "if necessary" qualifier means the US involvement is all but certain, as the Pentagon has repeatedly said they don't believe Iraq's military is even close to being able to take a major city like Mosul on their own.
In recent weeks the US has been massing a large number of combat troops in Kuwait for just such an eventuality, and within the next couple of months seems to have a ready-made excuse for launching the ground war they've repeatedly "ruled out."
The US war strategy for months has been basically laying out different pitfalls that could "force" them to launch a ground war in response, including putting 320 lightly armed troops on the front line in Anbar Province as "trainers," waiting for them to get attacked so they'd have to be rescued by more ground troops.
ISIS has gained enormously from the US war, bolstering their recruitment dramatically across the world. The ground war will likely add to this influx of recruits to resist another American invasion.
The Collapse of WTC 1:
Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_core.html
World Trade Center 2:
There Was No Inferno
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_fire.html
9/11 Videos:
THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.02.21, 12:58:19
I still pose this question to all:
9/11 could have been conducted so clean, not even experts in this field would have known for sure exactly what happened.
So what is the reason THEY left us a trail of breadcrumbs to follow?
The breadcrumb trail was not intentional, it was an act of desperation that was improperly executed. The evil plan for total hegemony over the Human Race has been long in the making and certain resistance was being posed by those with integrity and a spine. 9/11 was an operation to tie up all these loose ends and launch the War on Terror. You should remember that no plan survives contact with the enemy and when things started to go wrong on the day of 911 they had to improvise. They also did not plan on an alert and determined minority that would be able to disseminate intelligence on this terrorist operation globally via the only free communication available, the internet. The death throes of the beast have been vicious with the creation of the ISIS monster and staged events such as 7/7 (to name but a few) meant to subdue what resistance remained. They have failed and they will answer for their crime's in the not too distant future. Every single one of them must be investigated for their part in terrorism and pay the penalty, whatever that may be. I do not support anarchy and the "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS" approach, if the human race is to thrive it must move forward with full disclosure and appropriate consequences for the terrorists, paid in full.
Quote from: Matt Watts
So what is the reason THEY left us a trail of breadcrumbs to follow?
Those who actually possess the Power have so much
faith in their ability to Cover-Up their acts, no matter
how much evidence remains, that they purposely do
their deeds sloppily.
Their techniques add to the Chaos of the general public
while re-inforcing their belief that they may do as they
please with impunity. Their control of the Media, the Press,
the Governments, and in turn the Minds of the People,
is so complete that they have little to worry about.
The numbers of People who have the ability to recognize
and process Truth is tiny compared to the numbers who
remain deceived and under the influence of the Matrix.
In time that will change. The numbers of Truthers is very
slowly increasing with each new assault. What is presently
happening in The Ukraine has been an eye opener for many
Europeans and Westerners. The duplicity of the West and
its NATO are becoming highly visible to People of Good Will.
One can only marvel at how so many nations of The West
have been brought under the thumb of so few bad actors.
It's as if the whole World has gone Mad.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.02.21, 17:43:47
Those who actually possess the Power have so much
faith in their ability to Cover-Up their acts, no matter
how much evidence remains, that they purposely do
their deeds sloppily.
There is sloppy and then there is bloody obvious. Sloppy may be acceptable to them with a subservient mass media but bloody obvious is not..
Remember that there was one flight destined for New York that never made it that day, it is claimed the passengers overcame the highjackers and crashed the plane into the ground. I believe it is more likely when you study the timeline that NORAD responded and shot it down. This left the terrorists with a problem, an alphabet soup building pre-wired for demolition with all charges in-situ.. this could not have been explained away and therefore that evening they made the decision to 'pull it'.
Quote from: EvolvingApe
There is sloppy and then there is bloody obvious. Sloppy may be acceptable to them with a subservient mass media but bloody obvious is not..
Early on in their false-flag adventures that was probably
a great concern to them. As things have progressed with
their 'testing of the waters of sloppiness' they may have
been very pleasantly surprised by how easy it was to carry
out the massive cover-ups.
If their assaults are carried out too well then the 'chaos
impact' isn't as great. They truly love managing both sides
of every controversy. In fact, the more controversy there is
the better it serves their purposes.
The radio talk show hosts, both conservative and liberal, in
recent years have gotten very much in lock step with the
"Official Story Line" while whipping up the controversy.
Journalism in America is a Dead Duck.
We thank our lucky stars that we still have the Internet and
the Alternative Media.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.02.21, 22:14:27
More likely by these guys:
http://www.119wg.ang.af.mil/
WTC 7 would have also been hit by a plane--IMO. You can bet some curse words were spoken when comms came in to HQ that Flight 93 was splattered over Shanksville.
Whatever the reason was that Flight 93 didn't make it to target that day it blew the entire "skyscraper's collapsed because plane's hit them" story out of the water, and they had to improvise. Panicked and pushed for time they made a very poor choice.. They have been on the back foot ever since and are in full damage limitation mode. The longer they stick to this obviously false story the more people they wake up..
Quote from: muDped on 2015.02.21, 22:42:05
Early on in their false-flag adventures that was probably
a great concern to them. As things have progressed with
their 'testing of the waters of sloppiness' they may have
been very pleasantly surprised by how easy it was to carry
out the massive cover-ups.
If their assaults are carried out too well then the 'chaos
impact' isn't as great. They truly love managing both sides
of every controversy. In fact, the more controversy there is
the better it serves their purposes.
The radio talk show hosts, both conservative and liberal, in
recent years have gotten very much in lock step with the
"Official Story Line" while whipping up the controversy.
Journalism in America is a Dead Duck.
We thank our lucky stars that we still have the Internet and
the Alternative Media.
It may have benefitted them early on but it is costing them now. Journalism in the West is a Dead Duck, but a few are making a stand and regaining their integrity in the process.
The internet and the alternative media may not be around for long if they have their way, exposure of the facts is devastating to them:
Anti-Putin Journalist-Truth About Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEkcCavcmE#t=89
As Mike Rivero commented.. Just look at their faces!
Iranian VP: CIA Behind Islamic State http://www.prisonplanet.com/iranian-vp-cia-behind-islamic-state.html
Masoumeh Ebtekar, the first female vice president of Iran, has singled out the United States and the CIA as the progenitor of ISIS or IS, the Islamic State.
"Well, I think there's a lot of skepticism about the role of the United States in dealing with ISIS, because the support they initially provided for ISIS in Syria strengthened this group at that time, and then also other reasons to believe this is not a genuine group, it somehow instigated or created by, I don't know, a certain intelligence agency," Ebtekar said when asked about IS during an interview conducted by ABC News.
In October the former Iranian minister of intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, was more direct. He said ISIS was created by "the triangle of Mossad, MI6, and the CIA."
Moslehi said that "dollars from Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf countries" are responsible for funding the terrorist army.
"The coalition certainly does not want to destroy IS because it needs to use IS for most of its Satanic goals," he added.
His remarks followed those of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who said ISIS and al-Qaeda are the work of "the wicked government of Britain."
In June it was revealed that the U.S. military had trained ISIS members at a secret base in Jordan.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was reported a number of the purported hijackers were "trained in strategy and tactics" at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama, according to Newsweek.
The U.S. had admitted its allies fund IS. In September the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I know major Arab allies who fund them."
In January said to be a Pakistani commander of IS, Yousaf al Salafi, confessed to law enforcement agencies in Pakistan to getting funds via the United States.
"The US has been condemning the IS activities but unfortunately has not been able to stop funding of these organizations, which is being routed through the US. The US had to dispel the impression that it is financing the group for its own interests and that is why it launched offensive against the organization in Iraq but not in Syria," a source told the Urdu-language Daily Express.
For a detailed explanation of the strategy at work in the Middle East, see our ISIS and the Plan to Balkanize the Middle East.
The ABC interview attempted to delegitimize Masoumeh Ebtekar's remarks on ISIS by noting her association with the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line who took hostages and occupied the US Embassy in 1979.
ABC did not mention the fact the CIA used the embassy as a base of operations in Iran.
As Bruce Schneier and others have noted, the CIA routinely uses diplomatic cover to conduct operations in foreign countries.
"Like the intelligence services of most other countries, the CIA has been unwilling to set up foreign offices under its own name. So American embassies — and, less frequently military bases — provide the needed cover," Schneier writes.
CIA operatives "recruit local officials as CIA agents to supply secret intelligence and, especially in the Third World, to help in the Agency's manipulation of a country's internal affairs."
Yep, wars and other tragedies such as the mysterious
crash of Germanwings flight 9525. (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1854.htm)
The plane may have exploded in midair before falling to earth
in the mountains. The cover-story is in full blast mode so it
is unlikely that the Truth will ever be revealed by those in power.
I would not be surprised if the German wings co-pilot was targeted for hypnosis programming due to his past discrepancies.
It makes no sense to me that a man could fly a plane into the ground and they can hear him breathing normally on the tape but he does not speak or anything. Surely a person about to knowingly fly into a mountain would mutter some kind of final words. This is why I think he may have been in an hypnotic trance, possibly triggered by the captain leaving the cockpit.
Using mentally unstable people for psyops lackies would be the best way. eg. Martin Bryant.
It is another strange one that. I'm not buying the official story already.
Conversely if the guy was just depressed and did did do that on his own with his own mind in control then that says a lot about the state of today's world that he was not found out in the psych tests. Maybe they confused "depression" for "desperation".
Gives me yet another reason tom refuse to fly on commercial aircraft. I'll get on an ADF Herc or Orion any day, but no way on this Earth will I get on board a Tiger airlines Jet ect.
Two in the cockpit at all times seems like it should be a routine measure, seems idiotic not to do that.
..
I can't confirm this to be true, since I'm not on the inside, so to speak: Supposedly ALL commercial aircraft for the past 25 years have installed remote piloting electronics.
If this is in fact true, can anyone explain why it would matter if anyone was in the cockpit? Wouldn't it be obvious if an aircraft was off course to take corrective measures?
Taking a small step forward, one might also start to wonder about the whole terrorist high-jacking farce in general.
The powers that be can wreck as many aircraft as they want, it won't change my mind that we are not getting the real truth about anything.
All Lufthansa flights are electronically monitored continuously (http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/frankfurt)
in order to detect and correct any malfunctions. Germanwings
is Lufthansa.
Quote from: Lufthansa Technik Frankfurt
"Constant monitoring of all aircraft in the Maintenance Control Center Lufthansa Technik's Maintenance Control Center monitors the technical status of the serviced aircraft worldwide, both on the ground and in the air, and controls necessary procedures. The structural statuses of the aircraft and the due dates for required and planned modifications and tasks are constantly tracked and monitored.
Everything that is part of fleet management is controlled here around the clock and around the world. At the Lufthansa Traffic Control Center in Frankfurt, staff compile all required data on the Lufthansa fleet operating worldwide using what is known as the ACARS system (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System), a data network using HF radio and satellites, and analyze it. Potential faults are immediately detected."
Whatever it was which caused the plane's rapid descent
(highly abnormal) should be within the electronic record.
Has a point of impact been determined which would have caused
the aircraft to disintegrate or is it suspiciously similar to the MH-17
debris field? Did the aircraft disintegrate before it made contact
with any mountain?
The cover story regarding the co-pilot may be a possibility but
I doubt that it is the real cause of the tragedy. Other aircraft in
that same general vicinity have experienced rapid loss of altitude
very mysteriously in recent weeks as well. Fortunately, they were
able to recover and regain control before crashing.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.03.28, 04:29:14
Did the aircraft disintegrate before it made contact
with any mountain?
Good question as it has been reported the tail section was mostly intact. So did it just come loose or was it detached by some aerial assault?
Just finished watching this video. What makes it so different is from 45 minutes on. Gives reason as to why people prefer to just look the other way,and bury there head in the sand. I dont think it will be long before this is all reopened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw
Lets assume for a moment we could know exactly and with great detail what happened that day. What would we learn...?
- About human psychology?
- Military technology?
- Financial systems?
- Organization and structure of governmental systems?
- Short and long term agendas?
I suspect it would be so revealing no one could deny their present understanding of the world around them to be inconsistent with their actual reality. And what might that lead to?
Change. And a lot of it. I would go so far as to say a complete revolution. It would be clear to all, power has been amassed in the hands of those not responsible enough to have it.
A complete knowledge of how and why the major events of September 11th, 2001 took place, by every individual on the planet, would forever change the world. People would no longer take their own knowledge for granted; they would leave no stone unturned. They would seek proof in everything, a thorough understanding of everything. The desire for true knowledge would be overwhelming as it would be a way out of our current condition, likely the only way out.
So yes TinMan, we (as a populace) can no longer bury our heads in the sand. We must engage.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.05.01, 12:11:10
Lets assume for a moment we could know exactly and with great detail what happened that day. What would we learn...?
- About human psychology?
- Military technology?
- Financial systems?
- Organization and structure of governmental systems?
- Short and long term agendas?
I suspect it would be so revealing no one could deny their present understanding of the world around them to be inconsistent with their actual reality. And what might that lead to?
Change. And a lot of it. I would go so far as to say a complete revolution. It would be clear to all, power has been amassed in the hands of those not responsible enough to have it.
A complete knowledge of how and why the major events of September 11th, 2001 took place, by every individual on the planet, would forever change the world. People would no longer take their own knowledge for granted; they would leave no stone unturned. They would seek proof in everything, a thorough understanding of everything. The desire for true knowledge would be overwhelming as it would be a way out of our current condition, likely the only way out.
So yes TinMan, we (as a populace) can no longer bury our heads in the sand. We must engage.
It is funny Matt-the thing that made me take another look at this 9/11 fiasco. Sterling actually kicked it off,and it snowballed from there on in. MarkE of course came into play,and then the sh-t hit the fan . He (and another who shall remain nameless) decided to pay out on Steve(physics Prof),so i up'd the anti.
During that discussion it became apparent that MarkE and a few others there really are in a state of denial. The more MarkE talks and tries to explain thing's,the more apparent it becomes that he just doesn't know what he is talking about in relation to thing's that should be self explanatory . One claim is that he believes that no straight thinking half decent physicist would use the term free fall,as apparently there is no such thing when subjected to earths atmosphere-->this was in reference to tower 7 coming down-just above free fall speed. That discussion bought about me looking at the reports from NIST,and the official report from the national commission on terror attacks really opened my eyes as to just how far fetched the official story is.
I'm hopping Steve will jump in again,and give us any update info on another investigation that may be just around the corner.
For a more balanced view on the Ukrainian conflict you might bookmark this site:
http://uatoday.tv/society/exclusive-interview-russian-ex-fsb-officer-is-happy-to-have-become-a-ukrainian-citizen-424712.html
If anyone is a plant to steer things in another direction, he is, the vibrations around his words are some what uneasing >:-)
regards
Mike 8)
So put your minds at work guy's,who here can work out what MarkE cannot.
How did building 7 drop slightly faster than free fall speed?-->what is the only way building can fall faster than free fall speed.
When we say free fall speed,we are assuming that there is no air resistance,so free fall speed as in a vacuum.
building 7 is a no-brainer.
They don't ever mention it on the news in the UK at 911 anniversaries
Building 7 is not even worth a debate.
When I have mentioned it to some of my unaware colleagues they have been shocked.
Building 7 was HQ to some of US's most secret services and designed to withstand
a nuclear blast.
It's a no-brainer.
Even a six year old can understand the implications.
A King
OU.Com is back up
Whenever I went to building 7 during construction to do testing or training [the last time was for the fireproofing contractor]
everybody on the Job was saying "whats up with the iron here?? why so huge ??
I have NEVER seen Iron like that , the Diagonal cross bracing on the lower level really sticks in my Mind, of course
this construction was to a much higher standard than pre 1993 bombing .
I have never really reached out to the guys that were on these jobs... the trades never talk about accidents
Death or injuries.[a superstition] and in this case it seems to be quite true, I know that queries would NOT be well received by Men still working in the field [superstitious and "bad Luck to talk about these things"]
I have to say that this belief system grew on me over the years too..
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.05.01, 15:52:53
A King
OU.Com is back up
Whenever I went to building 7 during construction to do testing or training [the last time was for the fireproofing contractor]
everybody on the Job was saying "whats up with the iron here?? why so huge ??
I have NEVER seen Iron like that , the Diagonal cross bracing on the lower level really sticks in my Mind, of course
this construction was to a much higher standard than pre 1993 bombing .
I have never really reached out to the guys that were on these jobs... the trades never talk about accidents
Death or injuries.[a superstition] and in this case it seems to be quite true, I know that queries would NOT be well received by Men still working in the field [superstitious and "bad Luck to talk about these things"]
I have to say that this belief system grew on me over the years too..
Steel cutting charges, the only way that building could come down the way it did, and a lot of them.
I wounder if there was an underground link with the twin towers!!! there maybe your control link to the bringing down of the towers, then after get rid of the evidence, job done ???
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.01, 14:57:49
So put your minds at work guy's,who here can work out what MarkE cannot.
How did building 7 drop slightly faster than free fall speed?-->what is the only way building can fall faster than free fall speed.
When we say free fall speed,we are assuming that there is no air resistance,so free fall speed as in a vacuum.
Most video equipment scans at 30 frames per second, so with video of the building falling and good location markers, one should be able to empirically calculate the speed of gravity, which should be approximately 32 ft/s
2. If by doing the work you find the building fell faster than 32 ft/s
2, someone has a little explaining to do, because now we have a recorded event where the force of gravity was actually altered here on planet earth. I'd seriously like to see that explained outside any possible margin of error. If this can be proven, I hope you all understand just how sophisticated the real perpetrators of this event are. Probably wouldn't be too wise to go letting the air out of their tires.
Now, if the increased speed is due to a massive pressure differential between the air above the building and the air (or lack of) inside the building, that's a bit different. First thing that comes to my mind is something like HHO creating a massive implosion. I would think under these conditions we would see the exterior of the building crimp in from all sides, not just the top. Has anyone seen a good profile video of building 7 falling?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.05.02, 05:16:45
Most video equipment scans at 30 frames per second, so with video of the building falling and good location markers, one should be able to empirically calculate the speed of gravity, which should be approximately 32 ft/s2. If by doing the work you find the building fell faster than 32 ft/s2, someone has a little explaining to do, because now we have a recorded event where the force of gravity was actually altered here on planet earth. I'd seriously like to see that explained outside any possible margin of error. If this can be proven, I hope you all understand just how sophisticated the real perpetrators of this event are. Probably wouldn't be too wise to go letting the air out of their tires.
Now, if the increased speed is due to a massive pressure differential between the air above the building and the air (or lack of) inside the building, that's a bit different. First thing that comes to my mind is something like HHO creating a massive implosion. I would think under these conditions we would see the exterior of the building crimp in from all sides, not just the top. Has anyone seen a good profile video of building 7 falling?
Here are my thoughts on it. When they refer to falling faster than free fall speed,most demolition mobs include air resistance when they say free fall speed,not free fall speed in a vacuum. This being the case,if a building is bought down using explosives,then what would occur?. When the explosives go of,a huge pressure wave exits in the building due to rapid heating of the air inside .But the rapid heating then turns,and rapid cooling starts once all thermal energy has been released by the explosives. This causes a vacuum in the building for a brief time,and i believe that this is how a faster than atmospheric free fall can occur. When a building collapses due to damage,it always comes down in bit's and pieces,and not all the building collapses.
Watch this if you dare: Your life will never be the same.
You have been warned.
It's blue pill or red pill time (Matrix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYMhkofwFmQ
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.07.21, 03:02:21
How can we brink these criminals to justice?
Simple. Continue to do nothing.
After they have eaten and destroyed everything good in this world, they will begin eating themselves, because it's all they know, it's all they are.
Whistle Blower reveals secret program to train
terrorists for America's hegemony. (https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/whistle-blower-reveals-secret-u-s-program-to-recruit-train-and-provide-visas-to-terrorists/)
While the U.S. likes to accuse other nations of being
"sponsors of terrorism" it looks as if the greatest
sponsor of all is the U.S. itself. Of course, many of
you already knew that...
Whether you are an Akula fan or not, I found it interesting he shared this video on his Google+ page (https://plus.google.com/103786798661176900671/posts):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSW4SG1npqY
Seems to me the only ones left to convince are those "resources" still engaged in the hegemony. Everyone else already knows...
Quote from: EMdevices
I just watched this incredible documentary on the conspiracy of 9/11, so much research all put together. Wow! It's long but so absorbing of ones attention, make sure you watch it till the end.
The New Pearl Harbor - 9/11
Thanks for the link.
Aye, the last two minutes are very strange. Where were
the calls actually made from and how was it pulled off?
One day we will know all of the details; all of the TRUTH.
The psychopaths who dream up these "events" and carry
them out seem not to be aware that all human activity is
"watched" and "placed into the record" for future
accountability. They really believe that they're getting away
with murder...
Matt,
The
Moon Landing Hoax Compilationtells a great story. The deception and coverup is conceived of
and executed from the very highest levels of government.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.07.31, 21:46:23
The Moon Landing Hoax Compilation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSW4SG1npqY)
tells a great story. The deception and coverup is conceived of
and executed from the very highest levels of government.
It just seems odd to me, wasn't it JFK that initiated the space-race? They had already killed him in '63. So why concoct such a hoax in '69.
It reminds me of the line in Apocalypse Now where Captain Willard tells Colonel Kurtz, "I don't see any method at all."
These creatures truly want the freedom to do anything, any time they have the urge. They simply exist to do, without conscience, without morals or ethics. I'm not convinced ending one of these creatures lives is actually murder. First it would have to be proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt they are actually alive. Sure would be nice to find some old wizard hiding in a cave someplace that could tell us how to end this curse. There has been enough lies, deception, murder, torture, destruction and other atrocities committed in the last few centuries to last the entire lifetime of earth itself.
To get back on topic, here's another article:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/07/peeling-911-onion-layers-of-plots.html
One more on the Moon Hoax. Just for the record.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
Dear All.
My wife came across this little snippet this morning.
http://yournewswire.com/alternative-energy-insider-the-elite-are-panicking/
Relevant ??
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.06, 07:12:27
One more on the Moon Hoax. Just for the record.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
That's pretty cool ! Projective transformations are insufficient to cohere these moon images.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.08.09, 19:57:00
My wife came across this little snippet this morning.
http://yournewswire.com/alternative-energy-insider-the-elite-are-panicking/
I know a U.S. "prepper" who is convinced that this will happen on this September 13. He'd even made a 1oz of gold bet with me about it.
The Story of 9/11 is far from being complete as ever so
slowly more and more TRUTH comes to the fore (http://henrymakow.com/2015/08/unraveling-the-mysteries.html) above
all of the "noise" of deception and disinformation.
One day fairly soon we shall have the complete narrative
of how it all came down...
Even then, the majority of the "brainwashed masses" will
no doubt refuse to come to grips with the reality that
government is a liar.
All TRUTH must yield to the New World Order AGENDA as
it forcefully marches on. Government will see to that.
Did not know where to put this but thought this was as good as any without starting another topic.
http://www.naturalnews.com/050816_Tianjin_explosion_space-based_weapons_military_retaliation.html
Do you really think this happened as talked about, that is one hell of a crater, no arguement where the center was and had to be small nuclear or very close to it. Also there is no chain of explosions, so, had to be a small very potent explosive, and in a shipping port!!!!!!!
regards
Mike 8)
Since 9/11 America has become very aggressive and
pushes hard for total control of the planet. With the
programs instituted under Dubya and Obongo surging
forward, anything is possible.
There may have been a time when America wouldn't
have done something like that, but it was a long time
ago. America, it is now known, started the Spanish-
American War by sinking the Maine in Havana harbor.
America wanted the Philippines and other Spanish
possessions in the Pacific and the Atlantic and took
"false-flag" action to acquire them.
America is good at pretending to be good and
wonderful and "the land of freedom" when in
truth, it is quite the opposite in many ways.
America the Beautiful has been "trance-formed"
into The Ugly America...
Quote from: muDped on 2015.08.20, 15:58:28
Since 9/11 America has become very aggressive and
pushes hard for total control of the planet. With the
programs instituted under Dubya and Obongo surging
forward, anything is possible.
There may have been a time when America wouldn't
have done something like that, but it was a long time
ago. America, it is now known, started the Spanish-
American War by sinking the Maine in Havana harbor.
America wanted the Philippines and other Spanish
possessions in the Pacific and the Atlantic and took
"false-flag" action to acquire them.
America is good at pretending to be good and
wonderful and "the land of freedom" when in
truth, it is quite the opposite in many ways.
America the Beautiful has been "trance-formed"
into The Ugly America...
Muppethead,
You are so full of crap, there are many Americans here on this site and your continual put down of Americans with your lying crap has put me off from saying or sharing anything at this site, and I'm sure many others Americans here feel the same way. When you finally depart here with your islamic, muslim BS then this site can take off again, but for now you and others like you hold this place down and keep smart intelligent Americans away from here. Haven't you realized yet that you and your BS has been outed, almost no one talks to you anymore you never bring anything new to the site, most of what you say doesn't need saying and all your technical posts can be found with a quick search online. You have not brought anything here except division, mistrust, lies and islamic propaganda. If you are allowed to keep putting down America on this site then I will start posting and putting down islam to a degree that will blow you away, believe me I have a shit load more of bad things to say about islam so maybe it is in your best interest to back off the BS on America. Why don't you take your crap to some site that wants it and get the hell out of here, you are not impressing anyone with your prowess at electronics or any other subject but I will give you the biggest POS at this site prize. If you make me speak to you again about this I will begin my vendetta against you and you will not like it. This is an ENERGY site, I ask you once again to stop with the islamic propaganda if not, you and I are going to duke it out! Get me going again and I won't stop this time, I will bury you with the TRUTH.
Americans are not as stupid as you would have people here believe, just because Europeans believe your stupid BS doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
Born and raised in the good ol' USA and not very proud to be an American. And no, I'm not going to move someplace else. I want my country back.
There are millions of Americans having no clue whatsoever what has happened behind closed doors. I was one of them for forty years. With some digging and application of pure logic, it has become obvious to me where this is all headed. Like muDped, I was too a U.S. Navy sailor. I thought I was doing the right things for the right reasons, then came September 11th, 2001 and none of the pieces fit together any more. I wanted answers. I wanted truth. What I discovered was neither. I had to go digging. I had to upset people. I had to find out what was really behind the BS strewn all over the media. After about five years, I started to find a few leads. Dr. Jones was very much a part of that.
Yes, this a site dedicated to energy research and I can assure you we all would be much further along if it weren't for the truth being buried. There are those that know the truth, but getting access to them and squeezing it out is much like getting blood from a turnip. The trick we need to master is finding the truth before we shed these biological containers and move on to the next phase. Once found, we need to share it, whether it makes us feel good or terrible. The truth is the truth in whatever form it can be perceived.
I encourage everyone to stop fighting the data and let the pieces fall where they may. You don't have to attack someone that doesn't believe as you do. Just look at the information, think about it and let it soak into the old noggin wherever it may fit. Do this and eventually the picture will start to form and become clear enough to make sense of.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.20, 21:03:29
Born and raised in the good ol' USA and not very proud to be an American. And no, I'm not going to move someplace else. I want my country back.
There are millions of Americans having no clue whatsoever what has happened behind closed doors. I was one of them for forty years. With some digging and application of pure logic, it has become obvious to me where this is all headed. Like muDped, I was too a U.S. Navy sailor. I thought I was doing the right things for the right reasons, then came September 11th, 2001 and none of the pieces fit together any more. I wanted answers. I wanted truth. What I discovered was neither. I had to go digging. I had to upset people. I had to find out what was really behind the BS strewn all over the media. After about five years, I started to find a few leads. Dr. Jones was very much a part of that.
Yes, this a site dedicated to energy research and I can assure you we all would be much further along if it weren't for the truth being buried. There are those that know the truth, but getting access to them and squeezing it out is much like getting blood from a turnip. The trick we need to master is finding the truth before we shed these biological containers and move on to the next phase. Once found, we need to share it, whether it makes us feel good or terrible. The truth is the truth in whatever form it can be perceived.
I encourage everyone to stop fighting the data and let the pieces fall where they may. You don't have to attack someone that doesn't believe as you do. Just look at the information, think about it and let it soak into the old noggin wherever it may fit. Do this and eventually the picture will start to form and become clear enough to make sense of.
Yes I feel pretty much the same, I hope you are not saying I am the one attacking because I am countering an attack made on me as an American and if I am not allowed to do this, then why are attacks on me allowed. you attack me and I will attack back, pretty simple. I have absolutely no love for our current government at all, in my opinion this is the most criminal government we have ever had and the most treasonous. As far as truth goes I realize most people believe their truth is real, but it does not excuse one from common sense.
You can believe anything you want true or not, but please don't tell me I don't know as much as you, I can guarantee you I have read more books on conspiracy then you have dreamed of. I have not read 100's of books or 1000's of books but more like 10,000 books on all subjects, treat me like a moron and I will treat you like one. I also was a US navy sailor doesn't make me any smarter because of it but unlike you 'I am Proud to be an American'.
Cheers and good day,
The "Rod of God" space weapon hey, a purely kinetic weapon ? If it is actually true then the ammunition is limited anyway, that's a plus.
I remember a clip showing a new airplane dropped "anti Armor" kinetic weapon a while ago "a few years", it consisted of a concrete "bomb" shaped object with "guidance", when dropped it is steered directly on to the top of a tank or such and the effect is impressive, or repressive depending on how you see it. Totally destroys a tank and it's cheapish compared to a smart bomb.
I would not be surprised if the "Rod of God" exists. It seems a good way of targeting a particular place in a city with a guided "bomb" or "rod" would be to somehow start an initial blase by a conventional explosion delivered to the target by a car or other means, then the High altitude weapon guidance can target the intense light or heat from the fire caused by the explosion.
An analogy would be it would be much easier to spot and target a burning bush in a big open desert than it would be to spot and target a particular bush without it being on fire.
There does seem to be a large bright flash off to the left of the video screen just before the initial fire explodes into the massive explosion in the Chinese video. It does look odd, but video's can be faked.
Interesting but tragic.
..
I actually find it a bit odd how people from the U.S.A. refer to themselves as just "Americans". People from Canada are also "Americans" as are "Mexicans" also "Americans", Colombians are "Americans" too. Colombians are also "South Americans" And Canadians are "North Americans" just like the people from the United States. Here in Australia so as not to confuse people from the U.S. with other Americans we often refer to people from the United States as "Yanks", usually while shaking our head from side to side and preceded by an expletive.
I'm sure that any sane person has nothing against the everyday people of the United States. WE are all just people.
..
The discussion has taken an "interesting" turn; not
unexpectedly. TRUTH can be very painful and it certainly
can produce personal symptoms of trauma when one
finally comes to the realization that what they hold dear
is rotten and corrupted.
Yes, that is the supreme point: Ordinary People no matter
what nationality or race or country of origin tend to be
peace loving and of good will; not wanting to suffer pain,
indignity, exploitation or deception; and not wanting to
cause others to suffer in any way. Striving to be happy
and productive contributors to the common welfare.
Room 3327,
Your viewpoint and animosity is a fairly common phenomenon
in the United States of America. Long ago I too once held similar
beliefs. This was before I began to take an interest in politics
in the U.S.A. and before obtaining employment within the
"government."
Before going to Viet Nam I was trained in the Vietnamese Language
for nine months at the Defense Language Institute. Not long
enough to become fully fluent but a good basic vocabulary. While
in Viet Nam I witnessed the devastation caused by the U.S.A. and
became intimately familiar with the destruction exacted upon the
peoples, the families, the institutions and the government of Viet
Nam. It was very, very unpleasant to realize that the brutality inflicted
upon Viet Nam by the U.S.A. was completely unnecessary. It was
there that my eyes were "opened" to the possibility that what the
U.S.A. was striving to achieve in the World was not for good purpose.
After completing my Naval career I was employed in government and
observed many events which reinforced the notion that certain
officials in positions of considerable power and authority were
enforcing an AGENDA which superseded their oaths of office and
commitment to fully supporting the Constitution of the United States.
You too have apparently come to the conclusion, based upon your
observations and experiences, that the U.S. Political System is far from
being what it claims to be; that it does not support either the People
or the Constitution. So we do have some basis for shared beliefs.
No, I am not Muslim. In truth I am a believer of The Book and strive to
walk in the path of The Great Teacher who showed us "The Way" while
a humble human man some 2000 years ago.
I am devoted to the publication of TRUTH and making effort to expose
all deception and deceit. Discovering how the U.S.A. has been effectively
infiltrated and taken over by Agents of the Father of the Lie has been
depressing; even shocking. Watching the U.S. take war and destruction
to numerous areas of the world for the past several decades without
concern for human life has been very hard to bear. The illusion that
"America" was "a beacon on the hill" propagating peace, harmony and
goodness was shattered into very tiny pieces.
It seems that those who are in control of the U.S.A. know that their
AGENDA is failing and that they have but a short time to finish their
chosen tasks. It also seems that one of those tasks is to take the
World down with the U.S.A. as it self-destructs under the heavy burden
of massive corruption. War and destruction such as the World has
not seen before.
Have World conditions gotten as bad as they can or will they get
worse? I fear (and this is borne out by prophecy in The Book) that
they will get much worse...
FarmHand,
Yes, it is true that all inhabitants of North and South America are
"Americans." At some point in the past it became commonplace
to refer to the U.S. as "America" possibly because of its prominence
and prosperity with contrast to Europe and other nations. It seems
to have stuck.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.08.21, 05:30:32
I am devoted to the publication of TRUTH and making effort to expose
all deception and deceit.
Yes we do have some basis for agreement we are both after the TRUTH, the problem is YOUR truth is not my truth, you post all this BS without a shred of real evidence to back up what you are saying. When you post something like the paper on the Saudis being Jews and think that it is real, you show plainly that you do not know the difference between propaganda and the truth. You apparently don't even realize that this is Iranian propaganda aimed at the Saudis yet you put it on line like it is God given truth. I don't think you know the difference between propaganda and the truth, you cherry pick what you want because it fits into your twisted beliefs, not for the truth it holds. Open your eyes and do some studying on islam and you will start seeing the truth. By the way the Saudis are NOT Jews no matter what you think! Calling them Jews to their faces will most likely get you killed, but in your case I recommend you go there and do that.
I am very busy today and don't have time to continue this conversation so it will have to wait.
Watch this space.
Cheers
Dear room 3327, you said:
QuoteYou apparently don't even realize that this is Iranian propaganda aimed at the Saudis yet you put it on line like it is God given truth.
I agree with the generality of this statement, not necessarily in the context you used against mudped, but you must realize it applies to both parties in a debate. Why? because the arguments go so very deep it becomes a quagmire of debate, each side presenting arguments and rebuttals ad infinitum.
To arrive at a reasonable conclusion, you have to use good old Columbp (Peter Falk) type questioning, the most important being "qui bono:" that is
who benefits from a given act, why do they benefit, and how do they benefit.
The truth then emerges rather quickly in any given case. This may be simplistic, but since all parties do things for self preservation or profit, these "questioning" templates help to discern truth.
Speaking of propaganda, when given a piece of information on the news or internet, I always ask "What do "they" want me to believe, and how do "they" benefit" whoever "they" may be.
Note well that a some brave people
pay a heavy price for speaking truth, for as one man said
"In times of universal deceit, speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act" and as you know revolutionaries upset the status quo, therefore they must be "handled". In any society, even so called free societies revolutionary thinkers are "handled". During government purges, it is usually the intellectuals that are rounded up and culled from the "cult-ivation" lest they infect it, after all, the emperor isurely has clothes...no?
I would be interested in the titles and authors of just a few of the books you mentioned that you hold in high esteem as having cultivated your "world view". Maybe I have also read them , maybe not, but at least we can get to know each other better.
If not books titles maybe just capsulize your world view, when you have the time of course.
Anyway, I do enjoy your electronic contributions here, but the "debates"........well.......
Kind regards
ION
Saudi Arabia and the Saud Family seem to be a bit of an
enigma. The connections of the Saudis to 9/11 have been
well publicized early on, but after a short time were excised
from serious consideration and pursuit by the "commission"
set up to investigate (or cover up) the tragedy.
Our World is not as it seems; there is much "funny business"
going on. In order to make some sense of World Events it is
necessary to retain an Open Mind as TRUTH is searched for.
Nobody's Opinion (http://nobodysopinion.org/2014/05/01/the-house-of-saud-are-really-jews/)
2002 Iraqi intel (https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/2002-iraqi-intel-reported-wahhabis-are-of-jewish-origin/)
Shock! The Saudi Royal Family are what? (https://endzog.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/shock-the-saudi-royal-family-are-jews-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%87%D9%8A/)
As we approach the End of this Age the events taking place
in the Middle East are critical. Why does it seem that the
United Nations has failed in its purported efforts to render
"War" obsolete?
The Saudi Led War Against Yemen (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36488/Shane-Smith-The-Bloody-Consequences-of-Entangled-Alliances/)
War, Saudi Style, is suspiciously nearly identical to the atrocities
against Gaza in our recent past.
Ion, good post, thank you.
Quote from: ION on 2015.08.21, 17:25:42
Dear room 3327, you said:
I agree with the generality of this statement, not necessarily in the context you used against mudped, but you must realize it applies to both parties in a debate. Why? because the arguments go so very deep it becomes a quagmire of debate, each side presenting arguments and rebuttals ad infinitum.
To arrive at a reasonable conclusion, you have to use good old Columbp (Peter Falk) type questioning, the most important being "qui bono:" that is who benefits from a given act, why do they benefit, and how do they benefit.
Seen them all great shows.
The truth then emerges rather quickly in any given case. This may be simplistic, but since all parties do things for self preservation or profit, these "questioning" templates help to discern truth.
Speaking of propaganda, when given a piece of information on the news or internet, I always ask "What do "they" want me to believe, and how do "they" benefit" whoever "they" may be.
Note well that a some brave people pay a heavy price for speaking truth, for as one man said "In times of universal deceit, speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act" and as you know revolutionaries upset the status quo, therefore they must be "handled". In any society, even so called free societies revolutionary thinkers are "handled". During government purges, it is usually the intellectuals that are rounded up and culled from the "cult-ivation" lest they infect it, after all, the emperor isurely has clothes...no?
Yes it is brave people like me speaking the truth against all the lies, I will be the first rounded up and 'handled' I know that.
I would be interested in the titles and authors of just a few of the books you mentioned that you hold in high esteem as having cultivated your "world view". Maybe I have also read them , maybe not, but at least we can get to know each other better.
With our history I don't know why you would want to know me better but I truly appreciate the sentiment, unfortunately my getting close to anyone here is probably not going to happen. My outspokeness on islam has put me in harms way and I would not want to take any of you with me, I don't blame anyone for not having my back, I understand that would put them in harms way as well. Maybe in another life. And I am sure we have read many of the same books,
If not books titles maybe just capsulize your world view, when you have the time of course.
My world view is not much different then yours, but I have the added knowledge of islam, which I don't see anyone left here who does. That knowledge is what allows me to see the bigger picture, I am able to fill in the blanks now, it's like Amed Mohammed walks into a store and blows away 8, 10 people and the athorities are searching for a motive, gee can't figure this one out, he was a great kid very religeous where did this come from. Well DUH! So as usual I advise all of you to do some studying of islam which will answer many of your questions.
Anyway, I do enjoy your electronic contributions here, but the "debates"........well.......
Thank you for that and I feel the same way about the debates and your contributions here.
Kind regards
ION
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.08.20, 23:18:33
I actually find it a bit odd how people from the U.S.A. refer to themselves as just "Americans". People from Canada are also "Americans" as are "Mexicans" also "Americans", Colombians are "Americans" too. Colombians are also "South Americans" And Canadians are "North Americans" just like the people from the United States. Here in Australia so as not to confuse people from the U.S. with other Americans we often refer to people from the United States as "Yanks", usually while shaking our head from side to side and preceded by an expletive.
I'm sure that any sane person has nothing against the everyday people of the United States. WE are all just people.
..
U.S.A. stands for United States of
America. It's a nationality, not a region or continent. But you don't call Canadians "North Americans" or Mexicans "Central Americans" or Brazilians "South Americans". I guess you could call Germans, Italians, etc. "Europeans" but that really isn't very specific.
Yanks works also. I do a lot of that side to side head shaking myself referring to some of my fellow Americans. I imagine you do a bit of that with some fellow Australians also.
Fourteen years and counting...
Quote from: thx1138 on 2015.08.22, 03:07:35
U.S.A. stands for United States of America. It's a nationality, not a region or continent. But you don't call Canadians "North Americans" or Mexicans "Central Americans" or Brazilians "South Americans". I guess you could call Germans, Italians, etc. "Europeans" but that really isn't very specific.
Yanks works also. I do a lot of that side to side head shaking myself referring to some of my fellow Americans. I imagine you do a bit of that with some fellow Australians also.
Yes I shake my head and say %$#^&*# Politicians and %$#^&*# bikies and %$#^&*# Cops ect. ect.
I refer to people from the U.S. as "people from the U.S." or Yanks I don't call Canadians "Americans" no but I don't call U.S. citizens "Americans" either because that isn't very specific is it. People from the Continent of America I refer to as Americans, both north and south America, people from the U.S. of A. I call U.S citizens.
America is a continent the U.S of A. is a country, yes, I guess I could call people from the U.S. "United Statesans" or something. would make more sense.
..
Considering how the typical inhabitant of the U.S. of A. has been
dumbed down by years of media manipulations, government
propaganda and a broken "educational" system; the term
Boobus Americanus may be a more appropriate moniker.
If you all have never heard of Rebekah Roth, you should. Attached is 49 minutes to get you started.
http://www.methodicalillusion.com/
http://www.methodicaldeception.com/
http://www.rebekahroth.com/
@muDped
QuoteConsidering how the typical inhabitant of the U.S. of A. has been
dumbed down by years of media manipulations, government
propaganda and a broken "educational" system; the term
Boobus Americanus may be a more appropriate moniker.
The psychology is strange and many have come to believe associations with other people and geography may somehow make they better or smarter as individuals, lol. Then we have the even more strange belief that just because someone might believe in one god or another that somehow this "godliness" has been imparted to them is some way. As if to say that my believing something I view as superior must in part make me superior to others which is absurd.
This explains many things we see such as the religious war between the Christian Americans and the Middle East Muslims. It is a very dangerous situation when groups of people empower themselves with the god like qualities of their beliefs. They become capable of the most vile and immoral acts because in their strange twisted little world they are above the human condition which they believe no longer applies to them. Which is why the war in Iraq, Syria will never be won because they cannot just carpet bomb a belief out of people. The Americans have only made the situation worse, obviously, and it will most likely escalate further ending in disaster. You see for one side to win the other side must admit they were wrong in some way and obviously this is never going to happen because both groups are quite insane. Their gods cannot be wrong therefore their beliefs cannot be wrong therefore they cannot be wrong because they believe...catch 22.
AC
I don't know how things in Europe are reported in the USA or Aus: or Canada, but we now have a huge and fast escalating problem of all the refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. They are flowing in at a rate of 10's thousands a day, it is a bigger movement than the second world war.
Something is going to go with a big bang very soon, there is just not the facilities for millions of refugees. Maybe it is all part of a bigger plan and why all of a sudden Iran is becoming more of a friend than an enemy ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-09/11/europe-syria-refugee-crisis-maps
regards
Mike 8)
The 9/11 "Event" was a necessity to the implementation of
the New American Century during which time the U.S. would
tighten its grip over the entire world as it seeks to attain full and
complete control. Looking back, was it worth it? (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/post-911-america-was-it-worth-it/ri9691)
The European Refugee Crisis was made to happen (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/euro-refugee-crisis)as the U.S.
and its willing European/U.K. accomplices destabilize and destroy
all potential competition to their hegemony.
What is soon to come if the West has its way is Disaster with a
meters tall "D."
Those who planned the Refugee Crisis. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=121420)
Those who are committed to revealing TRUTH about 9/11. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=121448)
Les Visible, in his usual style, enlightens us about 9/11 Propaganda. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=121431)
The Memory Hole; reports which have been "disappeared" from the
official story line. (http://www.zengardner.com/911-memory-hole-no-plane-hit-pentagon/)
But wait, there may be hope yet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1PEWCmEMJM). If the numbers of people who are
"waking up" continues to rise.
The waking up of the masses can only mean one thing...
THEY don't care anymore. THEY are one step again of us, always.
Enjoy what freedom you have at this very moment, because I highly
expect everything to "change" in a New York minute, when you least
expect it.
As some say, "You haven't seen anything yet."
A sad case reported by the Times of Israel. (http://www.timesofisrael.com/florida-jew-arrested-for-posing-as-online-jihadist-encouraging-terrorism/)
Those who utilize the various forums to propagate
disinformation and who impersonate terrorists
will be unmasked. All who make use of the internet
can have no "secrets."
Oh wow, nasty creature that guy is, somehow I find it almost impossible to believe he was working all on his own without any "handling".
Maybe in the future there will a stomach for legal public executions "explosion style".
..
All Four Hemispheres Of The World Now Engaged In A Single War
http://truepublica.org.uk/global/all-four-hemispheres-of-the-world-now-engaged-in-a-single-war/
If we peer behind the veil of mainstream media oversimplification, lies and propaganda we find that the humanitarian crisis we are faced with today are the straight line consequences of a decades-old policy on the part of the West (defined as the US, the UK, Israel and others ) to subvert and destabilize the very nations that are submerged in civil war and strife.
Faced with a burgeoning refugee crisis in Europe sparked by global extremism, U.S. and European officials said this week that there is a growing consensus that the multinational military campaign against Islamic State must focus more on targeting the group's nerve centers in Syria.
Using thousands of people flowing into Europe every day as a pretence, France and Britain are both poised to join Washington in carrying out more airstrikes with greater and greater levels of aggression against Islamic State in Syria.
U.S. allies also are responding to rising concerns about extremists in Syria planning attacks on western targets, such as a thwarted attempt last month by a lone gunman to kill passengers on a Paris-bound train and the Tunisia attacks on British citizens in June. The stage is set. Cameron will convince Parliament, Britain will engage in a new war.
But is all this activity about beating islamic State in Syria or is about a much wider conflict?
This week, there has been a serious escalation that should be of concern to everyone.
Russia constructs runway, deploys military advisors in Syria, : Report
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/13/429075/Syria-Latakia-Russia-Hmaymim-Syrian-Observatory-Tartous-runway-Daesh
Russia is establishing a runway in Syria's western province of Latakia and has brought hundreds of its military advisers, experts, and technicians to the war-torn country, a report says.
"Russian forces are building a long runway capable of accommodating large aircraft near the Hmaymim military airport in Latakia province," the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said in a report on Sunday, adding that during the past week, Russian warplanes loaded with military equipment landed at the airport in the coastal province.
According to the UK-based monitoring group, Moscow is also working on expanding an agricultural airport in the al- Hamidiya region in the western province of Tartous. The airport is currently used by planes that spray crops with pesticide.
The right group, citing its unnamed sources, also claimed that Russian experts were working on a plan to build a long runway in the International Airport of Damascus.
On Friday, Lavrov called for military-to-military cooperation with the US to avert "unintended incidents" as it conducted naval exercises off Syrian coast, adding that Moscow would continue arming the Syrian government in its fight against the Takfiri Daesh terrorists, urging other countries to take a similar stance and help Damascus in the battle.
Syria has been facing a foreign-backed militancy since 2011. The violence has also forced over four million Syrians to take refuge in neighboring countries, including Jordan and Lebanon. More than 7.2 million others have been displaced internally, according to UN figures.
Russia seeks to prevent Libya-style regime change in Syria: Analyst
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/11/428738/Russia-Syria-Lavrov-ISILUS-Saudi-Arabia
The Forgotten War – Understanding the Incredible Debacle Left Behind by NATO in Libya
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/02/23/the-forgotten-war-understanding-the-incredible-debacle-left-behind-by-natos-libya-intervention/
In retrospect, Obama's intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria's civil war.
As bad as Libya's human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses "appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity."
As a consequence of such pervasive violence, the UN estimates that roughly 400,000 Libyans have fled their homes, a quarter of whom have left the country altogether.
– From Alan Kuperman's excellent Foreign Affairs article: Obama's Libya Debacle
Further Details Emerge on the Epic U.S. Foreign Policy Disaster that is Syria
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/09/12/further-details-emerge-on-the-epic-u-s-foreign-policy-disaster-that-is-syria/
With all the U.S.-trained fighters dead, captured or missing and their leader in the hands of Al Qaeda, top U.S. commanders are scrambling this week to determine how to revive the half-billion dollar program to create a moderate Syrian army to fight the Islamic State.
The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who viewed the force as a critical element of the military strategy in both Syria and Iraq, is conferring with top Pentagon officials behind closed doors to figure out what options are left for what is widely considered a policy and military failure, according to senior defense officials.
Sen. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Appropriations Committee, returned from a trip to the region last week where he was briefed on the effort. His assessment of the program: "a bigger disaster than I could have ever imagined."
– From the the Politico article: The Pentagon's Syria Debacle
Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/engineered-refugee-crisis-to-justify.html
September 7 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - While the Western media attempts to portray the sudden influx of refugees suddenly appearing out of no where at Europe's gates, the reality is that for years they have been gathering in expansive, well-funded refugee camps in Turkey.
In fact, Turkey has brought in over 2 million refugees with a suspiciously eager "open door" policy and has spent upward to 6 billion USD on building and maintaining these immense camps. They have done so as part of a long-standing strategy to justify creating "safe havens" in northern Syria - essentially NATO invading and occupying Syrian territory, protecting their terrorist proxies within Syria's borders so that they can strike deeper toward Damascus and finally topple the government of President Bashar Al Assad.
US plans to carve out a "safe haven" or "buffer zone" in northern Syria stretch back as far as 2012 - before a real crisis even existed. In their "Middle East Memo #21," "Assessing Options for Regime Change," it was stated specifically (emphasis added):
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan's leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.
Brookings would elaborate upon this criminal conspiracy in their more recent report titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country." It states:
The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well. The approach would benefit from Syria's open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack through a combination of technologies, patrols, and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.
Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces, he would be likely to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his military of one of its few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.
Unfortunately for US policymakers, little justification or public support underpins any of these plans to intervene more directly in Syria in pursuit of what is obviously regime change dressed up as anything but.
Bring in the Refugees
However, in hopes of solving this lack of public support, the West appears to have taken a huge number of refugees created by its years of war upon the Middle East and North Africa, and suddenly releasing them in a deluge upon Europe. The Western media itself implicates Turkey as the source of these refugees, and reports like that from the International New York Times' Greek Kathimerini paper, in an article titled, "Refugee flow linked to Turkish policy shift," claims (emphasis added):
A sharp increase in the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly from Syria, into Greece is due in part to a shift in Turkey's geopolitical tactics, according to diplomatic sources.
These officials link the wave of migrants into the eastern Aegean to political pressures in neighboring Turkey, which is bracing for snap elections in November, and to a recent decision by Ankara to join the US in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. The analyses of several officials indicate that the influx from neighboring Turkey is taking place as Turkish officials look the other way or actively promote the exodus.
This wasn't done until after years of staged terror attacks across Europe, in attempts to ratchet up fear, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Every attack without exception involved patsies tracked by Western intelligence agencies in some cases for almost a decade. Many had traveled to and participated in NATO's proxy war on Syria, Iraq, and Yemen before returning home to carry out predictable acts of violence.
How many ISIS mercenaries are hidden within the refugee tidal wave ?
Aye, the NeoCon controlled U.S. does seem to have gone "bonkers"
in its savage efforts to eliminate all potential opposition.
Failed States may in fact be the true goal of the agenda of aggression.
Re-arrangement of the Middle East has long been a dream of the State
of Israel. Failed states on all sides will make the task of Israeli expansion
to extend its borders a cake-walk.
The U.S. is acting as the muscle and the hammer to enable Israel to
look un-involved and innocent as it fulfills its decades old mission.
The U.S. is determined to turn up the heat in Syria while Russia strives
to quench the West's duplicitous war-mongering there. (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/the-syrian-crisis-a-war-waged-on-russia-by-us-nato/)
The Book contains a catastrophic prophecy regarding Damascus.
One must wonder whether we are approaching the time of its fulfillment?
The Post 9/11 Craziness of the West continues. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=121580)
Joaquin Flores on the Refugee Crisis. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XQP4nV3tvs&feature=player_embedded)
Even Oz, that marvelous Land Down Under, feels the corrupt
influences of the U.S. and the U.K. (http://henrymakow.com/2015/09/New-Aussie-Prime-Minister-Is-Satanist-Choice.html)
9/11, The Catalyst, opened the door wide as the ultimate excuse
for U.S. Hegemony.
Rwandan Genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority. During the approximate 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994, an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed,[1] constituting as much as 70% of the Tutsi and 20% of Rwanda's total population. The genocide was planned by members of the core political elite known as the akazu, many of whom occupied positions at top levels of the national government. Perpetrators came from the ranks of the Rwandan army, the National Police (gendarmerie), government-backed militias including the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, and the Hutu civilian population.
The genocide took place in the context of the Rwandan Civil War, an ongoing conflict beginning in 1990 between the Hutu-led government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which was largely composed of Tutsi refugees whose families had fled to Uganda following earlier waves of Hutu violence against the Tutsi. International pressure on the Hutu-led government of Juvénal Habyarimana resulted in a ceasefire in 1993 with a roadmap to implement the Arusha Accords that would create a power-sharing government with the RPF. This agreement displeased many conservative Hutu, including members of the Akazu, who viewed it as conceding to enemy demands. Among the broader Hutu populace, the RPF military campaign had also intensified support for the so-called "Hutu Power" ideology, which portrayed the RPF as an alien force intent on reinstating the Tutsi monarchy and enslaving Hutus, a prospect met with extreme opposition.
On April 6, 1994, an airplane carrying Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down on its descent into Kigali, killing all on board. Genocidal killings began the following day: soldiers, police and militia quickly executed key Tutsi and moderate Hutu leaders, then erected checkpoints and barricades and used Rwandans' national identity cards to systematically kill Tutsi. These forces recruited or pressured Hutu civilians to arm themselves with machetes, clubs, blunt objects and other weapons to rape, maim and kill their Tutsi neighbors and to destroy or steal their property. The breach of the peace agreement led the RPF to restart its offensive and rapidly seize control of the northern part of the country before capturing Kigali in mid-July, bringing an end to the genocide. During these events and in their aftermath, the United Nations (UN) and countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Belgium were criticized for their inaction, including failure to strengthen the force and mandate of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) peacekeepers, while observers criticized the government of France for alleged support of the genocidal regime after the genocide had begun.
The genocide had a lasting and profound impact on Rwanda and its neighboring countries. The pervasive use of war rape caused a spike in HIV infection, including babies born of rape to newly infected mothers; many households were headed by orphaned children or widows. The destruction of infrastructure and the severe depopulation of the country crippled the economy, challenging the nascent government to achieve rapid economic growth and stabilization. The RPF military victory and installation of an RPF-dominated government prompted many Hutus to flee to neighboring countries, particularly in the eastern portion of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), where the Hutu genocidaires began to regroup in refugee camps along the border with Rwanda. Declaring a need to avert further genocide, the RPF-led government led military incursions into Zaire, including the First (1996–97) and Second (1998–2003) Congo Wars. Armed struggles between the Rwandan government and their opponents in DRC have continued to play out through proxy militias in the Goma region, including the M23 rebellion (2003–2013). Large Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi populations continue to live as refugees throughout the region.
Today, Rwanda has two public holidays commemorating the genocide. The national commemoration period begins with Genocide Memorial Day on April 7 and concludes with Liberation Day on July 4. The week following April 7 is designated an official week of mourning. The Rwandan Genocide served as the impetus for creating the International Criminal Court to eliminate the need for ad hoc tribunals to prosecute those accused in future incidents of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The History Place: Genocide in the 20th Century
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.
Rwanda is one of the smallest countries in Central Africa, with just 7 million people, and is comprised of two main ethnic groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi. Although the Hutus account for 90 percent of the population, in the past, the Tutsi minority was considered the aristocracy of Rwanda and dominated Hutu peasants for decades, especially while Rwanda was under Belgian colonial rule.
Following independence from Belgium in 1962, the Hutu majority seized power and reversed the roles, oppressing the Tutsis through systematic discrimination and acts of violence. As a result, over 200,000 Tutsis fled to neighboring countries and formed a rebel guerrilla army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front.
In 1990, this rebel army invaded Rwanda and forced Hutu President Juvenal Habyalimana into signing an accord which mandated that the Hutus and Tutsis would share power.
Ethnic tensions in Rwanda were significantly heightened in October 1993 upon the assassination of Melchior Ndadaye, the first popularly elected Hutu president of neighboring Burundi.
A United Nations peacekeeping force of 2,500 multinational soldiers was then dispatched to Rwanda to preserve the fragile cease-fire between the Hutu government and the Tutsi rebels. Peace was threatened by Hutu extremists who were violently opposed to sharing any power with the Tutsis. Among these extremists were those who desired nothing less than the actual extermination of the Tutsis. It was later revealed they had even drawn up lists of prominent Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians to kill, should the opportunity arise.
The History Place: Genocide in the 20th Century
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
In April 1994, amid ever-increasing prospects of violence, Rwandan President Habyalimana and Burundi's new President, Cyprien Ntaryamira, held several peace meetings with Tutsi rebels. On April 6, while returning from a meeting in Tanzania, a small jet carrying the two presidents was shot down by ground-fired missiles as it approached Rwanda's airport at Kigali. Immediately after their deaths, Rwanda plunged into political violence as Hutu extremists began targeting prominent opposition figures who were on their death-lists, including moderate Hutu politicians and Tutsi leaders.
The killings then spread throughout the countryside as Hutu militia, armed with machetes, clubs, guns and grenades, began indiscriminately killing Tutsi civilians. All individuals in Rwanda carried identification cards specifying their ethnic background, a practice left over from colonial days. These 'tribal cards' now meant the difference between life and death.
Amid the onslaught, the small U.N. peacekeeping force was overwhelmed as terrified Tutsi families and moderate politicians sought protection.
Among the peacekeepers were ten soldiers from Belgium who were captured by the Hutus, tortured and murdered. As a result, the United States, France, Belgium, and Italy all began evacuating their own personnel from Rwanda.
However, no effort was made to evacuate Tutsi civilians or Hutu moderates. Instead, they were left behind entirely at the mercy of the avenging Hutu.
Back at U.N headquarters in New York, the killings were initially categorized as a breakdown in the cease-fire between the Tutsi and Hutu. Throughout the massacre, both the U.N. and the U.S. carefully refrained from labeling the killings as genocide, which would have necessitated some kind of emergency intervention.
On April 21, the Red Cross estimated that hundreds of thousands of Tutsi had already been massacred since April 6 - an extraordinary rate of killing.
The U.N. Security Council responded to the worsening crisis by voting unanimously to abandon Rwanda. The remainder of U.N. peacekeeping troops were pulled out, leaving behind a only tiny force of about 200 soldiers for the entire country.
The Hutu, now without opposition from the world community, engaged in genocidal mania, clubbing and hacking to death defenseless Tutsi families with machetes everywhere they were found. The Rwandan state radio, controlled by Hutu extremists, further encouraged the killings by broadcasting non-stop hate propaganda and even pinpointed the locations of Tutsis in hiding. The killers were aided by members of the Hutu professional class including journalists, doctors and educators, along with unemployed Hutu youths and peasants who killed Tutsis just to steal their property.
Many Tutsis took refuge in churches and mission compounds. These places became the scenes of some of the worst massacres. In one case, at Musha, 1,200 Tutsis who had sought refuge were killed beginning at 8 a.m. lasting until the evening. Hospitals also became prime targets as wounded survivors were sought out then killed.
In some local villages, militiamen forced Hutus to kill their Tutsi neighbors or face a death sentence for themselves and their entire families. They also forced Tutsis to kill members of their own families.
By mid May, an estimated 500,000 Tutsis had been slaughtered. Bodies were now commonly seen floating down the Kigara River into Lake Victoria.
Confronted with international TV news reports depicting genocide, the U.N. Security Council voted to send up to 5,000 soldiers to Rwanda. However, the Security Council failed to establish any timetable and thus never sent the troops in time to stop the massacre.
The killings only ended after armed Tutsi rebels, invading from neighboring countries, managed to defeat the Hutus and halt the genocide in July 1994. By then, over one-tenth of the population, an estimated 800,000 persons, had been killed.
World War 3: why Russia and Syria are being targeted
September 16, 2014
A good synopsis of the current state of play:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/world-war-3-why-russia-and-syria-are-being-targeted/
Contrary to popular belief, the conduct of nations on the international stage is almost never driven by moral considerations, but rather by a shadowy cocktail of money and geopolitics.
As such, when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question in your mind should always be "what is actually at stake here?"
For some time now Russia, China, Iran, and Syria have been in the cross hairs. Once you understand why, the events unfolding in the world right now will make much more sense.
The U.S. dollar is a unique currency. In fact its current design and its relationship to geopolitics is unlike any other in history. Though it has been the world reserve currency since 194 this is not what makes it unique. Many currencies have held the reserve status off and on over the centuries, but what makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s it has been, with a few notable exceptions, the only currency used to buy and sell oil on the global market.
Prior to 1971 the U.S. dollar was bound to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign central banks held $14 billion U.S. dollars, however the United States had only $3.2 billion in gold allocated to cover foreign holdings.
Translation: the Federal Reserve was printing more money than it could actually back.
The result was rampant inflation and a general flight from the dollar.
In 1971 in what later came to be called the "Nixon Shock" President Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard completely.
At this point the dollar became a pure debt based currency. With debt based currencies money is literally loaned into existence.
Approximately 70% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary banks which are allowed to loan out more than they actually have in their accounts.
The rest is created by the Federal Reserve which loans money that they don't have, mostly to government.
Kind of like writing hot checks, except it's legal, for banks. This practice which is referred to as fractional reserve banking is supposedly regulated by the Federal Reserve, an institution which just happens to be owned and controlled by a conglomerate of banks, and no agency or branch of government regulates the Federal Reserve.
Now to make things even more interesting these fractional reserve loans have interest attached, but the money to pay that interest doesn't exist in the system. As a result there is always more total debt than there is money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat the economy must grow perpetually.
This is obviously not sustainable.
Now you might be wondering how the dollar has maintained such a dominant position on the world stage for over forty years if it's really little more than an elaborate ponzi scheme.
Well this is where the dollar meets geopolitics.
In 1973 under the shadow of the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia to establish what came to be referred to as the petrodollar recycling system. Under the arrangement the Saudis would only sell their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess oil profits into U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use this money to facilitate loans to oil importers who were having difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The payments and interest on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars.
This agreement was formalized in the "The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation" put together by Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974.
Another document released by the Congressional Research Service reveals that these negotiations had an edge to them, as U.S. officials were openly discussing the feasibility of seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia militarily.
In the United States, the oil shocks produced inflation, new concern about foreign investment from oil producing countries, and open speculation about the advisability and feasibility of militarily seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia or other countries. In the wake of the embargo, both Saudi and U.S. officials worked to re-anchor the bilateral relationship on the basis of shared opposition to Communism, renewed military cooperation, and through economic initiatives that promoted the recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure, industrial expansion, and U.S. securities.
The system was expanded to include the rest of OPEC by 1975.
Though presented as buffer to the recessionary effects of rising oil prices, this arrangement had a hidden side effect. It removed the traditional restraints on U.S. monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve was now free to increase the money supply at will. The ever increasing demand for oil would would prevent a flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the entire planet.
The dollar went from being a gold back currency to a oil backed currency. It also became America's primary export.
Did you ever wonder how the U.S. economy has been able to stay afloat while running multibillion dollar trade deficits for decades?
Did you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. holds such a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth when 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer based?
In the modern era, fossil fuels make the world go round. They have become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine, and demand just keeps growing and growing.
As long as the world needs oil, and as long as oil is only sold in U.S. dollars, there will be a demand for dollars, and that demand is what gives the dollar its value.
For the United States this is a great deal. Dollars go out, either as paper or digits in a computer system, and real tangible products and services come in. However for the rest of the world, it's a very sneaky form of exploitation.
Having global trade predominately in dollars also provides the Washington with a powerful financial weapon through sanctions. This is due to the fact that most large scale dollar transactions are forced to pass through the U.S.
This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000 when Saddam Hussein announced his decision to switch Iraq's oil sales off of the dollar to Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar, and easily the most important geopolitical event of the year, but only one article in the western media even mentioned it.
In the same month that Saddam announced he was moving away from the dollar, an organization called the "The Project for a New American Century", of which Dick Cheney just happened to be a member, released a document entitled "REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century". This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy in order to expand U.S. dominance world wide. However the document lamented that achieving these goals would take many years "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
One year later they got it.
Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and pass the patriot act all without any significant resistance.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this wasn't a question of bad intelligence. This was a cold calculated lie, and the decision to invade was made in full knowledge of the disaster which would follow.
They knew exactly what was going to happen but in 2003, they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, oil sales were immediately switched back to the dollar. Mission accomplished.
Soon after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. Supposedly the Iranian government was working to build a nuclear weapon. After the Iraq fiasco Washington's credibility was severely damaged as a result they were unable to muster international or domestic support for an intervention. Their efforts were further sabotaged by elements within the CIA and Mossad who came forward to state that Iran had not even made the decision to develop nuclear weapons much less begin an attempt. However the demonization campaign against Iran continued even into the Obama administration.
Why?
Well, might it have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran has been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse? They were building their own oil market, and it wasn't going to be tied to the dollar. The first shipments of oil were sold through this market in July of 2011.
Unable to get the war that they wanted, the U.S. used the U.N to impose sanctions against Iran. The goal of the sanctions was to topple the Iranian regime. While this did inflict damage on the Iranian economy, the measures failed to destabilize the country. This was due in large part to Russia's assistance in bypassing U.S. banking restrictions.
In February of 2009 Muammar Gaddafi, was named chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of a unified state with a single currency. It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed.
In March of 2009 the African Union released a document entitled "Towards a Single African Currency". Pages 106 and 107 of that document specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly states that the key to the success of the African Monetary Union would be the "eventual linking of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities – gold." (Note that the page number is different on other versions of the document that they released.)
In 2011 the CIA moved into Libya and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched a U.N. nofly-zone resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug.
Libya, like Iran and Iraq had committed the unforgivable crime of challenging the U.S. dollar.
The NATO intervention in Libya segued into a covert war on Syrian. The armories of the Libyan government were looted and the weapons were shipped via Turkey to Syrian rebels groups working to topple Assad. It was already clear at this point that many of these fighters had ties to terrorist organizations. However the U.S. national security apparatus viewed this as a necessary evil. In fact the Council on Foreign relations published an article in 2012 stating that "The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now."
(Hat tip to theantimedia.org for catching this.)
Let's be clear here, the U.S. put ISIS in power.
In 2013 these same Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This was an attempt to frame Assad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution.
The campaign for regime change in Syria, as in Libya has been presented in terms of human rights. Obviously this isn't the real motive.
In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad however rejected this, and in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government.
But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria in Washington's cross hairs? Three reasons:
1. This pipeline arrangement would significantly strengthen Iran's position, allowing them to export to European markets without having to pass through any of Washington's allies. This obviously reduces the U.S. government's leverage.
2. Syria is Iran's closest ally. It's collapse would inherently weaken Iran.
3. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement, and a U.S. intervention in Syria could open the door to open conflict with Iran.
In February of 2014 this global chess game heated up in a new venue: Ukraine. The real target however was Russia.
You see Russia just happens to be the worlds second largest oil exporter, and not only have they been a thorn in Washington's side diplomatically, but they also opened an energy bourse in 2008, with sales denominated in Rubles and gold. This project had been in the works since 2006. They have also been working with China to pull off of the dollar in all of their bilateral trade.
Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is slated to have its own independent energy market.
Leading up to the crisis in Ukraine had been presented with a choice: either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that this was an either or proposition. Ukraine couldn't join both. Russia on the other hand, asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovich decided to go with Russia.
In response the U.S. national security apparatus did what it does best: they toppled Yanukovich and installed a puppet government. To see the full evidence of Washington's involvement in the coup watch "The ukraine crisis what you're not being told".
This article from the Guardian is also worth reading.
Though this all seemed to be going well at first, the U.S. quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and reunify with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one was killed, yet the West immediately framed the entire event as an act of Russian aggression, and this became the go to mantra from that point on.
Crimea is important geostrategically because of its position in the Black Sea which allows for the projection of naval power into the Mediterranean. It has also been Russian territory for most of recent history.
The U.S. has been pushing for Ukraine's inclusion into NATO for years now. Such a move would place U.S. forces right on Russia's border and could have potentially resulted in Russia losing their naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly consolidated the territory.
Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, two regions declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own. The results of which overwhelmingly favored self rule.
Kiev responded to this with what they referred to as anti-terrorist operations. In practice this was a massive and indiscriminate shelling campaign which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently killing civilians didn't qualify as aggression to the West. In fact the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government that their 17 billion dollar loan package could be in danger if they were not able to put down the uprising in eastern Ukraine.
While the war against eastern Ukraine was raging elections were held and Petro Poroshenko was elected president. It turns out that Poroshenko, was exposed by a leaked diplomatic cable released by wikileaks in 2008 as having worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department since 2006. They referred to him as "Our Ukraine insider" and much of the cable referred to information that he was providing. (A separate cable showed that the U.S. knew Poroshenko was corrupt even at that point.)
Having a puppet in place however hasn't turned out to be enough to give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. What does Washington do when they have no other leverage? They impose sanctions, they demonize and they saber rattle (or pull a false flag).
This isn't a very good strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact it has already backfired. The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated Russia's de-dollarization agenda. And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated. The U.S. and NATO have put a wedge between themselves and Russia, but not between Russia and the rest of the world (look up BRICS if you are unclear about this).
This new anti-dollar axis goes deeper than economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. This is why in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis China has proposed a new Eurasian security pact which would include Russia and Iran.
Consider the implications here as the Obama administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.
This is not the cold war 2.0. This is World War 3.0. The masses may not have figured it out yet, but history will remember it that way.
Alliances are already solidifying and and a hot war is underway on multiple fronts. If the provocations and proxy wars continue, it's only a matter of time before the big players confront each other directly, and that is a recipe for disaster.
Does all of this sound insane to you? Well you're right. The people running the world right now are insane, and the public is sleep walking into a tragedy. If you want to alter the course that we are on, there's only one way to do it. We have to wake up that public. Even the most powerful weapons of war are neutralized if you reach the mind of the man behind the trigger.
How do we wake the masses you ask? Don't wait for someone else to answer that for you. Get creative. Act like your children's and grandchildren's futures depend on it, because they do.
What data points does this article miss and how do those omissions affect your understanding of the model you have constructed ?
Russian military into Syria to fight ISIS? Here's what's really going on...
http://www.hangthebankers.com/russian-military-syria-fight-isis/
Over the past 48 hours or so, we've seen what certainly appears to be visual confirmation of a non-negligible Russian military presence in Syria.
For anyone coming to the story late, overt Russian involvement would seem to suggest that the geopolitical "main event" (so to speak), may be closer than anyone imagined.
Russia's excuse for being in Syria is the same as everyone else's: they're there, ostensibly, to fight ISIS.
As we mentioned yesterday, and as we've detailed exhaustively as it relates to Turkey, the fact that ISIS has become a kind of catch-all, go-to excuse for legitimizing whatever one feels like doing is a dangerous precedent and Turkey's crackdown on the Kurds proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Islamic State will serve as a smokescreen for more than just the preservation/ouster (depending on which side you're on) of Bashar al-Assad.
Having said all of that, going into the weekend Russia had yet to confirm publicly that it had commenced military operations in Syria despite the fact that it's the next closest thing to common knowledge that at the very least, the Kremlin has provided logistical support and technical assistance for a period that probably spans two or more years.
But on Friday, Vladimir Putin looks to have confirmed the scope of Russia's military role, even if he stopped short of admitting that Russian troops are engaged in combat. Here's The Telegraph:
Russia is providing "serious" training and logistical support to the Syrian army, Vladimir Putin has said, in the first public confirmation of the depth of Russia's involvement in Syria's civil war.
And while the highlighted passage there is actually impossible to prove given that the term "depth" is subjective, it certainly does appear that Putin is now willing to concede that support for Assad goes far beyond "political". Here's AFP as well:
Asked whether Russia could take part in operations against IS, Putin said: "We are looking at various options but so far what you are talking about is not on the agenda."
"To say we're ready to do this today — so far it's premature to talk about this. But we are already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons," RIA Novosti state news agency quoted Putin as saying.
And back to The Telegraph briefly:
Speculation is growing that Russia has significantly expanded its involvement in recent months, including with deliveries of advanced weaponry, a raft of spare parts for existing machines, and the deployment of increasing numbers of military advisers and instructors.
Last week Syrian state television released images showing an advanced Russian-built armoured personnel carrier, the BTR-82a, in combat. Videos have also appeared in which troops engaged in combat appear to shout instructions to one another in Russian.
Of course whether or not the troops Russia has on the ground were sent to Syria with explicit orders to join the fighting is largely irrelevant when the bullets start flying. As Pavel Felgenhaeur, an independent commentator on Russian military affairs told The Telegraph, "it was quite conceivable that members of the advisory mission occasionally found themselves in combat or had even suffered casualties."
So in other words, they're at war, and even as Putin is now willing to admit, with a two year (at least) lag, that Russian boots are indeed on the ground, it may be a while before he admits to their role in direct combat and if Ukraine is any guide, he might never acknowledge the extent of Russia's involvement. But make no mistake, the Russian presence has nothing to do with the "threat" ISIS poses to the world and everything to do with ensuring that Assad's forces can fight on – at least for now.
The absurd thing about the whole effort is that ISIS itself is now just cannon fodder both for Russia and for the US led coalition flying missions from Incirlik that Turkey has suggested may soon include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan. Even more ridiculous is the fact that since none of this has anything to do with eradicating ISIS in the first place, the bombing of ISIS targets by the US, Turkey, and Russia doesn't really serve much of a purpose at all.
That is, everyone's just biding time to see how far the other side is willing to go in support of their vision for Syria's political future – a political future which, as we noted yesterday, almost certainly will not be decided at the ballot box, that is unless it's after US Marines have stormed Damascus at which point the US will benevolently allow whatever civilians are still alive in Syria to choose between two puppet leaders vetted and supported by Washington.
And lest anyone should forget what this is all about...
Mainstream Media Admits in Storytelling Fashion: ISIS Commander Is U.S. Trained!
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/mainstream-media-admits-in-storytelling-fashion-isis-commander-is-u-s-trained_092015
Anyone getting their facts, news and information outside the spectrum of the tiny information bottleneck known as mainstream media is probably tired of hearing it by now. The Islamic State or ISIS is a terror organization created, funded and armed by the U.S. and its allies particularly Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. These U.S.-created new world order thugs trained primarily in Jordan are the exact same "rebels" who have been admittedly armed and trained by the U.S. Many of these terrorist "rebels" turned ISIS fighters are known to be visited and befriended by global terrorists like John McCain and others. These facts are all well established in recorded documents and independent media reports all over the world. The ridiculous, treasonous and intelligence-insulting never-ending story behind ISIS has been rehashed and exposed too many times. To understand who ISIS is, and to understand the PNAC plans (Project for the New American Century) is to understand almost the entire scenario unfolding in Syria and the entire Middle East as humanity is slowly led down the path of world war 3.
It also allows you to understand how the globalists are setting up America for a future false flag attack to take away even more of your liberties, all to be blamed naturally on ISIS.
Make no mistake, however, whether we like it or not, the ISIS show rolls on. It rolls on because there are still many brainwashed Americans who actually believe the ISIS show; and for those people, writer "Mitchell Prothero" a "special correspondent" for "The McClatchy Company" has submitted an article which mainstream media was more than happy to circulate. The article tells a fantastic, very detailed and almost romantic story about a nice smiley face (Israeli looking) man named 'Abu Omar al Shishani', formerly known as 'Tarkhan Batirashvili'. In this story you are led to believe this nice man was trained by the U.S. to fight as a Syrian rebel.
Incidentally, posting a smiley face image, I believe is done deliberately. This is propaganda to make the story more believable. For comparison, here in the U.S. when someone is wanted or if there is a "manhunt" for someone, the picture of the person being sought after is always a scary, angry looking picture, NEVER a smiley face picture. They do this for psychological reasons.
US training helped mold Islamic State's top military commander
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-training-helped-mold-islamic-states-top-military-commander/ar-AAekx26?li=BBgzzfc&ocid=mailsignout
"In 2012, everyone was coming to Syria and we had too much work leading all kinds of people across the border," he explained over lunch in Killis, a Turkish town just a few miles from the rebel-held Syrian city of Azzaz. "A lot were Muslims who had come to support the revolution against Bashar Assad from every country. So many from Europe, Russia, Germany, France ... "
The 15 men had reached Abdullah through a network of contacts that were funneling new fighters to northern Syria, and Abdullah recalled they said they were going to Syria to assist in the fight against Assad. They were quiet, disciplined and for the most part spoke only a bit of crude formal Arabic.
Only later did Abdullah realize that the network that funneled these men to him was the beginnings of the Islamic State, and that one of the 15 would turn out to be the most important non-Arab figure in the Islamic State hierarchy, a former American-trained noncommissioned officer in the special forces of the nation of Georgia, who'd led his men heroically during the 2008 Russian invasion of his homeland.
Abu Omar al-Shishani, as he's now known, had been born Tarkhan Batirashvili 27 years earlier in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, a tiny enclave of ethnic Chechens, known locally as Kists, whose roughly 10,000 residents represent virtually all of the Muslims in predominantly Orthodox Christian Georgia.
REPORT: The Saudis Offered Mafia-Style 'Protection' Against Terrorist Attacks At Sochi Olympics
http://www.businessinsider.com/saudis-russia-sochi-olympics-terrorism-syria-2013-8?op=1&IR=T
But there was a threat allegedly hidden in there right along with the fruit.
From The Telegraph [emphasis theirs]:
[Soudi intel chief] Prince Bandar [bin Sultan] pledged to safeguard Russia's naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia's Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us," he allegedly said.
Along with Saudi officials, the US allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise. Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves the guy.
Bandar Bush threatens President Putin with Sochi terrorist attack
http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2013_08_29/Bandar-Bush-threatens-President-Putin-with-Sochi-terrorist-attack-2596/
Warning: What you are about to read will destroy any illusions you may have left as to who is really controlling the world and who is really using terror to bring about their own ends. It will also bring into question everything that has occurred in the world since 9-10-2001 and shed new light as to the intricacies of the relationships between the power elites in the United States and those who are funding and controlling them.
The truth goes to oil and it has its roots in the relationship between former CIA director George Bush Senior's family and Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan also named "Bandar Bush" by the Bush clan. This story has implications on the events 9-11, Bush and his being placed into power, the entire War on Terror paradigm and the acts of aggressive war by the United States and its allies on Iraq and Afghanistan. It also affects everything from the entire Middle East upheaval, Sunni/Shia strife, the death of Hugo Chavez, the attack on the Boston Marathon, the death of Litvinenko, Princess Diana, terrorist attacks by Chechens and the true nature of al-Qaeda.
If this story takes off and is given the attention it deserves it may end the entire "War on Terror" and finally see an end to the wanton illegality being perpetuated by the West and it all boils down to a single conversation between Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
The conversation between President Putin and the "Bushie" was apparently released to the Russian press and then made its rounds worldwide and gives a rare glimpse into the real conversations that take place between world leaders before the handshakes, smiles and photo opportunities. This one is particularly chilling and it is clear why it was released to press.
What is almost unbelievable is that it clearly shows, apart from what I mentioned above, who has been benefitting and working with the United States to destabilize the Middle East, who is assisting in controlling the terrorists that the United States is arming, funding and giving asylum to and why Israel has nothing to fear from the chaos around it. In this short snippet of conversation, everything has become clearer, almost crystal.
It is also important to note that Bandar Bush spoke with the full backing of the United States. So what is the bombshell? Well there are three main ones actually.
The first is an admission by the Bandar to Saudia Arabia's and the United States support and knowledge of the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and the screaming hypocrisy with which they operate: "There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring." Here we must note it was the West which drove the Arab Spring.
He continued: "We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya."
The second and most shocking is this: "As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory's direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria's political future."
So Chechen terrorists, who supposedly carried out the attack in Boston and have killed hundreds of Russians including Russian police officers, are being controlled by the US and the Saudis? And what is more the Saudis and the US are admittedly controlling terrorists in Syria? And lastly this arrogant "Prince" has the audacity to threaten the president of the largest country in the world with terrorist attacks if he does not do his bidding?
Not only is this an admission that the United States and Saudi Arabia are state sponsors of terrorism, but they are actually using the terrorists themselves to do their bidding and as instruments to terrorize leaders into submission! This means they have become nothing more than terrorists themselves!
Bandar attempted at first to bribe President Putin with promises of oil and gas deals, arms purchases and more, to pull Russian support for Syria. He then moved on to the threats of attacks on the Olympics by the Saudi and US' terrorists.
President Putin responded by saying: "We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles. Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters."
The Bushie, after failing in all attempts to get President Putin to pull his support for Assad then responded by saying: "... there is no escape from the military option (in Syria), because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation."
And today we are on the eve of an invasion because a terrorist Saudi Prince wants to protect the petro dollar and kill all Muslims who are not Sunnis.
The views and opinions expressed here [in 'Bandar Bush threatens President Putin with Sochi terrorist attack'] are my own. I can be reached at robles@ruvr.ru.
British Army would use "Whatever Means Possible" should Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister. British General
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-army-would-use-whatever-means-possible-should-jeremy-corbyn-become-prime-minister-british-general/5477206 [video at link: The Plot Against Harold Wilson, BBC 2006]
There has been some debate about the significance of a warning issued this weekend through Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times by a British general that the army would "mutiny" and use "whatever means possible, fair or foul" should the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ever get near 10 Downing Street.
Here is what the general says: [see attachment British General statement.png]
Owen Jones has wondered whether this is tantamount to a threat of a coup by the military. I think it would be foolhardy indeed to read it as anything else.
None of us should be surprised either. We have been here before. In the late 1960s and early 1970s serving British generals, former generals, members of the royal family and the British security services regularly spoke in such terms to each other – and even occasionally on prime-time television.
More than that, when they believed their privileges were under serious threat, as they did during Harold Wilson's various governments of that period, they actively plotted for "regime change", or a military takeover.
In what became a self-serving vicious spiral, the establishment's fears were further stoked by the stream of black propaganda being fed to the British media by MI5, Britain's version of the FBI. It painted Wilson's government and the trade union movement as overrun with Communists trying to bring down the UK. One can imagine a Corbyn government will receive no better treatment from the UK media than Wilson's did.
Like Corbyn today, Wilson was seen in the 60s and 70s as a major threat to the entrenched privileges of British elites.
There is a wealth of evidence for all this, though perhaps unsurprisingly many sources, including Wikipedia, casually dismiss these accounts as "conspiracy theories" – the ultimate way to shut down scrutiny.
But the evidence was so compelling even the BBC, hardly a risk-taking broadcaster at the best of times, girded its loins back in 2006 to make a documentary called "The Plot Against Harold Wilson". In fact, as the 90-minute film makes clear by interviewing many of those directly involved, there was not one plot but many against Wilson.
It probably all seemed like old, slightly quaint history to the BBC nine years ago. Now it sounds frighteningly relevant again.
Here is a fascinating line from one plotter, Sir General Walter Walker, at about 1hr 2 mins in. Speaking in the early 1970s, he says on film:
If you plot to destroy this present system, what are you doing? You are committing a form of treason. I have taken an oath of allegiance to my Queen and I am not prepared to see that oath interfered with.
For me at least, that puts the ludicrous current confected debate about Corbyn refusing to sing the national anthem in an even more sinister light.
Lord Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin, a mentor to Prince Charles, and the chief of the defence staff at the time, became a figurehead for this group (45.30) and even approached the Queen Mother to seek her blessing for a military takeover. Walker says Mountbatten told him: "If you want help from me, will you let me know?"
David Stirling, the founder of Britain's most elite military unit, the SAS, also confirmed to journalists that a coup against Wilson was seriously being considered (1.03). He contemplated bumping off trade union leaders to foment so much anger among workers that the military would be forced to move in to restore order.
Soon, the army, members of the royal family and the intelligence services were all considering how they might launch a military coup to stop a Communist takeover (the one that had been created in MI5's lurid imagination). Brian Crozier, a former intelligence officer who supported a coup, says there was a "widespread attitude" in favour of it among the military (1.05)
It culminated in a show of force by the armed forces, which briefly took over Heathrow airport (1.06) without warning or coordination with Wilson's government. Marcia Williams, Wilson's secretary, called it a "dress rehearsal". Wilson resigned unexpectedly soon afterwards, apparently as the pressures started to get to him.
As the BBC concludes:
The actions of Lord Mountbatten and senior military and intelligence officers undermined democracy and brought this country to the brink of a coup. Yet no one has been held accountable, there has been no proper inquiry.
Such an inquiry might have served at least as a small deterrent for those, like the general who approached the Sunday Times, who are thinking once again in terms of a coup.
Down the Memory Hole: NYT Erases CIA's Efforts to Overthrow Syria's Government
http://www.globalresearch.ca/down-the-memory-hole-nyt-erases-cias-efforts-to-overthrow-syrias-government/5477215
FAIR has noted before how America's well-documented clandestine activities in Syria have been routinely ignored when the corporate media discuss the Obama administration's "hands-off" approach to the four-and-a-half-year-long conflict. This past week, two pieces—one in the New York Times detailing the "finger pointing" over Obama's "failed" Syria policy, and a Vox "explainer" of the Syrian civil war—did one better: They didn't just omit the fact that the CIA has been arming, training and funding rebels since 2012, they heavily implied they had never done so.
First, let's establish what we do know. Based on multiple reports over the past three-and-a-half years, we know that the Central Intelligence Agency set up a secret program of arming, funding and training anti-Assad forces. This has been reported by major outlets, including the New York Times, The Guardian,Der Spiegel and, most recently, the Washington Post, which—partly thanks to the Snowden revelations—detailed a program that trained approximately 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year, or roughly 1/15th of the CIA's official annual budget.
In addition to the CIA's efforts, there is a much more scrutinized and far more publicized program by the Department of Defense to train "moderate rebels," of which only a few dozen actually saw battle. The Pentagon program, which began earlier this year and is charged with fighting ISIS (rather than Syrian government forces), is separate from the covert CIA operation. It has, by all accounts, been an abysmal failure.
Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=0
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria's opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria's army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than "nonlethal" aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/an-arms-pipeline-to-the-syrian-rebels.html
EvolvingApe,
To complement your preceding posts:
Stephen Lendman explains how no nation has threatened
humanity's survival more than the U.S. (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150918/1027212659.html)
Quote from: muDped on 2015.09.21, 19:42:19
EvolvingApe,
To complement your preceding posts:
Stephen Lendman explains how no nation has threatened
humanity's survival more than the U.S. (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150918/1027212659.html)
The highest form of compliment would be to summarise and specify the missing information dots and connections O0
For example.. how does this event fit in to actual reality:
Poland's President Killed in Plane Crashhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/polands-president-killed-in-plane-crash/
Polish President Lech Kaczynski and some of the country's highest military and civilian leaders died on Saturday when the presidential plane crashed as it came in for a landing in thick fog in western Russia, killing 96, officials said.
The crash devastated the upper echelons of Poland's political and military establishments. On board were the army chief of staff, national bank president, deputy foreign minister, army chaplain, head of the National Security Office, deputy parliament speaker, civil rights commissioner and at least two presidential aides and three lawmakers, the Polish foreign ministry said.
Polish President's Plane Crash Was Assassination, His Brother Sayshttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/polish-presidents-plane-crash-was-assassination-his-brother-says/
MOSCOW - The twin brother of former Polish President Lech Kaczynski believes the 2010 plane crash that killed his brother was an assassination and he wants the European Union to investigate.
Jaroslaw Kaczynski said that explosions might have brought down the plane, which crashed while trying to land amid heavy fog near Smolensk, Russia, April 10, 2010. The crash killed the president, his wife and nearly 100 other top Polish officials who were en route to a ceremony in Russia commemorating the massacre of an estimated 22,000 Polish military officers in 1940 by the Soviet secret police.
"If there were explosions [on board], if this catastrophe looks increasingly like an assassination, then this means there is a new quality to international politics," Kaczynski said Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.
Complement vs Compliment The Bottom LineThe word pairs complement/compliment and complementary/complimentary are pronounced identically, hence the confusion in spelling. Just remember that complement with an E means "to complete" or "to enhance," while compliment with an I means "to praise" and complimentary means "free."
Aye, the link is intended to complement the mounting
accumulation of evidence (for those who have the eyes
to see and the ears to hear) which demonstrates that
The West, in desperation, is going ballistic.
The U.S. has a well established record of initiating warfare
when economic collapse appears imminent. Of course,
the U.S. has found ways to assure that its "vassals"
obediently toe the line to play the game of support.
The near future of Planet Earth may be bloodier than
ever.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.09.22, 16:25:17
The near future of Planet Earth may be bloodier than ever.
Anonymous general who predicts anti-Corbyn mutiny should be named by GCHQ – SAS veteran http://www.rt.com/uk/316116-sas-corbyn-coup-general/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS
A former SAS soldier has blasted the anonymous British Army general who predicted a military coup if Jeremy Corbyn is elected prime minister. He said the comments threaten democracy and that the military has no excuses for declining to investigate.
Ben Griffin, who served in the Parachute Regiment and the Special Air Service in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now a member of anti-war group Veterans for Peace UK, told RT the general's comments published in the Sunday Times are an affront to democracy.
"Why is this General cowering behind a reporter?" he said.
"He should go public with his statement. He is threatening the democratic will of the British people and he exposes the lie that the armed forces exist to protect our freedoms."
Washington Has Now Lost the Middle East
http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/22/washington-has-now-lost-the-middle-east/
It's not at all surprising except in how fast it's going. Within the space of little more than a decade, since the ill-fated Bush Administration decision to invade and occupy Afghanistan then Iraq in March 2003, the United States of America has managed to lose strategic influence and allies across the entire Middle East. Not only the Shi'ite Iranians, whom President Obama believes are now beholden to Washington, but also for the first time Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states and Egypt are in the process of finding new allies or cooperation partners, and they are in the east, no longer the west.
On September 11, 1990 in an address to a Joint Session of Congress then President George Herbert Walker Bush triumphantly spoke of the United States as sole superpower, creating what he termed the New World Order. The Soviet Union had just dissolved in a chaos. Under the Bush and later Clinton presidencies, right up until the present day, Washington policy has been to go further and to devalue, destroy, deconstruct and dismember the Russian Federation, much as they did with Qaddafi's Libya after Hillary Clinton's 2011 war there.
During the 1990s President Bill Clinton supported introduction of US-financed economic "shock therapy," with heavy support from billionaire financial wheeler-dealer friend, George Soros, and Soros' Open Society Foundations. Soros personally brought Harvard boys like Jeffrey Sachs to Russia after they had devastated Poland, Ukraine and other former communist states in eastern Europe. The corrupt Yeltsin regime, busy swilling vodka and lining their pockets with dollars, cared not about their fellow Russian countrymen.
Times have indeed changed for Washington since those days after 1990. Today the Sole Superpower, the Unchallengeable Hegemon, is challenged as never before, mired in its worst economic depression since the 1930's. The government has a federal debt more than 103% of GDP. Real unemployment, not the phoney Labor Department definition, stands today above 22%. The Federal Reserve is eight years into the worst financial crisis in history, unable to raise interest rates above zero percent.
And now, the strategic fulcrum of global US power projection since 1945, control of the energy flows of the Middle East, is vanishing like cotton candy in the winds.
Washington Panic
The most telling proof of their loss of influence in Middle East is the reaction of the Obama Administration to recent Russian activities to bring an end to Washington's horrible war in Syria, the true source of the refugee crisis presently creating social tensions across Europe.
On September 12 Barack Obama spoke out against Russia's recent Syrian activities. Obama rejected Russia's calls for increased military cooperation against ISIS, declaring that Russia's strategy of backing the Syrian government against ISIS is "doomed to failure." Referring to the fact that Russian aid was going directly to the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington demands resign, Obama attacked Russia's recent reported military aid: "The strategy they're pursuing right now of doubling down on Assad is a mistake." Double down is a term from Blackjack that here clearly means to engage in risky behaviour when one is already in a dangerous situation.
The logic of Washington's position of demanding Assad go is absurd. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeatedly stresses, Russia, which has been an ally of Syria for decades, will continue to supply military assistance to the legitimate Assad government in their battle to defeat Islamic terrorists: "I can only say once again that our servicemen and military experts are there to service Russian military hardware, to assist the Syrian army in using this hardware. And we will continue to supply it to the Syrian government in order to ensure its proper combat readiness in its fight against terrorism."
Why the panic
What has Washington freaked out is not the possibility that Russia will make the situation worse in Syria. After more than one year of destructive bombing by US and NATO planes creating the present EU Syrian refugee crisis, the situation could hardly get much worse if Russia's actions manage to isolate ISIS. What scares Washington warhawks is the possibility that Russia's strategy could succeed in ending the ISIS reign of terror.
The Russian call is to form an international coalition, inviting the USA to join together with states in the region and with the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). At a September 15, 2015 meeting in Dushanbe, Tajikistan the heads of the CSTO member states denounced terrorism in Iraq and Syria, particularly of the Islamic State. They declared that they are ready to deploy forces in Syria under UN auspices much as NATO. This is a new development not appreciated in Washington, that two play the game. CSTO states will discuss their strategy of creating a global coalition against ISIS at the UN General Assembly meeting end of September. The CSTO includes Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrghzstan, and Tadjikistan. Russia as well holds the presidency of the UN Security Council this month.
According to the report of Thierry Meyssan, French editor of Voltaire.net based in Damascus, the latest Russian support to Assad regime's war on the terrorists includes creation of a Joint Syrian-Russian Military Commission, the transmission of Russian satellite intelligence, the arrival of numerous Russian experts, and the delivery of sophisticated weapons. It also includes significant modernization and expansion of the Syrian Port, Latakia.
Russia's recent activities expanding the port at Latakia caught NATO by surprise.
A recent report in the German Der Spiegel further claims that recent Russian deliveries include the advanced Russian Armoured Personnel Carrier, BTR-82A. The BTR-82A is presently in use by the armies of Russia and Kazakhstan. It's features are impressive. It can perform combat operations 24 hours a day. Its main armament is a 30mm dual-feed automatic cannon that can fire armour piercing-tracer projectiles, high-explosive fragmentation-incendiary and high-explosive-tracer ammunition. In addition it has a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, three forward-facing 81mm smoke grenade launchers on each side. The gunner's station has a day/night fire control system. The commander has advanced communications and topographic maps. A surveillance camera with laser range finder eables the commander to detect enemy targets within the range of 3km. Oh, and the vehicle has some of Russia's most robust KAMAZ 740.14-300 turbo diesel engines with 300hp, and a maximum speed of 100 km/hour even over rough terrain and, to boot, is fully amphibious with water-jet propulsion.
The respected blogger, Saker, citing Russian sources, believes that Russia is also sending the Syrian Army battlefield systems which could greatly help them, including counter-battery radars (radars which spot where the enemy's artillery is shooting from) and electronic warfare systems. Saker points out that from a military strategy point, the real potential game-changer Russia has added in recent days is selection of the port of Latakia. He notes, "the Russians apparently have chosen the city of Latakia as their delivery point. Unlike Damascus, Latakia is an ideal location: it is safe but not too far away from the frontlines, and it is relatively near the Russian base in Tartus. The airport and naval port are also reportedly easy to protect and isolate. There are already reports that the Russians have lengthened the runways and improved the infrastructure at the Latakia airport and that heavy AN-124s have been observed landing there. As for the Russian Navy – it has been sending ships to the Latakia airport."
He concludes, "In other words, instead of limiting themselves to Tartus or going into the very exposed Damascus, the Russians appear to have created a new bridgehead in the north of the country which could be used to deliver equipment, and even forces, to the combat area in the north... This, by the way, would also explain the panicked rumors about the Russians sending in their Naval Infantry units from Crimea to Syria: Naval Infantry forces are ideal to protect such a base and considering that the front lines are not that far, it would make perfect sense for the Russians to secure their bridgehead with these units."
What is also going on as I suggested in an earlier article is a Russian diplomacy that is giving Saudi Arabia and the Arab OPEC members an alternative to their failed war strategy of financing any and every anti-Assad Jihadi terrorist. The new Saudi moarch and his advisers seem to have realized that the neo-conservative warhawks feeding ISIS and Al Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front and the Muslim Brothers in the Middle East next have their sights aimed at toppling the Saudi and other Gulf monarchies. By brokering or mediating an informal end to the recent Sunni-Shi'ite war that Washington fostered, Russia has removed a major proxy prop that has kept those wars running.
That leaves only Erdogan's Turkey as the main patron of ISIS. This is a qualitatively new situation since the war began some 4 years ago, and an ideal time for the Russian combined increased support for the Syrian National Army and the legitimate government of Assad and to make a major new international diplomatic offensive to end the fighting.
This is what is perhaps most upsetting the war planners in Washington. They realize they are on the verge of losing or most likely already have lost any remaining shred of power or influence over the countries of the entire Middle East including over Iran, the centerpiece of Obama Middle East policy at present. On September 21 Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir Abdollahian is in Moscow discussing the Middle East and Syria. Iran has been working very closely with Russia in recent weeks to build a strategy to end the Syrian ISIS threat.
And Israel?
Of course a major factor feeding destabilization of Islamic Middle East governments has been Israel's Netanyahu government. Here Putin has again shown a skillful presence, as Netanyahu distances Israel from Washington over Iran and other issues.
According to the news site, DEBKA.file, said to be a conduit for Israeli military and Mossad intelligence, at the end of August Russia's Putin proposed to Israel for Moscow to undertake responsibility for guarding Israel's Mediterranean gas fields, along with the offer of a Russian investment of $7-10 billion for developing Leviathan, the largest well, and building a pipeline to Turkey for exporting the gas to Europe."A multibillion Russian investment in the field would make it a Russian project which neither Syria nor Hizballah would dare attack, even though it belongs to Israel," they noted.
The report claims the offer was "made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in confidential phone conversations and through quiet envoys." DEBKA.file goes on to say the revelations of recent stepped-up military aid to Syria and Russian cooperation with Iranian forces in Syria have entirely changed the Israeli strategy calculus: "The Israel Defense Forces must therefore revamp its posture on the Syrian front, and reassess its sponsorship of the select rebel groups which are holding the line in southern Syria against hostile Iranian or Hizballah cross-border attacks on northern Israel. The changing attitude was suggested in views heard in the last couple of days from top Israeli security officials, who now say that leaving Assad in office might be the better option, after all."
They add, "The Russian air force and navy are the strongest foreign military force in the eastern Mediterranean. The US deploys nothing comparable. Israel's military strength is substantial but no one is looking for a military clash with the Russians..."
If DEBKA.file's report is accurate, the latest Russian Middle East peace strategy of diplomacy through strength has just dealt a devastating defeat to Washington's strategy of wars everywhere.
If Russia is able now to forge a genuine, honest coalition of nations to isolate and destroy Washington-created Frankenstein monster called ISIS or IS, and to allow Syrians to settle their problems with the duly-elected President, Bashar al-Assad in free elections without the US-financed NGOs of George Soros or the National Endowment for Democracy, the world will take a giant step away from war.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/22/washington-has-now-lost-the-middle-east/
The Crisis of the Now: Distracted and Diverted from the Ever-Encroaching Police State (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36549/John-Whitehead-The-Crisis-of-the-Now-Distracted-and-Diverted-from-the-Ever-Encroaching-Police-State/)
or, the making of Boobus Americanus. Bottom Line as Edward R. Murrow so long ago
predicted: Television aka The Boob Tube.
Comments at the bottom of the article are fascinating.
Also,
Why America is Dying (http://www.zengardner.com/mourning-for-america/)
and
The Great Lie (http://www.zengardner.com/great-lie-four-ways-stop-telling/)
Then there's this:
America's Other Al Qaeda (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/turkish-uyghur-terror-inc-americas-other-al-qaeda/)
Destabilizing the World is Job One for America...
Cameron's Syria drone strike 'revelation' is a diversion
http://theconversation.com/camerons-syria-drone-strike-revelation-is-a-diversion-47185
Up until mid-afternoon on September 7, it was expected that British prime minister David Cameron would make headlines by announcing that the UK would finally take in a significant number of refugees from Syria's conflict. What's more, the chatter in London was that Cameron might try – more than two years after parliament blocked military intervention against the Assad regime – to get authorisation for British air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria.
However, Cameron had a surprise for MPs, the media, and Syria-watchers alike. While saying that Britain would accept 20,000 refugees over five years, his more dramatic announcement was that the Royal Air Force had carried out its first attack inside Syria – a drone strike on August 21, which killed three Islamic State fighters, including two British nationals.
The prime minister declared this an "act of self-defence" to stop terrorism on British soil. But the announcement raises an array of difficult questions.
Avoiding the hard questions
Before the announcement, Cameron had put himself in a corner over the Syrian refugee question. Only a week earlier, he had said that he was satisfied with a British policy that had taken in only 216 Syrian refugees from outside the UK, although 5,000 other Syrians have been in some form of protection since 2011.
Then the photograph of the drowned toddler Aylan Kurdi on a Turkish beach and the images of refugees effectively trapped at Hungarian train stations mobilised public opinion in favour of a quick response. Trying to hold the line, Cameron said:
"We think the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world. I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees."
But that raised the obvious question: given that more than 15m people are said to have been displaced from Syria and Iraq, what exactly would Britain do to check this four-and-a-half-year conflict?
Given that a primary cause of displacement has been the Assad regime's attacks on civilian areas, the logical answer would be to prevent Damascus from launching such attacks in the future. But ever since parliament rejected military intervention following the regime's chemical attacks in August 2013, the government has shied away from proposing operations inside Syria, even to set up a "safe haven" or "no-fly zone".
To avoid the challenge of what should be done about Assad, the prime minister and his ministers have long invoked the spectre of Islamic State. They have warned that the "terrorists" must be prevented from attacking inside Britain, and have thereby also shifted the debate away from preventing the group's attacks within Syria.
In July, British officials tested the waters for operations, leaking to the media that British pilots – but not British warplanes – had been involved in the US-led coalition's attacks against militants in northern Syria. However, the story receded, apparently because the government assessed that the time was still not right for any military commitment.
Cameron's statement on Monday was a relatively low-cost diversion – even if the government now faces questions about the legality of the attack in Syria. For now, the focus on the specific drone strike on August 21 will replace attention to the wider question of British participation in the coalition against Islamic State. If the public reaction is not too sharp about the killings, the event could pave the way for an approach to parliament for more operations.
More importantly, the issue of what to do about Assad has been kicked into the long grass once more. Even though that is the central question in the Syrian conflict, it – and the refugee issue – can be replaced with chatter about "what to do about the terrorists?"
"Targeted killings" are by their very nature cloaked in uncertainty. We are unlikely ever to know what reliable information lies behind Cameron's declaration: "We had no way of preventing planned attacks on our country without taking direct action."
But the prime minister's statement skirted around some much greater uncertainties.
What, if anything, will be done about the Syrian crisis? If Britain does take in 20,000 refugees over five years, what happens to the millions of others left out? And how long will the killing be allowed to continue – whoever does it – with no realistic prospect of a "safe haven"?
If you dam people.. millions of them in tent cities, and then release them in a flood.. it has tremendous energy and power.. like a huge reservoir dam breaking and washing away the civilisation that thrived in the valley below it. ISIS mercenaries smuggled within the human tidal wave would begin a guerrilla war on home soil, and the perfect excuse for future total martial law is created.. throw in a cashless society and you have the human race under lockdown.
U.S. wars caused refugee crisis
http://www.iacenter.org/anti-war/refugee090915//
By Sara Flounders
September 8, 2015
U.S. wars, starvation sanctions and planned destabilization are the overwhelming cause of the surge of hundreds of thousands of war refugees flooding across European borders and across the Mediterranean Sea. The major European-NATO powers collaborated with U.S. imperialism in each war.
The corporate media are publishing painful pictures of drowned children, sinking boats, news stories of suffocating trucks and reports of thousands camped in train stations and along roadways. They rob these reports of context by omitting the cause of the refugee crisis. Some people fear the enormous media coverage could even be cynical preparation to justify a new military offensive by NATO countries against Syria.
The real dimensions of the humanitarian disaster are largely hidden. The 340,000 destitute refugees who have reached Europe constitute only 3 percent of the over 10 million displaced people barely surviving in refugee camps in Syria or in countries bordering Syria. These neighboring countries are also destabilized by the surge of refugees and disruptive sanctions against Syria that ripple throughout the region.
The European governments dismissed the war-caused havoc as long as the crisis was kept off their doorstep.
The refugees' dire conditions worsened because the meager United Nations Food Program has exhausted its funds and is now cutting hundreds of thousands of refugees off its aid in U.N. administered refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Syria. The U.N. agency needed a mere $236 million to keep the program funded through November.
According to NationalPriorities.org, the U.S. government has spent that much on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria every 28 hours since 2001.
The largest numbers of refugees are fleeing from war-torn Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and South Sudan. U.S. corporate power, driven by its insatiable drive to secure control of valuable resources and push back progressive change, had targeted each of these countries. Not one of these wars was for humanitarian purposes. Each war is a source of enormous super profit in military contracts for U.S. and European Union corporations ... and ruin for millions of people.
Washington's strategy in each of these imperialist wars has been to enflame sectarian, ethnic, national and religious differences. This means organizing contending militias, pitting group against group to break down national pride and unified resistance. Divide and conquer is the strategy that dates back to the U.S. wars against Indigenous peoples on the North American continent.
The Pentagon cynically targets civilian infrastructure, including electric grids, fuel depots, irrigation, water purification, sanitation, local industries and especially schools in an effort to demoralize and disorient the population. Washington arms and empowers the most reactionary forces and corrupt warlords as collaborators.
Refugees of current U.S. wars
Syria today has the highest number of people displaced by war. U.S. sanctions as of 2010 were followed in 2011 by U.S./NATO and Saudi arming and financing of mercenary forces. This war has destroyed a formerly prosperous country where the population had modern infrastructure, quality free health care and free education.
Now almost half of Syria's 23 million population is displaced. More than 4 million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries. Mercenary and fanatic sectarian forces within Syria now number about 125,000 in a thousand competing bands from 80 or more countries.
The U.S. war in Iraq from 1990 to 2003 included massive, systematic destruction of infrastructure and 13 years of economic sanctions. The 2003 U.S.-British invasion and occupation of Iraq brought catastrophic ruin and orchestrated sectarian violence unknown in Iraqi history. Refugees and internally displaced people reached 4.7 million people. Almost half of the Iraqi refugees received shelter in overburdened Syria.
Since the 1978 Saur Revolution, which overthrew the monarchy in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has provided more than $3 billion to counterrevolutionary and warlord forces to destroy the revolution. For three decades, war-torn Afghanistan led in the U.N. lists in the number of war refugees. Through the 1980s, there were 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and 2 million in Iran.
The 2001 U.S./NATO occupation of Afghanistan created new waves of refugees. There are currently 1.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and 1 million Afghan refugees in Iran and millions of displaced people within Afghanistan itself.
In Libya, seven months of U.S./NATO bombing in 2010 destroyed the entire infrastructure of a modern state where nationalized oil helped achieve the highest standard of living in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of workers throughout Africa had found jobs in Libya, which had also provided economic development aid throughout Africa.
In appealing for assistance, Tunisia's President Moncef Marzouki explained that two million Libyans, or one third of Libya's pre-NATO-intervention population, have taken refuge in Tunisia. The number is equivalent to one fifth of Tunisia's population.
Today, South Sudan has the largest number of refugees in Africa. According to the U.N. Refugee Agency, there are 2.25 million refugees and spiraling civil war in this oil-rich country. As the Jan. 3, 2014, New York Times explained, South Sudan is in many ways a U.S. "creation, carved out of war-torn Sudan in a referendum largely orchestrated by the United States, its fragile institutions nurtured with billions of dollars in American aid."
More than 2 million refugees in Ukraine represent the newest refugee crisis, caused by the expansion of the U.S.-commanded NATO military alliance to the borders of Russia. While Washington fails to provide funds to feed refugees from U.S. wars of aggression, the U.S. government spent $5 billion to fund the fascist forces and social networks that overturned the elected government in Ukraine. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland even bragged of this funding. The Kiev coup government is now waging war against anti-fascists in east Ukraine.
According to Russian Federal Migration Service-FMS statistics, a total of 2.6 million Ukrainians are currently in Russian territory. Some 1 million are from Ukraine's southeastern regions, fleeing armed conflict in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
Past waves of U.S. war refugees
U.S. wars in Southeast Asia ripped Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos apart in the 1960s and 1970s. The effort to dominate the region failed but the massive destruction left 4 million dead, millions maimed and 2 million Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees desperate for resettlement.
Funding militias, warlords and drug lords was U.S. policy in Central America in the 1980s. The U.N. estimated that one-third of the workforce of El Salvador fled the country in the 1980s. More than a half million reached the U.S.
The war to expand NATO and dismember Yugoslavia, in Bosnia in 1995 and in Serbia in 1999, again used destruction of civilian infrastructure and enflaming sectarian differences. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, 3.7 to 4 million people were displaced and became refugees.
It should not be forgotten that it is more than 60 years of U.S. funding and equipping of Israel that enabled the expropriation of hundreds of thousands of people from Palestine, the longest and most protracted refugee problem in the world. BADIL, a research and advocacy center focusing on refugee rights, estimates that there are more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons. This figure includes the 4.2 million Palestinians registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and other Palestinians displaced in 1967 and still displaced internally in Israel.
While billions of dollars continues to be allocated for war preparation, the World Food Program cut 1 million Iraqi refugees and millions of Syrian refugees from receiving $14 monthly food coupons. This confirms in the most violent terms that capitalist rulers are incapable of solving the humanitarian disaster that they have created. War preparation is profitable. Distributions of surplus food are not.
Why The Lie, once believed, has so much power to
deflect Truth. (http://www.zengardner.com/masterfully-created-lie-ego/)
The Boobus Americanus who has swallowed the hook
of 9/11 deception will be easy prey for all deceptions
which follow. The Masters of the New World Order are
counting on it...
Quote from: muDped on 2015.09.24, 23:00:35
The Masters of the New World Order are counting on it...
I have a little surprise for them...
A lie contains with it an expiration date.
The truth lives forever.
Iran's 'take' on Russian build-up in Syria
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/09/25/521866-irans-take-on-russian-build-up-in-syria/
Things were going splendidly for Israel until Russia arrived on the scene as the great 'spoiler'.
by M K Bhadrakumar
Indian Punchline
The first detailed Iranian commentary on the Russian military build-up in Syria appeared in a Fars news agency piece. The Fars is often linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC]. The following excerpts of the Fars commentary will be of interest:
United States doesn't want to see the formation of any true counter-ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and Lebanon] coalition. Otherwise, they would have welcomed Russia's military buildup – and Iran's military assistance – from day one! Tellingly, some politicians and pundits in the West have started to doubt the ability of Moscow in fighting and defeating ISIL... Well, they are right. Russia is not there to defeat ISIL and liberate Syria. No force in the world can liberate Syria except for the Syrian people. [Emphasis added.]
For all those skeptics, this is not about Russia shifting quickly into a wartime footing either. The "reported" Russian military buildup is not for show. It will include real anti-terror actors. And Russian airstrikes – if any – will be the beginning of a broader process, which won't be easy. Moscow might have an eye in providing Syrian forces with direct air support, but the ultimate goal is to help Damascus quickly clean up the American-made mess and pave way for a political solution. It's better late than never. [Emphasis added.]
Besides, moving forward militarily means more assistance from the international community, but it will also boost the Syrian leadership and give a sense to urgency to the Syrian army. Resolving this issue, though a daunting challenge, will allow the Syrian army to get back to work in its fight against the vicious terrorist groups with greater results. [Emphasis added.]
This is about helping a sovereign state within the framework of international law and by any means possible, including military, and there are plenty of reasons to believe Putin will not go down the military path without the Syrian government's consent. What is not in doubt is that the United States and its allies will continue to pay a heavy price for assisting ISIL and other proxy forces. They cannot disguise the overall disarray of US policy in the region, especially in Syria where President Assad is wrongfully blamed for everything that has gone wrong, including the refugee crisis in Europe. [Emphasis added.]
In sum, the commentary point-blank rules out Russian forces in a combat role. Russia may provide air cover for Syrian forces, but the big picture is about strengthening the Syrian military capabilities to destroy on own steam the Islamic State. The commentary hints that Syrian government also doesn't seek Russian participation in the war.
Russian build-up in Syria puts Israel on the back foot
http://atimes.com/2015/09/russian-build-up-in-syria-puts-israel-on-the-back-foot/
By M.K. Bhadrakumar on September 22, 2015 in Asia Times News & Features
There is a saying, 'misfortunes never come singly'. That must have been the thought on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu's mind as he headed for Moscow Monday on what the Russians described as a 3-hour "short working visit" – a call on President Vladimir Putin at his residence in city suburbs for what a top Kremlin official forecast would be "a business and frank conversation" (read plain-speaking), and back to the airport on the return journey. We don't know whether Putin hosted a lunch for 'Bibi'.
The Russian military build-up in Syria comes as a big setback to Netanyahu's regional policies. And it comes immediately after the spectacular defeat he suffered in the campaign to kill the Iran nuclear deal.
In the normal course, the Syrian developments should have prompted Netanyahu to huddle together with the American president, but the White House has earmarked a slot for the Israeli leader in November. The Israel-US relations are in visible difficulty, and on top of it now, a cloud of uncertainty has appeared over Israel-Russia ties as well. It is a moment of reckoning for Israeli diplomacy.
Netanyahu's office had said he would discuss with Putin "the stationing of Russian forces in Syria... (and) will present the threats posed to Israel as a result of the increased flow of advanced war material to the Syrian arena and the transfer of deadly weapons to Hezbollah and other terror organizations".
But the Kremlin had entirely different ideas. A statement in Moscow said, "Urgent issues of bilateral cooperation and the international agenda are scheduled to be discussed. In particular, the sides are expected to exchange opinions on the issue of the Middle East peace process and the fight against the global terrorist threat."
Surely, Russians knew Palestine issue was last thing on Netanyahu's order of priority, but they gently let it be known to the Israeli side beforehand that Moscow's military intervention in Syria to help the government fight the terrorist groups no matter what it takes is a well-thought out policy decision that was not open to negotiation.
Curiously, on the eve of Netanyahu's departure for Moscow, Russian news agency carried a curtain raiser entitled What Does Netanyahu's Blitz Visit to Moscow Aim to Accomplish? And it said among other things that Moscow does not regard the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization but that the Lebanese militant group is "assisting the Syrian military in its war against terror groups... including Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIL".
The commentary speculated that Netanyahu's real purpose would be: to fathom the Russian intentions in Syria; to find out additional details about the Russian deployment; to dissuade Russia from giving advanced weaponry such as S-300 and S-400 missiles to Syria; and, to "coordinate" with Moscow so that no military clashes took place between the two countries on Syrian soil. (Israeli chief of staff Gen. Gadi Eizenkot accompanied Netanyahu to Moscow).
The Russian accounts of the conversation between Putin and Netanyahu on Monday freely acknowledged that the two countries disagreed on Syria. Netanyahu was quoted as saying to Putin that he had come to Moscow "to explain our position and do everything so there are no misunderstandings of our region or yours". It was a subtle reference to Israel's activities in Ukraine directed against Russian interests.
But it is unlikely that Moscow is even remotely contemplating a trade-off with Israel over Ukraine, where tensions are easing, thanks to growing proximity between Russia and the West. Looking back, was it really necessary for Israel to have jumped into the Ukrainian cauldron and caused annoyance to Moscow, without due consideration of consequences?
The impression conveyed by the Russian accounts is that Putin patiently heard out Netanyahu and showed "understanding" for Israel's security concerns, but did not make any promises – except of course that Russian actions in Syria will be "very responsible" (as they have always been) and that the Israeli fears of a "second front" in the Golan Heights are far-fetched, because the Syrian government forces have their hands full and have no intentions to start a war with Israel.
Without doubt, Israel's dealings with the al-Qaeda affiliates operating in Syria are known to Moscow. In a series of reports to the UN Security Council, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force documented numerous instances of Israeli military's dealings with the radical Islamist groups on the Israeli-Syrian border of the Golan Heights.
Putin said last week, "We must put aside geopolitical ambitions, abandon the so-called double standards, the policy of direct or indirect use of certain terrorist groups for opportunistic purposes, including changes of government and regimes disliked by someone."
The description fits Israel's role in Syria rather aptly, and it stands to reason that Israel's nexus with the radical Islamist groups in Syria will become – if it hasn't already – a major element in the Russian policy calculus in the coming period.
No doubt, the Russian-Israeli relations are set to enter a complicated period. Russia, especially Putin, tried hard to keep the relations on an even keel, but the contradictions over Syria cannot be pushed under the carpet. In the final analysis, it all depends on what the scope of the Russian build-up in Syria is going to be in the coming weeks and months.
Conceivably, Israel will have to take certain difficult decisions. Syria's open skies may not remain defenceless for much longer and the country may not present itself as a hunting ground for Israeli jets attacking targets with impunity. This is one thing.
Second, if Russia puts 'boots on the ground' in Syria at some stage – something that cannot entirely be ruled out – Israel faces a power dynamic in its neighborhood that has no precedents in all of its history. Simply put, a far superior power has arrived in the immediate neighborhood and life cannot go on as before.
Third, it cannot be ruled out that the Syrian government forces in coordination with the Hezbollah and other Shi'ite militia will make attempts at some point to reclaim the areas adjacent to the Golan Heights which have been under the control of the Israel-friendly al-Qaeda groups. If that happens, the security implications are going to be profound for Israel.
But then, it all depends on the peace process in Syria that is set to begin and the sort of transition that may take place. Russia is neither likely to intervene with Iran or the Hezbollah as regards their activities in the Golan Heights area nor is going to boost the Hezbollah's capabilities.
But it stands to reason, though, that neither Iran nor Hezbollah is spoiling for a fight with Israel. On the other hand, Russia and Iran have coordinated their moves in Syria so far and Russia also has a line open to the Hezbollah. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the emergent Russian approach on Syria – and its dominant political and diplomatic thrust – Moscow can be expected to restrain the protagonists from exacerbating tensions with Israel.
Fourth, the Russian presence in Syria and the Russian-Iranian axis virtually put a full stop to any Israeli dreams of having a voice at the high table as regards the future of Syria. A fragmentation of Syria might be in the Israeli interests but the Russian intervention aims at preserving Syria's unity and territorial integrity – and there is also an international consensus on that score. Put differently, Israel needs to learn to live with the Syrian neighbor it gets. Geography and politics cannot be wished away.
Israel would have hoped that there will be a stand-off between the West and Russia over the latter's military build-up in Syria. But on the contrary, the West is pondering over the terms under which a constructive engagement with Russia becomes possible so as to bring about a transition in Syria very soon.
Quite obviously, the West is no longer insisting on President Bashar a-Assad stepping down later today as a precondition for the transition. Equally, the West has welcomed the Russian intention to join the war against the Islamic State.
What Israel probably overlooked in all this is that the Russian build-up in Syria has taken place against the backdrop of the massive refugee crisis that is threatening European security. Moscow correctly judged the shift in Europe's priorities today and in diplomacy timing is always the essence of the matter. In sum, Moscow resorted to coercive diplomacy and its military dimension should not be exaggerated out of proportions.
Thus, Europe is nudging the US and Russia to strengthen the fight against the IS and on a parallel track to work together to kick-start a peace process in Syria. Clearly, the centrality of Russia (and Iran) has been conceded by the West – and openly acknowledged even by the US – in the search for a Syrian settlement.
Over and above, Israel should expect that a US-Iranian dialogue on Syria will commence next week in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session as part of the intensifying efforts to bring about a transition in Syria.
(Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Russian Jets Strike ISIL Positions in Syria's Aleppo
Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:44
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940703000408
TEHRAN (FNA)- Military sources said that the Russian Air Force launched a series of airstrikes above Aleppo's Eastern countryside, targeting the ISIL terrorist group's positions along the Deir Hafer-Aleppo Highway while the Syrian Army attacked the terrorist group on the ground, Arab media reports said.
The sources told Syria's al-Masdar news outlet that the Syrian army, in coordination with the National Defense Forces (NDF), conducted a powerful assault on the ISIL positions at 'Ayn Sabl, resulting in the capture of the Southwestern perimeter of this town that is located to the East of Tal Rayman and Al-Salihiyah.
"The Russian fighter jets reportedly struck ISIL positions in East Aleppo with remarkable precision and relentless ferocity; these airstrikes also marked the first time that Russia physically participated in this four-year-long Syrian conflict," the report said.
The Russian Air Force was also seen flying above the Damascus countryside, Lattakia and Hama Governorates, on Thursday morning, but all of their jets reportedly returned back to the Hmamiyat Military Airport in the Syrian coastal city of Jableh.
According to a senior officer in the Syrian army, these Russian airstrikes were coordinated with the Syrian Air Force , who launched their own raids along the Raqqa-Deir Ezzur Highway, added the report.
Meantime, other sources said that the jets were Russia-made fighters, but did not confirmed that they were operating under the Russian air force command.
Earlier this month, military sources said that the Syrian air force, using satellite images, carried out a series of airstrikes above the Prophet Younis Mountains in the Lattakia Governorate's Northeastern territories, killing at least 47 militants from Liwaa Suqour Al-Ghaab and Ahrar Al-Sham.
Here's The List Of What 3,222 US-Led Airstrikes Against ISIS Have Destroyed Since August
http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-us-led-air-strikes-have-hit-3222-islamic-state-targets-pentagon-2015-1?r=US&IR=T
David Alexander, Reuters
Jan. 7, 2015, 8:59 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - US-led air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria have damaged or destroyed 3,222 targets since August, including 58 tanks, 184 Humvees, 673 fighting positions and 980 buildings or barracks, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said he wasn't sure how many targets had been damaged versus destroyed, "but I'm confident that the destruction level is high. Our strikes are extraordinarily accurate."
Release of the target damage list came a day after US defense officials confirmed they are looking into reports of civilian casualties caused by the strikes in Iraq and Syria and are conducting a deeper investigation of two cases involving fewer than five deaths.
As of 11 p.m. on Tuesday (0400 GMT Wednesday), US and coalition air forces had conducted a total of 1,676 air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria since Aug. 8, and had used some 4,775 munitions, a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
Warren said US and coalition forces had hit 3,222 targets in the air strikes but he declined to say what percentage of Islamic State equipment was destroyed.
"In order for us to do that we would have to release to you the exact number of tanks we believe the enemy has, the exact number of Humvees we believe the enemy has," he said. "We don't want our enemy to know how much we know about them."
Countries whose forces have participated in the strikes in Iraq are: Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. Those participating in strikes in Syria are Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The targets damaged or destroyed included:
- 58 tanks;
- 184 HMMWVs, the highly mobile multi-purpose wheeled vehicles known as Humvees;
- 26 armored personnel vehicles;
- 303 technical vehicles;
- 394 other vehicles;
- 79 artillery, anti-aircraft weapons or mortars;
- 41 staging areas;
- 11 improvised explosive device positions;
- 16 command posts;
- 92 checkpoints;
- 17 guard shacks;
- 980 other buildings or barracks;
- 673 fighting positions;
- 52 bunkers;
- 14 boats;
- 23 stockpiles;
- 259 oil infrastructure sites.
No aircraft were on the list, Warren said.
He said the Humvees were US vehicles supplied to the Iraqi military and captured by militants as were some of the armored personnel vehicles. It was unclear whether any of the tanks were U.S.-made.
Warren said some vehicles had been hit while parked, while others were struck while engaged in combat. The boats were used by Islamic State to ferry supplies across the Euphrates River, he said.
WOW! ISIS is stronger than ever! How can that be ?
Logistic vehicles
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23254.aspx
To keep our guns firing, tanks driving and soldiers fighting, takes vast amounts of fuel, food and ammunition. Logistic vehicles provide the machine power to keep the Army operating at its highest level.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.09.26, 21:20:32
Warren said US and coalition forces had hit 3,222 targets in the air strikes but he declined to say what percentage of Islamic State equipment was destroyed.
"In order for us to do that we would have to release to you the exact number of tanks we believe the enemy has, the exact number of Humvees we believe the enemy has," he said. "We don't want our enemy to know how much we know about them."
Bill Hicks on the first Gulf Warhttp://gavinsblog.com/2003/12/30/bill-hicks-on-the-first-gulf-war/
People ask me where I stood politically you know. It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy. But that I believe he was a child of Satan here to destroy the planet Earth. Yeah, I'm a little a little to the left there, I was. I was leaning that way. Yeah you know who else is going, little Quayle boy. Little Damien. Is that guy Damien? Tell me those blank empty eyes aren't gonna glow red in the very near future. [eyes roll back in head] Stop makingjokes about meee. Nrrr. I'll spell potato any fucking way I want. Nrrrr. Rioters in LA, let's nuke them. Bush was a pussy Nrr He held me back. Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, "We still live in a dangerous world." Thanks to you, you fucker!
What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks! They're arming the fucking world man. You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know during the Persian Gulf war those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." How do you know that? "Uh, well... We looked at the receipts Haar." "Ah but as soon as that cheque clears, we're going in." "What time's the bank open? 8? We're going in at 9." "We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a foetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you fucking need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!" Ohoh looks like Mr. Major was on the hot seat there for a second too. Little Iraqgate, little rapscallion he is. "Did we send, did I... did... I'll have to check Maggie's old calendar." What's funny about this. Every one of your papers says that you guys sold Iraq "machine tools"... which Iraq then converted into military equipment. I have news for you folks, a cannon is a machine tool. Your Orwellian language notwithstanding, it's a fucking machine, it's a tool. Our papers in the States have the same thing.
We sold Iraq "farming equipment" which Iraq then "converted". How do they do this? "Simsalabim simsalabim aa salabim sim sim sim salabim." Wow! It was a chicken coop, it's now a nuclear reactor!" "This war's for Aladdin." Farming equipment which they converted into military, okay, you got me I'm curious, exactly what kind of farming equipment is this? "Oh okay, well it's stuff for the farmers of Iraq." Yeah? What? "Ooh okay, ar well ooh one of the things we gave them was for the little farmer, a new thing we came up with called er the er, flame-throwing rake." "No it was for the farmer, see. He would rake the leaves and then just turn around Boooo." "But you know what the Iraqis did with that?" There's no trees in Iraq, what are you sending them rakes for, you asshole? "We could have done our research better perhaps yes." What else did you sell 'em? "Okay er one of the other things we gave 'em was a new thing... for the farmer." "The, er, armoured tractor." "No, see, farmers when they farm look over their shoulders at times and they won't see a tree and they'll hit it maybe and there'll be a wasps nest in the tree and the wasps will come in and sting 'em." "So we put four inches of armour all over the tractor. And a turret to shoot pesticides on the wasps." "Yeah but you know what the Iraqis did with that?" "Can't trust 'em." I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the shit out of em. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane... Throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun". "Mister, I don't want no trouble huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom bom "You all saw him. He had a gun."
Ukraine: Buckle of US Encirclement of Russia
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/26/ukraine-buckle-us-encirclement-of-russia.html
The war in the Ukraine goes on, seemingly with no end in sight. It is not just a civil war, by the way, but a proxy war of aggression waged by the United States and its European and Anglo-Saxon satellites against the Russian Federation. Why the US government should pursue such a dangerous policy may be a mystery to some people, and so it is good to remember the origins of the present war.
In 1990 promises were made to the Soviet government that the NATO alliance would not seek to expand eastward into the power vacuum left by the USSR as it withdrew from Eastern Europe. The US denies it made such commitments, but the weight of evidence suggests that Washington did indeed break promises made to Soviet leader Michail Gorbachev.
In 1991 the USSR fell apart and the former Soviet republics became independent. US triumphalists declared victory in the cold war, as the Russian economy collapsed, thanks to so-called Russian liberals following western cues for economic «shock» treatment and the privatisation, actually the looting, of Russian national resources. The Russian Federation was then governed by Boris Eltsin, who played court jester to then President Bill Clinton. Eltsin invited his cronies to enrich themselves which they did at everyone else's expense. They went around Moscow in big cars guarded by expensive «suits» packing ill-concealed pistols. Most other people lost their savings when the ruble collapsed twice during the 1990s. Wrinkled grandmas sold carrots and potatoes in the streets while others stood before Metro exits peddling zippers and bits of ribbon. Except for Eltsin's cronies and oligarchs, Russia was on its knees. Its people despaired while fundamentalist American preachers hired TV time in Moscow in the early morning.
The United States became the sole superpower; no other state could act as a restraint against it in the way the USSR had done. Between 1999 and 2009 twelve East European states joined NATO including parts of Yugoslavia, which was dismembered and destroyed by the US and its NATO «allies» under the pretext of «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P). A reasonably intelligent person, not to speak of any myopic Russian, looking at a map, could see that the US was pursuing an aggressive policy of encirclement of Russia.
NATO and ironically the European Union became docile instruments of a US anti-Russian policy even though most of Europe had no interest whatsoever in being dragged into a belligerent relationship with the Russian Federation. Business was booming and Russia became the main supplier of natural gas in European markets. Under Vladimir Putin's presidency, the economic situation in the Russian Federation greatly improved.
Vladimir Putin effectively became president of the Russian Federation after Eltsin had to resign at the end of 1999. Putin wanted nothing more than to integrate Russia into the European community, politically and economically. He made a show of getting along with then US President George W. Bush; sent condolences after 9/11 in 2001; and offered solidarity and support. The story is well enough known. The opening was there from Moscow if the Americans had wanted to take it. Unfortunately, they did not and continued to operate under the principle that «what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine too.» In 2003 the United States and some of its NATO satellites attacked Iraq in a blatant war of aggression, sowing havoc and bloodshed, which continues to this day. In the meantime NATO eastward expansion continued apace. Finally, becoming alarmed, Putin called US and NATO policy «airstrike democracy», to impose «democracy» by force on other states. The force was real of course but the democracy was bogus.
Putin was right to be concerned because there were so-called «colour» revolutions in Georgia (2003) and the Ukraine (2004), engineered and bankrolled by the United States and its satellites. In 2008 Georgia launched an offensive to seize the independent territory of South Ossetia, provoking Russian intervention and destruction of the Georgian army. The Ukraine colour revolution did not last either; Viktor Yanukovich was elected president of the Ukraine in 2010. Setbacks did not discourage the US government, which intensified its subversive activities close to Russian borderlands. These activities led to a violent coup d'état against the Yanukovich government in February 2014, bankrolled and directed by the United States and its EU satellites. It looked for a moment as though the US had succeeded in fastening the Ukrainian buckle on the encirclement of Russia.
The vanguard of the putschist junta in Kiev is the fascist paramilitary organisation, Pravy sektor, and the fascist political party, Svoboda. It was soon rumoured that the CIA and other US agencies had taken over a floor of the Security Service of the Ukraine (SBU) building in Kiev. The Ukrainian and US flags flew symbolically outside. That of course was only the beginning. Fascist flags, banners, symbols soon appeared in torchlight parades, and the World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera was elevated to the status of father of the new Ukrainian state. Now of course there are US, Canadian, and Polish military «advisors» in the Ukraine. Who knows who else?
The finance minister is a US citizen; the governor of Odessa, Mikhail Saakashvili, is a cowardly fugitive from a Georgian arrest warrant. The American ambassador in Kiev acts as proconsul; US directives are sent to the present so-called president, chocolate mogul Petro Poroshenko. US and western military supplies are reported to be flowing into the Ukraine in exchange for a garage sale of Ukrainian economic resources. Is it not ironic that a Ukrainian «nationalist» movement should so readily abase itself to foreign powers? Foreign control in Kiev, Putin recently commented, insults the peoples of the Ukraine. This is true, but it will also impoverish them.
Not all people in the Ukraine greeted the fascist junta with open arms. In the Crimea resistance was immediate and got Russian backing from «polite people». A referendum ensued and the Crimea returned to Russia. The West accused Putin of aggression forgetting that the US and its satellites had precipitated the crisis by backing the Kiev putsch. It was Pot calling Kettle black. It's an old trick by the way: the aggressor accuses his intended victim of aggression.
Popular resistance was not limited to the Crimea. In Odessa, Mariupol, Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, for example, opposition began to manifest itself. Violence and repression ensued. Kiev ordered its armed forces to put down the dissidents, who in self-defence took up arms. An anti-fascist resistance began, redolent of the Spanish civil war in 1936. Putin warned the Kiev junta that it would be madness to send tanks against one's own people. He turned out to be right.
In July 2014 Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over the Donbass. Without a shred of evidence, the US and EU immediately accused Putin and the Donbass militias of having been responsible. The western press was outrageous, spewing out black propaganda, bourrage de crâne, against the Russian Federation and Putin. To this day the US government and Kiev junta have hidden essential parts of the evidentiary record, one must assume, in order to cover up the fascist junta's guilt in shooting down MH17.
The black propaganda worked however in that it led to the implementation of US and EU economic sanctions against the Russian Federation which are still in place. These sanctions and Russian counter-measures have cost EU member states billions of euros, though not a penny to the US which is reported to be doing increased business with Russia. Europeans have begun to ask why they should pay the price for US aggressive conduct toward Russia. To no avail, Washington still holds the whip hand over its EU satellites, which until now have followed their master's orders. The US/NATO juggernaut just rolls on.
The Donbass proved the nut the Kiev junta could not crack. In remarkable feats of arms, the outgunned and outnumbered Donbass militias inflicted grievous losses upon the junta's forces which pleaded for and got two ceasefires, arranged under the so-called Minsk agreements, never respected by the Kiev junta. It was easy to guess that the junta would use the Minsk agreements to refit its beaten armies and attack again. The militias won on the battlefield, but lost in Minsk. One wonders why anyone would think that peace and reconciliation were possible between fascist and anti-fascist forces, or put more simply, why victims of Kiev's massacres, if they can resist, would agree to submit to Kiev's authority. One hears that Minsk is the only way forward, but for whom exactly? Does Moscow think the United States will respect any agreement it makes, when experience suggests that it will not?
The Ukraine remains the battlefield where the United States, a relentless adversary, tries to buckle its encirclement of Russia. Washington blames Russia for the war and accuses it of aggression. It expects the Russian government to accept a fascist regime in Kiev under US tutelage, which is a permanent threat to Russian security. Washington accuses Russia of not respecting the Minsk Protocol, when it is the Kiev junta, under US direction, which has never respected these agreements. The US and EU studiously ignore the fascists in Kiev, though it's hard not to miss them. As in Orwell's 1984, reality is turned inside out.
The US government operates under false assumptions, magnified by hubris, forgetting perhaps that war is full of the unexpected. In the Ukrainian tinderbox, the US buckle of Russian encirclement may not be so easy to close unless Moscow capitulates under the guise of «peace». The separation of the Ukraine from Russia, breaking bonds of history, culture, religion, and kinship more than a thousand years old, has met with opposition. The rat-like Kiev «prime minister» Arsenii Yatsenyuk can build a Chinese wall against Russia, if he finds the money, but he and his brownshirts can only maintain the separation of the Ukraine from Russia by force and internal repression. That should be something for Europeans at least to ponder before they travel further along the dangerous path set out for them by the United States.
Bill Hicks - On Gulf War I & George H.W. Bush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YlyY1pcvQQ
Uncovered: The macabre sex chamber of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi where he raped girls - and boys - as young as 14
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545819/Uncovered-The-macabre-sex-chamber-Libyas-Colonel-Gaddafi-raped-girls-boys-young-14.html
German journo: European media writing pro-US stories under CIA pressure (VIDEO)
http://www.rt.com/news/196984-german-journlaist-cia-pressure/
German journalist and editor Udo Ulfkotte says he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, adding that noncompliance ran the risk of being fired. Ulfkotte made the revelations during interviews with RT and Russia Insider.
Libya: From Africa's Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
This article was first published on October 19, 2014.
This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya's former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa's greatest nations.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa's wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
After NATO's intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government's control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters' hands, oil production has all but stopped.
The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO's intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.
On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.
On the other side, in the East of the Country, the "legitimate" government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.
The fall of Gaddafi's administration has created all of the country's worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.
America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya's new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA's headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.
In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of "600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills...to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi".
Hifter's forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya's second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.
Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.
Perhaps, Gaddafi's greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.
In 2011, the West's objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya's natural resources.
For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO's intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.
One group that has suffered immensely from NATO's bombing campaign is the nation's women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi's Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women's rights.
When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya's university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.
Nowadays, the new "democratic" Libyan regime is clamping down on women's rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.
Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been "one of the most successful in NATO history." Truth is, Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women's rights and standards of living.
A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America's Military-Industrial-Complex.
Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America's military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Following the bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now building military bases in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.
Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.
NATO's military intervention may have been a resounding success for America's military elite and oil companies but for the ordinary Libyan, the military campaign may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest failures of the 21st century.
Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com
Assad: Israel operates as al-Qaeda's air force
http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-israel-operates-as-al-qaedas-air-force/
Syrian president says Israeli airstrikes benefiting radical extremists in raging civil war, set to enter its 5th year in March
Forces committed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed
These are the forces committed in alphabetical order.
Belgium: Six F-16 Falcon fighter jets of the Belgian Air Component, were already stationed at Araxos, Greece for an exercise, and flew their first mission in the afternoon of 21 March. They monitored the no-fly zone throughout the operation and have successfully attacked ground targets multiple times since 27 March, all of them without collateral damage. The Belgian Naval Component minehunter Narcis was part of NATO's SNMCMG1 at the start of the operation and assisted in NATO's naval blockade from 23 March. The ship was later replaced by the minehunter Lobelia in August.
Bulgaria: The Bulgarian Navy Wielingen-class frigate Drazki participated in the naval blockade, along with a number of "special naval forces", two medical teams and other humanitarian help.[87][88][89] The frigate left port on 27 April and arrived off the coast of Libya on 2 May.[90] It patrolled for one month before returning to Bulgaria, with a supply stop at the Greek port of Souda.
Canada: The Royal Canadian Air Force deployed seven (six front line, one reserve) CF-18 fighter jets, two CC-150 Polaris refueling airplanes, two CC-177 Globemaster III heavy transports, two CC-130J Super Hercules tactical transports, and two CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft. The Royal Canadian Navy deployed the Halifax-class frigates HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS Vancouver. A total of 440 Canadian Forces personnel participated in Operation Mobile. There were reports that special operations were being conducted by Joint Task Force 2 in association with Britain's Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS) as part of Canada's contribution.[91][92][93][94][95]
Denmark: The Royal Danish Air Force participated with six F-16AM fighters, one C-130J-30 Super Hercules military transport plane and the corresponding ground crews. Only four F-16s were used for offensive operations, while the remaining two acted as reserves.[96] The first airstrikes from Danish aircraft were carried out on 23 March, with four aircraft making twelve sorties as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn.[97] Danish F-16s flew a total of 43 missions dropping 107 precision bombs during Odyssey Dawn before switching to NATO command under Unified Protector[98] Danish flights bombed approximately 17 percent of all targets in Libya and together with Norwegian flights have been the most efficient in proportion to the number of flights involved.[99] Danish F-16s flew the last fast-jet mission of Operation Unified Protector on 31 October 2011[100] finishing with a total of 599 missions flown and 923 precision bombs dropped during the entire Libya intervention.[101]
France: French Air Force, which flew the highest percentage of NATO's strikes (35%), participated in the mission with 18 Mirage, 19 Rafale, 6 Mirage F1, 6 Super Etendard, 2 E-2 Hawkeye, 2 C-2 Greyhound, 3 Eurocopter Tiger, 16 Gazelle aircraft. In addition, the French Navy anti-air destroyer Forbin and the frigate Jean Bart participated in the operations.[102] On 22 March, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle arrived in international waters near Crete to provide military planners with a rapid-response air combat capability.[103] Accompanying the Charles de Gaulle were the frigates Dupleix, Aconit, the fleet replenishment tanker Meuse, and one Rubis-class nuclear attack submarine.[104] France did station three Mirage 2000-5 aircraft and 6 Mirage 2000D at Souda Bay, Crete.[105] France also sent an amphibious assault helicopter carrier, the Tonnerre, carrying 19 rotorcraft to operate off the coast of Libya.[106]
Greece: The Elli-class frigate Limnos of the Hellenic Navy was deployed to the waters off Libya as part of the naval blockade.[107] The Hellenic Air Force provided Super Puma search-and-rescue helicopters and an Embraer 145 AEW&C airborne radar plane.[105][108][109][110]
Italy: At the beginning of the operation, as a contribution to enforce the no-fly zone, the Italian government committed four Tornado ECRs of the Italian Air Force in SEAD operations, supported by two Tornado IDS variants in an air-to-air refueling role and four F-16 ADF fighters as escort.[111] After the transfer of authority to NATO and the decision to participate in strike air-ground operations, the Italian government increased the Italian contribution by adding four Italian Navy AV-8B plus (from Giuseppe Garibaldi), four Italian Air Force Eurofighters, four Tornado IDSs under NATO command. Other assets under national command participated in air patrolling and air refueling missions.[112] As of 24 March, the Italian Navy was engaged in Operation Unified Protector with the light aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Maestrale-class frigate Libeccio and the auxiliary ship Etna.[113] Additionally, the Orizzonte-class destroyer Andrea Doria and Maestrale-class frigate Euro were patrolling off the Sicilian coast in an air-defence role.[114][115] At a later stage, Italy increased its contribution to the NATO led mission by doubling the number of AV-8B Harriers and deploying an undisclosed number of AMX fighter-bombers and KC-130J and KC-767A tanker planes. The Italian Air Force also deployed its MQ-9A Reaper UAVs for real time video reconnaissance.[116]
Jordan: Six Royal Jordanian Air Force fighter jets landed at a coalition airbase in Europe on 4 April to provide "logistical support" and act as an escort for Jordanian transport aircraft using the humanitarian corridor to deliver aid and supplies to opposition-held Cyrenaica, according to Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. He did not specify the type of aircraft or what specific roles they may be called upon to perform, though he said they were not intended for combat.[117]
NATO: E-3 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft operated by NATO and crewed by member states help monitor airspace over the Mediterranean and in Libya.[118]
Netherlands: The Royal Netherlands Air Force provided six F-16AM fighters and a KDC-10 refueling plane. These aircraft were stationed at the Decimomannu Air Base on Sardinia. The four F-16s were flying patrols over Libya, while the other two were being kept in reserve.[119] Additionally, the Royal Netherlands Navy deployed the Tripartite-class minehunter HNLMS Haarlem to assist in enforcing the weapons embargo.[120]
Norway: The Royal Norwegian Air Force deployed six F-16AM fighters to Souda Bay Air Base with corresponding ground crews.[121][122][123] On 24 March, the Norwegian F-16s were assigned to the US North African command and Operation Odyssey Dawn. It was also reported that Norwegian fighters along with Danish fighters had bombed the most targets in Libya in proportion to the number of planes involved.[99] On 24 June, the number of fighters deployed was reduced from six to four.[124] The Norwegian participation in the military efforts against the Libyan government came to an end in late July 2011, by which time Norwegian aircraft had dropped 588 bombs and carried out 615 of the 6493 NATO missions between 31 March and 1 August (not including 19 bombs dropped and 32 missions carried out under operation Odyssey Dawn). 75% of the missions performed by the Royal Norwegian Air Force was so called SCAR ( Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance ) missions. US military sources has confirmed that on the night of 25 April, it was 2 F-16 from the Royal Norwegian Air Force who bombed the residence of Gaddafi inside Tripoli.[125][126]
Qatar: The Qatar Armed Forces contributed with six Mirage 2000-5EDA fighter jets and two C-17 strategic transport aircraft to coalition no-fly zone enforcement efforts.[127] The Qatari aircraft were stationed in Crete.[103] At later stages in the Operation, Qatari Special Forces had been assisting in operations, including the training of the Tripoli Brigade.
Romania: The Romanian Naval Forces participated in the naval blockade with the frigate Regele Ferdinand.[128]
Spain: The Spanish Armed Forces participated with six F-18 fighters, two Boeing 707-331B(KC) tanker aircraft, the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate Méndez Núñez, the submarine Tramontana and two CN-235 MPA maritime surveillance plane. Spain participated in air control and maritime surveillance missions to prevent the inflow of arms to the Libyan regime. Spain also made available to NATO the Spanish air base at Rota.[129]
Sweden: The Royal Swedish Air Force committed eight JAS 39 Gripen jets for the international air campaign after being asked by NATO to take part in the operations on 28 March.[130][131] Sweden also sent a Saab 340 AEW&C for airborne early warning and control and a C-130 Hercules for aerial refueling.[132] Sweden was the only country neither a member of NATO nor the Arab League to participate in the no-fly zone.
Turkey: The Turkish Navy participated with five ships and one submarine in the NATO-led naval blockade to enforce the arms embargo. It also provided six F-16 Fighting Falcon jets for aerial operations.[133] On 24 March, Turkey's parliament approved Turkish participation in military operations in Libya, including enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya.[134]
UAE: On 24 March, the United Arab Emirates Air Force sent six F-16 Fighting Falcon and six Mirage 2000 fighter jets to join the mission. The planes were based at the Italian Decimomannu air base on Sardinia.[135][136]
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom deployed the Royal Navy frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland, nuclear attack submarines HMS Triumph and HMS Turbulent, the destroyer HMS Liverpool and the mine countermeasure vessel HMS Brocklesby.[137] The Royal Air Force participated with 16 Tornado and 10 Typhoon fighters[138] operating initially from Great Britain, but later forward deployed to the Italian base at Gioia del Colle. Nimrod R1 and Sentinel R1 surveillance aircraft were forward deployed to RAF Akrotiri in support of the action. In addition the RAF deployed a number of other support aircraft such as the Sentry AEW.1 AWACS aircraft and VC10 air-to-air refueling tankers. According to anonymous sources, members of the SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) helped to coordinate the air strikes on the ground in Libya.[139][140][141] On 27 May, the UK deployed four UK Apache helicopters on board HMS Ocean.[142]
United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[143][144][145] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both F-15E[146] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[147] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus.[148] On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[149] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[150]
Former CIA boss and 4-star general David Petraeus – who still (believe it or not) holds a lot of sway in Washington – suggests we should arm Al Qaeda to fight ISIS.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-cia-boss-and-4-star-general-david-petraeus-u-s-should-arm-al-qaeda/5473441
Members of al Qaeda's branch in Syria have a surprising advocate in the corridors of American power: retired Army general and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda's Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.
He's not alone ...
As we've previously shown, other mainstream American figures support arming Al Qaeda ... and ISIS.
Initially, Barak Mendelsohn – an Associate Professor of Political Science at Haverford College, a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and a five year veteran of the Israeli army – argues in the Council on Foreign Relations' publication Foreign Affairs that the U.S. should support Al Qaeda ... as a way to counter ISIS:
The instability in the Middle East following the Arab revolutions and the meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) require that Washington rethink its policy toward al Qaeda, particularly its targeting of Zawahiri.
***
Destabilizing al Qaeda at this time may in fact work against U.S. efforts to defeat ISIS.
Many mainstream players are suggesting that Al Nusra – the main Al Qaeda group in Syria – "re-brand", so that it can pretend it is moderate ... and so receive direct U.S. backing. See this, this, this, this, thisand this.
Not to be outdone, influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asks if we should arm ISIS to counter Iranian influence.
The U.S. actually did knowingly support Al Qaeda in Libya. And also in Syria.
And we actually ARE supporting ISIS to some extent:
NATO member Turkey was busted buying huge quantities of oil from ISIS (its main source of funding), and bombing ISIS' main on-the-ground enemy – Kurdish soldiers – using its air force. Many also say that Turkey has long been directly supporting ISIS.
The Israeli air force has bombed near the Syrian capital of Damascus, and attacked agricultural facilities and warehouses (the Syrian government is the other main opponent of ISIS in Syria besides the Kurds). The Israeli military recently admitted supporting Syrian jihadis. And see this.
Mainstream U.S. writers such as Thomas Friedman have called for America to support ISIS.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying the U.S. military shouldn't be "Al Qaeda's air force." Similarly, former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich said that striking Syria would turn the United States military into "al-Qaeda's air force." (ISIS is just a re-branded name for Al Qaeda).
Indeed, NBC News, the Wall Street Journal, CNN and others report that the U.S. has already committed to provide air power to support Muslim jihadis in Syria.
So Turkey, Israel and the U.S. are all now acting as ISIS' air force in order to oust the Syrian government ... again. (Washington Blog, August 3, 2015)
Truly, America's foreign policy is insane.
USA, Turkey and Israel Act As Air Force for The Islamic State Terrorists (ISIS)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/usa-turkey-and-israel-act-as-air-force-for-the-islamic-state-terrorists-isis/5467022
NATO member Turkey was busted buying huge quantities of oil from ISIS (its main source of funding), and bombing ISIS' main on-the-ground enemy – Kurdish soldiers – using its air force. Many also say that Turkey has long been directly supporting ISIS.
The Israeli air force has bombed near the Syrian capital of Damascus, and attacked agricultural facilities and warehouses (the Syrian government is the other main opponent of ISIS in Syria besides the Kurds). The Israeli military recently admitted supporting Syrian jihadis. And see this.
Mainstream U.S. writers such as Thomas Friedman have called for America to support ISIS.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying the U.S. military shouldn't be "Al Qaeda's air force." Similarly, former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich said that striking Syria would turn the United States military into "al-Qaeda's air force." (ISIS is just a re-branded name for Al Qaeda).
"So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?" Kucinich said. "This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with." (2013 Interview)
Indeed, NBC News, the Wall Street Journal, CNN and others report that the U.S. has already committed to provide air power to support Muslim jihadis in Syria.
So Turkey, Israel and the U.S. are all now acting as ISIS' air force in order to oust the Syrian government ... again.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.09.27, 00:57:01
Truly, America's foreign policy is insane.
Not completely. Once they decide to touch off an ICBM aimed at China or Russia, then we'll know a whole new level of insanity. And to be honest, I can't rule something like this out. Nothing surprises me anymore.
'If we stop training, arming jihadists, the war will end' – Virginia state senator to RT
http://www.rt.com/usa/316558-us-training-jihadists-dick-black/
As the Syrian civil war continues to rage and Islamic State maintains its foothold in the region, Virginia state Senator Dick Black told RT that "if the US stopped training jihadists and arming jihadists, the war will end."
In a lengthy interview, the Republican state senator connected the crisis in Syria to the actions of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who he said have armed extremists like Islamic State militants that are fighting against the Syrian government. He also blamed US meddling in the Middle East for the rise of terror groups like Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS/ISIL).
"It is my hope and prayer that the United States wakes up and says it is time to end this slaughter. It is time to stop trying to topple regimes, bring order to the Middle East [and] stop the bloodshed. If we stop training jihadists and arming jihadists, the war will end."
The US has been criticized for its efforts to thwart IS, particularly its plan to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels to battle the extremists. US Central Command said Friday that it learned that the commander of a Syrian rebel group trained by the US to fight Islamic State had "surrendered" a quarter of his unit's military supplies to the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage.
CENTCOM said the equipment given away by the commander included six coalition-issued pick-up trucks as well as ammunition. It doesn't appear that the commander gave the supplies directly to Al-Nusra, according to CENTCOM, but rather transferred them through an "intermediary."
With no near-term end to the conflict in sight, Black said Russia is looking to "resolve" the situation by moving military forces into the country.
"I am really, really pleased that the Russians are putting some people in there who are genuinely going to fight, because I am not entirely certain which side the United States is on. I think sometimes we play one side, sometimes the other," he added.
The state senator said the US has known for years that Al Raqqah was an Al-Qaeda and militant stronghold, but has done little to degrade its capabilities.
Black said that if Russia proceeds to use military force, he doesn't believe it will "allow Raqqah to function." He said he would advise Putin to coordinate with the Kurds and any anti-IS Sunni tribes to take down the city, but not before giving people a certain amount of time to leave.
"Flatten that city. Turn it into dust. Because that is the capital of ISIS – the most evil, the most demonic force on the face of the planet. We need to take it down and we need to take out their capital."
Black drew some heat in April 2014 for sending an official letter to Syrian President Bashar Assad thanking "the Syrian Arab Army for its heroic rescue of Christians in the Qalamoun Mountain Range." It also praised Assad for "treating with respect all Christians and the small community of Jews in Damascus."
Black added that when the US joined forces with Turkey in Syria, it led to the creation of open supply lines from Turkey to jihadists in the IS stronghold of Raqqah. He said Turkey is "opening a wedge" so that supply lines to IS cannot be cut off.
Meanwhile, Turkey has conducted 300 airstrikes, only one percent of which attacked IS, Black said, adding that all of the others have been launched against Kurdish groups fighting IS.
Moving on to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Black said that during her tenure she "put into place a series of actions to overthrow the secular governments in the Middle East, and to replace them with radical Islamic regimes."
"She has great connections, financial and otherwise, with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Kuwait, with some of the tyrants with the Arab world," he added.
Black said that the US had tried to overthrow Egypt, but that 30 million people rose up and took their country back from the Muslim Brotherhood. However, he claimed that the US had succeeded in destroying Libya.
"Libya no longer has a government – it's simply a land of chaos and disorder."
Corbyn's conspiracy theory: 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible, says Labour leader
Labour leader claimed Tony Blair and George W Bush used it to go to war
Wrote articles appearing to endorse 'New World Order' conspiracy theory
It comes as MPs expected to publicly state party is unelectable under him
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html
Jeremy Corbyn claimed the 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' by the West so it could go to war in Afghanistan in an article he wrote 12 years ago, it has emerged today.
The Labour leader made the assertions in a number of written pieces where he criticised Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the September 11 attacks in New York to go to war.
He claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate their aims and seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about a 'New World Order'.
In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: 'Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports.
'After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
'This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.'
Prior to that, he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the conspiracy theory about the 'New World Order'.
The revelations come ahead of Mr Corbyn's first Labour conference as leader where a number of MPs are expected to state the party is unelectable under him.
Labour grandee Lord Mandelson has already warned MPs against making an early move to oust Jeremy Corbyn - but insisted the party could not win with the 66-year-old 'loser' in charge.
The former business secretary said the party had 'stuck two fingers up' at the country by choosing Mr Corbyn as leader but, in a leaked memo, he said Mr Corbyn couldn't be replaced until he had shown how unpopular he is at the polls.
The articles, including one for 'Labour Briefing' in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote that the Gulf War was a 'curtain raiser' for the New World Order, stating at the rich and powerful and 'white and western' could maintain economic order with the 'free use of all the weapons'.
Furthermore, in Socialist Campaign Group News the same year, he wrote: 'The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.'
Mr Corbyn stormed to victory in the Labour leadership contest with 60 per cent of the vote, despite being unknown outside Westminster.
But the nation's first impression of the 66-year-old is far from positive in an IpsosMORI poll.
Mr Corbyn was on minus 3 per cent, with 33 per cent satisfied with the way he is doing his job and 36 per cent dissatisfied.
Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html
Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that 9/11 was "manipulated" to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible to allow the West to go to war in Afghanistan.
In comments that will raise questions about his suitability to lead the Labour Party, Mr Corbyn appeared to blame George Bush and Tony Blair for using the September 11 attacks in New York to allow them to go to war.
In a series of further articles, Mr Corbyn also appears to endorse controversial conspiracy theories about a "New World Order".
Mr Corbyn will attempt to use the Brighton conference to unite the party after it threatened to split apart in the wake of his shock election victory.
However, a number of Labour MPs are expected to use the conference to publicly state that the party is unelectable under Mr Corbyn.
Lord Mandelson on Friday said that the party should only consider ousting Mr Corbyn after it is clear the public have realised the party "cannot be elected with Corbyn as leader".
Mr Corbyn was heavily criticised in the days before winning the Labour leadership after suggesting that the death of Osama Bin Laden was a "tragedy".
In the 2003 article for The Morning Star newspaper, Mr Corbyn wrote: "Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
"After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
"This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan."
However, in previous years he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the conspiracy theory about the "New World Order".
The "New World Order" conspiracy is frequently linked to theories about the so-called "Illuminati" and claims about a "totalitarian world government".
In an article for "Labour Briefing" in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote: "We now know that the Gulf War was a curtain-raiser for the New World Order: the rich and powerful, white and western will be able to maintain the present economic order with free use of all the weapons they wish for."
That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: "The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America."
The following year, in a piece for Labour Peace Action, Mr Corbyn said: "What is required now is a bold, democratic alternative to the New World Order. The US veto at the Earth summit in Rio...shows just who calls the shots in this New World Order and who will be asked to foot the bill."
Mr Corbyn has previously shared a platform with Ken O'Keefe, who has alleged that President Bush was a member of The New World Order who had orchestrated the September 11 attacks for personal gain.
The phrase was also used in a speech by George H.W Bush. Mr Corbyn's spokesman refused to deny that the new Labour leader was referring to the "New World Order" conspiracy theory in his articles.
Labour on Friday said that Mr Corbyn will use the conference to focus on the economy, foreign policy issues and "participative politics".
However, in a sign of the divisions in the party, Labour admitted that "differences of opinion" will emerge during the conference.
In a briefing note, the party said: "There is widespread agreement that [Mr Corbyn's conference themes] are the pillars of the huge mandate provided by the leadership election. Differences of opinion will emerge within these parameters, but this provides the framework for change established through Jeremy Corbyn's mandate."
Mr Corbyn on Friday confirmed that he will work with the SNP to try and scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent despite opposition to the move from his own backbenches.
The Labour leader reaffirmed his long-standing opposition to Trident and said he would vote with the 56 Nationalists at Westminster on the issue.
Left-wing activists will debate scrapping Trident at next week's conference.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.09.27, 06:25:50
Once they decide to touch off an ICBM aimed at China or Russia, then we'll know a whole new level of insanity. And to be honest, I can't rule something like this out. Nothing surprises me anymore.
The rat's are trapped, a large % of the population know who the real terrorists are and are acting accordingly. There is a possibility of a nuclear false flag to start WW3 but it is more likely to be a dirty bomb set off in a major city as the justification, rather than a highly visible ICBM launch. The command structures of the west are obviously complicit in state sponsored global terrorism so for them they have nothing left to lose at this point, the foundations of their "War on Terror" Theatre have already crumbled.. they need a way out and the only one available is WW3!
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.09.27, 10:27:31
The rat's are trapped, a large % of the population know who the real terrorists are and are acting accordingly. There is a possibility of a nuclear false flag to start WW3 but it is more likely to be a dirty bomb set off in a major city as the justification, rather than a highly visible ICBM launch. The command structures of the west are obviously complicit in state sponsored global terrorism so for them they have nothing left to lose at this point, the foundations of their "War on Terror" Theatre have already crumbled.. they need a way out and the only one available is WW3!
The Pope the other day said that
world war 3 has already started I am not religious, but I take my hat off to him for going against the grain of most, I think he was elected to put to right all the wrong doing before, whether he succeeds is another matter.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.09.27, 14:34:58
The Pope the other day said that world war 3 has already started.
regards
Mike 8)
Yes, WW3 has been going on for a long time. Future historians will debate the actual start date of WW3 for many centuries to come. (I hope!)
Everyone able to do so will determine their own date, for me it is 14 May 1948. The creation of the State of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine.
This UN plan specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and also specified an area of Jerusalem and its environs which was to be administered by the UN under an international regime.[13][14]
The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate.[15][16][17]
The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration.[14][18] Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.[19][20] Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[21] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.[22][23][24][25] Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not resulted in peace. However, peace treaties between Israel and both Egypt and Jordan have successfully been signed.
Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][27]
Meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[3]
World War I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
World War I (WWI or WW1), also known as the First World War or the Great War, was a global war centered in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. More than 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died as a result of the war, a casualty rate exacerbated by the belligerents' technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical stalemate.
It was one of the deadliest conflicts in history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.[5]
The war drew in all the world's economic great powers,[6] assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based on the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Although Italy had also been a member of the Triple Alliance alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, it did not join the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had taken the offensive against the terms of the alliance.[7]
These alliances were reorganised and expanded as more nations entered the war: Italy, Japan and the United States joined the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. More than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.[8][9]
The trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[10][11] and entangled international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world.
World War II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945, though related conflicts began earlier. It involved the vast majority of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis.
It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries. In a state of "total war", the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.
Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed)[1][2] and the strategic bombing of industrial and population centres (in which approximately one million were killed, and which included the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki),[3] it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. These made World War II the deadliest conflict in human history.[4]
Germany is the key, who by all accounts just switched sides to the BRICS axis, while NATO moves new nukes into Germany.. With the Greeks gone who is going to point out the Trojan Elephant in the room ?
Supermoon lunar eclipse: Where, how and what time can I see it start on Sunday / Monday and when will it end?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11891850/Supermoon-lunar-eclipse-Where-how-and-what-time-can-I-see-it-start-on-Sunday-Monday-and-when-will-it-end.html
Throughout history, these incredibly rare events have been associated with major global events and disasters.
The 1493 tetrad was marked by the expulsion of the Jews by the Catholic Spanish Inquisition and in 1949 another tetrad coincided with the establishment of the state of Israel. Furthermore in 1967 the tetrad occured at the same time as the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War.
However, while lunar tetrads can be rare - there were none between 1600 and 1900 - Nasa says the pattern is largely random and there will be eight in the 21st century.
The false narrative was activated immediately on the morning of 911 and persists even to this day (government / MSM).
The Power of False Narrative
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/the-power-of-false-narrative/
Strategic communications" or Stratcom, a propaganda/psy-op technique that treats information as a "soft power" weapon to wield against adversaries, is a new catch phrase in an Official Washington obsessed with the clout that comes from spinning false narratives.
In this age of pervasive media, the primary method of social control is through the creation of narratives delivered to the public through newspapers, TV, radio, computers, cell phones and any other gadget that can convey information. This reality has given rise to an obsession among the power elite to control as much of this messaging as possible.
So, regarding U.S. relations toward the world, we see the State Department, the White House, Pentagon, NATO and other agencies pushing various narratives to sell the American people and other populations on how they should view U.S. policies, rivals and allies. The current hot phrase for this practice is "strategic communications" or Stratcom, which blends psychological operations, propaganda and P.R. into one mind-bending smoothie.
I have been following this process since the early 1980s when the Reagan administration sought to override "the Vietnam Syndrome," a public aversion to foreign military interventions that followed the Vietnam War. To get Americans to "kick" this syndrome, Reagan's team developed "themes" about overseas events that would push American "hot buttons."
Tapping into the Central Intelligence Agency's experience in psy-ops targeted at foreign audiences, President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William J. Casey assembled a skilled team inside the White House led by CIA propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr.
From his new perch on the National Security Council staff, Raymond oversaw inter-agency task forces to sell interventionist policies in Central America and other trouble spots. The game, as Raymond explained it in numerous memos to his underlings, was to glue black hats on adversaries and white hats on allies, whatever the truth really was.
The fact that many of the U.S.-backed forces – from the Nicaraguan Contras to the Guatemalan military – were little more than corrupt death squads couldn't be true, at least according to psy-ops doctrine. They had to be presented to the American public as wearing white hats. Thus, the Contras became the "moral equals of our Founding Fathers" and Guatemala's murderous leader Efrain Rios Montt was getting a "bum rap" on human rights, according to the words scripted for President Reagan.
The scheme also required that anyone – say, a journalist, a human rights activist or a congressional investigator – who contradicted this white-hat mandate must be discredited, marginalized or destroyed, a routine of killing any honest messenger.
But it turned out that the most effective part of this propaganda strategy was to glue black hats on adversaries. Since nearly all foreign leaders have serious flaws, it proved much easier to demonize them – and work the American people into war frenzies – than it was to persuade the public that Washington's favored foreign leaders were actually paragons of virtue.
An Unflattering Hat
Once the black hat was jammed on a foreign leader's head, you could say whatever you wanted about him and disparage any American who questioned the extreme depiction as a "fill-in-the-blank apologist" or a "stooge" or some other ugly identifier that would either silence the dissenter or place him or her outside the bounds of acceptable debate.
Given the careerist conformity of Washington, nearly everyone fell into line, including news outlets and human rights groups. If you wanted to retain your "respectability" and "influence," you agreed with the conventional wisdom. So, with every foreign controversy, we got a new "group think" about the new "enemy." The permissible boundary of each debate was set mostly by the neoconservatives and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks.
That this conformity has not served American national interests is obvious. Take, for example, the disastrous Iraq War, which has cost the U.S. taxpayers an estimated $1 trillion, led to the deaths of some 4,500 American soldiers, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and unleashed chaos across the strategic Middle East and now into Europe.
Most Americans now agree that the Iraq War "wasn't worth it." But it turns out that Official Washington's catastrophic "group thinks" don't just die well-deserved deaths. Like a mutating virus, they alter shape as the outside conditions change and survive in a new form.
So, when the public caught on to the Iraq War deceptions, the neocon/liberal-hawk pundits just came up with a new theme to justify their catastrophic Iraq strategy, i.e., "the successful surge," the dispatch of 30,000 more U.S. troops to the war zone. This theme was as bogus as the WMD lies but the upbeat storyline was embraced as the new "group think" in 2007-2008.
The "successful surge" was a myth, in part, because many of its alleged "accomplishments" actually predated the "surge." The program to pay off Sunnis to stop shooting at Americans and the killing of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi both occurred in 2006, before the surge even began. And its principal goal of resolving sectarian grievances between Sunni and Shiite was never accomplished.
But Official Washington wrapped the "surge" in the bloody flag of "honoring the troops," who were credited with eventually reducing the level of Iraqi violence by carrying out the "heroic" surge strategy as ordered by President Bush and devised by the neocons. Anyone who noted the holes in this story was dismissed as disrespecting "the troops."
The cruel irony was that the neocon pundits, who had promoted the Iraq War and then covered their failure by hailing the "surge," had little or no regard for "the troops" who mostly came for lower socio-economic classes and were largely abstractions to the well-dressed, well-schooled and well-paid talking heads who populate the think tanks and op-ed pages.
Safely ensconced behind the "successful surge" myth, the Iraq War devotees largely escaped any accountability for the chaos and bloodshed they helped cause. Thus, the same "smart people" were in place for the Obama presidency and just as ready to buy into new interventionist "group thinks" – gluing black hats on old and new adversaries, such as Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and, most significantly, Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Causing Chaos
In 2011, led this time by the liberal interventionists – the likes of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House aide Samantha Power – the U.S. military and some NATO allies took aim at Libya, scoffing at Gaddafi's claim that his country was threatened by Islamic terrorists. It was not until Gaddafi's military was destroyed by Western airstrikes (and he was tortured and murdered) that it became clear that he wasn't entirely wrong about the Islamic extremists.
The jihadists seized large swaths of Libyan territory, killed the U.S. ambassador and three other diplomatic personnel in Benghazi, and forced the closing of U.S. and other Western embassies in Tripoli. For good measure, Islamic State terrorists forced captured Coptic Christians to kneel on a Libyan beach before beheading them.
Amid this state of anarchy, Libya has been the source of hundreds of thousands of migrants trying to reach Europe by boat. Thousands have drowned in the Mediterranean. But, again, the leading U.S. interventionists faced no accountability. Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Power is now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Also, in 2011, a similar uprising occurred in Syria against the secular regime headed by President Assad, with nearly identical one-sided reporting about the "white-hatted" opposition and the "black-hatted" government. Though many protesters indeed appear to have been well-meaning opponents of Assad, Sunni terrorists penetrated the opposition from the beginning.
This gray reality was almost completely ignored in the Western press, which almost universally denounced the government when it retaliated against opposition forces for killing police and soldiers. The West depicted the government response as unprovoked attacks on "peaceful protesters." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Hidden Origins of Syria's Civil War."]
This one-sided narrative nearly brought the U.S. military to the point of another intervention after Aug. 21, 2013, when a mysterious sarin gas attack killed hundreds in a suburb of Damascus. Official Washington's neocons and the pro-interventionists in the State Department immediately blamed Assad's forces for the atrocity and demanded a bombing campaign.
But some U.S. intelligence analysts suspected a "false-flag" provocation by Islamic terrorists seeking to get the U.S. air force to destroy Assad's army for them. At the last minute, President Obama steered away from that cliff and – with the help of President Putin – got Assad to surrender Syria's chemical arsenal, while Assad continued to deny a role in the sarin attack. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case."]
Upset over Iran
Putin also assisted Obama on another front with another demonized "enemy," Iran. In late 2013, the two leaders collaborated in getting Iran to make significant concessions on its nuclear program, clearing the way for negotiations that eventually led to stringent international controls.
These two diplomatic initiatives alarmed the neocons and their right-wing Israeli friends. Since the mid-1990s, the neocons had worked closely with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in plotting a "regime change" strategy for countries that were viewed as troublesome to Israel, with Iraq, Syria and Iran topping the list.
Putin's interference with that agenda – by preventing U.S. bombing campaigns against Syria and Iran – was viewed as a threat to this longstanding Israeli/neocon strategy. There was also fear that the Obama-Putin teamwork could lead to renewed pressure on Israel to recognize a Palestinian state. So, that relationship had to be blown up.
The detonation occurred in early 2014 when a neocon-orchestrated coup overthrew elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime which included neo-Nazi and other ultra-nationalist elements as well as free-market extremists.
Ukraine had been on the neocon radar at least since September 2013, just after Putin undercut plans for bombing Syria. Neocon Carl Gershman, president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, wrote a Washington Post op-ed deeming Ukraine "the biggest prize" and a key steppingstone toward another regime change in Moscow, removing the troublesome Putin.
Gershman's op-ed was followed by prominent neocons, such as Sen. John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, urging on violent protests that involved firebombing the police. But the State Department and the mainstream media glued white hats on the Maidan protesters and black hats on the police and the government.
Then, on Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper attack killed both police and demonstrators, leading to more clashes and the deaths of scores of people. The U.S. government and press corps blamed Yanukovych and – despite his signing an agreement for early elections on Feb. 21 – the Maidan "self-defense forces," spearheaded by neo-Nazi goons, overran government buildings on Feb. 22 and installed a coup regime, quickly recognized by the State Department as "legitimate."
Though the fault for the Feb. 20 sniper attack was never resolved – the new Ukrainian regime showed little interest in getting to the bottom of it – other independent investigations pointed toward a provocation by right-wing gunmen who targeted police and protesters with the goal of deepening the crisis and blaming Yanukovych, which is exactly what happened.
These field reports, including one from the BBC, indicated that the snipers likely were associated with the Maidan uprising, not the Yanukovych government. [Another worthwhile documentary on this mystery is "Maidan Massacre."]
One-Sided Reporting
Yet, during the Ukrainian coup, The New York Times and most other mainstream media outlets played a role similar to what they had done prior to the Iraq War when they hyped false and misleading stories about WMD. By 2014, the U.S. press corps no longer seemed to even pause before undertaking its expected propaganda role.
So, after Yanukovych's ouster, when ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine rose up against the new anti-Russian order in Kiev, the only acceptable frame for the U.S. media was to blame the resistance on Putin. It must be "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion."
When a referendum in Crimea overwhelmingly favored secession from Ukraine and rejoining Russia, the U.S. media denounced the 96 percent vote as a "sham" imposed by Russian guns. Similarly, resistance in eastern Ukraine could not have reflected popular sentiment unless it came from mass delusions induced by "Russian propaganda."
Meanwhile, evidence of a U.S.-backed coup, such as the intercepted phone call of a pre-coup discussion between Assistant Secretary Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt on how "to midwife this thing" and who to install in the new government ("Yats is the guy"), disappeared into the memory hole, not helpful for the desired narrative. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
When Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the blame machine immediately roared into gear again, accusing Putin and the ethnic Russian rebels. But some U.S. intelligence analysts reportedly saw the evidence going in a different direction, implicating a rogue element of the Ukrainian regime.
Again, the mainstream media showed little skepticism toward the official story blaming Putin, even though the U.S. government and other Western nations refused to make public any hard evidence supporting the Putin-did-it case, even now more than a year later. [See Consortiumnews.com's "MH-17 Mystery: A New Tonkin Gulf Case."]
The pattern that we have seen over and over is that once a propaganda point is scored against one of the neocon/liberal-hawk "enemies," the failure to actually prove the allegation is not seen as suspicious, at least not inside the mainstream media, which usually just repeats the old narrative again and again, whether its casting blame on Putin for MH-17, or on Yanukovych for the sniper attack, or on Assad for the sarin gas attack.
Instead of skepticism, it's always the same sort of "group think," with nothing learned from the disaster of the Iraq War because there was virtually no accountability for those responsible.
Obama's Repression
Yet, while the U.S. press corps deserves a great deal of blame for this failure to investigate important controversies independently, President Obama and his administration have been the driving force in this manipulation of public opinion over the past six-plus years. Instead of the transparent government that Obama promised, he has run one of the most opaque, if not the most secretive, administrations in American history.
Besides refusing to release the U.S. government's evidence on pivotal events in these international crises, Obama has prosecuted more national security whistleblowers than all past presidents combined.
That repression, including a 35-year prison term for Pvt. Bradley/Chelsea Manning and the forced exile of indicted National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, has intimidated current intelligence analysts who know about the manipulation of public opinion but don't dare tell the truth to reporters for fear of imprisonment.
Most of the "leaked" information that you still see in the mainstream media is what's approved by Obama or his top aides to serve their interests. In other words, the "leaks" are part of the propaganda, made to seem more trustworthy because they're coming from an unidentified "source" rather than a named government spokesman.
At this late stage in Obama's presidency, his administration seems drunk on the power of "perception management" with the new hot phrase, "strategic communications" which boils psychological operations, propaganda and P.R. into one intoxicating brew.
From NATO's Gen. Philip Breedlove to the State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Richard Stengel, the manipulation of information is viewed as a potent "soft power" weapon. It's a way to isolate and damage an "enemy," especially Russia and Putin.
This demonization of Putin makes cooperation between him and Obama difficult, such as Russia's recent military buildup in Syria as part of a commitment to prevent a victory by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Though one might think that Russian help in fighting terrorism would be welcomed, Nuland's State Department office responded with a bizarre and futile attempt to build an aerial blockade of Russian aid flying to Syria across eastern Europe.
Nuland and other neocons apparently would prefer having the black flag of Sunni terrorism flying over Damascus than to work with Putin to block such a catastrophe. The hysteria over Russia's assistance in Syria is a textbook example of how people can begin believing their own propaganda and letting it dictate misguided actions.
On Thursday, Obama's White House sank to a new low by having Press Secretary Josh Earnest depict Putin as "desperate" to land a meeting with Obama. Earnest then demeaned Putin's appearance during an earlier sit-down session with Netanyahu in Moscow. "President Putin was striking a now-familiar pose of less-than-perfect posture and unbuttoned jacket and, you know, knees spread far apart to convey a particular image,' Earnest said.
But the meeting photos actually showed both men with their suit coats open and both sitting with their legs apart at least for part of the time. Responding to Earnest's insults, the Russians denied that Putin was "desperate" for a meeting with Obama and added that the Obama administration had proposed the meeting to coincide with Putin's appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday.
"We do not refuse contacts that are proposed," said Yuri Ushakov, a top foreign policy adviser to Putin. "We support maintaining constant dialogue at the highest level." The Kremlin also included no insults about Obama's appearance in the statement.
However, inside Official Washington, there appears to be little thought that the endless spinning, lying and ridiculing might dangerously corrode American democracy and erode any remaining trust the world's public has in the word of the U.S. government. Instead, there seems to be great confidence that skilled propagandists can discredit anyone who dares note that the naked empire has wrapped itself in the sheerest of see-through deceptions.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
Source: Consortium News, 28 September 2015
Wisdom from the Gunsmith: "The World Ain't What it Seems.."
"The world ain't what it seems....the moment you think you got it figured, your wrong."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZw1qUWlViE
Syria's UN envoy says Putin understands situation in Middle East right
http://tass.ru/en/world/824434
Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria's envoy to the UN noted Putin's saying the Islamic State terrorist group "is the making of the West designed in the laboratories of the Western intelligence"
Elites Use Immigrants to Forge a New European Empire
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/elites-use-immigrants-forge-new-european-empire/ri10025
The separate identities of European states are being dissolved to create an undemocratic new European empire which will inevitably clash with Russia
Putin Plans Air Strikes in Syria If No U.S. Deal Reached — Bloomberg
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-plans-air-strikes-in-syria-if-no-us-deal-reached--bloomberg/535132.html
Russian President Vladimir Putin is preparing for unilateral air strikes against Islamic State in Syria if the United States rejects his proposal to join forces, Bloomberg reported Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the matter.
So.. if the US publicly refuses to join Putin in a massive and effective bombing campaign against ISIS, and by association ISIS supply lines (which are from surrounding countries allied to the US and NATO) then the US will be obviously supporting terrorism by its non action against the terrorists.
If the US decides to join the Putin led alliance and actively engages and destroys ISIS targets it will be destroying it's own assets on the ground and the very justification it uses to be in those Middle Eastern countries.. plus ISIS is going to be quite upset its sponsors have decided to throw them under the bus which may have significant blowback potential further down the line for those sponsors.
Checkmate.
Putin: Russia not planning to take part in field operations in Syria
http://tass.ru/en/politics/824421
The Russian president noted that certain forces are using Islamic State to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
MOSCOW, September 29./TASS/. Islamic State has become a unique terrorist organization as it is going global, Russian President Vladimir Putin told US journalist Charlie Rose in an interview with CBS and PBS, noting that certain forces were using Islamic State to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"It (the terrorist organization) has become unique because it is going global. They have set a goal, which is to establish a caliphate on the territory stretching from Portugal to Pakistan. They already lay claims to the sacred Islamic sites like Mecca and Medina. Their actions and their activities reach far beyond the boundaries of the territories under their control," the president said in the interview.
In reply to the question about strategy recommended by Moscow in fight against that evil, Putin said "I have already said, we should help President al-Assad's army."
"And there is no one else at all who is fighting ISIS on the ground but President al-Assad's army. So, I want you, your audience to finally realise that no one except al-Assad's army is fighting against ISIS or other terrorist organisations in Syria, no one else is fighting them on Syrian territory," the Russian leader repeated.
"Minor airstrikes, including those by the United States aircraft, do not resolve the issue in essence; in fact, they do not resolve it at all," he said. "The work should be conducted on the spot after these strikes and it should all be strictly coordinated," he explained.
"We need to understand what strikes are needed, where we need to strike and who will advance on the ground after these strikes. In Syria, there is no other force except al-Assad's army," Putin noted.
"Russia will not take part in any field operations in the territory of Syria or in other states; at least, we do not plan it for now," he stressed. "But we are thinking of how to intensify our work both with President al-Assad and our partners in other countries," he continued.
"...Our armed forces will not take part in hostilities directly and they will not fight. I mean war, combat operations on the territory, the infantry and motorised units," the Russian leader explained.
"There would be no war if these terrorist groups were not supplied with arms and money from the outside," Putin said. "It seems to me that somebody wants to use either certain units of ISIS or ISIS in general in order to overthrow al-Assad and only then think about how to get rid of ISIS. This task is difficult and, in my opinion, practically impossible," the Russian leader said.
Putin said he directly connected a growing flow of refugees with the strengthening of terrorists. "Why do you think that the Syrian refugees flee only as a result of President al-Assad's actions to protect his country? Why don't you think that the refugees flee from the atrocities of terrorists, from ISIS, who decapitate people, burn them alive, drown them alive and destroy cultural monuments?" he asked.
"People flee from them too, they flee mainly from them. And from the war - this is clear," Putin added.
Power vacuum in Syria might evolve into terrorism
According to the Russian official, the power vacuum in Syria is extremely dangerous as it might entail transformation of anarchy into terrorism.
"It is only up to the Syrian people living in Syria to determine who, how and based on what principles should rule their country, and any external advice of such kind [on President Bashar Assad's resignation - TASS] would be absolutely inappropriate, harmful and against international law," Putin said in his interview.
The Russian leader stressed that "the issues of political nature should be solved in any country, including in Syria, primarily by its people - in this case by the Syrian people themselves."
"But we are ready to provide assistance both to the Syrian authorities and the healthy opposition for them to find some points of contact and agree on the political future of their country," he said, adding that for that purposes Moscow had organized a series of meetings between representatives of the Syrian opposition and the government. "We took part in the Geneva Conference on this issue," he reminded. "We are ready to further act in this direction, urging sides, the official authorities and the opposition leaders, to agree with each other exclusively through peaceful means," the Russian president underscored.
He said he did not share the point of view that Moscow was seeking to step "into the vacuum of American leadership." "We are not stepping into the vacuum of American leadership, we are trying to prevent the creation of a power vacuum in Syria in general because as soon as the government agencies in a state, in a country are destroyed, a power vacuum sets in, and that vacuum is quickly filled with terrorists," he said, adding that this was the case in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and some other countries. "And challenging American leadership is not at stake," he pledged.
"I mean that if there was no government at all, there would be anarchy and a vacuum, and the vacuum and the anarchy would soon evolve into terrorism," Putin said. "For instance, in Iraq, there was a famous person, Saddam Hussein, who was either good or bad. It was at a certain stage (you might have forgotten, haven't you?) that the United States actively collaborated with Saddam when he was at war with Iran: weapons were supplied, diplomatic and political support was provided and so on. Then the US fell out with him for some reason and decided to do away with him," Putin said. "But when Saddam Hussein was eliminated, the Iraqi statehood and thousands of people from the former Baath party were also eliminated. Thousands of Iraqi servicemen, who were part of the state's Sunni elite, found themselves thrown out into the street. No one gave a thought about them, and today they end up in the ISIS army."
"We are not against a country exercising leadership of any kind anywhere, we are against thoughtless actions that lead to such negative situations that are difficult to rectify," the Russian leader said.
ISIS HQ, command point, ammo depot destroyed in Russian military Syria night op
http://www.rt.com/news/317180-footage-russian-military-strike-isis/
The footage shot by drones shows Russian airstrikes on ISIS infrastructure near Idlib and al-Latamna.
Soviet–Afghan War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
The Soviet–Afghan War lasted over nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Insurgent groups ("the Mujahideen") who received substantial aid from the United States and several Muslim countries, fought against the Soviet Army and allied Afghan forces. Between 850,000–1.5 million civilians were killed[24][25] and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.
The Soviet-Afghan War, another forgotten battle of WW3.
Russian air strikes targeted CIA-backed rebels in Syria: Senator McCain
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-mccain-idUSKCN0RV4I320151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews
Senator John McCain on Thursday said Russia's initial air strikes in Syria targeted recruits in the Free Syrian Army rebel group backed by the United States.
"I can absolutely confirm to you that they were strikes against our Free Syrian Army recruits that have been armed and trained by the CIA because we have communications with people there," McCain, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on CNN.
(Reporting by Lisa Lambert; Writing by Susan Heavey)
Assad allies, including Iranians, prepare ground attack in Syria: sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews&utm_source=twitter
Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.
"The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies," said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.
"It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside," the source added.
The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad's government to rebels.
It points to an emerging military alliance between Russia and Assad's other main allies - Iran and Hezbollah - focused on recapturing areas of northwestern Syria that were seized by insurgents in rapid advances earlier this year.
"The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors ... we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more," the second source said. Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.
Thus far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisors. Iran has also mobilized Shi'ite militia fighters, including Iraqis and some Afghans, to fight alongside Syrian government forces.
Lebanon's Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has been fighting alongside the Syrian army since early in the conflict.
The Russian air force began air strikes in Syria on Wednesday, targeting areas near the cities of Homs and Hama in the west of the country, where Assad's forces are fighting an array of insurgent groups, though not Islamic State, which is based mostly in the north and east.
An alliance of insurgent groups including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front and powerful Ahrar al-Sham made rapid gains in Idlib province earlier this year, completely expelling the government from the area bordering Turkey.
(Reporting by Laila Bassam; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Samia Nakhoul and Peter Graff)
Russian Airstrikes in Syria Targeted 'NATO Created Mercenaries'
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151001/1027874534/russian-air-strikes-syria-help-against-nato-created-rebels.html
Russia started its air campaign against ISIL in Syria, following a request for assistance from Damascus in the fight against terrorism.
Soon after the first Russian strikes in Syria some media outlets were quick to come up with reports claiming that the Moscow-led campaign already resulted in civilian deaths.
The Russian decision to launch military operations against the Islamic State extremist group in Syria has changed the layout of the civil war in the country.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin refuted the rumors of Russian airstrikes hitting non-terrorist infrastructure in Syria as groundless, emphasizing that there has been no verified information of such activity.
Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konoshenkov told reporters on Wednesday that Moscow had carried out 20 airstrikes solely against the Islamic State on the first day of its air campaign. He also underlined that the Russian jets did not hit any civilian infrastructure or areas nearby – as was alleged earlier by some media.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Canadian Centre for Research on Globalization, spoke to Sputnik in an exclusive interview about how Russia is helping Syria in the fight against the US-supported terror groups in Syria.
"First of all it is important to underline the fact that all these terrorist organizations are supported by US intelligence. In fact the mainstream media now has acknowledged that these rebels are supported by the CIA. The Wall Street Journal says Russian airstrikes in Syria targeted CIA-backed rebels."
"These rebels are terrorists including the al-Nusra Front. What I think is at stake here is that the Russian air force is now waging targeted attacks directed against al-Nusra in coordination with the Syrian government and what the US is saying is that in a way Russia is going after America's good-guy terrorists rather than the bad-guy terrorist. They are making a distinction between ISIL and other terrorist organizations, all of which are covertly supported by the US," Chossudovsky told Sputnik.
He went on to say that Russia is targeting the foot soldiers of the western military alliance, "Basically the mercenaries that have been recruited right from the beginning by NATO, the Turkish High Command with the complicity of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel."
Chossudovsky reminded that in early 2012 Washington categorized al-Nusra as a terrorist organization but now it is supporting al-Nusra front officially.
"Western media is contradicting itself but it is also acknowledging candidly that the CIA is supporting the al-Qaeda affiliated groups inside Syria."
Talking about the Russian airstrikes in Syria, the expert said, "It is ironic that the United States and its allies including Britain, France and Canada have been bombing Syria and Iraq for over a year and we are talking about several thousand strikes and there is ample evidence, not from Western media, that these strikes were not directed towards the terrorist targets but were directed towards civilian infrastructure."
He said that Russia is involved in a very precise bombing exercise rather than carpet bombing the country as United States has done, the media is now accusing them of targeting civilians. It is a double discourse with no proof of it.
Chussudovsky added that the US has been bombing Syria without the authority of the sovereign government and in violation of international law.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 14:31:40
Senator John McCain on Thursday said Russia's initial air strikes in Syria targeted recruits in the Free Syrian Army rebel group backed by the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-mccain-idUSKCN0RV4I320151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews
"I can absolutely confirm to you that they were strikes against our Free Syrian Army recruits that have been armed and trained by the CIA because we have communications with people there," McCain, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on CNN.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 14:46:03
The Russian air force began air strikes in Syria on Wednesday, targeting areas near the cities of Homs and Hama in the west of the country, where Assad's forces are fighting an array of insurgent groups, though not Islamic State, which is based mostly in the north and east.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews&utm_source=twitter
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 15:03:37
Russian Airstrikes in Syria Targeted 'NATO Created Mercenaries'
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151001/1027874534/russian-air-strikes-syria-help-against-nato-created-rebels.html
Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konoshenkov told reporters on Wednesday that Moscow had carried out 20 airstrikes solely against the Islamic State on the first day of its air campaign. He also underlined that the Russian jets did not hit any civilian infrastructure or areas nearby – as was alleged earlier by some media.
It seems there is a difference of opinion.. :o
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 15:03:37
Russian Airstrikes in Syria Targeted 'NATO Created Mercenaries'
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151001/1027874534/russian-air-strikes-syria-help-against-nato-created-rebels.html
Russia started its air campaign against ISIL in Syria, following a request for assistance from Damascus in the fight against terrorism.
Chussudovsky added that the US has been bombing Syria without the authority of the sovereign government and in violation of international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
Principle V"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 15:39:34
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
But what are these
facts of lawMan creates these laws and man
breach's these laws depending on how he wants it to be interpreted :D so where is the
real law, well really it does no exist, the law is one mans view against another and there is no argument to that what ever anyone say's.
We need laws, but we also need movement in each case of that law, nothing is black and white, I have personal experience of that, if a judge is bias in one direction justice can never ever be made, that is the fact of life.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.10.02, 16:36:31
But what are these facts of law
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 15:39:34
Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Facthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).
Lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.[2] Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator (resulting in statutes), by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions). Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including (in some jurisdictions) arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 14:31:40
Senator John McCain on Thursday said Russia's initial air strikes in Syria targeted recruits in the Free Syrian Army rebel group backed by the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-mccain-idUSKCN0RV4I320151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews
"I can absolutely confirm to you that they were strikes against our Free Syrian Army recruits that have been armed and trained by the CIA because we have communications with people there," McCain, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on CNN.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 14:46:03
The Russian air force began air strikes in Syria on Wednesday, targeting areas near the cities of Homs and Hama in the west of the country, where Assad's forces are fighting an array of insurgent groups, though not Islamic State, which is based mostly in the north and east.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001?mod=related&channelName=worldNews&utm_source=twitter
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.02, 15:03:37
Russian Airstrikes in Syria Targeted 'NATO Created Mercenaries'
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151001/1027874534/russian-air-strikes-syria-help-against-nato-created-rebels.html
Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konoshenkov told reporters on Wednesday that Moscow had carried out 20 airstrikes solely against the Islamic State on the first day of its air campaign. He also underlined that the Russian jets did not hit any civilian infrastructure or areas nearby – as was alleged earlier by some media.
It seems there is a difference of opinion.. :o
Quote from: evolvingape
It seems there is a difference of opinion.. :o
Dis-info and propaganda tend to be that way.
Washington and The West want to control the
narrative to cast blame maliciously, but there
are yet some honest Intelligence Types
associated with the Pentagon who are doing
their best to counteract the lies. Channels
of communication are maintained with their
Russian counterparts and Russian intel is
generally very reliable.
How this all evolves in the near future should be
quite interesting.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.10.02, 18:13:36
How this all evolves in the near future should be
quite interesting.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-02/russia-says-syria-air-raids-last-3-4-months-moscow-releases-new-videos-strikes
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are really only two possible outcomes here, i) the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and London step up to the plate and finish what they started, or ii) the entire balance of power in the Mid-East is about to shift in a matter of months."
A Map of the Middle East
Quote from: muDped on 2015.10.02, 18:13:36
How this all evolves in the near future should be
quite interesting.
With NATO and Russian aircraft both operating in the region, I can see
the future headlines already:
Russian aircraft engage NATO forces in a deliberate show of aggression.Of course most of us will know it was a setup and any NATO aircraft
splashed probably didn't take fire from Russian forces. The TV will
show smoking wreckage and the visual mind control implants will
seduce the wandering masses to take action, which the government
will promptly enact, having been pre-planned long before now.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.10.02, 19:35:31
With NATO and Russian aircraft both operating in the region, I can see
the future headlines already:
Russian aircraft engage NATO forces in a deliberate show of aggression.
This slide captures the essence of why the aggressors will hesitate to play that card:
Russia goes to war with ISIS: Why and how?
http://www.rt.com/news/317021-russia-syria-engagement-how/
Legality?
Since when has the West cared a flying flip over anything legal, lawful, moral, ethical or righteous.
I think it comes down to timing and some master plan/script. No, the West is playing an interesting
form of chess here. They will take the easy capture of an opposing piece when given to them, but
they are in it for the long haul. If it takes another century to complete their plan, so be it. It's the
mid-level technocrats that get impatient because they want to see victory in their lifetime. However
the real masters playing this game could care less about those directly underneath. They will plow
forward at a pace that suits the circumstances, even if the end-game goes all the way to two kings
and one pawn. This is the kind of game I think they really want anyway. Nothing left to chance,
no one left to get in their way.
Prophecy tells us that Damascus will be utterly destroyed,
as if by Nuclear Weapon. It also reveals that that forces
of The Bear and The Dragon will be involved in conflict in
the Middle East in the vicinity of the Holy Land.
Until recently it was difficult to imagine how this scenario
could manifest. Now it is becoming quite clear. There are
even rumors that the IS has, or will have, access to nuclear
weapons.
The Enablers of the IS have considerable financial clout.
The Zionist Plan for Greater Israel is gaining momentum.
Political Analysis by a man who "gets it." (http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/putins-global-game-changer/)
Another sorry example of how the U.S. wages war. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/msf-hospital-us-condemned-over-horrific-bombing-in-afghanistan)
Beam me up Scotty!
Tony Cartalucci adds to the truth. (http://www.zengardner.com/us-complains-russia-bombs-terrorists/)
Washing Machines. (http://www.zengardner.com/mass-media-controls-consensus-reality/)
While this is a rather long article; it explains a great deal. (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/israels-realism-creates-irrational-us.html)
I do not see a nuclear war ever being an event that will take place. We have those that wish to control the masses and riches this planet has to offer. If a nuclear war was to devistate this planet,what do they have left to control?-->nothing but a baron waste land.
I do how ever, believe that this planet(well the human race anyway)dose need a restart/reboot,and there needs to be a big hit/impact of some sort for this to happen.
It would seem that all men are no longer equal,and that the governments and powers that be no longer act upon our best interest.
One of the biggest problems this world has,is as Matt said-the media. As long as it is up to main stream media to bring us the stories,the truth will never make it to our ears.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.10.03, 20:29:43
Prophecy tells us that Damascus will be utterly destroyed,
as if by Nuclear Weapon.
What prophesy? What chapter and verse?
Quote from: Paul-R
What prophesy? What chapter and verse?
Excellent questions! The answers to those questions are
literally at your "fingertips."
Just do a search for
"prophecy of damascus destruction" and
numerous links will be provided. Two of the more interesting
links:
Damascus Destruction ProphecyDamascus Will be DestroyedThe destruction of Damascus is an important event in the
time-line of what is to come.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.10.05, 02:03:05
The destruction of Damascus is an important event in the
time-line of what is to come.
Do you have any evidence that these books are not a practical joke put together a couple of hundred years ago?
(The island on which John is alleged to have written Revelations has, today, psilocybin mushrooms all over it. If this were to be the case then, it might explain his nutty predictions).
Muammar Gaddafi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi
Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi[6][7] (Arabic: معمر محمد أبو منيار القذافي; /ˈmoʊ.əmɑr ɡəˈdɑːfi/; About this sound audio (help·info); c. 1942 – 20 October 2011), commonly known as Colonel Gaddafi, was a Libyan revolutionary and politician who governed Libya as its primary leader from 1969 to 2011. Taking power in a coup d'etat, he ruled as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the "Brotherly Leader" of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, when he was ousted in the Libyan Civil War. Initially developing his own variant of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism known as the Third International Theory, he later embraced Pan-Africanism and served as Chairperson of the African Union from 2009 to 2010.
The son of an impoverished Bedouin goat herder, Gaddafi became involved in politics while at school in Sabha, subsequently enrolling in the Royal Military Academy, Benghazi. Founding a revolutionary cell within the military, in 1969 they seized power from the monarchy of King Idris in a bloodless coup. Becoming Chairman of the governing Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Gaddafi abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the Republic. Ruling by decree, he implemented measures to remove what he viewed as foreign imperialist influence from Libya, and strengthened ties to Arab nationalist governments. Intent on pushing Libya towards "Islamic socialism", he introduced sharia as the basis for the legal system and nationalized the oil industry, using the increased revenues to bolster the military, implement social programs and fund revolutionary militants across the world. In 1973 he initiated a "Popular Revolution" with the formation of General People's Committees (GPCs), purported to be a system of direct democracy, but retained personal control over major decisions. He outlined his Third International Theory that year, publishing these ideas in The Green Book.
In 1977, with the country under his complete control, he dissolved the Republic and created his new state, the Jamahiriya ("state of the masses"). Officially adopting a symbolic role in governance, he retained power as military commander-in-chief and head of the Revolutionary Committees responsible for policing and suppressing opponents. Overseeing unsuccessful border conflicts with Egypt and Chad, Gaddafi's support for foreign militants and alleged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing led to Libya's label of "international pariah". A particularly hostile relationship developed with the United States and United Kingdom, resulting in the 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya and United Nations-imposed economic sanctions. Rejecting his earlier ideological commitments, from 1999 Gaddafi encouraged economic privatization and sought rapprochement with Western nations, also embracing Pan-Africanism and helping to establish the African Union. Amid the Arab Spring, in 2011 an anti-Gaddafist uprising led by the National Transitional Council (NTC) broke out, resulting in civil war. NATO intervened militarily on the side of the NTC, bringing about the government's downfall. Retreating to Sirte, Gaddafi was captured and killed by NTC militants.
Gaddafi was a controversial and highly divisive world figure. Supporters lauded his anti-imperialist stance and his support for Pan-Africanism and Pan-Arabism, and he was decorated with various awards. Conversely, he was internationally condemned as a dictator and autocrat whose authoritarian administration violated the human rights of Libyan citizens, and supported irredentist movements, tribal warfare and terrorism in many other nations.
Italo-Turkish War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Turkish_War
The Italo-Turkish or Turco-Italian War (Turkish: Trablusgarp Savaşı, "Tripolitanian War"; also known in Italy as Guerra di Libia, "Libyan War") was fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Italy from September 29, 1911, to October 18, 1912. As a result of this conflict, Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet (province), of which the most notable sub-provinces (sanjaks) were Fezzan, Cyrenaica, and Tripoli itself. These territories together formed what became known as Italian Libya.
During the conflict, Italian forces also occupied the Dodecanese islands in the Aegean Sea. Italy had agreed to return Dodecanese to the Ottoman Empire according to the Treaty of Ouchy[10] in 1912 (also known as the First Treaty of Lausanne (1912), as it was signed at the Château d'Ouchy in Lausanne, Switzerland.) However, the vagueness of the text allowed a provisional Italian administration of the islands, and Turkey eventually renounced all claims on these islands in Article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.[11]
The Ottomans had to withdraw all their military forces and administrative agents from Libya according to Article 2 of the Treaty of Ouchy in 1912 (per Article 22 of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.)[11]
Although minor, the war was a significant precursor of the First World War as it sparked nationalism in the Balkan states. Seeing how easily the Italians had defeated the weakened Ottomans, the members of the Balkan League attacked the Ottoman Empire before the war with Italy had ended.
The Italo-Turkish War saw numerous technological changes, notably the airplane. On October 23, 1911, an Italian pilot, Captain Carlo Piazza, flew over Turkish lines on the world's first aerial reconnaissance mission,[12] and on November 1, the first ever aerial bomb was dropped by Sottotenente Giulio Gavotti, on Turkish troops in Libya, from an early model of Etrich Taube aircraft.[13] The Turks, lacking anti-aircraft weapons, were the first to shoot down an aeroplane by rifle fire.[14]
It was also in this conflict that the future first president of Turkey and leader of the Turkish War of Independence, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, distinguished himself militarily as a young officer during the Battle of Tobruk.
Background
The claims of Italy over Libya dated back to Turkey's defeat by Russia in the war of 1877–1878 and subsequent discussions after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, in which France and Great Britain had agreed to the occupation of Tunisia and Cyprus respectively, both parts of the then declining Ottoman Empire. When Italian diplomats hinted about possible opposition by their government, the French replied that Tripoli would have been a counterpart for Italy. In 1902, Italy and France had signed a secret treaty which accorded freedom of intervention in Tripolitania and Morocco.[15] However, the Italian government did little to realize the opportunity and knowledge of Libyan territory and resources remained scarce in the following years.
The Italian press began a large-scale lobbying campaign in favour of an invasion of Libya at the end of March 1911. It was fancifully depicted as rich in minerals, well-watered, and defended by only 4,000 Ottoman troops. Also, the population was described as hostile to the Ottoman Empire and friendly to the Italians: the future invasion was going to be little more than a "military walk", according to them.
The Italian government was hesitant initially, but in the summer the preparations for the invasion were carried out and Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti began to probe the other European major powers about their reactions to a possible invasion of Libya. The Socialist party had strong influence over public opinion. However, it was in opposition and also divided on the issue. It acted ineffectively against a military intervention. (The future fascist leader Benito Mussolini – at this time still a left-wing Socialist – took a prominent anti-war position.)
An ultimatum was presented to the Ottoman government led by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) party on the night of 26–27 September. Through Austrian intermediation, the Ottomans replied with the proposal of transferring control of Libya without war, maintaining a formal Ottoman suzerainty. This suggestion was comparable to the situation in Egypt, which was under formal Ottoman suzerainty, but was actually controlled by the United Kingdom. Giolitti refused, and war was declared on September 29, 1911.
War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
War is a state of armed conflict between societies. It is generally characterized by extreme collective aggression, destruction, and usually high mortality. The set of techniques and actions used to conduct war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called "peace". Total war is warfare that is not restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in massive civilian or other non-combatant casualties.
While some scholars[according to whom?] see war as a universal and ancestral aspect of human nature,[1] others argue that it is only a result of specific socio-cultural or ecological circumstances.[2]
In 2013 war resulted in 31,000 deaths down from 72,000 deaths in 1990.[3] The deadliest war in history, in terms of the cumulative number of deaths since its start, is the Second World War, with 60–85 million deaths, followed by the Mongol conquests[4] which was greater than 41 million.[5] Proportionally speaking, the most destructive war in modern history is the War of the Triple Alliance, which took the lives of over 60% of Paraguay's population, according to Steven Pinker. In 2003, Richard Smalley identified war as the sixth (of ten) biggest problem facing humanity for the next fifty years.[6] War usually results in significant deterioration of infrastructure and the ecosystem, a decrease in social spending, famine, large-scale emigration from the war zone, and often the mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians.[7][8][9]
World war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war
A world war is a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theatres.
The term is usually applied to the two conflicts that occurred during the 20th century:
World War I, or First World War (1914–1918)
World War II, or Second World War (1939–1945)
It is also sometimes applied to other wars, including the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years' War, the Cold War and Cold War II, a hypothetical World War III, and even the Napoleonic Wars, if the United States is counted as a belligerent, as it was in the War of 1812 with Great Britain.
Battle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle
Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, or combatants. A war sometimes consists of many battles. Battles generally are well defined in duration, area, and force commitment.[1]
Wars and military campaigns are guided by strategy, whereas battles take place on a level of planning and execution known as operational mobility.[2] German strategist Carl von Clausewitz stated that "the employment of battles ... to achieve the object of war"[3] was the essence of strategy.
Strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy
Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship"[1]) is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. In the sense of the "art of the general", which included several subsets of skills including "tactics", siegecraft, logistics etc., the term came into use in the 6th century C.E. in East Roman terminology, and was translated into Western vernacular languages only in the 18th century. From then until the 20th century, the word "strategy" came to denote "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.[2]
Strategy is important because the resources available to achieve these goals are usually limited. Strategy generally involves setting goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be intended or can emerge as a pattern of activity as the organization adapts to its environment or competes. It involves activities such as strategic planning and strategic thinking.[3]
Henry Mintzberg from McGill University defined strategy as "a pattern in a stream of decisions" to contrast with a view of strategy as planning,[4] while Max McKeown (2011) argues that "strategy is about shaping the future" and is the human attempt to get to "desirable ends with available means". Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system of finding, formulating, and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success if followed faithfully."[5]
Strategic thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_thinking
Strategic thinking is defined as a mental or thinking process applied by an individual in the context of achieving success in a game or other endeavor. As a cognitive activity, it produces thought.
When applied in an organizational strategic management process, strategic thinking involves the generation and application of unique business insights and opportunities intended to create competitive advantage for a firm or organisation.[1][2][3] It can be done individually, as well as collaboratively among key people who can positively alter an organization's future. Group strategic thinking may create more value by enabling a proactive and creative dialogue, where individuals gain other people's perspectives on critical and complex issues. This is regarded as a benefit in highly competitive and fast-changing business landscapes.[4][5][6]
Strategic planning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning
Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy. It may also extend to control mechanisms for guiding the implementation of the strategy. Strategic planning became prominent in corporations during the 1960s and remains an important aspect of strategic management. It is executed by strategic planners or strategists, who involve many parties and research sources in their analysis of the organization and its relationship to the environment in which it competes.[1]
Strategy has many definitions, but generally involves setting goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be planned (intended) or can be observed as a pattern of activity (emergent) as the organization adapts to its environment or competes.
Strategy includes processes of formulation and implementation; strategic planning helps coordinate both. However, strategic planning is analytical in nature (i.e., it involves "finding the dots"); strategy formation itself involves synthesis (i.e., "connecting the dots") via strategic thinking. As such, strategic planning occurs around the strategy formation activity.[1]
Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.10.05, 14:02:09
Do you have any evidence that these books are not a practical joke put together a couple of hundred years ago?
(The island on which John is alleged to have written Revelations has, today, psilocybin mushrooms all over it. If this were to be the case then, it might explain his nutty predictions).
The best possible evidence would be to observe
the events predicted actually taking place. Since
the Damascus event is still future, we must wait
to see how World Powers cause it to take place.
Whether the prophecies are "practical joke" or
"nutty predictions" will be determined by what
transpires in the near future. There are of course
certain entities who want us to believe it is all
just a load of bull manure. We shall see...
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.10.02, 22:58:28
Legality?
West Knowingly Violated Int'l Law by Starting Airstrikes in Syriahttp://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151004/1028015809/west-knowingly-violated-international-law-in-syria.html
The US-led coalition blatantly violated international law and UN mandates when it started airstrikes in Syria last year, Evgeni Shestakov wrote for Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Under the pretext of fighting against terrorism, the United States and its allies militarily intervened into the sovereignty of Syria without the approval from the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad and without receiving an appropriate UN mandate, Shestakov said.When it serves Washington's interests, the US government is always quick to point out the faults of others when they disagree with UN mandates; at the same time, the Americans aren't willing to abide by a Security Council resolution on Syria. What a two-faced approach, eh?
Furthermore, when the US-led coalition bombed Syria, the Pentagon didn't worry about providing video or any other kind of evidence that US airstrikes were indeed hitting ISIL targets. The issue of civilians being in areas covered by US airstrikes was never raised either, the journalist said.
During the UN General Assembly meeting, nations that support the US-led airstrikes in Syria spent a lot of time talking about the number of airstrikes carried out against ISIL. However, they all missed the main point.
Nobody spoke about the result of a year-long military operation, especially about the facts that since the start of their airstrikes ISIL has steadily increased territories under its control while the Pentagon-trained "moderate" opposition forces, once on the battlefield, joined the ranks of the jihadists.French President Francois Hollande proudly spoke about his country's efforts in battling international terrorism by throwing bombs on Syria. However, apart from bragging words, Hollande failed to provide any evidence of French airstrikes. Thus, who the French Rafales really bombed in Syria remains unclear, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta journalist wisely pointed out.
Shestakov asked an important question: how can the United States be a world leader if after declaring war on the terrorists it didn't fail to defeat ISIL after more than a year of airstrikes, but also allowed the jihadists to gain more territory?Russia, unlike Western countries that use the pretext of fighting terrorism to interfere in Syria without a proper UN mandate, started its airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria at the request of President Bashar al-Assad. Moscow acts on the request from Damascus and doesn't seek to impose its own political system or a new leader on the Syrian nation. The future of Syrian leadership should be resolved without outside interference, Shestakov said, citing the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
A German database showing the channeling of the money and weapons, provided by ISI officer Mohammad Yousaf in his book: Afghanistan – The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
The Soviet intervention
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had been a major power broker and influential mentor in the politics of its poorer and much smaller neighbor. Its involvement ranging from civil-military infrastructure to Afghan society.[59] Since 1947, Afghanistan had been under the influence of the Soviet government and received large amounts of aid, economic assistance, military equipment training and military hardware from the Soviet Union.
The economic assistance and aid had been provided to Afghanistan as early as 1919, shortly after the Russian Revolution and when the regime was facing the Russian Civil War. Provisions were given in the form of small arms, ammunition, a few aircraft, and (according to debated Soviet sources) a million gold rubles to support the resistance during the Third Anglo-Afghan War. In 1942, the USSR again moved to strengthen the Afghan Armed Forces, by providing small arms and aircraft, and establishing training centers in Tashkent (Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic). Soviet-Afghan military cooperation began on a regular basis in 1956, and further agreements were made in the 1970s, which saw the USSR send advisers and specialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
Russo-Georgian War
The Russo-Georgian War was an armed conflict between Georgia, Russia, and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[note 3] The war took place in August 2008 following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia, both formerly constituent republics of the Soviet Union. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region, which borders the Middle East. It was regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.[29]
War in Donbass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass
The War in Donbass (also called the War in Ukraine or War in Eastern Ukraine) is an armed conflict in the Donbass region of Ukraine. From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the "Donbass", in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement. These demonstrations, which followed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of concurrent pro-Russian protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR respectively), and the Ukrainian government.[43][44] Prior to a change of the top leadership in August,[45] the separatists were largely led by Russian citizens.[46] During the summer of 2014, Russian paramilitaries were reported to make up between 15% and 80% of the combatants.[46][47][48][49]
Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government. Crossings were reported to have occurred both in areas under the control of pro-Russian forces and areas that were not under their control, such as the south-eastern part of Donetsk Oblast, near Novoazovsk. These events followed the reported shelling of Ukrainian positions from the Russian side of the border over the course of the preceding month.[50][51][52][53][54] Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko said that the events of 22 August were a "direct invasion by Russia of Ukraine".[55] Western and Ukrainian officials described these events as a "stealth invasion" of Ukraine by Russia.[54]
As a result of this, DPR and LPR insurgents regained much of the territory they had lost during the preceding government military offensive. A deal to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol, was signed on 5 September 2014.[56] Violations of the ceasefire on both sides were common. Amidst the solidification of the line between insurgent and government-controlled territory during the ceasefire, warlords took control of swathes of land on the insurgent side, leading to further destabilisation.[57] The ceasefire completely collapsed in January 2015, with renewed heavy fighting across the conflict zone, including at Donetsk International Airport and Debaltseve. A new ceasefire, called Minsk II, was agreed to on 12 February 2015. Immediately following the signing of the agreement, separatist forces launched an offensive on Debaltseve and forced Ukrainian forces to withdraw from it. In the months after the fall of Debaltseve, minor skirmishes continued along the line of contact, but no territorial changes occurred. This state of stalemate led the war to be labelled a "frozen conflict".[58]
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17)[a] was a scheduled international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that crashed on 17 July 2014 after being shot down, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.[2] The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact about 50 km (31 mi) from the Ukraine–Russia border and crashed near Torez in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, 40 km (25 mi) from the border.[3]
The crash occurred during the battle in Shakhtarsk Raion, part of the ongoing war in Donbass, in an area controlled by the Donbass People's Militia.[4] According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian insurgents using a Buk surface-to-air missile (SA-11) fired from the territory which they controlled.[5] The Russian government blamed the Ukrainian government.[6] The Dutch Safety Board is currently leading an investigation into the incident and issued a preliminary report on 9 September 2014; a final accident report will be released October 2015.[7]
An independent analysis by Bellingcat of open-source evidence indicated that Russian-backed separatists were in control of a Buk missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne,[8][9][10] while three eyewitnesses told the BBC that such a missile launcher was operated by a crew that seemed to be Russian in the area on that date.[11] US sources attributed the downing to a missile fired from separatist-controlled territory, with their judgement based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, as well as photos and other data from social media sites.[6]
Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media profile attributed to Russian Colonel Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down an AN-26,[12][13][14] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down. Russia has said that Ukraine "bears full, total responsibility" for the crash because it happened in Ukrainian airspace.[15] The Ukrainian government states the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia".[16][17] In June 2015, Buk manufacturer, the Russian concern Almaz-Antey announced that MH17 had been downed by a 9М38М1 Buk-M1 missile.[18]
Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of MH17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain that a surface-to-air missile brought down the plane, after which they would look at the criminal side.[19][20][21] The German Federal Intelligence Service reportedly concluded that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a captured Ukrainian Buk system.[22][23][24]
CT scans of MH17 victims showed "non-aircraft metal"[25] and on 19 December 2014 the Ukrainian security service said that some of the bodies contained metal fragments that indicated the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.[26] Preliminary evidence from the ongoing Dutch investigation has concluded that the plane was most likely downed by a Russian unit that was probably manned by a Russian crew, though other possibilities have not yet been ruled out.[27][28] In August 2015, possible BUK missile parts were found at the crash site by a joint investigation team comprising representatives of the Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, the UK, US and Russia.[29][30]
In July 2015 Malaysia proposed a United Nations resolution to set up an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of being behind the downing of the plane. While the proposal gained a majority on the UN Security Council (11 countries voting for it, 3 abstaining), it was vetoed by Russia.
The crash of Flight 17 was the fifth Boeing 777 hull loss.[31] The crash was Malaysia Airlines' worst incident and its second of the year, after the disappearance of Flight 370 four months earlier.[32]
2nd Hit William Nunez
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html
Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.
- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.
Britain drew up plans to build 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10947773/Britain-drew-up-plans-to-build-100000-strong-Syrian-rebel-army.html
General Sir David Richards prepared plan as chief of defence staff but army was later ordered to abandon them, amid confusion over military policy on Syria
By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent
9:00PM BST 04 Jul 2014
The British army drew up but was ordered to abandon plans to build, train and equip a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, according to new revelations which expose confusion at the heart of British defence and foreign policy.
General Sir David Richards, now Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, drew up the plans when he was chief of defence staff and thus senior military adviser to the government.
He, along with Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, were sceptical of David Cameron's government's preference for a direct but limited military involvement in the Syrian conflict, such as imposing a no-fly zone, preferring to stay out altogether if possible, The Telegraph has learned.
Lord Richards thought that if intervention were undertaken it should be decisive but "hands off", leading to the development of the plan to arm a rebel force.
The plans were eventually considered by the National Security Council, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, but were rejected as too ambitious.
Mr Cameron's preference for a limited military involvement, specifically taking part in US-led air strikes, was revived after the chemical weapons attacks on suburbs of Damascus on August 21 last year, but then was voted down by the House of Commons.
That left Britain without a military policy on Syria at all. Mr Cameron immediately stated he would not revive plans at a later date, while the government's foreign policy remained that Mr Assad should be forced to step down.
The plans for a British-trained rebel army were revealed by the BBC Newsnight programme and have been confirmed to The Telegraph. There was no comment from the government or the Ministry of Defence.
Rebels would have been chosen over a 12-month period from groups already fighting the regime, and taken for training to neighbouring Jordan and Turkey, which both support the uprising. Those numbers would then, in theory, have been able to sustain the momentum of an attack on Damascus, particularly if backed by air power provided by the West and friendly Gulf countries.
The plan would have been a larger-scale version of the intervention in Libya in 2011, when the SAS provided training and planning to rebel groups as they marched on Tripoli under the cover of a United Nations-supported, western-provided No Fly Zone.
The 12-month period would allow time for a replacement government to be formed in exile.
The Telegraph has learned that the plans were drawn up in part because Lord Richards thought a "half-hearted" approach to intervention would not work. Lord Richards was known to have had doubts about the Libyan operation, because it risked dragging Britain into a long-drawn-out conflict in an area where it had no vital interests - even more so the case with Syria.
The failure of the West to come to the aid of the Syrian rebels in the early phases of the conflict, before the opposition became dominated by hardline Islamists, is the subject of great bitterness among the Syrian opposition.
Early declarations by Mr Cameron, William Hague, the foreign secretary, and by President Barack Obama that Mr Assad had to step down were interpreted as a sign that the West would intervene as it had with Col Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
However, the continued violent divisions in Libya following Col Gaddafi's death, and the killing of the US ambassador, Chris Stephens, in Benghazi in 2012, have only made western leaders more reluctant to commit to Mr Assad's military overthrow.
"A huge opportunity was missed and that opportunity could have saved tens of thousands of lives actually and could have saved also a huge humanitarian catastrophe," said Monzer Akbik, a representative of the opposition Syrian National Coalition.
Opinion polls showed most Britons and Americans were opposed to further military involvement in the Middle East, and that was reflected in the House of Commons vote.
However, the drive into Iraq of the most powerful militia in Syria, the ultra-radical Islamic State, has renewed concern that Britain and America cannot afford to stand by as the region descends into a long civil war, particularly because many of the jihadists also describe themselves as enemies of the West.
The White House has now asked Congress to approve $500 million (£293 million) to arm and train moderate rebels.
Libya: 'Recall Parliament to debate regime change'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8454220/Libya-Recall-Parliament-to-debate-regime-change.html
MPs have called for Parliament to be recalled to debate David Cameron's admission that military action in Libya will continue until Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is toppled.
By James Kirkup
4:52PM BST 15 Apr 2011
Conservative and Labour members said that the Prime Minister's statement – made jointly with Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy – showed that the Libyan mission had moved from its original humanitarian purpose and was now about regime change.
Fuelling concerns about mission creep in Libya, a French minister admitted that the Western coalition risks "moving beyond" the original United Nations resolution that authorised military action to protect Libyan civilians.
When the conflict started last month, Mr Cameron told MPs that the allies were not seeking to remove Col Gaddafi. But in a joint article with his fellow leaders, he declared: "So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations."
Gerard Longuet, the French defence minister, conceded that ousting the Libyan leader went beyond the authority of UN Security Resolution 1973. "It does not address the future of Gaddafi," he said. "Perhaps one day the Security Council will make another resolution."
Paris and London were ready to target Col Gaddafi and his chain of command, he said.
The Commons began its Easter recess last week and is not due to return until April 26. MPs said Parliament should be recalled to debate the apparent shift in strategy.
John Baron, a Conservative MP, said: "I feel that mission in Libya has changed quite significantly."
David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, said Mr Cameron needed MPs' approval for the new Libyan mission. "Parliament did not authorise the next phase. To go to the next phase he has to get parliamentary authority," he said.
The British, French and US leaders offered their united front on Libya as Nato allies including Italy continued to resist calls to contribute more military forces to the mission.
Libya Then and Now: An Overview of NATO's Handiwork
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-then-and-now-an-overview-of-natos-handiwork/5415563
In 2011, as the entire world watched the Arab Spring in amazement, the US and its allies, predominantly working under the banner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), militarily overran the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
The peaceful civilian protesters they claimed to be intervening to protect were not really what the US and its cohorts presented to the world. Many of these so-called "protesters" were armed, and when this became apparent they eventually began to portray themselves as "rebel forces." These so-called "rebels" in Libya were not a military force that emerged spontaneously for the most part, but an insurgency movement cultivated and organised before any opposition activities were even reported in Libya.
Libya: From Africa's Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
This article was first published on October 19, 2014.
This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya's former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa's greatest nations.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa's wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
After NATO's intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government's control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters' hands, oil production has all but stopped.
The Destruction of Libya, the Destabilization of a Nation. US-NATO Crimes against Humanity
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-destruction-of-libya-the-destabilization-of-a-nation-us-nato-crimes-against-humanity/5437027
The late Col. Muammar Gaddafi, hailed as the "Great Leader" by the Libyan people during his incumbency, was murdered by Chad, Somali and Sudanese mercenaries in collusion with NATO and US invading forces on October 19, 2011.
Gaddafi's Libya, two years before he was ousted and assassinated was considered as one of Africa's most affluent countries.
Prof. Garikai Chengu a scholar of Middle East affairs at Harvard University wrote:
"In 1967, Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa's wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the African continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands..."
But look at what happened to Libya after the US/NATO interventionism! It is now in complete political anarchy, with a destroyed economy and a war torn society.
Presently, we cannot call Libya a State for after US/NATO armed intervention and regime change, practically all Libyan villages, from North to South, are now run by the various tribes that was once united under Gaddafi. Libya is in the state of civil war showing the inevitability of what Hobbes called "the ugly, brutish, nasty and chaotic state of nature" characterizing political anarchy. In this post-Gaddafi Libya, the anarchic and lawless militias are wrecking havoc in different parts of the country—each fighting each other for supremacy. The so-called "Islamist" Jemaa-Islamiyya and ISIS forces are busy carving out their own respective territories in the once secular and progressive socialist Libya.
Libya is now a stateless anarchy since various tribes and militias are declaring their own sort-of states in various parts of the country. NATO interventionism and US Hegemony has totally wrecked Libya and Libya as one of the recent casualty of the so-called "Arab Spring" turned out as hell-hole of internecine, civil, regional and tribal wars instead of establishing "democracy" in Libyan soil.
The USA has been scheming for over four decades to topple Gaddafi because he never allowed US and the First World countries allied by US to dictate on the Libyan oil policy program. Gaddafi, by not subscribing to international lending institutions' capitalistic financing and onerous loan programs, did not allow the IMF-WB to wreck havoc in the economy of the country.
Regime change is illegal: end of debate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3616571/Regime-change-is-illegal-end-of-debate.html
By Alasdair Palmer
12:01AM BST 01 May 2005
'I would never do anything against the advice of the Attorney General," the Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted. Yet he did do something against the Attorney General's advice. He helped the Americans invade Iraq and replace its Ba'athist regime.
Lord Goldsmith's confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, revealed for the first time last week, was equivocal about almost everything. It was clear about one point and one point only: "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.
As everyone knows now, and knew perfectly well then, the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was regime change. President Bush said so with Tony Blair standing by his side. At the joint press conference the two leaders gave at George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 6, 2002, he helpfully summed up the purpose of the military action against Iraq in a single sentence: "We support regime change." For George Bush, no further elaboration was necessary.
Despite Mr Blair's statement that "If I had not taken the action I did, Saddam would still be in power," it was not he, but President Bush who removed Saddam. Tony Blair was an accessory to the American invasion - but British forces were so small a part of it that they were not critical to its success. As President Bush emphasised, the Americans were prepared to go it alone without Tony Blair and Britain's armed forces. Two weeks before the invasion started, he offered to do precisely that, as he saw the enormous political difficulties the Prime Minister faced in getting Parliamentary approval for the war. Tony Blair rejected the offer. "I said I'm with you and I mean it," he insisted.
Last week, most of the discussion of the Attorney General's advice centred on whether it was "arguable" that the invasion would be legal without a second UN resolution explicitly authorising it. Yet when compared with the glaring illegality of an invasion whose explicit purpose was regime change, this is a non-issue. The Prime Minister knew it, the Attorney General knew it, the Cabinet knew it, and so did anyone who bothered to think about it. What, then, was Tony Blair doing when he stated: "What is important is that whatever action we take is done in accordance with international law"?
President Bush never wavered in his conviction that regime change was the main purpose of the invasion. He was not interested in a second resolution from the UN - he was not really interested in the question of whether America's action was in accordance with "international law". It was the Prime Minister who persuaded him to try to get a second resolution from the Security Council explicitly authorising war. President Bush made the effort as a favour to Tony Blair, despite the very evident scepticism of Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Their scepticism was understandable. Returning to the UN was a gesture whose only point was to keep up a charade for the benefit of the Labour backbenchers. Tony Blair knew that if he were honest with them he would fail to get them to vote for the war. The pretence, however, did not fool the members of the Security Council, which never came close to approving that second resolution. They shared the Attorney General's original view that an invasion whose purpose was regime change could not be legal under international law.
Mr Blair's attempt to claim that the aim of the invasion was really only to disarm Saddam - if it happened to topple him from power, that was an unexpected side-effect - was pathetically unpersuasive. Tony Blair was like a man who offers as his defence to a charge of being an accessory to murder that, although he had joined a group of men whose ring-leader had expressly stated as they set out together that their joint purpose was to bludgeon a rival to death, he had gone along only because he wanted to disarm the guy: bludgeoning him to death was simply a means to that quite separate goal.
The repeated insistence of the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and, indeed, the whole Cabinet, that the invasion of Iraq was compatible with international law seems simply to have been a pose to try to fool people who genuinely wanted the invasion to be legal - but were too stupid to see for themselves that it wasn't.
Of course, a number of the people in that category include the Labour MPs who voted for it after hearing the Prime Minister and the Attorney General assure them that it was in line with what international law required. Many of those MPs are now very angry at their own stupidity. They have deflected their anger on to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for not sharing the confidential advice that was released last week.
This is simply a further demonstration of their own idiocy, for there was nothing in that confidential advice that was not obvious at the time of the Commons vote. It was extremely easy to work out that the invasion was incompatible with international law. If that law has a guiding principle, it is that the invasion of one country by another in order to replace its ruler is a flagrant violation of state sovereignty.
The Prime Minister's actions show that he has never regarded "conformity with international law" as critically important. He has, in the past, been quite willing to get involved in military expeditions that did not have explicit UN approval - the test for their acceptability under international law. The toppling of the regime in Sierra Leone, the bombing of Kosovo and the bombing of Saddam in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 are all examples, and ones of which he insists he is proud.
Clare Short and Robin Cook, two ministers who resigned over the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2003, were enthusiasts for the equally illegal Desert Fox in 1998. But in that case, a Democrat - good old Bill Cinton - was in the White House. In 2003, its occupant was a Republican. To get over Labour MPs' qualms about associating themselves with George W. Bush, Tony Blair had to pretend that international law licensed America's military action.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister cynically exploited his MPs' stupidity by his pretence: the first person he fooled by his sophistry was himself. A self-deluding sophist is not an ideal character to have as the leader of our country: it is what we will get if we re-elect Tony Blair and Labour next week.
Al Qaeda: The Database
http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738
Global Research Editor's Note
This article originally published by Global Research in 2005 sheds light on the nature of Al Qaeda, an intelligence construct used by Washington to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries, while sustaining the illusion of an outside enemy, which threatens the security of the Western World.
In recent developments, the Obama administration has intimated that it will be supporting "moderate al Qaeda rebels" in Syria in its "counter-terrorism" campaign (i.e. bombing raids) allegedly against the ISIS, formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
Al Qaeda goes after Al Qaeda? The fact of the matter is that both al Nusra and the Islamic State (ISIS) are supported by Washington and its allies.
September 4, 2015
* * *
Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.
"I first heard about Al-Qaida while I was attending the Command and Staff course in Jordan. I was a French officer at that time and the French Armed Forces had close contacts and cooperation with Jordan . . .
"Two of my Jordanian colleagues were experts in computers. They were air defense officers. Using computer science slang, they introduced a series of jokes about students' punishment.
"For example, when one of us was late at the bus stop to leave the Staff College, the two officers used to tell us: 'You'll be noted in 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' which meant 'You'll be logged in the information database.' Meaning 'You will receive a warning . . .' If the case was more severe, they would used to talk about 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Meaning 'the decision database.' It meant 'you will be punished.' For the worst cases they used to speak of logging in 'Al Qaida.'
"In the early 1980s the Islamic Bank for Development, which is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, like the Permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Conference Organization, bought a new computerized system to cope with its accounting and communication requirements. At the time the system was more sophisticated than necessary for their actual needs.
"It was decided to use a part of the system's memory to host the Islamic Conference's database. It was possible for the countries attending to access the database by telephone: an Intranet, in modern language. The governments of the member-countries as well as some of their embassies in the world were connected to that network.
"[According to a Pakistani major] the database was divided into two parts, the information file where the participants in the meetings could pick up and send information they needed, and the decision file where the decisions made during the previous sessions were recorded and stored. In Arabic, the files were called, 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' and 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Those two files were kept in one file called in Arabic 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat' which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word Al Qaida which is the Arabic word for "base." The military air base of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is called 'q eidat 'riyadh al 'askariya.' Q eida means "a base" and "Al Qaida" means "the base."
"In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference's secretariat.
"In the early 1990s, I was a military intelligence officer in the Headquarters of the French Rapid Action Force. Because of my skills in Arabic my job was also to translate a lot of faxes and letters seized or intercepted by our intelligence services . . . We often got intercepted material sent by Islamic networks operating from the UK or from Belgium.
"These documents contained directions sent to Islamic armed groups in Algeria or in France. The messages quoted the sources of statements to be exploited in the redaction of the tracts or leaflets, or to be introduced in video or tapes to be sent to the media. The most commonly quoted sources were the United Nations, the non-aligned countries, the UNHCR and . . . Al Qaida.
"Al Qaida remained the data base of the Islamic Conference. Not all member countries of the Islamic Conference are 'rogue states' and many Islamic groups could pick up information from the databases. It was but natural for Osama Bin Laden to be connected to this network. He is a member of an important family in the banking and business world.
"Because of the presence of 'rogue states,' it became easy for terrorist groups to use the email of the database. Hence, the email of Al Qaida was used, with some interface system, providing secrecy, for the families of the mujaheddin to keep links with their children undergoing training in Afghanistan, or in Libya or in the Beqaa valley, Lebanon. Or in action anywhere in the battlefields where the extremists sponsored by all the 'rogue states' used to fight. And the 'rogue states' included Saudi Arabia. When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.
Meet "Al Qaeda"
"Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to 'punish' Prime Minister Erdogan for being a 'toot tepid' Islamic politician.
" . . . In the Third World the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact 'rogue states," specially the US and other NATO countries.
" Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against the 'liberal" economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."
In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel's case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel's character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system "got him" for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group.
It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of "Al Qaeda." We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel, who knew the truth about "Al Qaeda" — Another target of the neo-cons.
The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means
Friday 8 July 2005 15.00 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
7 July London attacks
I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead.
The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.
It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?
But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?
At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.
Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.
In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.
Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.
The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.
But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.
And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.
r.cook@guardian.co.uk
Mystery death of key MP witness in Diana's 'murder'
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/339807/Mystery-death-of-key-MP-witness-in-Diana-s-murder
POLICE probing a possible SAS link to Princess Diana's death are being thwarted because of the mysterious death of a top UK politician.
By Richard Spillett / Published 20th September 2013
Robin Cook, who was Foreign Secretary when Diana died, would have had the ultimate say about any plan to kill her.
So detectives leading the new Scotland Yard inquiry into the Princess's death would have been anxious to question him.
But the apparently fit and healthy Mr Cook died in 2005 while walking on a remote Scottish mountainside.
A helicopter took 30 minutes to get to the scene after he tumbled just 8ft down a ridge.
Mr Cook's wife, Gaynor, did not get in the helicopter and was instead left to walk down the mountain.
By the time she got to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, her husband had already been pronounced dead. A heart attack was blamed. He was 59.
Mr Cook died a year before the conclusion of Operation Paget, the Met's official inquiry into Diana's death, and two years before the official inquest.
His death had a huge effect on efforts by French authorities to get to the bottom of Diana's car crash horror in central Paris in 1997.
A senior French judicial source said: "It would have been important for us to question Mr Cook about these dramatic developments.
"If the accusation is that he was the man who may have sanctioned an attack, then of course his answers would be crucial. So many lines of inquiry led to him and his office."
Former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove testified on oath at the Diana inquest in 2007 that Mr Cook would have been required to issue a "Class Seven Authorisation".
This would have unleashed an armed unit with a "licence to kill", in the kind of plot a former SAS soldier has said was played out in the Alma Tunnel.
Diana's Mercedes smashed into the underpass wall, killing her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and their French chauffeur Henri Paul.
An SAS sniper, known only as Soldier N, has since said Diana was murdered, adding to the growing belief that her death may not have been an accident.
Around 30 SAS soldiers who were serving in 1997 have now been re-interviewed in an internal probe.
On April 7, 2008, an inquest jury concluded that Diana and Dodi were unlawfully killed by the "grossly negligent" driving of Henri Paul and pursuing paparazzi photographers, but such findings have been hotly disputed.
Now it is argued that Diana was murdered when a piercing light was shone directly at the car she was travelling in.
Soldier N's ex-wife told Scotland Yard detectives last month that her former husband decided to confide all to her after taking Prince William, then 26, on an advanced driving course in 2008.
He told his wife he already knew of the alleged plot to kill her, but a face-to-face encounter with the young prince convinced him to open up for the first time.
UK forces EU to lift embargo on Syria rebel arms
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/28/uk-forced-eu-embargo-syria-rebel-arms
Europe's sanctions regime against Syria was plunged into uncertainty after Britain, backed by France, forced a lifting of the EU arms embargo on what it identifies as the moderate opposition to President Bashar al-Assad.
Tuesday 28 May 2013 01.34 BST
Britain claimed victory in a long day of acrimonious negotiations, winning an easing of the arms embargo. The vast majority of EU states opposed the shift, but assented in order to preserve a semblance of unified policy.
A meeting of EU foreign ministers descended into recrimination with a vast majority against lifting the arms embargo, but William Hague, the foreign secretary, blocked a compromise deal. Austria, the biggest opponent of the British aim, reacted bitterly, stating that the EU negotiations had collapsed and that the Europe-wide sanctions regime would collapse at midnight on Friday.
Hague sounded satisfied, however, although others said 25 of 27 EU governments opposed the Anglo-French policy.
"EU nations agreed to bring the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition to an end. This was the outcome that the United Kingdom wanted. It was a difficult decision for some countries but it was necessary and right to reinforce international efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria," Hague said.
By contrast, the Austrian vice-chancellor and foreign minister, Michael Spindelegger, said the talks "have failed ... I'm a little annoyed ... It's regrettable that we have found no common position."
He added that France joined Britain in demanding a lifting of the arms embargo, but that the other 25 were opposed.
The Dutch said that only two EU countries were thinking of supplying arms to Syria, meaning the UK and France. There was also agreement that Britain would not begin to deliver arms to the Syrian opposition before August, in order to gauge what might happen at the internationally sponsored peace talks in Geneva mooted for next month, although there is no certainty whether they will take place.
The long day of negotiations between the EU's 27 foreign ministers saw Britain and France opposing plans to shelve a decision on arming the opposition until August, while Austria and the Czech Republic spearheaded the opposition to the Anglo-French push, with the Czechs supporting the Israeli line against sending arms to Syria and the Austrians alarmed at the impact on their UN peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights between Syria and Israel.
Spindelegger said that Vienna would now have to reconsider its deployment on Golan. A withdrawal could see an Israeli rush to fill the UN vacuum, ratcheting up the tension in the region.
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said Paris supported a decision that would maintain an EU consensus, but would allow "the rebels to have the necessary arms and that the arms could be monitored".
The foreign secretary, William Hague, joined the French in arguing that supplying arms to "moderate" opposition forces would lead to less killing in Syria. Others argued the opposite, that arms supplies would only escalate the conflict.
Several countries – notably Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden – opposed the decision for fear that weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic extremist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. Germany has been trying to fashion a compromise.
Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said he would try to "build bridges", but consensus was elusive with participants delivering contradictory statements. Both Westerwelle and Hague had warned the EU could fail to agree a common position on the sanctions package, which was to expire automatically on Friday.
It appeared that Britain and France had received a green light to go ahead with supplying arms to the Syrian rebels. They have been pressing for a partial lifting of the arms embargo to the moderate sections of the Syrian opposition since last November. Hague has argued that lifting the arms embargo would complement, rather than contradict, a peace process since a militarily strengthened Syrian opposition can force the Syrian president, Assad, to the negotiating table.
Fabius returned early to Paris to meet John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, to try to organise Syrian peace talks in Geneva next month. No date has been set for the talks. It is not clear who will attend.
In Brussels, Turkey's foreign minister voiced strong support for the Anglo-French position. But last week in the US, Ankara was strongly rebuffed in its hawkish position against Assad by the White House.
Oxfam's head of arms control, Anna Macdonald, said: "Allowing the EU arms embargo to end could have devastating consequences. There are no easy answers when trying to stop the bloodshed in Syria, but sending more arms and ammunition clearly isn't one of them.
"Transferring more weapons to Syria can only exacerbate a hellish scenario for civilians. If the UK and France are to live up to their own commitments – including those set out in the new arms trade treaty – they simply must not send weapons to Syria."
The UK-French attempt to lift the arms embargo has not been made any easier by the continued lack of unity within the rebel movement. Talks failed on Sunday to end a factional dispute over proposals to dilute Qatar's influence on rebel forces, with Saudi Arabia angling to play a greater role now that Iranian-backed Hezbollah is openly fighting for Assad.
The dispute over how to respond to the civil war in Syria has exposed deep divisions in Europe. Senior European officials say much of the debate is "hypocritical" because some of the countries calling for a lifting of the embargo do not have the weapons to deliver or have no intention of taking part. They also point out that the White House and the State Department appear to be similarly split between hawks and doves.
Syria: William Hague reiterates support for rebels as new doubts emerge
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10290063/Syria-William-Hague-reiterates-support-for-rebels-as-new-doubts-emerge.html
William Hague reiterated Britain's support for Syrian rebel groups as fresh doubts emerged about whether it was possible to identify a moderate rebel grouping in the event of the fall of Bashar al-Assad.
By Peter Foster, Washington
7:54PM BST 05 Sep 2013
"The people of Syria should be in no doubt that the UK stands fully behind the Syrian National opposition – the sole legitimate representatives of the Syrian people," Mr Hague said following a meeting with Ahmad Al-Jarba, the president of the Syrian National Coalition.
However the difficulty of backing rebel groups was highlighted by the emergence of a highly disturbing video showing one small rebel band carrying out the summary execution of seven Syrian soldiers in the province of Idlib last April.
The video, which was obtained by the New York Times from the disaffected aide of the rebel commander who ordered the killings, has highlighted the debate in the US over whether it is really possible to identify a 'good' faction in the fragmented rebel movement in Syria.
Although there are up 1,000 rebel groups, the White House and supporters of US action in Syria have argued that there is a moderate core that could be used to create a political settlement in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, has said that only "15 to 20 per cent" of rebels could be described as "bad guys", while John McCain, the pro-intervention Republican senator who visited Syria earlier this year to meet rebel groups, has also been promising that there is a moderate core of rebels.
Mr Hague described the SNC as "the best possible hope for a political solution to the crisis and for a future Syria which is stable and democratic", however the video has illustrated complexity of the situation on the ground, where rebel groups are not clearly divided on secular and jihadist lines, with many committing extortion, kidnapping and executions.
The New York Times reported that the rebels in the pictures – which were picked up by US television networks yesterday - may also have received weapons from the Western-supported Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army.
The rebel commander in the video, Abdul Samad Issa, 37, who is also known as "The Uncle", was reportedly motivated to carry out the executions after capturing the Syrian soldiers and discovering videos of the rape of Syrian civilians on their mobile phones.
He was also partly motivated by the fact that his father was killed in the 1982 crackdown against Muslim Brotherhood rebels by Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria's current president, further illustrating the tensions arising out Syria's deeply troubled recent history.
A western diplomatic source, speaking to a select group of reporters last month, said that less than "30 per cent" of rebels fighting in Syria are palatable to Britain. He added that the rebels in that category were not in a coordinated group.
Having given this damming assessment of the armed opposition, he said a political solution remained the best option: "The alternatives to a political deal are all unattractive, Saddam '91 scenario; Somalisation; or splitting up the country".
Does Nato want regime change in Libya?
http://www.channel4.com/news/does-nato-want-regime-change-in-libya
With leaders of the UK, the US and France calling on Colonel Gaddafi to step down, a British Conservative MP wants a recall of parliament amid fears that Nato is set on regime change in Libya.
One day after Nato planes launched air strikes on Tripoli, a Conservative MP has requested the recall of Parliament amid fears that the allied mission in Libya has become focused on regime change, which is illegal under international law.
John Baron, who was the only Tory MP to vote against military action in Libya, believes that while the original emphasis of the Libyan mission was the protection of civilians and the provision of humanitarian aid, it is now the removal of Colonel Gaddafi.
Mr Baron's decision to write to the Commons Speaker requesting a recall was prompted in part by an article penned jointly by Prime Minister Cameron, President Obama and President Sarkozy, which appeared in today's Times.
In the piece, which is also published in the Washington Post and Le Figaro, the leaders of the UK, the US and France state:
"Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi (sic) by force.
"The mission in Libya has fundamentally changed into one of regime change."
John Baron, Conservative MP for Billericay.
"But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi (sic) in place."
The Conservative MP for Billericay told Channel 4 News: "The article confirms that the mission has fundamentally changed into one of regime change, which is illegal under international law.
"Had Parliament known this at the time, the original debate might have taken a different course. I believe I'm not the only one who has questions to ask the Government."
The original UN Resolution 1973 demands an immediate ceasefire between pro-government forces and rebels in Libya. It authorises the international community to establish a no-fly zone over the country and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.
Former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis is also in favour of a recall of Parliament. He told BBC Radio: "I think Cameron has done the right thing at every step so far. To go to the next phase, he has to get parliamentary authority."
But Lord (Mark) Malloch-Brown, interviewed for Channel 4 News, said he believed the text of today's newspaper article made it clear that military activity was limited to the protection of civilians.
"They're right to say their continued presence is going to contribute to the weakening of the regime, but they are careful not to say that they're going to go over the line of the resolution and use military means to displace him," the former UN Deputy Secretary General and Foreign Office minister told Alex Thomson.
"Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy are careful not to say they're going to use military means to displace Gaddafi."
Lord Malloch-Brown, former Foreign Office minister
Lord Malloch-Brown disagreed that the contents of the Obama-Cameron-Sarkozy letter merited a recall of parliament, but he described the current military operation as "a little bit up a creek without a paddle" because it was failing on a humanitarian level and had no exit strategy.
The House of Commons is currently in Easter recess. MPs are not due to return until 26 April. The Commons debated military action on 21 March, four days after UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed.
Parliament has been recalled in recent years to debate the 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States and claims in 2002 that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Libya war: strike against Gaddafi
http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-war-strike-against-gaddafi
In-depth analysis of Libya in turmoil as coalition forces support rebels fighting for an end to Gaddafi's 40-year rule.
Regime Change as American as Apple Pie
http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20150929/1027737498/us-regime-change-crimes.html
Finian Cunningham 19:34 29.09.2015
Clandestine American-led interventions have fuelled the explosion in terror networks across the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Yet amid this American legacy of international violence, Obama was charged with painting a rose-tinted view of the world that was breath-taking in its distortion and absurdity.
US President Barack Obama is someone to almost pity. For he has the unenviable task of standing before the nations of the world and smugly spout endless falsehoods — as he did, yet again, during his address to the UN General Assembly.
By contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin in his address to the UN may not have displayed the same oratorical flourishes as Obama, but far more importantly Putin spoke about some of the most pressing international problems with words that were the plain truth.
When Putin spoke about the UN and international law being undermined by "exceptional" unilateral actions of the United States, he was able to put his finger on the crux of why conflict, chaos and terrorism are raging in so many parts of the world.
And if we are trying to fix these problems, genuinely, then what the world needs is an accurate diagnosis. Putin delivered that, while Obama just added further layers of obfuscation and misinformation, making such problems ever-more insoluble.
As Putin clearly indicated, illegal US-led regime-change operations that subvert international law and the UN Charter are at the root of ongoing, widespread conflicts, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria and to Ukraine.
These clandestine American-led interventions have also fuelled the explosion in terror networks across the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Putin provided the most logical, rational and credible explanation that allows for collective solutions. Supporting the sovereign government of Syria to defeat foreign-backed terrorism in that country is one such solution.
Yet amid this American legacy of international violence, Obama was charged with painting a rose-tinted view of the world that was breath-taking in its distortion and absurdity.
On Syria, the American president sought to ascribe the violence and growth of terrorism in that country as being due to "tyrannical" Bashar al-Assad who "attacked peaceful protesters" back in 2011. This falsification by Obama flies in the face of admissions by Washington — in declassified documents — that it hatched secret plans for regime change in Syria as early as 2006.
The Pentagon has also admitted in declassified documents that it sponsored jihadist extremists like Islamic State to wage war against the Assad government for the "wilful" objective of regime change. In both instances, the US government indicts itself of heinous crimes.
Nevertheless, Obama blithely regaled the UN with claims that his government is "supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power" — while, unbelievably, ignoring the long and execrable history of American-sponsored regime change in every corner of the globe.
This American criminal expertise in violating international law and democratic rights of nations spans at least a century. During the early 20th century decades, Major General Smedley Butler in his book, 'War is a Racket', described how the Pentagon's military muscle was used to ransack Latin America and the Caribbean to install despotic regimes in order to make the hemisphere "safe" for Wall Street banks and US corporations.
Then following the Second World War, the US ruling class applied their regime-change dexterity in every continent over the subsequent seven decades up to the present day. From the early postwar European states of Greece, Italy and France where nationalist or socialist governments were thwarted or subverted, right up to the most recent cases of Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
In between, we have the notorious cases of US subversion and coups in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras — to mention just a few. For a complete list of scores of American dirty operations across the world, see William Blum's book 'Killing Hope'.
Obama describes US involvement in Libya in 2011 as "helping to prevent a massacre"; and he claims Washington is helping to resolve conflict in Syria and supporting democracy in Ukraine. But in each case, as in countless other countries down through the decades, Washington's finger-prints are all over the crime scenes and point to its illegal schemes for overthrowing governments and "deterring democracy", as Noam Chomsky puts it.
But perhaps the ultimate regime change that American rulers engaged in was not against some far off African, Asian or Latin American land.
The most audacious act of criminality was against one of their own democratically elected governments.
In 1963, the brutal assassination of President John F Kennedy as he drove through Dallas in a motorcade was unmistakably a covert regime-change operation. The slaying of Kennedy happened only three weeks after US intelligence were implicated in the murder of Washington's puppet-dictator in South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem.
Kennedy, whose policies were viewed as being anti-war and amenable to mediation with the Soviet Union and revolutionary Cuba, had made powerful enemies within the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon's military-industrial complex. The sophistication and political context of Kennedy's assassination, the vast official cover-up, including the murder of the alleged assassin, the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald, all point to a covert operation to get rid off the president.
American corporate-controlled news media to this day treat the subject of who really killed Kennedy as an off-limits "conspiracy theory". But reading an array of investigative literature, such as James Douglass' 'JFK and the Unspeakable', as well as testimony of attorney, the late Jim Garrison, it is scarcely disputable that President Kennedy was assassinated by powerful and secretive elements within the American ruling class.
The objective was to replace Kennedy with a president who would be more obedient to the strategic interests of the American military-industrial complex. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B Johnson, was such a figure, paving the way for the escalation of the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s and heightened hostilities towards the Soviet Union and Cuba, including numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro.
Returning to the UN address delivered by Barack Obama this week, at one point he bragged: "I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary."
This is the kind of unquestioning militarism and use of unilateral military force that America's ruling class expects from White House occupants. Breaking international law, violating the UN Charter and implementing regime change — no matter how murderous — and then spouting lies with squeaky clean rhetoric, these are the qualifications that an American president must demonstrate to the dark, ruling forces within his country.
Otherwise, the fate of an independent, democratic leader would be the same as that of JFK. For regime change, and all its attendant criminality, is as American as mama's homemade apple pie.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
Legality of the Iraq War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes[specify] had been committed[citation needed]. Many of the political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal[citation needed], while many legal experts[who?] and other international leaders[who?] have argued that it was illegal[citation needed]. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[3] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[1][4][5]
The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised. Despite this, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war. Indeed, the UNGA asked the ICJ to give an 'advisory opinion' on "the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel", by its resolution A/RES/ES-10/14,[6] as recently as 12 December 2003; despite opposition from permanent members of the Security Council. It achieved this by sitting in tenth 'emergency special session', under the framework of the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution. The ICJ had previously found against the US for its actions in Nicaragua,[7] a finding the US refused to comply with.
The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[10] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[11]
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[12]
Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[10] However, the US government stated that an armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush in 1993 and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US reserved the right to self-defense, even without a UN mandate, as were the cases in the bombing of Iraq in June 1993 in retaliation for Hussein's attempt on former President Bush's life and again in 1996 in retaliation for Hussein's targeting of American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq and the launching of a major offensive against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan in violation of UNSC Resolution 688 prohibiting repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities.[13][14]
The U.S. and UK governments, along with others, also stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)[15] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the United States and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.[16][17] Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the U.S.-based National Lawyers' Guild,[18] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal.[19][20][21]
United Nations Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter
The Charter of the United Nations is the foundational treaty of the intergovernmental organization; the United Nations.[1] It was signed at the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center in San Francisco, United States, on 26 June 1945, by 50 of the 51 original member countries. (Poland, the other original member, which was not represented at the conference, signed it two months later.) It entered into force on 24 October 1945, after being ratified by the original five permanent members of the Security Council—the Republic of China (later replaced by the People's Republic of China), France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (later replaced by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.
As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, Article 103 of the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.[1][2] Most countries in the world have now ratified the Charter.
The Charter consists of a preamble and a series of articles grouped into chapters.[1]
The preamble consists of two principal parts. The first part contains a general call for the maintenance of peace and international security and respect for human rights. The second part of the preamble is a declaration in a contractual style that the governments of the peoples of the United Nations have agreed to the Charter and it is the first international document regarding human rights.
Chapter I sets forth the purposes of the United Nations, including the important provisions of the maintenance of international peace and security.
Chapter II defines the criteria for membership in the United Nations.
Chapters III-XV, the bulk of the document, describe the organs and institutions of the UN and their respective powers.
Chapters XVI and Chapter XVII describe arrangements for integrating the UN with established international law.
Chapters XVIII and Chapter XIX provide for amendment and ratification of the Charter.
The following chapters deal with the enforcement powers of UN bodies:
Chapter VI describes the Security Council's power to investigate and mediate disputes;
Chapter VII describes the Security Council's power to authorize economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions, as well as the use of military force, to resolve disputes;
Chapter VIII makes it possible for regional arrangements to maintain peace and security within their own region;
Chapters IX and Chapter X describe the UN's powers for economic and social cooperation, and the Economic and Social Council that oversees these powers;
Chapters XII and Chapter XIII describe the Trusteeship Council, which oversaw decolonization;
Chapters XIV and Chapter XV establish the powers of, respectively, the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Secretariat.
Chapters XVI through Chapter XIX deal respectively with XVI: miscellaneous provisions, XVII: transitional security arrangements related to World War II, XVIII: the charter amendment process, and XIX: ratification of the charter
Americans caught 'red-handed' in Syria: Analyst
http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/10/07/432428/US-Russia-extremist-groups-redhanded-
Wed Oct 7, 2015 6:1PM
Russia's successful military intervention against terrorist groups operating in Syria is further proof that the US was supporting extremist groups in the Middle East rather than fighting them, a former American intelligence linguist in Florida says.
Unlike the Russian military strikes, the US-led coalition's war against Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) was ineffective and has produced limited results, Scott Rickard told Press TV on Tuesday.
"Russia has exposed the US façade of creating their own terrorist organization, and now that Russia has decided to obliterate the terrorist organizations that the Americans have been supporting in and around Syria, it's proven to be a very good move strategically," Rickard said.
Russia started its air campaign in Syria last week to target terrorist groups fighting the Syrian government.
Russian warships also began to launch missiles into Syria from the Caspian Sea on Wednesday.
The missiles mark a significant escalation of Russian involvement in the region and a growing crisis for US foreign policy in Syria.
"The Americans were caught red-handed, exposing the fact that they've been allowing multiple locations of ISIS operation to continue without being bombed or interrupted," Rickard said.
"The particular organizations that the Americans were claiming were moderate rebels were actually feeding the ISIS organizations with weapons and intelligence and so on and so forth and the Russians came in and did a great job," he added.
A new US intelligence assessment indicates that Russia has targeted militant groups backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Syria.
Obama administration officials are debating how the United States can come to the aid of its proxy forces on the ground without risking a broader conflict with Moscow.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.10.08, 18:48:34
Obama administration officials are debating how the United States can come to the aid of its proxy forces on the ground without risking a broader conflict with Moscow.
Any US soldier that volunteers or is ordered to perform this suicide mission best get their life insurance papers in order. It's a lose-lose situation: They get killed or they escalate things to WWIII.
Hopefully the gang-bangers that have infiltrated the armed forces are the ones sent. The ones that actually wish to protect and defend the Constitution would better serve this country by becoming milkmen.
Some fuel to the Siria fire:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ghouta-chemical-attacks-us-backed-false-flag-killing-children-to-justify-a-humanitarian-military-intervention/5351363
http://www.infowars.com/psychopaths-are-running-the-world-former-us-marine-blows-whistle-on-syrian-false-flag-exposes-real-agenda-2/
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.10.09, 09:42:12
Some fuel to the Siria fire:
http://www.infowars.com/psychopaths-are-running-the-world-former-us-marine-blows-whistle-on-syrian-false-flag-exposes-real-agenda-2/
Yes, Ken O'Keefe spells it out very well. I expect him to spend many a day in the brig for speaking the truth with passion. Any individual that steps in the way of this greater plan will be crushed like a bug. The only hope is that everyone still having a functioning brain joins him. Power is in numbers and once those numbers are gone, it's game over.
Ultimately I think it might have been Russia's threat to shoot down any cruise missiles launched by the US at Syrian targets back a while ago that helped to prevent that, along with strong opposition from the U.S.citizens. U.S. Citizens and U.S. servicemen spoke up against it..
Now the Russians are bombing the U.S. armed "terrorists" and their Weapons dumps, likely filled with arms supplied by the U.S. to the "Original Rebels" aka "Free Syrian Army" and the "Al Nusra Front" ect.. The Russians see them all as "Terrorists" and have every right to bomb them with Assad asking them to do it, it is legal and the U.S. is pissed about it,, WOW.
Now Iran is sending ground troops to Syria to take back the ground from the U.S. backed Rebels and ISIS alike, after Russian air strikes.
I see no way for the U.S. to counter this without escalating the situation to WW3 status.
Very sad it had to come to this.
..
The staged "9/11 Event" enabled the U.S. to embark on a plan
of serious middle east de-stabilization as fulfillment of an AGENDA
developed by Dual-Citizen NeoCons for the State of Israel.
How "They" control the World. (http://henrymakow.com/how_to_control_the_world.html)
U.S. caught "faking it" in Syria. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=122924)
Now He Tells Us: Poppy Bush Comes (Partially) Clean on Iraq War
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/09/now-he-tells-us-poppy-bush-comes-partially-clean-on-iraq-war/
Media reports on Jon Meacham's biography of George H. W. Bush, the 41st President, have brought me a painful flashback to the deceptive, destructive – yet at the same time highly instructive – years 2002 and 2003, when his son George W. Bush, the 43rd President, attacked Iraq.
Reality should trump rhetoric regarding that godforsaken war – in my view the most unprincipled and consequential foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. This may be reason enough to renew focus on those years because, for many Americans, those events remain cloaked in mystery and misunderstanding.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney receive an Oval Office briefing from CIA Director George Tenet. Also present is Chief of Staff Andy Card (on right). (White House photo)
With his candor about his eldest son, the 91-year-old Bush patriarch also has sounded what may be the death knell for the moribund campaign of his younger son Jeb to be president #45. I do not suggest that #41 did that consciously. His unusually unguarded remarks, though, will lead voters to be chary of yet another Bush, if only on the "fool me once ... fool me twice" aphorism that Jeb's big brother had trouble remembering.
Meacham's Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush will not be available to the hoi polloi until next week. Details already reported on the critical years of 2002 and 2003, however, permit – I think, rather, dictate – some preliminary analysis, before the Karl Roves of this world create still more "new history."
The clear and present danger of getting sucked into yet another quagmire or quicksand pool on false pretenses persists. Thus, it seems fitting and proper to review the lead-up to the unprovoked "shock and awe" on Iraq proudly launched in March 2003 by #43, egged on by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other white-collar thugs.
Despite the propaganda and more tangible signs of incipient war in Iraq, my former intelligence analyst colleagues and I – with considerable professional experience watching other countries prepare for aggression against others – were finding it difficult to believe that the United States of America would be doing precisely that.
Still harder was it to digest the notion that Washington would do so, absent credible evidence of any immediate threat and would "fix" intelligence to "justify" it. But that, sadly, is what happened. On March 19, 2003, U.S. "shock and awe" lit the sky over Baghdad.
A Dozen Years Later
That was more than 12 ½ years ago. That not one of the white-collar crooks responsible for the war and ensuing chaos has been held accountable is an indelible blot not only on our country, but also on international law and custom. After all, the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq fits snugly the definition given to a "war of aggression" as defined by the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal. Nuremberg labeled such a war "the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
And the evil continued to accumulate: torture, kidnapping, black prisons, extrajudicial killing, massive invasions of privacy, and even the annulment of such basic human rights as the great writ of habeas corpus that was wrested from England's King John 800 years ago. And, in the wake of this criminality, bedlam now reigns across large swaths of the Middle East driving millions of refugees into neighboring countries and Europe.
That the U.S. and U.K. leaders who launched the Iraq war have so far escaped apprehension and prosecution might be seen as a sad example of "victor's justice." But there are no victors, only victims. The reality that President George W. Bush and his co-conspirators remain unpunished makes a mockery of the commitment to the transcendent importance of evenhanded justice as expressed on Aug. 12, 1945, by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief U.S. representative at Nuremberg: "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
Maybe it is partly because I know the elder Bush personally, but it does strike me that, since we are all human, some degree of empathy might be in order. I simply cannot imagine what it must be like to be a former President with a son, also a former President, undeniably responsible for such trespass on law – for such widespread killing, injury and abject misery.
It is something of a stretch, but I have tried to put myself into the shoes of the elder Bush. In them I find myself insecure and struggling – like Jacob – before his dream about wrestling with God. The story in Genesis shows Jacob full of anxiety, despite God's promise that God would bless his dynasty. He cannot overcome his fear and is powerless to control his fate.
Jacob is aware that he is at a pivotal juncture but he is physically spent. Alone in the wilderness facing death, he collapses into a deep sleep, only to find himself wrestling all night with God. At daybreak he awakes with an injured hip; he is disabled but his life is spared. He had come to grips with God and, in the end, receives God's blessing of peace.
What author Meacham has written suggests to me the possibility that the sins of the son are being visited on the father, to reverse one familiar Biblical expression.
In these circumstances, the tendency to require that thugs like Cheney and Rumsfeld bear their share of the blame seems quite human. And, to his credit, Bush-41 concedes "the buck stops" at the President. But I sense him thinking – correctly, in my view – that without those two "iron-ass" advisers, things would have been quite different. The son might even have paid more heed to the experienced cautions of the father and his associates.
Sins of Omission
As the senior Bush knows, sins of omission can be as consequential as those of commission. Judging from what he is quoted as saying in Meacham's book, it appears he decided to make a (sort-of) clean breast of things – okay, call it a Watergate-style "modified, limited hangout," if you will. But, clearly, Bush has to be painfully aware that he was one of only a handful of people who might have been able to stop the chaos and carnage, had he spoken out publicly in real time.
He does hedge, saying for example that he still believes the attack on Iraq was the right thing to do. But this is a position he staked out years ago and, especially at 91, it may be too much to expect of him that he acknowledge the full implications of what he says elsewhere in the book about the misguided advice of "hardline" Cheney and "arrogant" Rumsfeld together with where, after all, the buck does stop.
My take is that Bush-41 has not completed his wrestle with the truth and with the guilt he may feel for failing to warn the rest of us what to expect from George, Cheney and Rumsfeld as he watched it happen. The elder Bush did use surrogates – including two of his closest and most prominent friends, James Baker, his secretary of state, and Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser, to speak out against the war.
But here the mainstream media was of no help. Instead of weighing the merits of the strong arguments of Baker, Scowcroft and other experienced foreign policy professionals made against attacking Iraq, the media gave inordinate attention to incessant debates as to whether the seeming surrogates were actually speaking for the elder Bush.
In effect, the media was demanding what they knew Bush senior would almost certainly not do, "Speak for yourself, George H. W. Bush." He refused to do it; he would not even comment on the critical views expressed by Baker and Scowcroft on Bush-43's plan to attack Iraq.
Sure, it would have been hard, but at the time Bush senior was only in his late 70s, as he watched his son fall in with bad companions the dishonesty and foolishness leading up to the attack on Iraq.
With his current modified, limited hangout – especially (his richly deserved) criticism of Cheney and Rumsfeld – Bush the elder may be able to live more comfortably with himself and to get past what I believe must be his regret now over having made no public effort to stop the madness back then.
The chronology below includes some of the more important events and may help inform those who have not had the time or inclination to follow the play-by-play as Cheney and Rumsfeld played on the younger Bush's unabashed preening as "the first war president of the 21st century."
Keeping a Watching Brief
The elder Bush knew all too well what was happening. He also knew what his son George was capable of – not to mention the inclinations of Cheney, Rumsfeld and other white-collar criminals. To be brutally candid, it is a little late for the family patriarch to be telling us all this – while blaming the Iraq debacle mostly on Cheney and Rumsfeld, quintessentially blameworthy though they are.
Worst still, if Bush-43 is to be believed, Bush senior had guilty foreknowledge of the war-crime attack on Iraq. George W. Bush divulges this in his 2014 Virgil-style paean to his father, "41: A Portrait of My Father," in which he arrogates to himself Aeneas-like filial devotion. (Friends more cynical than me suggest that 43's panegyric should be construed as a benign pre-emptive move to prevent the father from blabbing to his biographer.)
In any event, Bush-43 includes the following sentences about informing his father about plans to attack Iraq: "We both knew that this was a decision that only the president can make. We did talk about the issue, however. Over Christmas 2002, at Camp David, I did give Dad an update on our strategy."
By that time, the die had been cast. Frankly, it is as painful as it is instructive to review the flow of key events in the summer and early fall of 2002. But I believe it may be necessary, not only to outline what Bush senior was watching, but also to pre-empt the creation of false history. Here are some selected benchmarks:
July 23, 2002: Tony Blair and his principal national security advisers are briefed at 10 Downing Street by MI-6 chief Richard Dearlove, CIA Director George Tenet's British counterpart, three days after Dearlove met with Tenet at CIA Headquarters. A participant in the July 23 briefing prepares minutes of the meeting that same day. They are eventually leaked and published in the London Times on May 1, 2005.
The minutes quote Dearlove, Foreign Minister Jack Straw, and Attorney-General Peter Goldsmith. First Dearlove: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." [Translation: Saddam Hussein will be accused of having weapons of mass destruction that he could give to terrorists.]
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... The Foreign Secretary said the case [for war] was thin. ... The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action."
August 2002: President George W. Bush spends from August 6 to 31 clearing brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card sets up a White House Iraq Group (WHIG) to "educate the public" on the alleged threat from Iraq. The group includes heavy hitters like political adviser Karl Rove, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bush's communications director Karen Hughes, and two officials from Dick Cheney's entourage – Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Mary Matalin. In his memoir, Cheney notes that both Matalin and Libby "wore two hats" – serving as assistants to both Cheney and the President.
August 2002: With Bush in Crawford, there is trouble brewing for Cheney, Rumsfeld and others pushing for war on Iraq. Close associates of the elder Bush and other senior foreign policy mavens begin to speak out strongly against an attack on Iraq.
Brent Scowcroft leads off the campaign on Aug. 4 at CBS's Face the Nation. Next up is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with an Aug. 12 Washington Post op-ed titled "Unilateral Attack Will Set Dangerous Precedent." On Aug. 15, Scowcroft publishes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with the non-subtle title: "Don't Attack Saddam."
Also on Aug. 15, Lawrence Eagleburger, who served the elder Bush briefly as secretary of state, tells ABC News that unless Saddam Hussein "has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it [attack Iraq] now."
Then on Aug. 25, in a New York Times op-ed, Bush-41's Secretary of State James Baker adduces, in a lawyerly but compelling way, virtually all the reasons that what Bush-43, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. had already decided on regarding Iraq would bring disaster.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, also says openly in August that Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage had earlier advised President George W. Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military strike on Iraq.
More trouble for hawks like Cheney was brewing in the House. Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey publicly warned that an "unprovoked attack" on Iraq would be illegal, adding, "It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."
(Armey later told Michael Isikoff, during an on-the-record interview for Isikoff's book Hubris, that he had warned President George W. Bush that war on Iraq might result in a "quagmire." He added that, while he found questionable the intelligence presented to him in support of such a war, he would give Bush the benefit of the doubt. According to Barton Gellman, author of Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Cheney told Armey that Saddam Hussein's family had direct ties to Al Qaeda and that Saddam was developing miniature nuclear weapons. Armey then voted for the war, but bitterly complained later that he had been "bullshitted" by Cheney.)
Stopping the Peace Juggernaut
With the President clearing brush and Andrew Card proceeding at what must have seemed to Cheney a dilatory pace, given the mounting opposition to war on Iraq, Cheney seized the bull by the horns, so to speak. Without a word to Secretary of State Powell or CIA Director Tenet, and not wanting to interrupt the President's vacation, Cheney set the parameters for using "fixed" intelligence to reverse the alarming efforts toward peace.
With the apparent endorsement of Bush junior, when the President got back in town on Sept. 1, the juggernaut was redirected toward war. (One stands in awe of the unchallenged power Cheney was able to exert – even if it was, technically speaking, ad referendum the President.)
Cheney chose to include in an Aug. 26 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville extreme, unsubstantiated charges about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that set the terms of reference for virtually all that was to follow, including, I regret to say, the National Intelligence Estimate that my former colleagues were suborned into "fixing" around the policy.
In his Aug. 26, 2002 speech, Cheney broadly warned that Saddam Hussein intends to "subject the United States to nuclear blackmail." He continued:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. ... What he wants is ... more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons....
"Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action. ... The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago.
"Against that background, a person would be right to question any suggestion that we should just get inspectors back into Iraq, and then our worries will be over. Saddam has perfected the game of shoot and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions."
Colin Powell, George Tenet and others had five days, before Bush got back in town, to regain their composure after being blindsided by Cheney – time enough, apparently, to remind themselves about who it was that really had the President's ear. There is no sign that either Powell or Tenet chose to make a federal case out of it, so to speak. Also choosing to remain silent was former the CENTCOM commander, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was right there at the VFW convention.
Hear No Evil — Speak No Truth
Zinni later said he was shocked to hear Cheney's depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.
"There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD. ... I heard a case being made to go to war," Zinni told "Meet the Press" 3 ½ years later.
The question lingers: why did Zinni not go public when he first heard Cheney lie? After all, he was one of the very few credible senior officials who might have prevented a war he knew was unnecessary. A tough, widely respected Marine intimidated by a Vice President with five draft deferments? It happens. It happened.
Secretary of State Powell was also blindsided, but there is no sign he summoned the courage to voice any objections directly to the President about Cheney's version of the threat from Iraq and what had to be done about it.
CIA Director Tenet has written that he, too, was taken completely by surprise by what Cheney said. In his memoir, Tenet added, "I had the impression that the president wasn't any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it." But Tenet, as noted above, knew only too well that the intelligence was being "fixed," because he was in charge of fixing it.
So for Tenet the surprise was simply one of timing – that Cheney would go out on so long a limb before Bush got back from vacation.
From Cheney's perspective the timing was perfect. With Bush out of town, it was even easier to avoid messy fights with what Cheney considered a troublesome, unnecessary bureaucracy (he had built up his own). And with UK Prime Minister Blair coming to Camp David six days after Bush got back, it would be cumbersome enough to fine-tune and coordinate the appropriate talking points for Bush to use with Blair on Sept. 7.
And so, with the month of August seeing a phalanx of senior Bush foreign policy advisers and other experts, as well as key Congressional leaders, speaking out in a troubling way against the war, an ever decisive Cheney decided he could not abide by the proverbial maxim that Andrew Card actually let drop publicly in early September: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Just to be clear, the White House chief of staff was talking about marketing war.
By the time George W. Bush got back to the Oval Office, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) had gotten its instructions from Cheney on the strategy with which to approach Tony Blair to keep him harnessed onto the commander's Jeep for war – with particular attention to the joint U.S.-U.K. "marketing" campaign to be launched, big time, the day after the Bush and Blair met at Camp David.
The media did a little warm-up, with the BBC reporting that President Bush had shared with Prime Minister Blair satellite photographs released by a UN agency that allegedly showed clear evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. "I don't know what more evidence we need," said Mr. Bush. (There were no such photos.)
On Sunday, Sept. 8, came the opening salvo of the marketing campaign – a major propaganda blitz with all hands on deck. The WHIG had been doing its homework and was working with very accommodating media. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Meyers fanned out to the talk shows right after Bush gave Blair the word at Camp David.
The hot topic was new information, apparently made available by the administration to the New York Times a day or two before, concerning "aluminum tubes," sought by Iraq, supposedly for use in refining uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Rice claimed that the tubes were "really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but warned, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." (It turned out the tubes were actually for artillery known to be in Iraq's inventory.)
Upon her return to the White House from CNN, she must have been awarded WHIG's first Oscar. Cheney should have been runner-up for his Meet the Press performance accusing Saddam Hussein of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms. The Vice President actually let slip the White House strategy, expressing hope that Congress would vote for war before it recessed in October (mid-term elections coming the following month).
With members fearing accusations of "softness" if they resisted President Bush's authorization to use force, Congress voted for war. The war was on.
Also, on Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, Rumsfeld on Face the Nation warned that inspections in Iraq would have to be intrusive enough to ensure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. Powell told Fox News that the Bush administration believes that the best way to disarm Iraq "is with a regime change." And Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Myers on ABC's This Week added, "We have the forces, we have the readiness. U.S. armed forces will prevail, if called upon to strike Iraq."
Six Months Later
A half-year later on Feb. 15, 2003, as the elder Bush watched 30 million demonstrators in 800 cities around the world marching against the war for which Bush-43 was so keen, I suspect there may have been a tinge of regret at having pulled strings to ensure young George would not have to experience war by serving in Vietnam.
Unlike his father, George W. had not the foggiest notion of what war is like, and Bush-41 can be thought to have been painfully aware of that. It may have occurred to him to belatedly apply some tough-love to 43 or to even go public in a last-ditch effort to prevent the coming catastrophe. He probably knew that it was unrealistic to expect that the likes of Scowcroft and Baker could influence 43 to change course.
But George H. W. Bush continued to say and do nothing, waiting until now – more than a dozen years after the catastrophic Iraq War was launched – to voice his objections. An unhappy ending for the patriarch of a would-be dynasty.
British SAS given free rein in the fight against Isis in Syria
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-sas-given-free-rein-fight-against-isis-syria-1509401
July 5, 2015 14:38 BST
Units of British SAS troopers are in Syria, backing up forces in the region targetting Islamic State (Isis).
The SAS and the SBS, its British Navy sister unit, are stepping up operations in Syria. The special forces units will work with MI6 – which has a large network of agents within the Islamist group – and will use intelligence from UK eavesdropping service GCHQ as to fight IS.
The SAS are now on standby to assist RAF jets which may be sent into the country following the massacre of 38 tourists, including 30 British nationals, in Tunisia on 26 June.
The British special forces are said to have been granted free rein to capture or kill terrorist leaders who pose a threat to the UK and to direct airstrikes in IS-held territory.
A senior intelligence source told the Sunday Times that the SBS has been pushing to take on a proactive, rather than reactive position – meaning the elite naval unit will have full autonomy to attack terrorist networks that pose a valid threat to the UK.
The plan for heightened operations will likely be similar to the operations in Iraq, Syria and North Africa. Forces of 60-100 soldiers – including elite British troops, and members of US Delta Force and Navy Seals – will plan and carry out drone attacks against Isis, as well as guide air strikes in war-torn Iraq and Syria.
The forces will also analyse battle damage and execute strike operations against high-value targets, including the regional leaders of Isis.
RAF Tornado bombers and Reaper drones have flown hundreds of missions over Iraq since September, killing hundreds of fighters.
British planes are already fighting IS in Iraq, but the UK's Defence Ministry experts believe that bases in must also be targeted.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon now wants British planes to target the extremists "at source" in Syria, if the House of Commons agrees.
Sources say one reason British troops have not been deployed to Syria publicly is because the UK is funding "legitimate" Islamist rebels fighting President Bashir Assad's brutal regime.
US Special Forces deployed as 'human shields' to salvage terror assets in Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320356-syria-us-troops-shields/
Published time: 1 Nov, 2015 04:23
Obama's decision to send Special Forces into Syria is being widely viewed as a US military escalation in the country. The troop dispatch also signals that the US trying to forestall Russian successes in wiping out Washington's regime-change assets in Syria.
In short, the US Special Forces are being used as "human shields" to curb Russian air strikes against anti-government mercenaries, many of whom are instrumental in Washington's regime-change objective in Syria.
First of all, we need to view a host of developments, including the hastily convened "peace talks" in Vienna, as a response by the US and its allies to the game-changing military intervention by Russia. That intervention, beginning on September 30, has not only dealt massive blows to militants, it has completely changed the balance of forces to give the Assad government the upper hand in the war against foreign-backed extremists. That, in turn, has sent the US-led powers trying to topple Damascus into disarray.
Recall the scattered reactions from Washington and its allies, including Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. At first, Washington tried to rubbish Vladimir Putin's order to aid his Syrian ally with airstrikes as "doomed to fail".
Then there were overblown, unverified, claims of civilian casualties from Russian strikes, plus there were American claims that Russian cruise missiles had gone wildly astray, hitting Iran. There was also much angst over Russia striking "moderate rebels" instead of the Islamic State terror network. All such accusations, encouraged with Western media amplification, were designed to undermine Russia's military operation.
Then there were threats from Saudi Arabia and Qatar that they would launch direct military action in Syria to "protect" the populace from the joint firepower of Assad and Putin. That idea was quickly shelved (one wonders by whom?).
Another seeming knee-jerk response came from Turkey and rightwing politicians and pundits in the US which revived talks about the creation of "safe havens" in northern Syria, ostensibly to protect civilian refugees, but also tacitly and more importantly, to give cover to "rebel" groups from Russian air strikes and Syrian government ground troops.
None of these reactions have gained credibility despite Western media hype. On the contrary, it soon became clear that Russia's military intervention in Syria was a masterstroke by Putin, wiping out large swathes of the anti-government mercenaries, stabilizing the Assad government, and winning much popular support both within Syria and across the Middle East, and indeed around the world.
Last week, America's top military official, General Joseph F Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee that Russia's air support had changed everything. "The balance of forces right now are in Assad's advantage," he said.
This is the context in which to interpret the latest, surprise move by Obama to send Special Forces into Syria. It is more about inhibiting Russian success in destroying the sundry anti-regime forces on the ground than about either "helping the fight against Islamic State" as claimed, or about misgivings of a large-scale American invasion.
The troop contingent that Obama has ordered amounts to 50 Special Forces personnel. That is hardly going to be a decisive blow to Islamic State militants, even if we believe the official rationale for their deployment.
The White House, in its announcement, was at pains to emphasize that the troops would not be in a combat role and would only be acting to "advise and train" Kurdish fighters and others belonging to the little-known Syrian Arab Coalition.
But here is perhaps the significant part of the story. "The move could potentially put the American troops in the cross hairs of Russia," reports the New York Times. Significantly, too, the Pentagon will not be informing the Russian military of the exact whereabouts of its ground personnel.
That suggests that the real purpose for Obama sending in the troops is to restrict Russian offensive operations by introducing the risk of bombing American forces. In effect, the US Special Forces are being used as human shields to protect American regime-change assets on the ground.
These assets include an array of jihadist mercenary brigades, which the US and its allies have invested billions of dollars in for the objective of regime change in Syria. The misnomer of "moderate rebels" belies abundant evidence that the mercenaries include Al Qaeda-linked terror groups, including Islamic State. CIA supplies of anti-tank TOW missiles as well as Toyota jeeps are just a glimpse of the foreign covert-sponsorship.
Russia's devastating air campaign over the past month – over 1,600 targets destroyed according to Moscow – has no doubt caused apoplexy in Washington, London, Paris, Ankara, Riyadh and Doha. An urgent stop to their "losses" had to be invoked. But the foreign sponsors can't say it openly otherwise that gives the game away about their criminal involvement in Syria's war.
This perspective most likely explains the hastily convened "peace conference" in Vienna. US Secretary of State John Kerry's apparent concern to "stop the bloodshed" does not seem credible as the primary motive. Why the concern now after nearly five years of bloodshed?
It is not about a "quest for peace" as the BBC reported. The move is more credibly about Washington and its allies maneuvering to give their regime-change assets in Syria a reprieve from Russia's firepower. One of the main points agreed in Vienna this weekend is the implementation of a "nation-wide ceasefire".
Another indicator of what is really going on are reports this week of the large-scale airlifting of jihadist mercenary groups out of Syria. According to senior Syrian army intelligence, up to 500 mercenaries were flown to Yemen onboard Turkish, Qatari and Emirati planes. The fighters were brought to Yemen's southern city of Aden from where they were dispatched to battle zones inside Yemen by the American-coordinated Saudi coalition. The US-Saudi coalition is waging war in Yemen to reinstall the regime of exiled President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi ousted by Houthi rebels earlier this year.
Aden is under the military control of Saudi and Emirati forces and Yemen's airspace has been closed off by the coalition coordinated by US and British military planners based in Saudi capital Riyadh. It is inconceivable that plane loads of jihadists could be flown into southern Yemen without the knowledge of Washington.
So what we are seeing here is a concerted effort by Washington and its allies to stem their covert military losses in Syria. Sending in American Special Forces – a seemingly dramatic U-turn by Obama to put boots on the ground in Syria – is just one part of a wider effort to forestall Russian success in stabilizing Syria. These US forces are not about a "deepening of American involvement in a war [Obama] has tried to avoid", as the New York Times would have us believe. They are being sent in to act as human shields against Russian airstrikes.
The putative ceasefire under a so-called peace process is another element of the US-led salvage operation. The real agenda is about giving Western, Turk and Arab-sponsored jihadists a space to regroup, and if needs be flown out of the Syrian theatre to resume their imperialist function in Yemen and, no doubt, elsewhere when required.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The Islamic State's Areas of Influence, August 2014 to August 2015
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/01/444953234/syrian-opposition-says-russian-airstrikes-arent-targeting-isis
October 01, 2015 9:09 AM ET
ISIS has been forced out of parts of northern Syria and Iraq but still controls a wide swath of land, stretching from just outside Aleppo in Syria to Fallujah in Iraq and north to Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. The group also seized two provincial capitals this year: Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Russia has deployed dozens of warplanes, tanks and armored vehicles to a new base in Syria's Latakia province. But the Russian base is far from any ISIS-controlled areas. On Sept. 29, Russia launched its first airstrikes in Syria. Russian drones with a radius of about 75 miles have started flying reconnaissance missions in Idlib and Hamah provinces, where a mix of non-ISIS rebels are operating, including the al-Qaida affiliate Nusra Front. Other rebels include Free Syrian Army units that are allied with the U.S. There are also a number of Central Asian jihadi elements, including some from Chechnya, a particular foe of Russia. The fear among U.S. officials is that Russia will not discriminate and will bomb all rebel groups — including those with ties to the U.S. — to keep Syrian President Bashar Assad in power.
Islamic State: What has happened since the fall of Mosul?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32784661
10 June 2015
A year ago, militants from Islamic State (IS) seized control of Iraq's second city, Mosul, routing the Iraqi army and sending shockwaves around the world.
Despite facing an air campaign by a US-led international coalition and offensives on the ground by a variety of opponents in Iraq and neighbouring Syria, IS has maintained its grip on the territory it captured and been able to impose its extreme interpretation of Islamic law.
Here is a look at some of the key events which have shaped the confrontation with the jihadist group over the past 12 months.
Mosul captured
In early June 2014, the group then known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) launched an assault on Mosul, the main city in northern Iraq. An estimated 30,000 soldiers fled when confronted by as few as 800 militants. In addition to gaining control of a major political and economic centre with a population of 1.8 million, Isis acquired US-made weaponry, including armoured vehicles.
Emboldened by the army's collapse, Isis militants swept southwards towards Baghdad, seizing much of the Sunni-dominated provinces of Nineveh and Salahuddin and parts of Diyala in a matter of days.
Some half a million Iraqis, many of them members of ethnic and religious minorities, fled their homes to escape the Isis onslaught.
The group ignited fear and anger among Iraq's Shia Arab majority by announcing it had killed as many as 1,700 mostly Shia soldiers based at Camp Speicher outside Tikrit - one of the worst atrocities committed in Iraq in recent times.
Caliphate declared
At the end of June 2014, after consolidating its hold over dozens of cities and towns in western and northern Iraq, Isis formally declared the establishment of a "caliphate" - a state governed in accordance with Sharia by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph. It named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as Caliph Ibrahim and demanded allegiance from Muslims worldwide. The group renamed itself Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq and the Levant.
Five days later, a video was released showing Baghdadi delivering a sermon at Mosul's Great Mosque - his first public appearance in many years.
In the formal address that experts said bore similarities to those by caliphs in first centuries of Islam, Baghdadi enjoined Muslims to emigrate to IS territory in order to carry out a war for the faith against unbelievers, or jihad.
Yazidis enslaved
In August 2014, IS turned its sights on territory north and west of Mosul held by the armed forces of Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, the Peshmerga.
Despite their fearsome reputation, the Peshmerga fled in the face of the offensive by better-armed militants. IS swiftly captured the important Mosul Dam, advanced on the Kurdish capital, Irbil, and sent minorities from the Nineveh plains fleeing.
Tens of thousands of Yazidis became stranded without food or water on Mount Sinjar after IS swept into nearby towns and villages, killing men and boys, and raping and enslaving women and girls.
The threat to Iraq's infrastructure and Americans in Irbil, as well as the humanitarian crisis on Mount Sinjar, prompted US President Barack Obama to authorise air strikes in northern Iraq. Mr Obama also put fresh pressure on Iraq's political parties to replace Nouri Maliki as prime minister. After Iran also withdrew its backing, Mr Maliki reluctantly agreed to step down in favour of a consensus candidate from his Shia Islamist party, Haider al-Abadi.
Hostage killings
Eleven days after the US launched air strikes in Iraq, IS released a video showing the beheading of the US journalist James Foley, who was abducted in Syria in 2012, stirred global outrage. In the video, entitled A Message to America, a masked British militant warned President Obama that if he did not halt the strikes another American journalist would die. A video showing his beheading of Steven Sotloff was released at the start of September 2014.
Mr Obama responded by forming an international coalition to "degrade and ultimately destroy" IS. He also authorised a major expansion of the military campaign against IS. Less than two weeks later, the US and its Arab allies began bombing IS targets across Syria.
They also came to the aid of Syrian Kurds in Kobane after IS launched a major assault to capture the northern town and surrounding Kurdish enclave, triggering the flight of more than 200,000 people across the nearby Turkish border.
Territorial losses
Despite its limited strategic importance Kobane was to become a key battleground, with IS, the region's Kurds and the US-led coalition all pouring significant resources into fight for the town. After three months, the jihadists were forced to withdraw, piercing their aura of invincibility.
At the same time, IS lost ground on various fronts in Iraq. With the support of coalition aircraft and US military advisers, the Peshmerga regained territory they had lost in the north, while a volunteer force dominated by Iranian-backed Shia militias, the Popular Mobilisation (al-Hashd al-Shaabi), advanced from Baghdad into Diyala and Salahuddin.
In April 2015, Iraqi government forces retook Tikrit after a month-long offensive that was seen as a key step towards eventually driving IS out of Mosul. The US claimed that IS had lost more than a quarter of its territory in Iraq, while cautioning that it was too early to say that the tide was turning.
While IS had undoubtedly lost significant numbers of fighters and much equipment in months of air strikes and fighting on the ground, the group remains resilient and capable of taking the initiative.
This was underscored when IS launched a ferocious assault on Ramadi in May, leading soldiers to withdraw and tens of thousands of civilians to flee.
US-Turkey Invasion Derailed by Syrian Army Triumph at Kuweires
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/11/us-turkey-invasion-derailed-by-syrian-army-triumph-at-kuweires/
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) achieved its greatest victory in the four year-long war on Tuesday when it recaptured the strategic Kuweires military airbase in North Syria. Hundreds of ISIS terrorists were killed in intense fighting while hundreds more were sent fleeing eastward towards Raqqa. The victory was announced just hours after Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Turkey would be willing to invade Syria as long as Washington agreed to provide air support, create a safe zone along the Syrian-Turkish border, and remove Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
Now that Kuweires has been liberated, Davutoğlu will have to reconsider his offer taking into consideration the fact that Russian warplanes will now be within striking distance of the border while troops and artillery will be positioned in a way that makes crossing into Syria as difficult as possible. The window for Turkish troops to enter Syria unopposed has closed. Any attempt to invade the country now will result in stiff resistance and heavy casualties.
To fully understand the significance of Kuweires, we need take a look at Amanpour's interview with Davutoglu and see what was being planned. Here's an excerpt:
Christiane Amanpour: Would Turkey, under the right conditions, agree to be a ground force?
PM Ahmet Davutoğlu: "A ground force is something which we have to talk [about] together. There's a need of an integrated strategy including air campaign and ground troops. But Turkey alone cannot take all this burden. If there is a coalition and a very well designed integrated strategy, Turkey is ready to take part in all senses."
C.A.: Including on the ground?
Davutoğlu: Yes, of course....We have to solve the Syrian crisis in a comprehensive manner.
C.A.: So I understand what you're saying is that the condition for Turkey to be more involved would be an agreement by a coalition to also go after Assad?
Davutoğlu: Yes, and against all groups and regimes that are creating this vacuum and this problem. On many days we are assisting the coalition in (the fight) against ISIS, but it is not enough. Now we are suggesting to our allies for many months–and now we are suggesting again–to create a safe haven and to push ISIS far away from our borders.
C.A.: So what do you make of the US, Europe and especially Russia saying Assad must and can stay for a period of time?
Davutoğlu: .....The question is not how long can Assad stay, the question is when and how Assad will go. ...What is the solution. The solution is very clear. It is when millions of Syrian refugees are able to return home, assuming there is peace in Syria, then this is the solution. And if Assad stays in power in Damascus, I don't think any refugee will go back. There is a need of a step by step strategy, but what is the endgame? What is the light at the end of the tunnel, that is what is important to the refugees.
C.A.: Why is the Turkish government making it hard for the US government to arm and train and use Kurdish fighters as their ground troops?
Davutoğlu: (we are not making it hard for the US government to use the) "Kurds", but the PYD as a wing of the PKK...
There is another Kurdish group, the Peshmerga. We allowed the Peshmerga to go through Turkey to go to Kobani in order to help Kobani to be free. If the US wants to arm Kurdish fighters on the ground against ISIS, we are ready. But not Kurdish terrorists like PKK. If they want to arm and help Barzani, or Peshmerga and help them go to Syria, we are ready to help. But everybody must understand, that today PKK is attacking our cities, our soldiers and our civilians. We will not tolerate any help to any PKK-related groups inside Syria or Iraq. If that happens, Turkey will take all measures to stop it." ("For refugees to return, Assad must go, says Turkish PM", CNN)
Let's recap: Even though the Russian-led coalition is conducting major military operations in Syria, Turkey is willing to invade provided that Washington meet its demands, demands that have never changed and which (we have said in earlier columns) were part of a secret deal for the use of the Incirlik airbase so the USAF could conduct sorties over Syria.
What are Turkey's demands:
1 A safe zone on the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border
2 A no-fly zone over areas where Turkish troops are conducting operations
3 A commitment to remove Assad.
For a while it looked like the Obama administration might abandon their alliance with Turkey and join with the PYD (The Kurds) in their effort to create a buffer zone where they could harbor, arm and train Sunni militants to continue hostilities in Syria. In fact, Obama went so far as to air-drop pallet-loads of weapons and ammo to the Democratic Union Party (PYD) militia just 10 days ago. (Note: The US has already stopped all weapons shipments to the PYD) Whether Obama did this to force Turkey into playing a more active role in Syria, we don't know. But what we do know is that a Turkish-US alliance is more formidable than a PYD-US alliance, which is why Washington is planning to sell out the Kurds to join-forces with Turkey.
Another sign that US-Turkish relations have begun to thaw, is the fact that Obama phoned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to congratulate him on his party's victory eight days after the election. The delay suggests that they were working out their differences before expressions of support. Erdogan needed the landslide victory to consolidate his power in Parliament and to persuade the military brass that he has a mandate to carry out his foreign policy. Obama's phone call was intended to pave the way for backroom negotiations which would take place during next week's G-20 meetings in Ankara. But now that the Russian-led coalition has retaken Kuweires, it is impossible to know how the US and Turkey will proceed. If Putin's warplanes and artillery are able to seal the border, then Washington will have to scrap its plan for seizing the 60-miles stretch of northern Syria that's needed to keep vital supplylines to US-backed jihadis open or to provide sanctuary for mercenaries returning from the frontlines. The changing battlescape will make a safe zone impossible to defend.
The fact is, Kuweires changes everything. ISIS is on the run, the myriad other terrorist organizations are progressively losing ground, Assad is safe in Damascus, the borders will soon be protected, and the US-Turkey plan to invade has effectively been derailed. Barring some extraordinary, unforeseeable catastrophe that could reverse the course of events; it looks like the Russian-led coalition will eventually achieve its objectives and win the war. Washington will have no choice but to return to the bargaining table and make the concessions necessary to end the hostilities.
Kuweires offensive (September–November 2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuweires_offensive_%28September%E2%80%93November_2015%29
On 14 September, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) – in cooperation with the National Defence Forces (NDF) and the Al-Ba'ath Battalion – launched a fresh offensive inside the Aleppo Governorate's southeastern countryside in order to lift the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham's (ISIS) two-year-long siege of the isolated Kuweires Military Airbase. This offensive would later be complimented by another effort starting mid-October further south, which would be aimed at cementing government control over the main logistical route to Aleppo from central Syria.[17]
The main objective of the offensive was to lift the siege on the Kuweires Military Airport, and relieve the hundreds of soldiers locked into the Kuweires pocket for almost three years, as well as to give significant depth to the main line of communication to the Syrian and allied forces in the province from the south. Although there is a possible long term goal of cutting the Aleppo-Raqqah highway and thereby bisecting ISIL in Syria
The Tick-Tock Model Through the Years
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-tick-tock-model-general.html
Intel's "tick-tock" model inspires confidence in the future of microprocessors and the devices that depend on them. Following this model, Intel commits to—and has successfully delivered—continued innovations in manufacturing process technology and processor microarchitecture in alternating "tick" and "tock" cycles.
Trojan horse: ISIS militants come to Europe disguised as refugees, US intel sources claim
https://www.rt.com/news/193400-isis-militants-pose-refugees/
Published time: 6 Oct, 2014 08:28
Islamic State militants are planning to insert operatives into Western Europe disguised as refugees, claim US intelligence sources, who unencrypted locked communications of the caliphate's leadership.
The militant organization is afraid of using aircraft due to strict security rules, so they use land as an alternative, the US sources told Bild Am Sonntag, a German national Sunday newspaper.
Disguised as refugees from Syria, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) operatives will cross the border to Turkey. Then, using fake passports, they will travel further to European countries to conduct attacks.
"In view of the chaotic conditions on the Syria-Turkey border, it is nearly impossible to catch ISIS-terrorists in the wave of refugees," wrote Bild Am Sonntag.
Because hundreds of refugees cross the Syrian-Turkish border every day, the jihadists have a good chance of remaining unnoticed in the crowds.
Turkey is also used by jihadists who want to join the IS in Syria, as they don't need a visa to get there. They go on 'vacations' as tourists and upon arrival have almost no trouble finding a way to cross the border.
According to one of Iraq's foremost security experts with unique access to intelligence, at least 100,000 jihadists were fighting in the ranks of the IS in August.
There are some 15,000 foreign fighters from the IS in Syria alone, including 2,000 Westerners, a US intelligence official told AFP in September.
Germany continues to be one of the main goals of IS
An official from the German Interior Ministry told the paper that the country is in the "focus of jihadist terrorism," but there is no indication at this time of any concrete attacks.
German security says that about 450 extremist German Muslims traveled in the direction of Syria.
But it is still nearly impossible to track their country's radicals when they are heading from Germany to Syria, as they don't need a visa to travel to Turkey, a German official told the Jerusalem Post.
About 150 Islamic fighters have returned from Syria to Germany.
Last week it was revealed that German authorities encouraged some jihadists to leave the country. Ludwig Schierghofer, the chief officer in charge of counterterrorism at Bavaria's LKA investigative police department, told public broadcaster Westdeutscher Rundfunk that such measure is aimed at "protecting our [German] population."
The issue was "to get people out of the country" if there was evidence that "the danger existed that they might commit attacks."
"If somebody had become radicalized and wanted to leave the country, then we tried to either let him depart, or even sought to accelerate their departure using legal means," Schierghofer said.
The measure was introduced in Bavaria, southeastern Germany, in 2009, but then abandoned in 2014 after the authorities understood that they were actually helping IS militants.
IS continues Middle East advance despite US strikes
US-led airstrikes on the Islamic State are failing to stop the advance of the jihadists.
The militants are reportedly approaching the outskirts of the city of Kobani, a town in the Aleppo Governorate in northern Syria near the Turkish border.
The situation in the town prompted some 186,000 Kurds to flee the area across the border into Turkey, and groups of Kurdish volunteers wishing to cross into Syria to defend the town against the IS on Saturday clashed with tear gas-firing Turkish security forces refusing to let them pass.
Around 100,000 people remain in Kobani amid the violence.
"Those who stay in the area are living in very poor conditions, there is drastic shortage of food," Muhammad, a Kobani resident, told RT.
According to Osman, a Turkey-Syria border resident, Turkish security forces prevent them from helping the Kurds, but the residents of Kobani will continue to assist them where they can.
"We are eyewitnesses of the event. It seems that the whole world has abandoned Kobani," he told RT. "If the Kurdish forces don't get the supplies they need there will be a mass slaughter among the Kurdish population."
He added that so far the local residents "haven't seen any results of US strikes against the Islamic State."
ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a 'psychological weapon' in chilling echo of Gaddafi's prophecy that the Mediterranean 'will become a sea of chaos'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html
Published: 15:54, 18 February 2015
Italian press today published claims that ISIS has threatened to release the huge wave of migrants to cause chaos in Europe if they are attacked
And letters from jihadists show plans to hide terrorists among refugees
In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi ominously predicted war would come to Libya
He was deposed in a violent coup and killed in October of the same year
Islamic State executed 21 Egyptian Christians on Libyan beach this week
Crisis in Libya has led to surge in number of migrants heading for Europe
Two in every 100 Syrian migrants are ISIS fighters, PM is warned: Lebanese minister tells Cameron jihadists are coming 'under cover' to attack the West
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234458/Two-100-Syrian-migrants-ISIS-fighters-PM-warned-Lebanese-minister-tells-Cameron-extremist-group-sending-jihadists-cover-attack-West.html
Published: 22:50, 14 September 2015
Two in every 100 Syrian migrants are ISIS fighters, PM has been warned
Lebanese education minister said jihadists were being sent 'under cover'
If true, it could mean up to 400 of the 20,000 refugees Britain has promised to accept by 2020 have been radicalised
Warning came as Cameron visited refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan
Dozens dead in series of terror attacks in France as Kalashnikov-wielding gunman opens fire in restaurant, 100 hostages are taken at theatre and two blasts are heard near the Stade de France
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317776/Machine-gun-fire-heard-central-Paris-police-flood-scene-not-far-Charlie-Hebdo-shootings.html
The outward tick has stalled with the military intervention of Russia on the Syrian front line of WW3, the whole world can now see what a small but determined assault on the ISIS terrorist movement can achieve, making a mockery of the Western narrative.
The inward tock is getting louder..
tick.. tock.. tick.. tock..
False-flag attacks are an historical reality. This appears to be what is happening in Paris right now.
CALL TO RIVERO'S RANGERS! PLEASE SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA! I AM STICKING THIS TO THE TOP OF THE MAIN PAGE!
Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3rSWbaQag
Governments from Around the World Admit They Do It
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack ... and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.
In the following 42 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admits to it, either orally or in writing:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the "Mukden Incident" or the "Manchurian Incident". The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: "Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the 'Incident' was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ...." And see this.
(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the "Winter War" against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.
(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and falsely blame it on the Nazis.
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called "Defenders of Arab Palestine", and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
(8 ) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]".
(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo."
(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 ... manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its "Cointelpro" campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: "In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque." In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, "I am giving an example".
(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted "escape tools" on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi's compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(24) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that "elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked".
(25) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(26) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(27) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(28) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".
(29) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.
(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.
(31) Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney "probably" had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not 'doing their homework' in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil ... not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous "lone wolf" claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers).
(32) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having "our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications."
(33) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(34) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(35) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(36) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(37) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(38) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.
(39) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls "Chechen" terrorists.
(40) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
(41) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.
(42) Britain's spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out "digital false flag" attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material ... and blaming it on the target.
In addition, two-thirds of the City of Rome burned down in a huge fire on July 19, 64 A.D. The Roman people blamed the Emperor Nero for starting the fire. Some top Roman leaders – including the Roman consul Cassius Dio, as well as historians like Suetonius – agreed that Nero started the fire (based largely on the fact that the Roman Senate had just rejected Nero's application to clear 300 acres in Rome so that he could build a palatial complex, and that the fire allowed him to build his complex). Regardless of who actually started the fire, Nero – in the face of public opinion accusing him of arson – falsely blamed the Christians for starting the fire. He then rounded up and brutally tortured and murdered scores of Christians for something they likely didn't do.
We didn't include this in the list above, because – if Nero did start the fire on purpose – he did it for his own reasons (to build his palatial complex), and not for geopolitical reasons benefiting his nation.
So Common ... There's a Name for It
The use of the bully's trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.
"False flag terrorism" is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy's flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a "false flag" attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags
Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
"A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule."
― Friedrich Nietzsche
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
– Adolph Hitler
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
– Josef Stalin
France's Hollande Orders Borders Closed, Paris Under First Mandatory Curfew Since 1944
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hollande-attacks-borders-curfew_56467d29e4b045bf3def3699
French President Francois Hollande said a state of emergency would be declared across France and national borders shut following a spate of attacks in Paris on Friday evening in which he said dozens were killed and several wounded.
"It is horrifying," Hollande said in a brief statement on television, adding that a cabinet meeting had been called.
"A state of emergency will be declared," he said. "The second measure will be the closure of national borders," he added.
"We must ensure that no one comes in to commit any act whatsoever, and at the same time make sure that those who have committed these crimes should be arrested if they try to leave the country," he added.
Shortly after the speech, Hollande's office announced that he was canceling his participation at the G20 meeting in Turkey this weekend.
A mandatory curfew was instituted in Paris, the first since 1944, according to the Associated Press.
Shortly after midnight Paris time, a French government official said the country's state of emergency had gone into effect.
* * *
Below is a full translation of Hollande's speech:
"My dear compatriots,
As I speak, terrorist attacks of unprecedented proportions are underway in the Paris area. There are dozens killed, there are many injured. It is horrifying.
We have, on my decision, mobilized all forces possible to neutralize the terrorists and make all concerned areas safe. I have also asked for military reinforcements. They are currently in the Paris area, to ensure that no new attack can take place. I have also called a cabinet meeting that will be held in a few minutes.
Two decisions have been made: a state of emergency will be declared, which means that some places will be closed, traffic may be halted, and searches may be conducted throughout Ile de France (greater Paris). The state of emergency applies throughout the country.
The second decision I have made is to close the borders. We must ensure that no one enters to commit any crimes and that those who have committed the crimes that we have unfortunately seen can also be arrested if they try to leave the country.
This is a terrible ordeal which once again assails us. We know where it comes from, who these criminals are, who these terrorists are.
In these difficult moments, we must -- and I'm thinking of the many victims, their families and the injured -- show compassion and solidarity. But we must also show unity and calm.
In the face of terror, France must be strong, it must be great and the state authorities must be firm. We will be.
We must also call on everyone to be responsible.
The terrorists want to scare us and fill us with dread. There is indeed reason to be afraid. There is dread, but in the face of this dread, there is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilize its forces and, once again, will defeat the terrorists.
French citizens, we have not finished our operations. There are still some before us that will be extremely difficult. Security forces are at this very moment conducting a raid at a location in Paris.
I ask you to keep all your trust in what we can do with the security forces to protect our nation from terrorist acts.
Long live the Republic and long live France."
Finally Confirmed: US Created ISIS Terror Group
http://russia-insider.com/en/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad/ri7364
Declassified secret US government document reveals US created ISIS as a tool to overthrow Syria's President Assad
This article originally appeared at Zero Hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad
From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world's stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world's terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the "straight to beheading YouTube clip" purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria's president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe's dominant - and belligerent - source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.
The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:
If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad's forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama's new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that "such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa."
But it's one thing to speculate; it's something entirely different to have hard proof.
And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.
That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.
According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the "leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an 'Islamic State' in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the 'Islamic State' as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to "isolate the Syrian regime."
And not just that: as we reported last week, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people's heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to "modernize" and "replenish" the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.
But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now. What wasn't clear is just how the US predetermined the current course of events in the middle east.
Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to be, but what America's puppermaster role leading up to it all, was.
From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to 'isolate' Assad, rollback 'Shia expansion', originally posted in Medium.
Hypocrisy
The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.
Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as "secret," dated 12th August 2012.
The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.
So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.
Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community's internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.
Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:
"Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it's unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West's governments and media in their support of Syria's rebellion."
The West's Islamists
The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.
Noting that "the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," the document states that "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," while Russia, China and Iran "support the [Assad] regime."
The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the 'Islamic State in Iraq,' (ISI) which became the 'Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,' "supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media."
The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the "rise of the insurgency in Syria" has increasingly taken a "sectarian direction," attracting diverse support from Sunni "religious and tribal powers" across the region.
In a section titled 'The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,' the DIA report predicts that while Assad's regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate "into proxy war."
The document also recommends the creation of "safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government."
In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO 'safe havens' (aka 'no fly zones').
'Supporting powers want' ISIS entity
In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of "an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
Nevertheless, "Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts" by Syrian "opposition forces" fighting to "control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)":
"... there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist "Salafist Principality" in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this "Shia expansion."
The establishment of such a "Salafist Principality" in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is "exactly" what the "supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want." Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those "supporting powers" as "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey."
Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.
The establishment of such a "Salafist Principality" in eastern Syria, it says, would create "the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi." Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.
Such a quasi-state entity will provide:
"... a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory."
The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a "finally evaluated intelligence" assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.
In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report's startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:
"AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK's national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists."
The DIA did not respond to request for comment.
Strategic asset for regime-change
Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:
"Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West's mainstream media, promoted Syria's rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West's support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it's significant that the West's media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them."
According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:
"US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset."
Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — ?an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East?—?points out that the DIA document "matter-of-factly" states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a "tool for regime change in Syria."
The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency?—?"there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State's rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits." The report demonstrates that:
"The establishment of a 'Salafist Principality' in Eastern Syria is 'exactly' what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as 'the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey') in order to weaken the Assad government."
The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely?—?but nevertheless strategically useful?—?blowback from the West's commitment to "isolating Syria."
Complicity
Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.
The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only 'moderate' groups were supported.
However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria's sectarian insurgency.
Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.
As Shoebridge told me, "The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria's rebellion"?—?namely, the emergence of ISIS?—?"but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West's public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria's rebellion was overwhelmingly 'moderate.'"
Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya's former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:
"This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas."
She explained that MI6's Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, "happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda."
This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:
"... supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again 'intervene' is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing."
Divide and rule
Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.
US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.
But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates?—?that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.
The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.
The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US "to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world."
The US would need to contain "Iranian power and influence" in the Gulf by "shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan." Simultaneously, the US must maintain "a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government" despite its Iran alliance.
The RAND report confirmed that the "divide and rule" strategy was already being deployed "to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level."
The report observed that the US was forming "temporary alliances" with al-Qaeda affiliated "nationalist insurgent groups" that have fought the US for four years in the form of "weapons and cash." Although these nationalists "have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces," they are now being supported to exploit "the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties."
The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda,Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.
The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting 'Islamic State' today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.
In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian 'prevent duty' and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.
Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the 'System Shift' column for VICE's Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award, known as the 'Alternative Pulitzer Prize', for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work, and was selected in the Evening Standard's 'Power 1,000' most globally influential Londoners.
Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner's Inquest.
Another Paris False Flag Attack? — Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/13/another-paris-false-flag-attack-paul-craig-roberts/
At 7pm on Friday 13th we do not have much information about the "terrorist attacks" in Paris other than that Paris is closed down like Boston was after the "Boston Marathon Bombing," also a suspected false flag event.
Possibly believable evidence will be presented that the Paris attacks were real terrorist attacks. However, what do refugees have to gain from making themselves unwelcome with acts of violence committed against the host country, and where do refugees in France obtain automatic weapons and bombs? Indeed, where would the French themselves obtain them?
The millions of refugees from Washington's wars who are overrunning Europe are bringing to the forefront of European politics the anti-EU nationalists parties, such as Pegida in Germany, Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen's National Front Party in France. These anti-EU political parties are also anti-immigrant political parties.
The latest French poll shows that, as a result of the refugees from Washington's wars, Marine Le Pen has come out on top of the candidates for the next French presidential election.
By supporting for 14 years Washington's neoconservative wars for US hegemony over the Middle East, establishment European governments eroded their electoral support. European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.
To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.
Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France's borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue.
Some people are so naive and stupid as to think that no government would kill its own citizens. But governments do so all the time. There are an endless number of false flag attacks, such as Operation Gladio. Operation Gladio was a CIA/Italian intelligence operation that relentlessly bombed innocent Italians, such as those waiting in a train station, murdering hundreds, and then blaming the violence on the European communist parties in the post-WW II era in order to block the communists from electoral gains.
A president of Italy revealed the truth about Operation Gladio, and you can read the sordid detail in a number of books and online. The bombings were not done, as was widely reported in the corrupt Western media, by communists. The bombings were done by Italian intelligence aided by the CIA. In one of the Italian investigatory hearings, a member of Italian intelligence said that the sites to be bombed were chosen in order to maximize the deaths of women and children, because these victims were most useful in discrediting the communists.
Considering the Western World's long tradition of false flag orchestrations, the "terrorist attacks" in Paris could be the most recent manifestation.
Context for Paris Terror Attack: U.S. and Its Allies C-R-E-A-T-E-D ISIS
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-13/context-paris-terror-attack-us-and-its-allies-c-r-e-t-e-d-isis
We are horrified by the terror attack in Paris, and send our prayers and good wishes to the French people (we were just there on a wonderful family vacation).
Here's the context that we dare the Western press to discuss: the U.S. and its allies CREATED ISIS.
www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/09/unmasking-isis.html
And see this:
www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/the-u-s-government-supplied-isis-iconic-pickup-trucks.html
On the other hand: The First Question to Ask After Any Terror Attack: Was It a False Flag?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/the-first-question-to-ask-after-any-terror-attack-was-it-a-false-flag.html
The Paris Terrorist Attacks, "9/11 French-Style", "Le 11 septembre à la française"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-paris-terrorist-attacks-911-french-style-le-11-septembre-a-la-francaise/5488896
Within minutes following the attacks, which were launched simultaneously, and prior to the release of a preliminary report by the police, France's media went into overdrive. News commentators and intelligence analysts on France's network TV stated with authority that the attacks emanated from Syria and Iraq.
The media coverage of these tragic events was casually linked up with the war in the Middle East, highlighting France's commitment –alongside its allies– in waging a "humanitarian war" against the terrorists.
The Islamic State was identified as the architect of the attacks.
The attacks were described without evidence as an act of revenge and retribution against France for having bombed ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq as part of Obama's counter-terrorism air campaign.
Who is Behind the Terrorists?
What the French media in its coverage of these tragic events fails to mention is that both the US and France, not to mention Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel are covertly supporting various Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist formations in Syria and Iraq including al Nusrah and the Islamic State.
France is the victim of the Islamic State, but at the same time the US and its allies including France are "State sponsors" of the Islamic state which is an Al Qaeda affiliated entity.
Lest we forget, the US has supported Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations for almost half a century since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. CIA training camps were set up in Pakistan. In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 jihadists from 43 Islamic countries were recruited by the CIA to fight in the Afghan jihad. Since the Reagan Administration, Washington has supported the Islamic terror network.
In recent developments in the Middle East, the terrorists are recruited and trained by the Western military alliance. NATO and the Turkish High Command have been responsible for the recruitment of ISIS and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011. According to Israeli intelligence sources, this initiative consisted in:
"a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria." (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)
There are Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives within the ranks of the ISIS. British Special Forces, and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria.
The Islamic State (ISIS), the alleged architect of the Paris attacks, was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity created by US intelligence with the support of Britain's MI6, Israel's Mossad, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri'āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-'Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة).
The ISIS brigades were involved in the US-NATO supported insurgency in Syria directed against the government of Bashar al Assad. Since August-September 2014, they are the object of Osama's fake counter-terrorism campaign. The evidence, however, amply confirms that ISIS is protected by the Western military alliance.
With regard to France, a Washington Post 2011 report entitled "France sent arms to Libyan rebels," confirms the role of the French government in support of the Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic fighting Group (LIFG).
French officials announced Wednesday that they had armed rebels in Libya, marking the first time a NATO country has said it was providing direct military aid to opponents [LIFG]...
According to Tony Cartalucci (Global Research: January 8, 2015)
While Hollande's predecessor, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy would be the one to set foot in decimated Libya in the wake of NATO's intervention there – which included in addition to French arms sent to terrorists, French planes providing these terrorists air cover as they carried out atrocities and genocide – Hollande would continue policies enacted under Sarkozy, both in Libya, and currently in Syria.
In early 2013, France joined its coalition partners in sending weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria including the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra Front which France's Le Monde identified as "moderate":
The UK Foreign secretary William Hague, and his French counterpart Lauren Fabius, are leading an isolated charge within the EU to lift a supposed arms embargo to self-described 'rebels', hitherto destroying Syria for over two years. Several underlying factors need to be addressed before these diplomatic (some would say military) manoeuvres are put into context.
Firstly, the most obvious issue with allowing the UK and France to freely arm 'rebels' of their choosing inside Syria is that this policy is against all international law, and will, as proven already to be the case, continue to vastly exacerbate the growing death toll and displacement in Syria. As the head of arms control at Oxfam noted: "Transferring more weapons to Syria can only exacerbate a hellish scenario for civilians. If the UK and France are to live up to their own commitments – including those set out in the new arms trade treaty – they simply must not send weapons to Syria."
In recent developments, the ISIS and Al Nusrah have joined hands. (Philip Greaves, Under the Disguise of The "Battle against Terrorism": The U.S., Britain and France Support "Al Qaeda in Syria", Global Research, May 28, 2013
The evidence amply confirms that while Russia is targeting ISIS strongholds in Syria, the Western military alliance is supporting the Islamic State terrorists.
The notion that the Paris attacks was an act of retribution and revenge directed against France is questionable and contradictory inasmuch as the evidence confirms that France has been channeling weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria including Al Nusrah and ISIS.
Concluding Remarks
On November 13, France was the victim of a carefully organized terrorist attack in different locations in the Paris metropolitan area, resulting in more than 140 deaths. The Islamic State was identified as the architect of this criminal undertaking.
What is intimated in the media reports of these tragic events is that the jihadists are attacking France.
But at same time, the countries which claim to be the victims of terrorism including France are involved through their intelligence services in supporting terrorist organizations in the Middle East. It's called America's "Global War on Terrorism".
This contradiction has to be meaningfully addressed at the political level. The Global War on Terrorism is a lie which provides legitimacy to police state measures.
The state of emergency gives the police a green light to arrest on mere suspicion throughout France.
A telephone hotline is opened. Citizens are invited to call and report anything which they consider suspicious.
Civil rights have been suspended.
Arbitrary arrests are occurring in Paris without warrant.
The attacks could potentially contribute to a new wave of Islamophobia.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2015
Yeap. If you want to just live your life in peace, leave others alone and be left alone, it isn't going to happen in this day and age. There's a bully on the block and until he has his clock cleaned or ass handed to him, he will never leave us alone. It's a real simple lesson we should have all learned in grade school, but for some reason we either didn't learn or can't remember what to do.
Whether I had a 2nd Amendment or not, I surely would arm myself and take matters into my own hands. Call this uncivilized? Sure. It is. You are dealing with a thick-headed monster that only understands one thing: violence Until the monster is gone, all you will get is one thing: violence
This isn't rocket science. It's something that has been here since the beginning of time. We once knew it as slaying the dragon.
Spot on analysis for the most part!
The section labeled: "Who is Behind the Terrorists?"
is incomplete. Others in the "alternative media" are
much more specific.
The duplicity of "The West" and its "minions" is becoming
easier to see.
This saga will not have a good ending.
The "Monster" Matt refers to is real and it is a tool of
The West (principally the U.S. and Israel) as they
together bring on the New World Order AGENDA.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.11.15, 00:10:33
I watched a few news stories streaming to the Internet today, about the Paris terrorist attacks, and I did not see evidence it was real, rather I saw people telling me it was real. So many inconsistencies, and lack of evidence. Another false flag?
Could be another Sandy Hook.
I'll keep an open mind until I have spoken first hand with someone I trust who was there.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.11.15, 00:10:33
I watched a few news stories streaming to the Internet today, about the Paris terrorist attacks, and I did not see evidence it was real, rather I saw people telling me it was real. So many inconsistencies, and lack of evidence. Another false flag?
Come on, not real!!!
My brother inlaw lives next door to the concert hall and works in the military hospital. He said he has never seen so many dead people laying on the floor.,
He is lucky not to have been a victim, if he had left for work 5min sooner it would have been curtains for him, he works the night shift looking after all the computerised system in the hospital.
My wifes son also working and living in Paris is only a few minutes away as well, and heard all the shooting and explosions.
regards
Mike 8) 8)
152 dead, 348 injured of which 83 are critical, so real thatl if you were there you would have crapt your pants :-\
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319244/Video-reveals-horrific-moment-terrorists-opened-fire-crowd-music-fans-Bataclan-killing-89-people-shows-musician-hiding-drums-escape.html
regards
Mike
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.11.15, 14:45:31
Anyway I could go on, but overall, my gut feel tells me this is staged. Right away after I watched CNN, and they show "scenes" of tragedy set to dramatic music, the red flags went up. I don't like to be emotionally manipulated! Show me the evidence, and I'll create my own emotional response.
EM
You're watching CNN, right there's your problem, so I should have guessed your one of the 300K people that watch that propaganda channel. They are not going to show or tell you anything that will feed into islamophobia fears, you know that irrational fear of islam, nothing to worry about there, nothing to see move along.
:D
Cheers
Room
I was cruising by Mike Rivero's site earlier and this old story in the listings caught my eye:
www.whatreallyhappened.com
End of ISIS? Putin 'sending 150,000 soldiers to Syria to WIPE OUT evil Islamic State'
PUBLISHED: 03:43, Tue, Oct 27, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military
We all know with hindsight that Putin was doing nothing of the sort, he would never commit 150,000 fresh meat reservist conscripts to a Proxy War, the idea is ridiculous. We did however get the Raqqa gem in the link code and this lovely quote from an anonymous insider:
"This is fast becoming a race to Raqqa"
An insider
Correct! so it is.. the West has recovered from it's knockout blow delivered by Russia 6 weeks previous and is mounting a damage control operation. We shall come back to this in the next post, as I got distracted on the Express website and started listing the "official narrative" in date / time format.
SAS on our streets as Paris weeps: Britain on alert as French condemn act of war
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Nov 15, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619496/SAS-streets-Paris-Britain-alert-French-act-attacks-war
SPECIAL Forces were patrolling Britain's streets last night after Islamic extremists massacred at least 129 people in Paris.
"The public can be reassured that our firearms officers are trained to deal with this kind of incident and we are constantly evolving new ways to combat the threats to public safety"
Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe
Policies which somehow include our countries open border, in place for more than a decade, and therefore allows our enemies to strategically pre-position personnel and firepower for a synchronised surprise mass slaughter of the innocent civilian population ? Well done Sir, well done.
ISIS TERROR WARNING: Britain NEXT to be ATTACKED by jihadists, supporters claim
PUBLISHED: 00:03, Mon, Nov 16, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619371/Islamic-State-ISIS-Britain-London-Paris-attacks-Twitter
They made the chilling threats on Twitter after at least 129 people were killed by a series of co-ordinated terror attacks on Paris on Friday night.
After gloating about the horror that shocked the world, armchair jihadists tweeted that London could be next.
The twisted tweeters also claimed to have two other major capitals in their sights – Washington DC and Rome.
David Cameron will recruit 1,900 more spies in bid to thwart British ISIS terror plots
PUBLISHED: 05:26, Mon, Nov 16, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/619673/David-Cameron-Paris-attacks-ISIS-Islamic-State-Britain
DAVID Cameron has warned Britain's reputation will be damaged around the world if MPs fail to back airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists in Syria.
The Prime Minister is making fresh calls to MPs to vote in proposals to bomb ISIS with air strikes in Syria, after previously being denied.
The Prime Minister also signalled he will fast-track a Government bill handing security services greater powers to snoop on communications between extremists in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, which killed 129 people.
"ISIL don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we."
David Cameron
:o Holy shit great balls of fire.. the current serving British Prime Minister David Cameron openly states that he does not recognise international law!
Francois Hollande: France is now at WAR with ISIS and we will DESTROY them
PUBLISHED: 15:26, Mon, Nov 16, 2015
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/619784/Hollande-France-war-ISIS-Paris-attacks
"France is at war."
Francois Hollande
FRANCOIS Hollande has told France that it is now at war with Islamic State (ISIS) and has pledged to DESTROY the evil jihadis.
The French President was speaking after the Paris terror attacks which left 129 people dead.
Speaking to his country's congress, the French President said: "France is at war.
"These attacks were war. It was an attack against our values, against our youth and our way of life."
"Since the beginning of the year, this organisation has attacked Paris, Denmark, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Libya.
The jihadist army that France and it's allies funded, armed and trained, who currently is branded as ISIS attacks France. The terrorists were either pre-positioned or smuggled in amongst the refugee wave. A human tidal wave that France and it's allies [US, UK, ISRAEL, TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA, and other minor Gulf players] created with massive, continuous bombing strikes during a "no fly zone" moment over many years. This Proxy ISIS army (because it has no navy or air force, or pretty much anything apart from the supplies it receives continually along it's complex logistic route) has therefore declared war on France, by attacking it. This allows France to "go to war" to defend itself against it's proxy army threat.
So where does France bomb..?
RAQQA
Putin: ISIS financed from 40 countries, including G20 members
https://www.rt.com/news/322305-isis-financed-40-countries/
Published time: 16 Nov, 2015 14:29
President Vladimir Putin says he's shared Russian intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues: the terrorists appear to be financed from 40 countries, including some G20 member states.
During the summit, "I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them," Putin told the journalists.
Putin also spoke of the urgent need to curb the illegal oil trade by IS.
"I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," he said.
"The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon," Putin added, comparing the convoy to gas and oil pipeline systems.
It's not the right time to try and figure out which country is more and which is less effective in the battle with Islamic State, as now a united international effort is needed against the terrorist group, Putin said.
Putin reiterated Russia's readiness to support armed opposition in Syria in its efforts to fight Islamic State.
"Some armed opposition groups consider it possible to begin active operations against IS with Russia's support. And we are ready to provide such support from the air. If it happens it could become a good basis for the subsequent work on a political settlement," he said.
"We really need support from the US, European nations, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran," the president added.
Putin pointed out the change in Washington's stance on cooperation with Moscow in the fight against the terrorists.
"We need to organize work specifically concentrated on the prevention of terrorist attacks and tackling terrorism on a global scale. We offered to cooperate [with the US] in anti-IS efforts. Unfortunately, our American partners refused. They just sent a written note and it says: 'we reject your offer'," Putin said.
"But life is always evolving and at a very fast pace, often teaching us lessons. And I think that now the realization that an effective fight [against terror] can only be staged together is coming to everybody," the Russian leader said.
According to Putin, first of all it should be decided which groups in Syria can be considered terrorist organizations and which can be attributed to an armed, but still legitimate part of the Syrian opposition.
"Our efforts must be concentrated on the battle with terrorist organizations."
Putin also disagreed with Western criticism of Russia's actions in Syria, where the country has been carrying out a large-scale air campaign against Islamic State and other terror groups since September 30.
"It's really difficult to criticize us," he said, adding that Russia has repeatedly asked its foreign partners to provide data on terrorist targets in Syria.
"They're afraid to inform us on the territories which we shouldn't strike, fearing that it is precisely where we'll strike; that we are going to cheat everybody," the president said.
"Apparently, their opinion of us is based on their own concept of human decency," he added.
Putin told the media that Russia has already established contact with the Syrian opposition, which has asked Moscow not carry out airstrikes in the territories it controls.
Still no conclusion on what caused Sinai plane crash
It's too early to make conclusions about the reasons for the crash of the Russian A321 jet over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in late October, as all possible reasons are still being considered by the investigators, Putin said.
"We know about all the possible scenarios, all of the scenarios are being considered. The final conclusion can only be made after the implementation and completion of the inspection," he stressed.
"If there was an explosion, the traces of explosives would have remained on the liner's cover and on the belongings of the passengers. It's inevitable. And we have enough equipment and skilled, world class experts, capable of finding those traces. Only then would it be possible to speak about the reasons for this tragedy," the president added.
With 224 people dying in the crash, Putin said that "it's a huge emotional pain for all of us; for all Russian people, no matter what the cause of the crash was."
Many False Flag events actually involve real brutal and horrendous killing. Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia, for Example is a likely case for a mercenary group type attack (killing Spree). Many people shot in cold blood even young children "toddlers" blown away with a FAL rifle. Shock And Awe gets laws changed here, they had a buyback scheme and then amnesty after amnesty to get as many firearms as they could, anything that could be made to operate as a firearm was bought back by the taxpayers and destroyed. I destroyed my own "armory", I refused to buy my own rifles back to have someone else get paid by me to destroy my rifles. I've never seen any sense to it and still do not, look at all the shootings still happening in the crime arena.
About the proposed events and the reported accounts ect. the guy gives some briefs on previous false flags in other places I think he calls the events Psyops.
http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html
The Wiki about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Several aspects of the events suggest a militarily trained person did it not the halfwitt they blamed it on. Things like in the cafe he left the last round in the breech of the AR15 While he changed magazines, this is done in case someone tries to rush him while he reloads close to future victims.
..
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/paris-attacks-give-rise-to-fakes-and-misinformation/ar-BBn4V7q?li=AAa0dzB
Aye, false flag terrorism has long been a tool of the
"elites" who desire to rule the World.
The parallels of Paris recently to prior events are
staggering.
Why is France deploying its carrier? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124692)
Hollande says response will be "pitiless." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124707)
Looking into the depths. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124720)
Getting to the Root of the Matter. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124704)
Making comparisons. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=122557) (Be sure to read the comments too.)
How do they get these "suicide" gunmen to do their dastardly deeds if they are not actual fanatics. Easy, hypnosis and mind control, it would be simply a matter of finding the weak minded individuals to control. The ones that do evil like at port Arthur - Sandy Hook ect. that get away are just evil killers paid to do a job they probably enjoy. Plenty of them as well. Just look at the "Pain Train" video of the Mercenary in Iraq randomly shooting cars full of civilians as they drive along a highway for example, he was having "fun".
..
This I have never seen before :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA
regards
Mike 8) 8) 8)
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
30 August 2013
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".
France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.
The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.
The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.
Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.
'Harm relationship'
The UK government's motion was in support of military action in Syria if it was backed up by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating the attack.
They are due to finish their work on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the weekend.
After the vote Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and "the government will act accordingly".
Chancellor George Osborne told Radio 4's Today programme there would now be "national soul searching about our role in the world".
He added: "I hope this doesn't become a moment when we turn our back on all of the world's problems."
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond had told BBC's Newsnight programme that he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result, saying it would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington.
But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said on Friday that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".
"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.
"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."
He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".
Mr Miliband said Britain's relationship with the US "remains strong" despite the vote. He said there is a lesson that Britain must do what is in its national interest, even if that means doing something different to America.
He also said that Mr Cameron must "find other ways" to put pressure on Mr Assad.
The result of the vote was condemned by former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown, who tweeted that in "50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed [or] ashamed".
He later told the BBC that by doing nothing President Assad will use chemical weapons more "those weapons will become more commonplace in the Middle East battlefield" and "we will feel the effects of that as well".
PM 'diminished'
Thirty Conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government's motion.
The defeat comes as a potential blow to the authority of Mr Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to Labour's demands for more evidence of President Assad's guilt.
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister had now lost control of his own foreign and defence policy, and as a result he will cut a diminished figure on the international stage.
He added that some strong advocates of the transatlantic relationship were worried that America may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.
During the debate, Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence that the regime was responsible for chemical attacks - rejected by MPs by 114 votes.
But, unexpectedly, MPs also rejected the government's motion.
Labour's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the government defeat was down to the "fatally flawed" case put to MPs by Mr Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, claiming the pair's credibility was now diminished.
'The system works'
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said so many of Mr Cameron's own MPs had voted with Labour because they were now "unwilling to take him at his word".
Conservative rebel Crispin Blunt said he hoped the vote would "relieve ourselves of some of this imperial pretension that a country of our size can seek to be involved in every conceivable conflict that's going on around the world".
In a statement, the White House said President Obama believed "that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable".
Obama administration officials on Thursday told a group of US lawmakers in a conference call that it was "beyond a doubt that chemical weapons were used, and used intentionally by the Assad regime," said Eliot Engel, the senior Democratic member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said the US would "continue to work with Britain and consult with Britain as we are with all our allies".
On Friday French President Francois Hollande told the newspaper Le Monde that he would still be willing to take action without Britain's involvement.
He said he supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people.
Germany, however, has ruled out taking part. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Osnabruecker Zeitung newspaper that "such participation has not been sought nor is it being considered by us".
Meanwhile, Mr Assad told a group of Yemeni MPs on Thursday that Syria would defend itself against any aggression, according to Syria's Sana news agency.
"Syria, with its steadfast people and brave army, will continue eliminating terrorism, which is utilised by Israel and Western countries to serve their interests in fragmenting the region," he said.
Nice of the BBC to finish the article with a little bit of truth! :D
Cameron to make case for Syria airstrikes vote 'in coming days'
https://www.rt.com/uk/322426-cameron-syria-airstrikes-paris/
Published time: 17 Nov, 2015 13:04
Prime Minister David Cameron says he will make the case for extending the UK's war against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) into Syria in the coming days, hinting he will press for a parliamentary vote next week.
Speaking in the House of Commons, the prime minister said the attacks in Paris on Friday justify a "full spectrum approach," including military power, counter-terrorism action and countering the narrative of extremism.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he will only back military action if it is legally backed by the UN.
He told Cameron a few bombs and missiles will not transform the situation in Syria and urged him to provide answers to questions raised in a recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, which stated the UK should not extend airstrikes into Syria unless there is a "coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria."
Cameron told the House of Commons the Paris attacks had strengthened the case for tackling IS on its own ground.
"It is in Syria, in Raqqa, that ISIL has its headquarters and it is from Raqqa that some of the main threat against this country are planned and orchestrated. Raqqa, if you like, is the head of the snake," the PM said.
"Over Syria we are supporting our allies the US, France, Jordan and the Gulf countries with intelligence, with surveillance and with refueling. But I believe, as I have said many times before, we should be doing more. We face a direct and growing threat to our country and we need to deal with it, not just in Iraq, but in Syria too."
"The case for doing so has only grown stronger after the Paris attacks. We cannot expect, we should not expect, others to carry the burdens and risks of protecting our country," he added.
Cameron said he would put his personal authority behind the government's response to the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report. The PM's response will set out his strategy and lay out arguments for taking action in Syria.
"That is what I am going to be putting in place over the coming days and I hope colleagues from across the House will engage with that and make clear their views, so we can have a strong vote in this House of Commons and do the right thing for our country," he said.
The PM refused to accept Corbyn's comment that IS grew out of the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces in 2003.
Cameron told the Labour leader not to seek "excuses" for IS, arguing it is one variant of an Islamic extremism that has been in the world for more than 20 years. He added that the 9/11 attacks on New York happened before the Iraq war.
In his response to Cameron's statement, Corbyn pressed the PM to ask what is being done to stop the supply of weapons to Islamic State and repressive regimes in the region. He also asked what is being done to cut funding for ISIS and to stop them from selling oil.
The PM said ISIS gains much of its money from selling oil to the Syrian regime, adding this is another reason for Britain to intervene.
Sykes–Picot Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]
The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] An "international administration" was proposed for Palestine.[5] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."[6]
Balfour Declaration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1][2]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[3] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.
The declaration was in contrast to the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, which promised the Arab independence movement control of the Middle East territories "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire.
How the British Divided Up the Arab World
http://lostislamichistory.com/how-the-british-divided-up-the-arab-world/
The development of the modern nation states throughout the Arab world is a fascinating and heartbreaking process. 100 years ago, most Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate, a large multi-ethnic state based in Istanbul. Today, a political map of the Arab world looks like a very complex jigsaw puzzle. A complex and intricate course of events in the 1910s brought about the end of the Ottomans and the rise of these new nations with borders running across the Middle East, diving Muslims from each other. While there are many different factors leading to this, the role that the British played in this was far greater than any other player in the region. Three separate agreements made conflicting promises that the British had to stand by. The result was a political mess that divided up a large part of the Muslim world.
Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Israel (/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/; Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל Yisrā'el; Arabic: إِسْرَائِيل Isrāʼīl), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל Medīnat Yisrā'el [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel] ( listen); Arabic: دولة إِسْرَائِيل Dawlat Isrāʼīl [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]), is a country in West Asia, situated at the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea. It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (which are claimed by the State of Palestine and are partially controlled by Israel) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip[7] to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest. It contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[8][9] Israel's financial and technology center is Tel Aviv,[10] while Jerusalem is both its self-designated capital (though unrecognised by the United Nations[11]) and its most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration. Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed.[note 2][12]
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. This UN plan specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and also specified an area of Jerusalem and its environs which was to be administered by the UN under an international regime.[13][14] The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate.[15][16][17] The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration.[14][18] Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.[19][20] Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[21] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–57, 1967–82), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.[22][23][24][25] Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not resulted in peace. However, peace treaties between Israel and both Egypt and Jordan have successfully been signed. Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the world's longest military occupation in modern times.[note 3][27]
The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2014 to be 8,146,300 people. It is the world's only Jewish-majority state; 6,212,000 citizens, or 74.9% of Israelis, are designated as Jewish. The country's second largest group of citizens are denoted as Arabs, with 1,718,400 people (including the Druze and most East Jerusalem Arabs).[28][29] The great majority of Israeli Arabs are settled Muslims, with smaller but significant numbers of semi-settled Negev Bedouins; the rest are Christians and Druze. Other minorities include Maronites, Samaritans, Dom people and Roma, Black Hebrew Israelites, other Sub-Saharan Africans,[30] Armenians, Circassians, Vietnamese boat people, and others. Israel also hosts a significant population of non-citizen foreign workers and asylum seekers from Africa and Asia.[31]
In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State.[32] Israel is a representative democracy[33] with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[34][35] The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's legislative body. Israel is a developed country and an OECD member,[36] with the 37th-largest economy in the world by nominal gross domestic product as of 2014. The country benefits from a highly skilled workforce and is among the most educated countries in the world with the one of the highest percentage of its citizens holding a tertiary education degree.[37][38] The country has the highest standard of living in the Middle East and the fifth highest in Asia,[39][40][41] and has one of the highest life expectancies in the world.[42]
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Economic Union of Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism in Palestine and Jewish nationalism, known as Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations.[5][6]
Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] They argued that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]
Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]
It seems France may smell a Rat and have
joined with Russia to make bombing the insurgents and ISIS a LEGAL action. Smart Move. Now the US needs to sign up with Russia but will they agree to attack their own assets or will Russia even agree to join with the U.S. Until the U.S and other Allies Join with Russia and by extent Assad they cannot bomb targets inside Syria without committing international crimes. Russia seems to be holding 4 Aces, and Assad holds 3 Kings and a pair of Queens. France a Pair of Jacks and a pair of 10's. I wonder if together they can make a royal flush.
Thing is an idea or an agenda cannot be bombed or killed. The assets can be destroyed but the agenda will still remain.
This source probably does not tell the entire story.
http://news.sky.com/story/1588894/russia-and-france-to-join-forces-against-is
QuoteMr Putin has apparently ordered the Russian Navy to contact its French counterparts, to work together as allies.
I'm also wondering why they keep changing the name of this agenda, now they are calling it Daesh, is this to confuse people or is there another purpose. Why not just call them ISIL. Why keep changing what they call them ?
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.11.17, 20:51:47
I'm also wondering why they keep changing the name of this agenda, now they are calling it Daesh, is this to confuse people or is there another purpose. Why not just call them ISIL. Why keep changing what they call them ?
Rebrandinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebranding
Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.[1][2] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand's logo, name, legal names, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate.
Rebranding can be applied to new products, mature products, or even products still in development. The process can occur intentionally through a deliberate change in strategy or occur unintentionally from unplanned, emergent situations, such as a "Chapter 11 corporate restructuring," "union busting," or "bankruptcy." Rebranding can also refer to a change in a company/ corporate brand that may own several sub-brands for products or companies.
Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw)
Geroid does an admirable job of clarifying certain issues.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.11.18, 01:09:20
Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw)
Geroid does an admirable job of clarifying certain issues.
Tells it he sees it and I think he has 20 20 vision.
Has this been posted yet. = http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-17/fall-unipower-russia-defeating-more-isis-syria
Selected Quote from the article.
QuoteThe hegemonic Unipower ceased to exist on September 28.
This is a sea change. It will affect the behavior of every government. Even some of the craven vassals states, whose "leaders" are bought-and-paid-for, will move toward a more independent foreign policy.
The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was "bringing freedom and democracy."
The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconsevatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.
Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propells the US and Russia to war.
ISIS Is Being Aimed At The West By Globalists – Here's What We Can Do About It
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/11/isis-is-being-aimed-at-the-west-by-globalists-heres-what-we-can-do-about-it.html
By Brandon Smith
Over the past year and a half, I have been writing on the engineered nature of ISIS, delving deeply into its history and its backing by Western intelligence agencies in articles such as "Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?" as well as "What Will You Do When Tyranny And Terrorism Work Hand In Hand?" and "The Time Is Ripe For A False Flag Attack On American Soil."
Specifically, I compared the ISIS phenomenon to another establishment-backed terrorist program that began at the onset of the Cold War in Europe and was publicly exposed in the 1990s. That program was called Operation Gladio.
Gladio involved the manipulation of existing extremist groups as well as the complete fabrication of terrorist cells within Europe claiming to be "left-wing." The reality was that these terrorist cells were made up of intelligence agency operatives (including CIA operatives) acting as handlers often for duped scapegoats and patsies. These proxy terrorists initiated decades of attacks in Europe, which focused on shootings and bombings in public areas with full media saturation. Gladio-influenced cells, such as Action Directe, carried out at least 50 different violent attacks in France in the 1970s and 1980s, along with groups like Red Army Faction, Black September and the PLFP.
Governments across Europe began using the attacks as a rallying cry for a centralized one-European nation; that cry culminated in the formation of the EU.
Operation Gladio began in France in 1947, when French Interior Minister Edouard Depreux revealed the existence of a secret stay-behind army codenamed "Plan Bleu."
In France in 1948, the Western Union Clandestine Committee (WUCC) was created to coordinate secret unorthodox warfare. After the creation of NATO a year later, the WUCC was integrated into the military alliance under the name Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC).
The former director of the French intelligence service DGSE, Adm. Pierre Lacoste, said in a 1992 interview with The Nation, that France's "secret army" was involved in terrorist activities against Charles de Gaulle, whom the CIA wanted to assassinate.
De Gaulle was apparently not entirely innocent in the Gladio affair, either. De Gaulle was very familiar with a secret organization called Service d' Action Civique. It ended up being exposed as a training ground for Gladio Agents under Jaques Foccart, a government "adviser" who would go on to mastermind multiple military coups in Africa. Whether de Gaulle was fully aware of this problem is not known. It was discovered, though, that SAC had infiltrated communist student groups in the late 1960s through the 1970s and attempted to provoke violent actions.
De Gaulle was eventually driven out of office after the 1969 failure of the Referendum of Regionalisation. He was replaced by Georges Pompidou, who (what a surprise) was an avid promoter of European unification (centralization). Pompidou founded the French arm of the Pan-European Union Movement. And immediately after he took de Gaulle's position, he helped initiate the European Communities Summit, which led directly to the formation of the European Union structure.
Gladio was not fully exposed to the wider public until 1990 when Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti came forward to the senate with detailed information. After the information hit the mainstream, the European Parliament was forced to write a resolution against any future false flag projects. Clearly, they have since ignored these promises.
For more information on Gladio, I highly recommend the intensively researched book NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe by Daniele Ganser, as well as the 1992 BBC documentary "Operation Gladio."
As I have stated time and time again, government-engineered crisis is designed to do one thing: drive the fearful public toward more centralization and less freedom. Although Operation Gladio was later exposed, it was too late; Gladio (along with other clandestine economic measures) had achieved the goal of a malleable citizenry desperate for more centralized governance; an social attitude which led to a transnational union in Europe with a single currency mechanism.
What does this have to do with ISIS? In order to defeat an enemy, you have to know where he comes from, what his motivations are, and who pulls his strings if he has any. As I predicted in the pieces linked at the beginning of this article, ISIS has now been exposed as being supported if not entirely funded and managed by Western covert intelligence through documents obtained from the Department of Defense by Judicial Watch, making ISIS very similar to Gladio in its origins and tactics.
This DoD paper should not have been at all surprising to most of us in the liberty movement. The West had been shifting militants from Libya into Syria just before protests suddenly erupted into all-out war. Instructors from the U.K. and France, under U.S. advisement, had been training militants in Jordan specifically for the purpose of invading and disrupting Syria and overthrowing president Bashar Assad. This training continued well after it became clear that the same militants had formed under the banner of ISIS.
Establishment elites have openly applauded the radicalization of insurgents in Syria. The Council on Foreign Relations argued that the inclusion of what they called "extremist al-Qaida elements" in the Syrian insurgency "improved the moral" of the movement, stating that the "Free Syrian Army needs al-Qaida now." The CFR acknowledges that the goal of al-Qaida operatives in Syria is not necessarily to overthrow Assad, but to establish an Islamic state. Despite this, the CFR continued to support the same strategy of militant training to overthrow Assad.
The facts are this:
ISIS was created by covert intelligence and continues to be trained and supplied by Western governments.
The tactics ISIS uses, including monstrous acts of genocide, were clearly taught to them by covert intelligence interests (look into the School of the Americas for similar programs), considering ISIS insurgents continue to receive aid from Western intelligence despite their behavior.
Western governments are well aware that ISIS agents have been inserted into refugee camps and are being imported into Europe and the U.S.
ISIS smugglers have openly admitted to this infiltration plan, yet the U.S. and EU governments continued the immigration surge.
Lower echelon ISIS fighters that have actually been captured and interviewed apparently have wide-ranging views on Islam and are not the staunchly unified theocratic zealots the Western public has been led to believe. This is a considerable departure from groups like al-Qaida (also Western funded and trained), which required complete theological conformity.
In truth, the only unifying drive of many captured ISIS fighters has been a concerted hatred of the West and the U.S. in particular due to our government's complete destabilization of the Middle East. Meaning, the establishment (globalists) brought chaos to the Middle East, then conjured the rise of ISIS out of that despair, then used ISIS to recruit young men with a hatred for the West, and has now led those fighters right to our doorstep.
The escalation of force in Syria by both Russia and the West is likely now useless, as thousands of ISIS insurgents have been removed from the combat zone and transported exactly where they prefer to be — right next door to us. But defeating ISIS has never been the goal.
One must conclude given these facts that the plan by the establishment to force public acceptance of Syrian mass immigration was a Trojan horse strategy to plant ISIS extremists within deadly proximity to Western civilians. But why?
Again, this is yet another Gladio-style program designed to strike terror in the hearts of the public and condition them into accepting even greater centralization and less freedom. A European superstate with common border security and a single government authority will certainly be on the table soon. Not to mention, martial law is essentially in place in France today and will be expanded to other EU members as the attacks continue. As with Gladio, Europeans should expect many more events like the Paris attacks in the months to come.
The U.S. is set to receive over 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next couple months. Unlike in Europe, where numerous activist groups have been able to partially track numbers and types of people within refugee groups, Americans have little access to information surrounding Syrian immigration to the U.S. I suspect that, as in Europe, the claims that the refugees are only "single mothers, children and religious minorities" is mostly false, and many of them are actually single military-age males.
In the U.S., the federal government has been legally positioning for martial law for years, from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its indefinite-detention-without-trial provisions that apply to citizens, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and mass surveillance measures without warrant, to resource confiscation provisions through executive order that apply during any event the White House labels an "emergency," to elitist insiders like Wesley Clark planting the concept on national television of World War II-style internment camps for citizens deemed hostile to the status quo.
I would also point out that the U.S., and the global economy in general, is currently witnessing a massive slowdown rivaling the credit collapse of 2008. Widespread terrorist attacks are a perfect rationalization for a complete lockdown of Western peoples, as well as a perfect distraction from the banker-generated economic implosion that is progressing in exponentially harsher stages as we head into 2016.
Another major advantage to consider to the Paris attacks is that now, with a Syrian passport being conveniently found on one of the terrorists (possibly fake), the war in Syria is given greater rationale while the immigration plan continues unabated. NATO countries are gearing up for a large-scale assault in the region, while Russia is already entrenched. Imagine the potential for an "accidental" trigger event between the East and West as Russian troops and planes come within spitting distance of NATO troops and planes.
Americans should see a Paris-level attack as inevitable in the near term. They should expect similar events in unusual areas of the country, including more suburban and rural areas to ensure that no one feels safe anywhere. They should expect that said attacks will be high frequency and that they will occur in a coordinated manner. This is how Gladio operated, and this is undoubtedly how ISIS will operate.
The question is: What can be done about it?
We must first recognize that ISIS is only a surface problem; the deeper problem is corrupt governments across the globe creating dangerous terrorist groups out of thin air. That said, ISIS is still a threat, and must be dealt with along with globalists.
If the government insists upon financing and training dangerous militant groups and directly immigrating them along Syrian refugees without any vetting whatsoever, it they insist on wide open borders, then there is not much we can do to prevent ISIS from slipping into in the U.S. We also cannot go the fascist route and round up every Muslim in the name of security as some neocons are suggesting; this is exactly what the elites want, public support for liberty destroying measures against one group that can then be applied to ALL groups.
We can, though, take some measures that we should have been instituting all along.
Higher pressure on prime immigration centers: Legal immigration should not be an issue normally, but it has been made an issue due to deliberately lax security measures by the federal government. If the government is not going to take action, then the American people must. There are a limited number of these relocation centers in the U.S.; and activist pressure could be applied, along with pressure on local and state officials. Michigan, Texas and Alabama among other states have publicly announced that they will not be taking any more refugees until the government revises its vetting standards. That is a perfectly rational approach. Although I suspect the hour may be too late to disrupt the flow of ISIS sleeper cells into our country, we should do what we can to end the current insane immigration policies.
Locally managed border security: The federal border patrol simply is not getting the job done right now. And the great threat is that once an attack does occur within the U.S., the federal government will suggest a militarization of the border (or the entire nation) rather than taking simple measures they should have taken long ago. You see, the goal of false-flag terror is to motivate the public to demand more government power. This is why followers of the neoconservative mindset are idiotic. The establishment CREATED the problem of ISIS and potential ISIS immigration. And when it all goes sour, neocons cry out that the same government needs expanded militarized authority to do its job. I say, "No more."
Border security should be handled at the local level rather than the federal level, meaning the people of the vulnerable states should be organizing their own security measure, patrols, alarms, response teams, etc. I am so tired of hearing that we should "let the professionals do the job." Frankly, there are no "professionals" in the area of border security seeing as we now have wide-open borders. The locals have every right to secure their own states and will probably do a better job that the federal government ever has.
Your tactical response kit: Build an active-shooter kit for your vehicle and ALWAYS carry a sidearm, either open carry or concealed if you have a CCW. I open carry at all times as a matter of principle and have never been asked to leave an establishment as a result. But if you are worried about confrontation with people or businesses, then simply carry concealed. Open-carry citizens could dissuade attackers from striking a particular place altogether through blatant show of force, while CCW holders are less visible. There are advantages to both.
An active-shooter kit would require a lightweight folding-stock rifle or a short-barrel AR-style pistol with an arm brace, a lightweight tactical vest with mags and ammo, ballistic plates, smoke, a rifle light (for dark indoor spaces in particular; night vision with limited depth perception is far less effective than a simple light), a trauma kit with pressure bandages, celox gauze, tourniquets, chest seals, decompression needles, etc., as well as a radio communications kit. All gear should be tailored to the individual's expertise and needs. This kit should be placed in a nondescript backpack or carrying case for easy transport. Obviously, train with all of your gear extensively before using it in the field.
Personal and team training for active shooters: The only way Americans can guarantee any measure of safety from a Paris-style attack is for as many citizens as possible to be armed and trained. This means mentally training to go TOWARD the sound of the shooting, rather than to run away from it, as well as tactical methods to marginalize a shooter's ability to move and project violence. Team training is a must, and you should already be working within a group to learn how to function in combat without danger of friendly fire or misdirected fire that might put innocent bystanders at risk.
The common argument against citizens defending themselves is that they are untrained and are "likely to do more harm than good." This is nonsense. One armed person in Paris could have made all the difference, as this man armed with a .38 revolver did when his church in South Africa came under attack by terrorists. Another argument is that when armed citizens respond aggressively to an attack, they risk being mistaken as terrorists by authorities. I have to point out that the authorities rarely arrive in time to accomplish anything, let alone mistake you on the scene as a terrorist while defending yourself.
Military-grade training far superior to the training mandated by law enforcement is widely available to U.S. citizens. It is time to accept that this is the world we live in now. Are you going to put blind faith in a corrupt government system that has deliberately put you in harm's way, or are you going to take proactive measures to protect yourself and those around you? Make no mistake; your safety is in your hands whether you like it or not.
"The Saint James Church Massacre"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGif9upDZSo
July 25, 1993
WARNING: Video content graphic!
Charl Van Wyk was just an ordinary Christian man until July 25, 1993 - the day that would become known as the St. James Massacre. It was on this date that Van Wyk shot back at the terrorists who were attacking an innocent congregation gathered in prayer, and saved many lives in the process. More than just a remarkable story of courage under fire, Shooting Back deals forthrightly with the consequences of his actions, while addressing the concerns that plague so many God-fearing people in these lawless times, such as: Should we carry arms? When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families? What can we do when our God-given right to self-defense is legislated away from us? In Shooting Back, Van Wyk tackles these difficult questions using the light of Scripture and insights from his own experience to make the case for self-defense.
Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww
Published on Oct 1, 2015
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.
Quite a speech.. 3,500,000 views in 7 weeks!
The Fall Of The Unipower: Russia Is Defeating More Than ISIS In Syriahttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-17/fall-unipower-russia-defeating-more-isis-syria
Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,The distinguished and knowledgeable international commentator William Engdahl, in a superb statement, has expressed the view I gave you that Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech on September 28 at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations changed the balance of power in the world. Until Putin's speech the world was intimidated by the Washington Bully. Resistance to Washington brought swift retribution. In the Middle East and Africa it brought economic sanctions and military invasions that destroyed entire countries. In France and other US vassal states it brought multi-billion dollar confiscations of bank net worth as the price of not following Washington's policies toward other countries.
Other countries felt powerless in the face of the arrogant hegemonic Unipower, which from time to time replied to noncompliance with threats, such as US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered to Pakistan, to bomb noncompliant countries "back to the stone age."
President Putin of Russia brought all that to end on September 28. He stood up before the world in the presence of the overflowing hubris of the hegemon and belled the cat.
Putin denounced Washington's threat to the sovereignty, and therefy the freedom, of peoples and countries. He denounced the heartless criminality of Washington's destruction of the lives of millions of peoples on the basis of nothing other than Washington's own arrogance. He denouced the illegality of Washington's assauts on the sovereignty of other peoples, and declared that Russia can no longer tolerate this state of affairs in the world.
Two days later he took over the war in Syria and began exterminating the Washington financed and equiped Islamic State. Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea hit ISIL targets with pinpoint accuracy and showed Washington's EU vassals that Washington's ABM system could not protect them if Europe permitted Washington to force Europe into conflict with Russia.
Washington's response was more lies: "the missiles hit Iran," said the idiots in Washington. The entire world laughed at the lie. Washington, some said, is whistling past its empire's own graveyard.
Putin's declaration of multi-polarity was seconded by the President of China, who said in his understated mild way that every country must participate in shaping the future and not just follow the leadership of one.
The hegemonic Unipower ceased to exist on September 28.
This is a sea change. It will affect the behavior of every government. Even some of the craven vassals states, whose "leaders" are bought-and-paid-for, will move toward a more independent foreign policy.
The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was "bringing freedom and democracy."
The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconsevatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.
Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propells the US and Russia to war.
The neocons are also capable of plotting Putin's assassination. The crazed John McCain, whom idiotic Arizonians keep returning to the US Senate, has publicly called for Putin's death, as have other former federal officials, such as former CIA official Herbert E. Meyer, who publicly called for Putin's removal "wih a bullet hole in the back of his head." I am confident that the neoconservatives are plotting Putin's assassination with their Chechen terrorist friends. Unlike the US president, Putin often presents himself in open situations.
* * *
Here is William Engdahl's superb statement from the New Eastern Outlook, October 15, 2015. It is clear that the neoconservatives are not sufficiently realistic to accept this change in the power balance and will resist it to the point of war.
Putin is Defeating More than ISIS in Syria — William Engdahl Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, a little more than a year ago, in July 2014 were the focus of attention in Europe and North America, accused, without a shred of forensic evidence, of shooting down an unarmed civilian Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine. The Russians were deemed out to restore the Soviet Union with their agreement to the popular referendum of Crimean citizens to annex into the Russian Federation and not Ukraine. Western sanctions were being thrown at Russia by both Washington and the EU. People spoke of a new Cold War. Today the picture is changing, and profoundly. It is Washington that is on the defensive, exposed for the criminal actions it has been doing in Syria and across the Middle East, including creating the recent asylum crisis in Germany and large parts of the EU.
As a student of international politics and economics for most of my adult life, I must say the emotional restraint that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have shown against tasteless ad hominem attacks, from people such as Hillary Clinton who likened Putin to Adolf Hitler, is remarkable. But more than restraint is required to bring our world from the brink or some might say, the onset of a World War III. Brilliant and directed action is essential. Here something extraordinary has taken place in the very few days since President Vladimir Putin's September 28, UNGA speech in New York.
What he said . . . What Putin said to the UN General Assembly must be noted to put what he and Russia did in the days immediately following into clear focus. First of all he made clear what the international law behind the UN Charter means and that Russia is scrupulously abiding by the Charter in actions in Syria. Russia, unlike the US, has been formally asked by the legitimate Syrian government to aid its war against terror.
To the UN delegates and heads of state Putin stated, "The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don't. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law."
He continued, "We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don't need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way."
Putin followed this with a clear message to Washington and NATO governments on the subject of national sovereignty, something anathema to many who embrace the Nirvana supposed to come from globalization, homogenization of all to one level: "What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here?" Putin rhetorically asked. "It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future. By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn't play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all."
Putin added, "We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn't be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one. We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress."
Those few words succinctly point to what is fundamentally wrong in the international order today. Nations, above all the one proclaiming herself Sole Superpower, Infallible Hegemon, the USA, have arrogantly moved after the collapse of the main adversary, the Soviet Union in 1990, to create what can only be called a global totalitarian empire, what G.H.W. Bush in his September 11, 1991 address to Congress called a New World Order. I believe with conviction that borders do matter, that respect for different cultures, different historical experiences is essential in a world of peace. That is as much true with nations as with individual human beings. We seem to have forgotten that simple notion amid all the wars of the past decades. Vladimir Putin reminds us.
Then the Russian president goes to the heart of the matter. He lays bare the true activities of the Obama Administration in Syria and the Middle East in arming and training "moderate" Islamist terrorists to attack Washington's bête noire, Syria's duly-elected and recently re-elected President, Bashar al Assad.
Putin states, "instead of learning from other people's mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are "democratic" revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa...problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life."
Then in a remark addressed to Washington and their NGO Color Revolutions known as the Arab Spring, Putin pointedly asks, "I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you've done?"
Putin, without naming it, addresses the US and NATO role in creating ISIS, noting with precision the curious anomaly that the sophisticated new US Treasury unit to conduct financial sanctions against terrorist organizations, has utterly ignored the funding sources of ISIS, their oil sales facilitated by the Turkish President's own family to name just one. The Russian President stated, "...the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond...The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.
And what Putin is doing . . . Russia in the last weeks has completely out-maneuvered the diabolical, and they are diabolical, agenda of the Obama Administration not only in Syria but also in the entire Middle East and now in the EU with unleashing the flood of refugees. He openly reached out to invite Obama in their New York September 30 meeting to cooperate together in defeating ISIS. Obama stubbornly insisted that first Assad must go, despite the fact that Christine Wormuth, the Pentagon Undersecretary responsible for the Syrian war, confirmed Russian statements about Assad's essential role today in any defeat of ISIS. She told the US Senate that Assad's military "still has considerable strength," adding, "it's still the most powerful military force on the ground. The assessment right now is the regime is not in imminent danger of falling."
Now come the howls of protest from neo-con warhawks, like the ever-ready-for-war Senator John McCain, chairman of the NGO International Republican Institute of the democratic revolution exporting US-backed NGO, National Endowment for Democracy. Or we hear flaccid protests from President Obama. This is because Washington finds itself deeply exposed to the light of world scrutiny for backing terrorists in Syria against a duly-elected state leader and government. The US warhawks accuse Russia of hitting "the moderate opposition" or civilians.
Emperor's New Clothes . . . Russia's Putin is playing the role ever so elegantly, even gracefully, of the small boy in the Hans Christian Anderson classic fairy tale from 1837, The Emperor's New Clothes. The boy stands with his mother amid thousands of other villagers in the crowd outside the vain Emperor's palace balcony, where the disassociated king struts around the balcony naked, thinking he is wearing a magnificent new suit of clothes. The boy shouts, to the embarrassment of all servile citizens who pretend his clothes are magnificent, "Mother, look the Emperor has no clothes!"
What do I mean? In the first four days of precision bombing of select sites in Syria Russian advanced fighter jets firing Kh-29L air-to-surface laser-guided missiles that strike targets with a precision less than two meters, managed to destroy key ISIS command centers, munitions depots and vital infrastructure. According to the Russian Defense Ministry official reports, with photos, Su-34 bombers attacked an ISIS special training camp and munition depot near Al-Tabqa, Ar-Raqqah province," a critical ISIS outpost captured in August, 2014 after bitter battles. "As a result of explosion of the munition depot, the terrorist training camp was completely destroyed," the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman stated. Russian Su-25 jets have also attacked training camp of the Islamic State in the Syrian Idlib, destroying a workshop for explosive belt production.
Moscow states its air force has "engaged 3 munition, fuel and armament depots of the illegal armed groups. KAB-500 aviation bombs detonated the munition and armament," and they used BETAB-500 concrete-piercing bombs to destroy four command posts of the ISIS armed groups. The facilities with terrorists are completely destroyed," the Moscow spokesman added. Russia's aviation conducted 20 flights and carried out 10 airstrikes against facilities of the Islamic State (ISIL) terrorist group in the past 24 hours. Then Moscow announced they had also hit key outposts of other terror groups such as the Al Qaeda-franchise, Al Nusra Front.
These are the so-called "moderates" that McCain and the Washington warhawks are weeping over. Washington has been creating what it calls the "New" Syrian Forces (NSF), which they claim is composed of "moderate" terrorists, euphemistically referred to as "rebels." Imagine how recruitment talks go: CIA recruiter, "Mohammed, are you a moderate Islamist? Why yes, my dear CIA trainer. Please take me, train me and arm me in the fight against the ruthless dictator Assad and against ISIS. I'm on your side. You can trust me..."
In late September it was reported that Major Anas Obaid a.k.a. Abu Zayd, on completing his CIA training in Turkey, defected from the train-and-equip program to join Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) immediately on entering Syria. Incredibly, US officials admit that Washington does not track or exercise command-and-control of its Jihadist proxies once they enter Syria. Abu Zayd's defection after being trained in advanced warfare techniques by the US, is typical. Other elements of the New Syrian Forces directly handed all their weapons to Nusra upon entering Syrian territory at the town of Atareb at the end of September.
These latest "moderate" defections to join Al Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front affiliate in Syria come less than two weeks after Gen. Lloyd Austin III, head of the US "war against ISIS," during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Syria, admitted that the US military program that intended produce 5,400 trained fighters a year has so far only resulted in "four or five" who still remain on the ground and active in combat. The rest have all joined ISIS or Al Nusra Front of Al Qaeda, the US-backed "moderate opposition" to ISIL.
What the successful Russian precision airstrikes have done is expose in all its ugly nakedness the Emperor's New Clothes. For more than one year, the Obama Administration claims it has committed the most awesome airpower on the planet allegedly to destroy ISIS, which has been described as a "ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes."
Curiously, until last week, ISIS has only expanded its web of power in Syria and Iraq under US bombings. Now, within 72 hours, the Russian military, launching only 60 bombing runs in 72 hours, hitting more than 50 ISIS targets, has brought the ISIS combatants into what the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman described as a state of "panic" where more than 600 have deserted. And, according to Moscow, the fight is only beginning, expected, they say to last three to four months.
The Obama Administration has been training terrorists of Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, allegedly to fight ISIS, much like the disgraced General David Petraeus did in Iraq and Afghanistan along with Obama's special ISIS coordinator, the just-resigned General John Allen. The US-trained "moderate" terrorists were being readied, it's now clear to all the world, in reality, to battle Assad and open the way for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Syria and a real plunge into darkness for the world if that were to succeed.
Now, with the truth in the open, exposed by the remarkable successes of a handful of Russian fighter jets in four days against ISIS, accomplishing more than the US "anti-ISIS coalition" in more than one year, it is clear to the world Washington has been playing a dirty double game.
Now that hypocritical Obama Administration mask has been blown off with the precision hit of a Russian laser-guided Kh-29L missile. As German and other EU governments have admitted, much to the strong objection of Washington, Putin has demonstrated that Russia is the essential part of any peaceful resolution of the Syria war. That in turn has a huge bearing on the current asylum-seeker crisis in Germany and other parts of the EU. It also has a huge bearing on prospects for world peace. The Norwegian Parliament's Nobel Peace Prize Committee, rather than consider John Kerry, might consider Vladimir Putin and Russian Defense Minister, Sergey Shoygu, for the prize.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.11.18, 18:53:13
Has this been posted yet?
PCR is worth quoting in full, I admire the man's point of view!
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.11.18, 19:20:17
Those few words succinctly point to what is fundamentally wrong in the international order today. Nations, above all the one proclaiming herself Sole Superpower, Infallible Hegemon, the USA, have arrogantly moved after the collapse of the main adversary, the Soviet Union in 1990, to create what can only be called a global totalitarian empire, what G.H.W. Bush in his September 11, 1991 address to Congress called a New World Order. I believe with conviction that borders do matter, that respect for different cultures, different historical experiences is essential in a world of peace. That is as much true with nations as with individual human beings. We seem to have forgotten that simple notion amid all the wars of the past decades. Vladimir Putin reminds us.
Alexandr Dugin: "Why we fight in Syria"
November 12, 2015
http://manuelochsenreiter.com/blog/2015/11/12/alexandr-dugin-why-we-fight-in-syria
On October 31st, 2015, Russian passenger jet Airbus A321, charter flight 7K9268, heading from the Egyptian resort Sharm el-Sheikh to Saint Petersburg, crashed in the Sinai Peninsula. All 224 people on board were killed. Almost all were Russian nationals. The plane was only airborne for about 20 minutes before it crashed. The "Islamic State" (IS) terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the crash immediately after the disaster. The "Soldiers of the Caliphate have managed to shoot down a Russian aircraft in the province of Sinai," the IS group declared. More than 220 "Crusaders" aboard were killed. The attack was an act of revenge against the Russian military intervention in Syria. Russian foreign experts have ruled out that there was a "shooting", but investigators believe that a bomb detonated aboard the aircraft and caused the crash.
The "Islamic State" terrorist organization already declared war on Russia last year. And, as a terrorist organization, the IS kills civilians and enjoys the death of civilians. Killing civilians is the essence of terrorism. Terrorists kill innocent victims in order to achieve a political objective. This also corresponds to the nature of the "Islamic State" that has nothing to do with Islam or a state. After all, the death of innocent civilians is unacceptable for a devout Muslim. However, the death of civilians is the price Russia will have to pay today and, likely, in the future for its military aid to Syria. The "Islamic State" terrorists view all Russians as enemies—not just this country's military. On social networking sites, certain Western commentators also openly expressed glee over the plane crash.
But why does Russia provide military aid to Syria? First, this is a geopolitical conflict. The front between Atlanticists and Eurasians runs in Syria. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a political vacuum was created in the East and in the Middle East as well. There, the U.S. pursued a project focused on destroying nation-states—dubbed the "Greater Middle East Project." It even destroyed states that had behaved more or less loyal to Washington. The U.S. creates chaos to project itself as a hegemonic power. In the 1990s, Russia was weak and did not react, but in the early 2000s, it began to recover slowly. Today, Vladimir Putin has decided to actively oppose the U.S. policy of chaos in the Middle East. Russia's military help against terrorism in Syria can be seen as an act of Eurasian geopolitics. Syria is located at the center of the battle between the representatives of a unipolar (U.S.) and a multipolar (Russia) world order.
But beyond that, we need to perceive the "Islamic State" as a direct threat to the Russian Federation. This terrorist organization is a product of American politics created to spread chaos and to provide the United States—at any time—a template for its own military intervention, as you can see by the example of Syria. However, the "Islamic State" is not only present in Iraq and Syria, but also in Central Asia. Terrorist gangs—that have the same sponsors and the same ideology as the "Islamic State" in Syria and Iraq—are also active in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan close to Russian borders. These groups also operate in the North Caucasus within the Russian Federation itself. Vladimir Putin understands quite well that this is about creating chaotic conditions using the "Islamic State" and similar terrorist groups in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The logic behind the Russian military intervention is therefore clear. If we do not contain the U.S.-created and supported terrorism in Syria, we will soon have to fight it on our own borders and even on our own land. Syria is our external line of defense. The next line exists on the territory of the Eurasian Union and even within the Russian Federation.
Furthermore, the Russian military intervention in Syria, in contrast to the U.S.-led so-called "anti-terrorist campaign," is absolutely legitimate. Moscow cooperates closely with Damascus, whereby the Syrian government has officially requested Russian support. The Russian air force is working with the Syrian army, while the U.S.-led attacks take place against the will and despite the protests of the Syrian government. Dr. Bashar al-Assad is the legitimate and elected President of Syria, supported by more than 50 percent of the Syrian population. This means that in Syria we fight together with our Syrian allies against the expansion of the "Islamic State."
We must bear in mind what the total collapse of Syria would entail. This would automatically trigger the collapse of all other Muslim states in the region; even North Africa would be completely thrown into chaos, as we have already seen in Libya. We can, therefore, speak of a chain reaction or a domino effect in the event of Syria's collapse. This, in turn, would mean that millions of refugees and migrants would march toward Europe, because there would be no more future for these people in total chaos.
The American-created chaos is thus directed not only against the Middle East and Central Asia, but also against Europe. The more chaos and disorder in the Middle East and North Africa, the more migrants will come to Europe. This, in turn, will lead to the destabilization of social infrastructure and, therefore, to the political paralysis on the European continent. And here we should not forget that thousands of terrorists flow into Europe as part of the migration process. Should this trend continue, and with the future arrival of 10, 20, or even 30 million immigrants coming to Europe, this would actually mean the end of Europe. The European continent would not be "Islamized" per se, nor would a "Caliphate" be built, but instead Europe would sink into total chaos and be wiped out.
Today, Russia is fighting against this development, which is in Europe's interest as well. Russia needs Europe, and Europe needs Russia. Europe's collapse is bad for Russia, and the same notion applies the other way around, even if it is not accepted by many European governments today, which are even working against it. There also is some historic continuity: in the past, Russia saw Europe as a shield against Turkish Ottoman expansionism. Europe sinking into chaos automatically meant Russia being threatened at its western and southern borders. Hence, the protection of Europe is in the interests of the Russian Federation. In order to preserve Europe from falling into chaos, today's Russia is the shield of the European continent.
Therefore, Russia is fighting in Syria on a number of levels: we are actively taking up the fight against global and hegemonic aspirations of the U.S.; we are protecting our own national and Eurasian security interests by fighting the enemy before it can come to us; we are preserving Europe ahead of its decline because such a development would be harmful to us as well.
Prof. Alexander Dugin
This article was originally published in German language in ZUERST! news magazine.
It is gratifying to find that there are still a small
number of real journalists who are able to "see"
through the West's smokescreen of deception.
To add to what EvolvingApe has given us:
Christopher Bollyn lays it out (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124832)
Thierry Meyssan reveals how the French Republic
has been taken hostage (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124832).
Christopher Bollyn — bollyn.com Nov 17, 2015
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=124832
François Hollande, seen here with David de Rothschild, appointed a Rothschild banker to manage the French ministry of economy in 2014. What does that say about Hollande's loyalty?
"An act of war was committed by a terrorist army, DAESH [ISIS], a jihadist army, against France... An act of war prepared, planned, from outside, with outside complicity which an investigation will establish."
– French President François Hollande, November 14, 2015
"We need to work to find a political solution. Bashar al-Assad is not the solution, he is the problem."
– French President François Hollande, October 23, 2015
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Friday the 13th terror attacks in Paris seem to have accomplished exactly what they were meant to. They have seemingly given the French and the U.S. the right to attack "without mercy" ISIS forces in Syria. While the strikes are supposedly aimed at ISIS, the country taking the pounding is Syria.
There are basically two ways to view the terror attacks in Paris: they were, either, as French President François Hollande says, "an act of war... committed by a terrorist army, DAESH, a jihadist army," – or they were something else.
The accepted view, promoted by the controlled media and accepted by world leaders, is that they were, exactly as Hollande says, "an act of war" carried out by DAESH (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State). Based on this interpretation, U.S. A-10 Warthogs and French fighter jets have started bombing DAESH targets in Syria.
À quoi bon?
This raises the obvious question, what's the point? Why would any militia carry out an outrageous terror atrocity against a very powerful nation that is well prepared, willing, and ready to wage war against it as a response?
This is a situation strikingly similar to 9-11, in which the predecessor of DAESH, Al Qaida, supposedly attacked the United States, opening the door for the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan. How convenient.
We should ask: Do these so-called Islamic groups have a desire to commit mass suicide? With the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle approaching Syria and with American A-10 Warthogs poised on the border ready for destroy anything on the ground, why would any Islamic group give such powerful forces a carte blanche reason to attack?
Is this not just a little too neat?
If you agree that this is too neat, there is the alternative view to be considered. That is that the Paris attacks are something other than what they appear to be and that the desired outcome was achieved by using a fraudulent input. That is to say that the terror attacks in Paris were, in fact, controlled and carried out by a hidden hand that used deception to produce the desired outcome. We are, after all, living in an era of massive deception.
Who might that be?
Given the fact that the fraudulent "War on Terror" is an Israeli construct dating back to the 1970s, the first suspect would have to be Israeli intelligence.
Why would they do that?
To advance the Israeli strategy known as the "War on Terror" – and destroy Syria in the process.
How would they do it?
By creating a cell of extremists who are cultivated and prepared to carry out such acts of violence.
Are there any indications that this is the case?
The fact that the Bataclan theatre was Israeli-owned until September 11, 2015, in one rather obvious clue. There are many others, such as the degree of knowledge held by the planners. For example, how did the terrorists know that the French president would be at the football game? And why did French SWAT teams wait for more than two hours to take action at the theatre?
Is Hollande part of the deception?
He could be, but I would tend to doubt it. Hollande is simply "in the pocket" of the Rothschild family and proved it by waging war in Mali on behalf of the Rothschilds and their gold interests in that poor African nation. In August 2014, Hollande appointed Emmanuel Macron, a Rothschild investment banker to head the French Ministry of Economy.
Hollande is a Rothschild puppet who does what his masters want. At this point they want him to attack Syria.
How does this affect the situation in Syria?
The Paris attacks bring France into the Syrian conflict, although their military actions in Syria are neither legal nor approved by the government of Syria. This increases the weight of the anti-Assad coalition vis-à-vis the Russians, who have been asked to intervene in Syria and are fighting in support of the Assad government.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
"Bashar al-Assad is Problem, Not Solution in Syria: French President Francois Hollande," NDTV.com, October 23, 2015
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bashar-al-assad-is-problem-not-solution-in-syria-frances-francois-hollande-says-1235630
"Hollande replaces critic of austerity with Rothschild banker," EurActiv.com, Reuters, August 27, 2014
www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/hollande-replaces-critic-austerity-rothschild-banker-308004
"Mali – France Fights for Rothschild Gold," by Christopher Bollyn, January 19, 2013
www.bollyn.com/mali-france-fights-for-rothschild-gold/
Quote from: muDped on 2015.11.19, 01:45:53
It is gratifying to find that there are still a small
number of real journalists who are able to "see"
through the West's smokescreen of deception.
To add to what EvolvingApe has given us:
The establishment behind the perpetual global war on terror has become desperate, to counter the threat to humanity at this very late hour, you must adapt and overcome.
In the near future the ability to communicate freely will become heavily restricted. Hyperlinking will be banned amongst many other Orwellian restrictions on freedom of information exchange.
The situation being as such, I recommend the immediate adoption of my model. Complete duplication of important material into a single thread (this one), with full hyperlink information visible (not hidden in a cute little word itself hyperlinked), and typed time and date stamp. We are trying to combat the memory hole here in this approach.
You may have noticed by using the guests button you can view what people are doing on the forum. You may also notice from time to time someone printing a thread, an activity which OUR has always provided for. People are able to gather hard copies for offline study and have the hyperlink http: information available for direct connection to a source if that is all that becomes possible shortly.
Now that war has been declared by a proxy army on civilisation I advise all of you to immediately revise and review your stratagems.
Aye, adapting to what is sure to come will indeed
require new techniques to overcome censorship
and loss of freedom of communication.
The internet has proven itself to be a very effective
tool to the propagation of Truth much to the dismay
of the Psychopaths in Power. They're constantly
working on schemes to justify pulling the plug.
Yeah we have some "internet Filtering" and Metadata retention laws here in Aus. Internet service Providers were already compelled to provide client locations and personal details, if requested with the correct paperwork from certain "Authorities", even before these new laws.
Mostly we all think it is best to use Linux but is it really ? Do Evil people not also know how to access some peoples computers that use Linux ?
I kinda went the route of - "Oh well I don't do porn, or anything actually illegal so I'll just use Windows and look for signs of odd things". And I don't really care if I get looked at as long as no data is added or removed from my PC". They can copy all they like. And because any PC with anything on it that I consider to be valuable or proprietary would never connect directly to the interweb.
One method would be to have two PC's (I have at least two at any one time), 2 x desktops and the laptop. Occasionally a Desktop goes down due to Hardware issues and I just built a new PC, so was one down during that (lack of PC Cases- Frames). And then just always only use one Desktop and the Laptop for the web stuff and keep one "offline". Which can be inconvenient but is possible if necessary. Personally I don't bother I connect all mine so updates are Easy, Windows 10 offers Updates sharing over the local network or the entire web as well (like file sharing but for OS updates) saves download data I guess. But still a PC can be updated without being web connected.
.
With the one PC never web connected a separate Private network can be established as well I think. If the web connected PC was to get "taken down" then as soon as the OS can be reinstalled you're back, and all important data is retained on the offline PC.
I use the least modern PC with Windows 7 to record TV and connect to the Entertainment system and web use when it is most convenient, but I use the more modern 6 core computer with Windows 10 for most everyday use, eg. video trans-coding, web work, banking and other things. Messing with phones ect. is sometimes best done on my laptop with Windows XP or Linux Mint also Puppy from a USB stick I often use on different PC's. The Older PC will never have windows 10 on it even though it is rated to be able to use it and the free upgrade is offered to me for it. I like Windows 7, but I bought 8.1 at first for the newer PC and did not like it so did the Windoze 10 upgrade on that, aside from not being able to turn automatic update completely off it's OK I guess, 10 is ok better than 8 but 7 is my preference. The newer OS's are more flexible with hardware drivers, compatibility and so on. I can run most XP programes on either 7 or 10 using compatibility modes.
P.S. If a visitor wanted to borrow a PC I would let them use the newer Windows 10 PC as it can be reset easier and is easy to restore if an issue occurs, I do regular images of both PC's and store them on the second drive of the respective PC's.
.
Windows 10 can be totally reinstalled on the newer PC in a silly short amount of time, some minutes.
For some reason (cost) I've always used AMD - Radeon Hardware, But my next PC will be Intel Nvidia, Purely because of power consumption for performance, as well Intel is leaping ahead of AMD big time.
P.S. I take precautions due to lightning, I use a UPS and I totally disconnect all of my sensitive electrical equipment from the grid when lightning is around, if power is cut I use a battery and inverter to power the UPS and can run the older PC to Watch TV and web connect and burn a 15 Watt light on less than 200 Watts, Wireless internet and isolated power supply means I am safe from the Lightning so is my gear. Batteries are solar charged of course. Grid power is cheap enough so I will stay with just an emergency battery bank setup.
.
Security breach? Mystery man caught listening in on Putin-Obama talks at G20 (VIDEO)
Check this out.. just for laughs!
https://www.rt.com/news/322346-eavesdropping-g20-obama-putin/
Who can spot the bagman ? ;D
LOL, but why did he need the bag ? That would make him obvious, maybe he figured obvious would work or maybe he was a distraction to aid the real eavesdropper.
I have a small MP3 player that can clearly record conversations in a room while it is in my pocket for hours too.
.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.11.19, 22:57:03
LOL, but why did he need the bag ?
The other bagman..! Moving on:
Putin Takes The Gloves Off Against The U.S https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQS5S8ChHYE
Published on Nov 17, 2015
In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest geo political news surrounding the fight against global terrorism.
We go into great details how Putin and Obama recently had a private talk at the G20 and how the global political landscape is quickly changing because of Putin.
Cop Walks Free After Killing Unarmed Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crvsWMV8E34
Published on Nov 5, 2015
Pennsylvania police officer Lisa Mearkle shot an unarmed man in the back. His name was David Kassick. She killed him. She was recently cleared of murder charges. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down.
Police Officer Lisa Mearkle's Taser video: fatal shooting of David Kassick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-xXO1vuaw
Published on Nov 5, 2015
Video taken from Hummelstown police Officer Lisa Mearkle's Taser during the fatal shooting of David Kassick in February 2015. It was shown at her murder trial in November 2015. She was acquitted.
WARNING: The Taser cam footage shows the torture of David Kassick by electrocution for over a minute before he is executed.
Russian warplanes disrupt ISIS oil sales channels; destroy 500 terrorist oil trucks in Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/322614-russian-warplanes-isis-oil-trucks/
Published time: 18 Nov, 2015 17:31
Around 500 fuel tanker vehicles transporting illegal oil from Syria to Iraq for processing have been destroyed by Russia's Air Forces, the General Staff said.
"In recent years, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and other extremist groups have organized the operations of the so-called 'pipeline on wheels' on the territories they control," Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov said.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel have been delivered to Iraq for processing by trucks and the revenue generated from these illegal exports is the one of the terrorists' main sources of funding, he said.
The spokesman displayed images showing convoys comprised of hundreds of vehicles transporting oil to back his assertion.
"In just the first few days, our aviation has destroyed 500 fuel tanker trucks, which greatly reduced illegal oil export capabilities of the militants and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling," Kartapolov stressed.
The spokesman also said that the Russian military has begun developing proposals for joint military action with the French Navy against the terrorists in accordance with an order by President Vladimir Putin.
"This joint work will begin after the arrival of aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Syrian shores," Kartapolov explained.
Russia has been bombing Islamic State and other terror groups in Syria since September 30 at the official request of country's president, Bashar Assad.
On Tuesday, Russia's fleet of 25 long-range bombers joined Su-34, Su-25, and Su-24M warplanes conducting operations in Syria to double the number of airstrikes against the militants.
How Saudi/Gulf Money Fuels Terror
November 14, 2015
Exclusive: With the death toll in the Paris terror attacks still rising, French President Hollande is condemning an "act of war" by the Islamic State, but the underlying reality is that France's rich friends in the Persian Gulf are key accomplices in the mayhem, writes Daniel Lazare.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/14/how-saudigulf-money-fuels-terror/
By Daniel Lazare
In the wake of the latest terrorist outrage in Paris, the big question is not which specific group is responsible for the attack, but who's responsible for the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in the first place. The answer that has grown increasingly clear in recent years is that it's Western leaders who have used growing portions of the Muslim world as a playground for their military games and are now crying crocodile tears over the consequences.
This pattern had its beginnings in the 1980s in Afghanistan, where the Central Intelligence Agency and the Saudi royal family virtually invented modern jihadism in an effort to subject the Soviets to a Vietnam-style war in their own backyard. It was the case, too, in Iraq, which the United States and Great Britain invaded in 2003, triggering a vicious civil warfare between Shi'ites and Sunnis.
Today, it's the case in Yemen where the U.S. and France are helping Saudi Arabia in its massive air war against Houthi Shi'ites. And it's the case in Syria, the scene of the most destructive war game of them all, where Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states are channeling money and arms to Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), and similar forces with the full knowledge of the U.S.
Western leaders encourage this violence yet decry it in virtually the same breath. In April 2008, a Treasury official testified in a congressional hearing that "Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to ... Sunni terror groups and the Taliban than from any other place in the world." [See Rachel Ehrenfeld, "Their Oil Is Thicker Than Our Blood," in in Sarah N. Stern, ed., Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West's Fatal Embrace (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 127.]
In December 2009, Hillary Clinton noted in a confidential diplomatic memo that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." In October 2014, Joe Biden told students at Harvard's Kennedy School that "the Saudis, the emirates, etc. ... were so determined to take down [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war ... [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda."
Just last month, a New York Times editorial complained that Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis were continuing to funnel donations not only to Al Qaeda but to Islamic State as well.
Yet despite countless promises to shut down such funding, the spigots have remained wide open. The U.S. has not only acquiesced in such activities, moreover, but has actively participated in them. In June 2012, the Times wrote that the C.I.A. was working with the Muslim Brotherhood to channel Turkish, Saudi and Qatari-supplied arms to anti-Assad rebels.
Two months later, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Al Qaeda, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood dominated the Syrian rebel movement, that their goal was to establish a "Salafist principality in eastern Syria" where Islamic State's caliphate is now located, and that this is "exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition" – i.e. the West, Gulf states, and Turkey – "want in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
More recently, the Obama administration made no objection when the Saudis supplied Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's official Syrian affiliate, with high-tech TOW missiles in support of its offensive in Syria's northern Idlib province. It did not complain when the Saudis vowed to step up aid to such groups in response to Russia's intervention in support of the besieged Assad regime.
Two weeks ago, the Times's Ben Hubbard noted that 50 American Special Operations troops injected into northern Syria have been assigned to work with Arab rebels who had previously collaborated with Al Nusra and – although Hubbard didn't say so – would undoubtedly do so again as soon as the Americans had gone.
Working Hand-in-Glove
While vowing eternal enmity against Al Qaeda, the U.S. and its Gulf allies thus work hand-in-glove with the same forces in pursuit of other goals. Yet now leaders from Washington to Riyadh are beside themselves with grief that the same groups are biting the hand that feeds them.
This is a pattern that has grown all too familiar in recent years. "Terrorism" is a well-nigh meaningless word that obscures and confuses more than it illuminates. The 9/11 attacks led to a "global war on terror" and, simultaneously, to a vast cover-up concerning those who were actually responsible for the deed.
As a curtain of silence descended around the U.S.-Saudi role in Afghanistan, where the Osama bin Laden network originated, the Bush administration spirited 140 Saudis, including some two dozen members of the Bin Laden family, out of the country after no more than cursory questioning by the F.B.I.
When Saudi regent Abdullah bin Abdulaziz – he would not formally assume the throne for another three years – visited George W. Bush's Texas ranch in April 2002, the President barely mentioned the World Trade Center and cut short a reporter who insisted on bringing it up:
"Yes, I – the crown prince has been very strong in condemning those who committed the murder of U.S. citizens. We're constantly working with him and his government on intelligence sharing and cutting off money ... the government has been acting, and I appreciate that very much."
What Bush said was a lie. Just a month earlier, former FBI assistant director Robert Kallstrom had complained that the Saudis were dragging their feet with regard to the investigation: "It doesn't look like they're doing much, and frankly it's nothing new."
In April 2003, Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 commission's neocon executive director, fired an investigator, Dana Leseman, when she proved too vigorous in probing the Saudi connection. [See Philip Shenon, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation (New York: Twelve, 2008), pp. 110-13.]
Strangest of all is what has happened to a 28-page chapter in an earlier joint congressional report dealing with the question of the Saudi complicity. While the report as a whole was heavily redacted, the chapter itself wound up entirely suppressed. Although Obama promised 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser shortly after taking office to see to it that it was made public, it remains under wraps.
Rather than identifying those responsible, Washington preferred that the American people remain in the dark. Instead of identifying the actual culprits, the Bush administration, backed up by the Democrats and the press, preferred to blame it all on vague and formless "evildoers" from another realm. The same thing happened following the Charlie Hebdo massacre last January. Amid thousands of "Je Suis Charlie" signs and mass demonstrations — featuring Benjamin Netanyahu, Nicolas Sarkozy and the Saudi ambassador — persistent reports of Saudi donations flowing to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group that trained gunman Chérif Kouachi and apparently sponsored the assault, were ignored.
Reports that Riyadh has since collaborated with AQAP in its war against Shi'ite Houthis have met the same fate. As Saudi jets spread death and destruction across Yemen, Al Qaeda has gained control of the eastern city of Mukalla, an oil center and sea port with a population of 300,000, and has also taken control of portions of Aden as well, accumulating in the process an arsenal consisting of dozens of 55 armored vehicles and 22 tanks plus anti-aircraft missiles and other weaponry as well.
No Alarm Bells
One would think that this would set off alarm bells in Washington, yet the result has been a collective shrug. The Obama administration continues to back Saudi Arabia in its assault on the Middle East's poorest nation, providing it with technical back-up and naval support, while France, eager to supplant the U.S. as the kingdom's chief weapons supplier, backs it as well.
French President Francois Hollande thus backs the kingdom that backs the forces that backed those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He also backs a kingdom that allows donations to flow to ISIS, which he now identifies as responsible for the latest atrocities.
Hollande prefers to beat his breast and issue ringing calls for "compassion and solidarity" rather than actually doing something about the relationships that generate such attacks in the first place.
At its most basic level, this is a problem of oil, money and an American empire that stands paralyzed before the disaster it has created in the Middle East. When Obama issued his famous August 2011 call for regime change in Damascus – "For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside" – it seemed to be a no-brainer.
The insurgency was growing, the Ba'athists were hanging on by a thread, and it seemed only a matter of time before Assad met the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi. "We came, we saw, he died," Hillary Clinton would crow a few months later about Gaddafi, and so it seemed that Assad would soon meet his end at hands of a rebel mob, too.
But Assad proved more durable, mainly because he had the backing of a mass party that, despite corruption and ossification, still enjoyed a significant measure of popular support. The longer he has been able to stay in power, therefore, the more the U.S. has found itself caught up in an increasingly sectarian war by gulf-funded Sunni extremists.
Faced with a choice between Assad on one hand and ISIS and Al Qaeda on the other, Obama has dithered and delayed, refusing to commit himself wholeheartedly to the rebel cause but failing to object when his closest friends channel funds to groups that the U.S. officially regards as anathema.
Instead of defeating ISIS, this policy of neither-nor has allowed it fester and grow. The group is richer than ever, its troops travel about in shiny new Toyota pickups, and its technical prowess is also on the upswing. Two weeks ago, it apparently brought down a Russian airliner in the Sinai. On Thursday, it sent a pair of suicide bombers into a Shi'ite neighborhood in Beirut, killing 43 people and wounding more than two hundred.
Now, according to French authorities, ISIS has sent a team of at least eight militants to shoot up various sites in Paris. In an apparent reference to Western bombing raids against ISIS targets in Syria, one gunman reportedly shouted during the assault on the Bataclan music hall, "What you are doing in Syria, you are going to pay for it now."
This is a horror show made in Washington, Riyadh and the Élysée.
The Rising Right
What is to be done? The events are a godsend for Marine Le Pen, who will undoubtedly use them to fuel the mass xenophobia that generates votes for the National Front. It is a boon as well for countless politicians in Eastern Europe, from Hungary's Viktor Orban to Slovakia Prime Minister Robert Fico, who also benefits from growing anti-immigrant fervor.
In Poland, where President Andrzej Duda has denounced European Union refugee quotas and 25,000 ultra-right demonstrators recently paraded through Warsaw calling for "Poland for the Poles," nationalists are also rubbing their hands with glee.
For weeks, right-wing websites and news outlets have been warning that ISIS was using the refugee wave to infiltrate fighters into the EU, and now they will be able to point to the Bataclan massacre and say that they were right.
It's an argument that ordinary people will likely find compelling, which is why pointing out the role of Western governments in the debacle is vital. After raining down destruction on one Muslim nation after another, Western leaders can hardly be surprised when violence overflows into their own backyard.
Sealing off the borders à la Donald Trump or Nigel Farage may strike some voters as logical, but the more the U.S. and its allies impose "regime change" and mass terror on the Middle East, the greater will be the number of refugees seeking to escape. No matter how many barriers the EU puts up, growing numbers will find ways around them.
The same goes for the violence. No matter how hard the West tries to seal itself off against the disorders that it itself is creating, it will find that a cordon sanitaire is impossible to maintain. Saudi Arabia has quadrupled its arms purchases in recent years while the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council is now the third biggest military spender in the world.
This is wonderful news for arms manufacturers not to mention politicians desperate for an uptick in GDP, but somewhat less so for masses of ordinary people in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Paris who are now at the receiving end of all that weaponry and violence. The more the Western alliance and its Gulf "allies" insist on spreading chaos in the Middle East, the more xenophobia and right-wing reaction will be the upshot in Europe and the United States.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Tangled Threads of US False Narratives
November 19, 2015
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/19/tangled-threads-of-us-false-narratives/
Exclusive: Official Washington's many false narratives about Russia and Syria have gotten so tangled that they have become a danger to the struggle against Sunni jihadist terrorism and conceivably a threat to the future of the planet, a risk that Robert Parry explores.
By Robert Parry
One way to view Official Washington is to envision a giant bubble that serves as a hothouse for growing genetically modified "group thinks." Most inhabitants of the bubble praise these creations as glorious and beyond reproach, but a few dissenters note how strange and dangerous these products are. Those critics, however, are then banished from the bubble, leaving behind an evermore concentrated consensus.
This process could be almost comical – as the many armchair warriors repeat What Everyone Knows to Be True as self-justifying proof that more and more wars and confrontations are needed – but the United States is the most powerful nation on earth and its fallacious "group thinks" are spreading a widening arc of chaos and death around the globe.
We even have presidential candidates, especially among the Republicans but including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, competing to out-bellicose each other, treating an invasion of Syria as the least one can do and some even bragging about how they might like to shoot down a few Russian warplanes.
Though President Barack Obama has dragged his heels regarding some of the more extreme proposals, he still falls in line with the "group think," continuing to insist on "regime change" in Syria (President Bashar al-Assad "must go"), permitting the supply of sophisticated weapons to Sunni jihadists (including TOW anti-tank missiles to Ahrar ash-Sham, a jihadist group founded by Al Qaeda veterans and fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra Front), and allowing his staff to personally insult Russian President Vladimir Putin (having White House spokesman Josh Earnest in September demean Putin's posture for sitting with his legs apart during a Kremlin meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).
Not surprisingly, I guess, Earnest's prissy disapproval of what is commonly called "man spread" didn't extend to Netanyahu who adopted the same open-leg posture in the meeting with Putin on Sept. 21 and again in last week's meeting with Obama, who – it should be noted – sat with his legs primly crossed.
This combination of tough talk, crude insults and reckless support of Al Qaeda-connected jihadis ("our guys") apparently has become de rigueur in Official Washington, which remains dominated by the foreign policy ideology of neoconservatives, who established the goal of "regime change" in Iraq, Syria and Iran as early as 1996 and haven't changed course since. [See Consortiumnews.com's "How Neocons Destabilized Europe."]
Shaping Narratives
Despite the catastrophic Iraq War – based on neocon-driven falsehoods about WMD and the complicit unthinking "group think" – the neocons retained their influence largely through an alliance with "liberal interventionists" and their combined domination of major Washington think tanks, from the American Enterprise Institute to the Brookings Institution, and the mainstream U.S. news media, including The Washington Post and The New York Times.
This power base has allowed the neocons to continue shaping Official Washington's narratives regardless of what the actual facts are. For instance, a Post editorial on Thursday repeated the claim that Assad's "atrocities" included use of chemical weapons, an apparent reference to the now largely discredited claim that Assad's forces were responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.
After the attack, there was a rush to judgment by the U.S. State Department blaming Assad's troops and leading Secretary of State John Kerry to threaten retaliatory strikes against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence analysts refused to sign on to the hasty conclusions, contributing to President Obama's last-minute decision to hold off on a bombing campaign and to accept Putin's help in negotiating Assad's surrender of all Syrian chemical weapons (though Assad still denied a role in the sarin attack).
Subsequently, much of the slapdash case for bombing Syria fell apart. As more evidence became available, it increasingly appeared that the sarin attack was a provocation by Sunni jihadists, possibly aided by Turkish intelligence, to trick the United States into destroying Assad's military and thus clearing the way for a Sunni jihadist victory.
We now know that the likely beneficiaries of such a U.S. attack would have been Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and the spinoff known as the Islamic State (also called ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). But the Obama administration never formally retracted its spurious sarin claims, thus allowing irresponsible media outlets, such as The Washington Post, to continue citing the outdated "group think."
The same Post editorial denounced Assad for using "barrel bombs" against the Sunni rebels who are seeking to overthrow his secular government, which is viewed as the protector of Syria's minorities – including Christians, Alawites and Shiites – who could face genocide if the Sunni extremists prevail.
Though this "barrel bomb" theme has become a favorite talking point of both the neocons and liberal "human rights" groups, it's never been clear how these homemade explosive devices shoved out of helicopters are any more inhumane than the massive volumes of "shock and awe" ordnance, including 500-pound bombs, deployed by the U.S. military across the Middle East, killing not only targeted fighters but innocent civilians.
Nevertheless, the refrain "barrel bombs" is accepted across Official Washington as a worthy argument for launching devastating airstrikes against Syrian government targets, even if such attacks clear the way for Al Qaeda's allies and offshoots gaining control of Damascus and unleashing even a worse humanitarian cataclysm. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Ludicrous 'Barrel Bomb' Theme."]
False-Narrative Knots
But it is now almost impossible for Official Washington to disentangle itself from all the false narratives that the neocons and the liberal hawks have spun in support of their various "regime change" strategies. Plus, there are few people left inside the bubble who even recognize how false these narratives are.
So, the American people are left with the mainstream U.S. news media endlessly repeating storylines that are either completely false or highly exaggerated. For instance, we hear again and again that the Russians intervened in the Syrian conflict promising to strike only ISIS but then broke their word by attacking Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and "our guys" in Sunni jihadist forces armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the CIA.
Though you hear this narrative everywhere in Official Washington, no one ever actually quotes Putin or another senior Russian official promising to strike only at ISIS. In all the quotes that I've seen, the Russians refer to attacking "terrorists," including but not limited to ISIS.
Unless Official Washington no longer regards Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization – a trial balloon that some neocons have floated – then the Putin-lied narrative makes no sense, even though every Important Person Knows It to Be True, including Obama's neocon-leaning Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
The U.S. political and media big shots also mock the current Russian-Iranian proposal for first stabilizing Syria and then letting the Syrian people decide their own leadership through internationally observed democratic elections.
Okay, you might say, what's wrong with letting the Syrian people go to the polls and pick their own leaders? But that just shows that you're a Russian-Iranian "apologist" who doesn't belong inside the bubble. The Right Answer is that "Assad Must Go!" whatever the Syrian people might think.
Or, as the snarky neocon editors of The Washington Post wrote on Thursday, "Mr. Putin duly dispatched his foreign minister to talks in Vienna last weekend on a Syrian political settlement. But Moscow and Tehran continue to push for terms that would leave Mr. Assad in power for 18 months or longer, while — in theory — a new constitution is drafted and elections organized. Even a U.S. proposal that Mr. Assad be excluded from the eventual elections was rejected, according to Iranian officials."
In other words, the U.S. government doesn't want the Syrian people to decide whether Assad should be kicked out, an odd and contradictory stance since President Obama keeps insisting that the vast majority of Syrians hate Assad. If that's indeed the case, why not let free-and-fair elections prove the point? Or is Obama so enthralled by the neocon insistence of "regime change" for governments on Israel's "hit list" that he doesn't want to take the chance of the Syrian voters getting in the way?
Reality Tied Down
But truth and reality have become in Official Washington something like Gulliver being tied down by the Lilliputians. There are so many strands of lies and distortions that it's impossible for sanity to rise up.
Another major factor in America's crisis of false narratives relates to the demonizing of Russia and Putin, a process that dates back in earnest to 2013 when Putin helped Obama sidetrack the neocon dream of bombing Syria and then Putin compounded his offense by assisting Obama in getting Iran to constrain its nuclear program, which derailed another neocon dream to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.
It became ominously clear to the neocons that this collaboration between the two presidents might even lead to joint pressure on Israel to finally reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, a possibility that struck too close to the heart of neocon thinking which, for the past two decades, has favored using "regime change" in nearby countries to isolate and starve Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestinian groups, giving Israel a free hand to do whatever it wished.
So, this Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up and the point of detonation was Ukraine on Russia's border. Official Washington's false narratives around the Ukraine crisis are now also central to neocon/liberal-hawk efforts to prevent meaningful coordination between Obama and Putin in countering ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.
Inside Official Washington's bubble, the crisis in Ukraine is routinely described as a simple case of Russian "aggression" against Ukraine, including an "invasion" of Crimea.
If you relied on The New York Times or The Washington Post or the major networks that repeat what the big newspapers say, you wouldn't know there was a U.S.-backed coup in February 2014 that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, even after he agreed to a European compromise in which he surrendered many powers and accepted early elections.
Instead of letting that agreement go forward, right-wing ultra-nationalists, including neo-Nazis operating inside the Maidan protests, overran government buildings in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, causing Yanukovych and other leaders to flee for their lives.
Behind the scenes, U.S. officials, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, had collaborated in the coup plans and celebrated the victory by Nuland's handpicked leaders, including the post-coup Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom she referred to in an earlier intercepted phone call as "Yats is the guy."
Nor would you know that the people of Crimea had voted overwhelmingly for President Yanukovych and – after the coup – voted overwhelmingly to get out of the failed Ukrainian state and reunify with Russia.
The major U.S. news media twists that reality into a Russian "invasion" of Crimea even though it was the strangest "invasion" ever because there were no photos of Russian troops landing on the beaches or parachuting from the skies. What the Post and the Times routinely ignored was that Russian troops were already stationed inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the Russian fleet at Sevastopol. They didn't need to "invade."
And Crimea's referendum showing 96 percent approval for reunification with Russia – though hastily arranged – was not the "sham" that the U.S. mainstream media claimed. Indeed, the outcome has been reinforced by various polls conducted by Western agencies since then.
The MH-17 Case
The demonization of Putin reached new heights after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine killing all 298 people onboard. Although substantial evidence and logic point to elements of the Ukrainian military as responsible, Official Washington's rush to judgment blamed ethnic Russian rebels for firing the missile and Putin for supposedly giving them a powerful Buk anti-aircraft missile system.
That twisted narrative often relied on restating the irrelevant point that the Buks are "Russian-made," which was used to implicate Moscow but was meaningless since the Ukrainian military also possessed Buk missiles. The real question was who fired the missiles, not where they were made.
But the editors of the Post, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media think you are very stupid, so they keep emphasizing that the Buks are "Russian-made." The more salient point is that U.S. intelligence with all its satellite and other capabilities was unable – both before and after the shoot-down – to find evidence that the Russians had given Buks to the rebels.
Since the Buk missiles are 16-feet-long and hauled around by slow-moving trucks, it is hard to believe that U.S. intelligence would not have spotted them given the intense surveillance then in effect over eastern Ukraine.
A more likely scenario of the MH-17 shoot-down was that Ukraine moved several of its Buk batteries to the frontlines, possibly fearing a Russian airstrike, and the operators were on edge after a Ukrainian warplane was shot down along the border on July 16, 2014, by an air-to-air missile presumably fired by a Russian plane.
But – after rushing out a white paper five days after the tragedy pointing the finger at Moscow – the U.S. government has refused to provide any evidence or intelligence that might help pinpoint who fired the missile that brought down MH-17.
Despite this remarkable failure by the U.S. government to cooperate with the investigation, the mainstream U.S. media has found nothing suspicious about this dog not barking and continues to cite the MH-17 case as another reason to despise Putin.
How upside-down this "Everything Is Putin's Fault" can be was displayed in a New York Times "news analysis" by Steven Erlanger and Peter Baker on Thursday when all the "fundamental disagreements" between Obama and Putin were blamed on Putin.
"Dividing them are the Russian annexation of Crimea and its meddling in eastern Ukraine, Moscow's efforts to demonize Washington and undermine confidence in NATO's commitment to collective defense, and the Kremlin's support of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria," Erlanger and Baker wrote.
Helping ISIS
This tangle of false narratives is now tripping up the prospects of a U.S.-French-Russian-Iranian alliance to take on the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other Sunni jihadist forces seeking to overthrow Syria's secular government.
The neocon Washington Post, in particular, has been venomous about this potential collaboration which – while possibly the best chance to finally resolve the horrific Syrian conflict – would torpedo the neocons' long-held vision of imposed "regime change" in Syria.
In editorials, the Post's neocon editors also have displayed a stunning lack of sympathy for the 224 Russian tourists and crew killed in what appears to have been a terrorist bombing of a chartered plane over the Sinai in Egypt.
On Nov. 7, instead of expressing solidarity, the Post's editors ridiculed Putin and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for not rushing to a judgment that it was an act of terrorism, instead insisting on first analyzing the evidence. The Post also mocked the two leaders for failing to vanquish the terrorists.
Or as the Post's editors put it: "While Mr. Putin suspended Russian flights on [Nov. 6], his spokesman was still insisting there was no reason to conclude that there had been an act of terrorism. ... While Western governments worried about protecting their citizens, the Sissi and Putin regimes were focused on defending themselves. ...
"Both rulers have sold themselves as warriors courageously taking on the Islamic State and its affiliates; both are using that fight as a pretext to accomplish other ends, such as repressing peaceful domestic opponents and distracting attention from declining living standards. On the actual battlefield, both are failing."
Given the outpouring of sympathy that the United States received after the 9/11 attacks and the condolences that flooded France over the past week, it is hard to imagine a more graceless reaction to a major terrorist attack against innocent Russians.
As for the Russian hesitancy to jump to conclusions earlier this month, that may have been partially wishful thinking but it surely is not an evil trait to await solid evidence before reaching a verdict. Even the Post's editors admitted that U.S. officials noted that as of Nov. 7 there was "no conclusive evidence that the plane was bombed."
But the Post couldn't wait to link the terrorist attack to "Mr. Putin's Syrian adventure" and hoped that it would inflict on Putin "a potentially grievous political wound." The Post's editors also piled on with the gratuitous claim that Russian officials "still deny the overwhelming evidence that a Russian anti-aircraft missile downed a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine last year." (There it is again, the attempt to dupe Post readers with a reference to "a Russian anti-aircraft missile.")
The Post seemed to take particular joy in the role of U.S. weapons killing Syrian and Iranian soldiers. On Thursday, the Post wrote, "Syrian and Iranian troops have lost scores of Russian-supplied tanks and armored vehicles to the rebels' U.S.-made TOW missiles. Having failed to recapture significant territory, the Russian mission appears doomed to quagmire or even defeat in the absence of a diplomatic bailout."
Upping the Ante
The neocons' determination to demonize Putin has upped the ante, turning their Mideast obsession with "regime change" into a scheme for destabilizing Russia and forcing "regime change" in Moscow, setting the stage for a potential nuclear showdown that could end all life on the planet.
To listen to the rhetoric from most Republican candidates and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, it is not hard to envision how all the tough talk could take on a life of its own and lead to catastrophe. [See, for instance, Philip Giraldi's review of the "war with Russia" rhetoric free-flowing on the campaign trail and around Official Washington.]
At this point, it may seem fruitless – even naïve – to suggest ways to pierce the various "group thinks" and the bubble that sustains them. But a counter-argument to the fake narratives is possible if some candidate seized on the principle of an informed electorate as vital to democracy.
An argument for empowering citizens with facts is one that transcends traditional partisan and ideological boundaries. Whether on the right, on the left or in the center, Americans don't want to be treated like cattle being herded by propaganda or "strategic communication" or whatever the latest euphemism is for deception and manipulation.
So, a candidate could do the right thing and the smart thing by demanding the release of as much U.S. intelligence information to cut this Gordian knot of false narratives as possible. For instance, it is way past time to declassify the 28 pages from the congressional 9/11 report addressing alleged Saudi support for the hijackers. There also are surely more recent intelligence estimates on the funding of Al Qaeda's affiliates and spin-offs, including ISIS.
If this information embarrasses some "allies" – such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – so be it. If this history makes some past or present U.S. president look bad, so be it. American elections are diminished, if not made meaningless, when there is no informed electorate.
A presidential candidate also could press President Obama to disclose what U.S. intelligence knows about other key turning points in the establishment of false narratives, such as what did CIA analysts conclude about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack and what do they know about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of MH-17.
The pattern of the U.S. government exploiting emotional moments to gain an edge in an "info-war" against some "enemy" and then going silent as more evidence comes in has become a direct threat to American democracy and – in regards to nuclear-armed Russia – possibly the planet.
Legitimate secrets, such as sources and methods, can be protected without becoming an all-purpose cloak to cover up whatever facts don't fit with the desired propaganda narrative that is then used to whip the public into some mindless war frenzy.
However, at this point in the presidential campaign, no candidate is making transparency an issue. Yet, after the deceptions of the Iraq War – and with the prospects of another war based on misleading or selective information in Syria and potentially a nuclear showdown with Russia – it seems to me that the American people would respond positively to someone treating them with the respect deserving of citizens in a democratic Republic.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
Thanks evolvingape and muDped, I'm re-linking most articles to my facebook and some "part quotes", I think it may be doing some good, a tiny push for some to think about stuff, a big shock for others.
If the links were not here I would not be able to do that, gotta love the internet. So easy to discern info it could be kinda scary, for some. I must look to other facebookers like I do nothing else but research this stuff. Sorry no credits, I just link em. yeehaa.
I could go all day and not catch up with all the relevant links in this thread. I don't think linking this thread on facebook is a good idea though, not on ya nelly.
I'm trying to supply links on the articles that relate to the mainstream media propaganda as it runs, or hope to until my data runs out. Might not take too long if I keep watching video's. I'll have to restrain myself a bit until I get the wires turned on.
Interesting read...
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.21, 05:55:06
Interesting read...
Sandy Hook was a psyop, Bill Nye says it best!
The best 8 seconds of Bill Nye you'll ever see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWW2z-yAQpQ
American-allied nations are secretly helping ISIS to grow - US Colonel Ann Wright
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/185848-us-invasion-iraq-isis/
Published time: 8 Sep, 2014 05:11
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 came with many warnings that it would lead to a dire consequences for the whole region. A decade later, and the brutal jihadists from ISIS are dominating the north of the devastated country. Now, the US is again mulling the possibility of sending its army to Iraq once more - but would that actually help solve the issue? From where does the money come for the Islamic State? Is America obliged to save Iraq after what it's done to that nation? We ask these questions to American Colonel and former diplomat Ann Wright on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Colonel, the 2003 war in Iraq was a reason you left the U.S. military after many years. Do you feel the roots of what's happening now lie back then?
Ann Wright: Well, yes. In 2003 I did resign from the Federal government. I actually had order to retire from the military; I was a U.S. diplomat, and I was one of the three diplomats who resigned in opposition to the war in Iraq. And I do feel that there are so many similarities now, 11 years later with the issue that the Obama administration is bringing forward, and they are seeming intent that they will be using military force to resolve the further issues in Iraq, and perhaps even in Syria.
SS: But what I really meant was that... I'm talking about ISIS expansion and the will of the ISIS to create a caliphate. Do you think that, what's going on right now, has to do something with the invasion in Iraq in 2003, or those are two separate things?
AW: I think they are two separate things. Certainly, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has precipitated what we now see, 11 years later, with the growth of ISIS and other forces that initially came in to the region to battle with Assad in Syria, but are taking the opportunity with the disarray that came starting with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And then, the Al-Maliki government that has been so brutal towards the Sunnis in Iraq, that the ability of ISIS to move remarkably quickly, to gain territories in Syria and now in Iraq is very worrisome and dangerous.
SS: Now, president Obama has authorized deployment of additional 350 american troops to Iraq. Last month, the U.S. launched an aerial campaign against the Islamic State. Will any good come out of this?
AW: Well, the issue of the protection of the U.S. facilities in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq by U.S. military forces is one rational for the deployment of certain number of military folks. And then, the administration has already said that they will be sending in special forces to help train or re-train Iraq military to battle ISIS. And also, the use of CIA operatives up in the north, in northern Iraq and the Kurdish area of Iraq - one could argue that this does give the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga a better opportunity to battle ISIS. One of the fears, though, is that the continuation of the U.S. providing U.S. military equipment will end up as we've seen what has happened now, when ISIS has overrun Iraqi military facilities and have taken U.S. military equipment that has been given to the Iraqi military. So, one of the great dilemmas is when you start funneling more military equipment into this type of situation, it may be turned up on you as we've seen - that equipment now being in hands of ISIS and being used to battle almost in one way the remnants of the Iraqi military.
SS: Steven Sotloff was the second journalist executed by the Islamic State. Let's hear president Obama's response to this:
OBAMA: And those who make a mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget, and that our reach is long and that justice will be served.
SS: Now, the U.S. president has vowed to avenge the death of U.S. journalist and called for the war plan to be drawn up. Should there be further involvement?
AW: Well, indeed, it's horrific what ISIS is doing, not only to the international media, to U.S. reporters that are being beheaded, but in even greater measure, what ISIS is doing to Iraqis and Syrians that they have captured. The wholesale murder, massacre of large numbers of Iraqi military and people in villages who have repelled or attempted to repel the ISIS military onslaught. There's no doubt about it, ISIS is very brutal, terrible group of people who are rampaging across that area of the world.
SS: Well, yeah, but that's my question - does the U.S. really have any other choice but to get involved and act in the face of these kidnappings?
AW: The people that have been kidnapped - I mean, the international folks have been in the hands of ISIS for quite a few months now. The beheadings of course are horrific, and as vice-president Biden has said...something about the "gates of hell" being opened; I think the administration certainly feels the pressure that something needs to be done about it, about this group of horrific people. Now, whether it is further american military on the ground - I suspect not, because the feeling in the U.S. is that we do not want our military involved in ground operations any further in Iraq or in Syria. However, I do believe that the types of pressure that can be put on groups that do support ISIS, that have allowed ISIS to purchase military equipment, that are working with ISIS to buy on the black market oil from the oil fields that ISIS has captured - I think that's really where ultimately the pressure points are...
SS: Which groups are you talking about? Could you be more precise?
AW: If you look at who is behind the oil, who is behind the oil from those oil fields, where it is going, through what borders is it going - some of it is going up into Turkey, so you've got to put pressure on the Turkish government to stop the flow of oil; you've got to put pressure on the Turkish government to stop allowing these large groups of international fighters that have crossed the border from Turkey for the last several years. I would say, you have to put pressure on the Saudis: the Saudis have been pouring a large amounts of money, as have the governments of Kuwait and of Qatar, into various groups of the foreign fighters.
SS: But so had the Americans, I don't think these are the only people that are funding the foreign fighters in Syria. Americans are the ones who are funding them just as much as are the Qataris or the Saudis...
AW: Yes, I totally agree with you on that; I do not believe that they are funding ISIS, the U.S. is funding other, what they think are more moderate groups that are fighting the Assad government, but the ones I was actually talking about were those that either by turning a blind eye, or by actually funneling money and weapons into ISIS are giving it the power to gain territory and hold it.
SS: So there's my question - the U.S. has propped up many allies that it later had to confront. The likes of Al-Qaeda, or Taliban - do you feel like it contributed to the rise of ISIS in Syria as well - involuntarily, of course - by funding the rebels?
AW: Certainly, the instability that has been caused by the U.S., starting 10, 11 years ago, from 2003, with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and earlier than that, the U.S. going in to Afghanistan after 9/11 - all of those events have triggered a large number of people from Arab and Muslim worlds, who have to the U.S.: "we don't like what you're doing in those areas", and they have been coming in to Iraq and in Afghanistan and have been trained, and equipped and then have been available to go to other parts of the world, including Libya, to act as mercenaries for whomever wants to hire them.
SS: Now, if president Obama had launched a bombing campaign in Syria in 2013, do you think that could have stopped the rise of ISIS?
AW: One could argue that yes, bombing of not only ISIS but of other radical groups in Syria could perhaps have decimated some of their fighting force. However, the thing that people are very concerned about is that that in itself is drawing more of the foreign fighters to the fight, that indeed the U.S. bombing of Muslim fighters does draw in even more of the Muslim fighters.
SS: Just to wrap the subject of ISIS in Iraq - do you feeling like that Washington has the responsibility for the future of Iraq and what becomes of it?
AW: Part of the problem is, first, the initial invasion and occupation by the Bush administration; then, you have the Al-Maliki government that was... many people say that U.S. put that government in: Al-Maliki who brought in more Shia leaders and pushed out the Sunni leaders that should have been brought in to the government that was all-inclusive of all of the groups in Iraq. One could say that the U.S. has spent billions of dollars on the training and equipping Iraqi military and it folded against the force that was not nearly as large as it actually was. I personally, as a person that resigned initially over the theory that military force was going to resolve the issue of Saddam Hussein regime, I don't believe that further use of our military is what ultimately going to resolve the issues in that region.
SS: Afghanistan is another unresolved issue - the U.S. troops may leave for good by the end of this year, but will the weak Afghan government be left to deal with the Taliban like Iraq was left to deal with ISIS, what do you think?
AW: You're exactly right - here we have Afghanistan after 13 years that U.S. has been involved in there, and weak government, in fact, it is still disputed on who's going to be the next president of the country. You have many of the people who were called warlord prior to the U.S. invasion, or the groups of people that the U.S. hired to work with it to push the Taliban and Al-Qaeda out, many of them with severe human rights abuses allegations to start with... I myself am not too optimistic that here, 13 years later and hundreds of billions of dollars later and the expenditure of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives, that the future of Afghanistan is a stable secure country, where all groups will be treated honestly and fairly and that country will progress in a way that one would hope it would - I myself am not very optimistic about it.
SS: Now, ISIS is being called the "new Al-Qaeda", but the actual Al-Qaeda has declared a new front in India. How do these groups fit together? Are we seeing expansion into new territory after ISIS took over the old "feeding grounds"?
AW: It's kind of "targets of opportunity" it looks like that various groups are using. As ISIS fills into one area of Iraq and Syria and becomes the dominant force there, Al-Qaeda is looking for another place where it can stake its own territory. Certainly it had its inroads into Pakistan... It's interesting here that they indeed have claimed that they are going to India.
SS: So, what are we going to see? Jihadist corporate rivalry unraveling?
AW: Indeed, "Jihadist inc." When we really look at it, sadly, throughout the North Africa and the Middle East and then going on into South Asia, you do see the rise of various types of militant groups, to include not only Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra; you've got the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban. It is a growth industry. You look also to Libya, where there are many groups, each fighting for different parts of the territory of the country, to the extent that the U.S. had to close its embassy there, because none of the locations where we had embassies or consulates are safe enough, in the opinion of the State Department, that we can leave our diplomats. So, it is a tragic function in this era, that we see the growth and expansion of these jihadist groups.
SS: You've mentioned earlier on in the program that the pressure should be put on groups that are actually helping ISIS to get money from the oil sales - it's true that ISIS is raking in billions through things like oil. Could this movement be more about money than establishing a religious state?
AW: I think it certainly is a movement about money, it's a very well-funded organisation, but from I gather, it is a group that is intent on establishing a geographical location for it's beliefs, the caliphate that they talk about. They intent to hold territory and indeed they have, to the extent that they control major cities, that they are generating their own income through oil and I think it is going to be a challenge for the international community to go in and push them back from these established areas that they've had some of them for almost a year now.
SS: Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something that you've also spoken a lot about, spoken strongly against the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Is there any way that international pressure can push Israel into a genuine peace process?
AW: It's a very good question. How the international community has pressured Israel - has been ineffective, mainly because it really hasn't used the full force that it has at its disposal. The U.S. itself could do much more to pressure Israel to stop the illegal settlements of which they have just announced that they are annexing a thousand acres of Palestinian land into Israel. The pressure to stop the occupation of the West Bank and to lift the siege of Gaza - these are things that have been demands of the Palestinians for the longest time. The U.S. is the greatest pressure point of Israel, because we give Israel almost $3 bn a year in military assistance alone, plus all sorts of economic incentives. The U.S. is allowing itself to be pressured by very large and well-funded Zionist lobby that works for the protection of the State of Israel, and works primarily in the U.S. Congress to threaten the U.S. Congress people that if they don't vote for pro-Israeli issues then they will be turned out of office; we've seen that AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs committee, the big lobby for Israel, has been very effective at threatening and scaring and then trowing out of office people that say that they are going to look honestly at what's happening there, and may support the Palestinian cause in cases.
SS: I want to talk a little bit about Hamas. You know how the appearance of ISIS with its deliberate focus on cruelty and no compromises, does it make you feel like it's easier to treat groups like Hamas with more respect? As a matter of fact, you know, "we don't negotiate with the terrorists" - that attitude is almost universal, but do you feel like maybe these days there are groups of terrorists that you can talk to and that slogan actually should change?
AW: Yes, I certainly think so, and the latest of this week, the Israeli propaganda is that "ISIS is Hamas, Hamas is ISIS" - well, that's just not true. Hamas was elected as the governing body of Gaza. I don't agree with the rockets that Hamas and other groups in Gaza have sent into Israel, but the level of violence that is between Palestinians and Israelis is overwhelmingly from the Israeli side towards the Palestinian side - there's no doubt about that. Over 2000 Palestinians were killed versus 64 Israelis in this latest attack, and in 2009, fourteen hundred Palestinians versus 11 Israelis... Hamas does not have 24 hour drone coverage over Israel, it does not have F-16 that are bombing Israel every single day as is happening with the Israelis in their naval attacks and ground attacks, and air attacks on Gaza. So, there's a very distinct difference in the level and the proportion of violence in there.
SS: Thank you so much for this wonderful interview. Colonel Ann Wright, U.S. veteran and former diplomat. We were talking about what brought upon the spread of ISIS and could it be contained, and also are there terrorists that we can talk to, and are there groups that we can't. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, we'll see you next time.
UN calls on world to fight ISIS as Security Council unanimously adopts French-drafted resolution
Quite a game changer this is..!
https://www.rt.com/news/322931-un-resolution-fight-terrorism-isis/
Published time: 20 Nov, 2015 22:44
The United Nations has called the states to fight "a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security" which is Islamic State (IS, ISIS/ISIL, Da'esh). All 15 members of the UN Security Council voted to adopt the French-proposed resolution.
The resolution "calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures ... on the territory under the control of ISIL ... in Syria and Iraq."
IS "constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security," the resolution says.
Russia has repeatedly called for action to cut the terrorists' financial lifelines, with President Vladimir Putin revealing on Monday that IS is receiving funding from 40 countries.
Syria's UN Ambassador, Bashar Ja'afari, hinted prior to Friday's vote that this resolution was long overdue. "Welcome to everybody who finally woke up and joined the club of combating terrorists."
Meanwhile, Russia is continuing its work on a draft resolution proposing international military campaigns to fight against Islamic State. The current text is an updated version of a document submitted on September 30.
The text, submitted on November 18, stresses the need to coordinate military actions with the governments of the countries where the anti-terror operations are being conducted.
Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said that Moscow is working towards having the draft resolution passed soon.
Churkin also stressed that it is shortsighted of some UNSC members to try to block Russia's draft resolution on fighting terrorism.
"We believe the attempts by several members of the UN Security Council to block our work on the project is politically shortsighted. You can fight terrorism with one hand and with the other practically play along with them," Churkin said.
After the vote, Churkin also added that the French delegates included "important corrections introduced by Russia" into the resolution.
Russia's Ambassador to the UN was assertive when calling on international players to unite against the threat of global terrorism, adding that any plan must be based on "concrete steps."
Week Seven of the Russian Intervention in Syria: dramatic surge in intensity
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/week-seven-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-dramatic-surge-in-intensity/
This week was clearly dominated by two major events: the terrorist attacks in Paris and the Russian official declaration that Kogalymavia Flight 9268 was, indeed, destroyed by a bomb.
First, I would notice that contrary to so many prediction that the Russians, Egyptians and other nations involved would lie and cover up this attack, this did not happen. Both the Russians and the Egyptians were open and honest about this attack from day 1. There is something to be learned here: while some politicians clearly have lost the ability to speak the truth even if they tried to, others did not. While lying is the standard operating procedure for most (all?) of "western" (Empire-run) states, this is still not the case everywhere else. It is simply wrong to assume that Russia is some kind of "anti-USA" and that the Kremlin has a policy of systematic deception like the White House. To the extend that Russia could be considered an "anti-USA" this ought to include categorically different methods and motives.
Second, and this might seem highly counter-intuitive, it is undeniable that Daesh did everything in its power to invite retaliation: not only did Daesh immediately claim that it blew up Flight 9268, it also claimed the credit for the Paris attacks and even threatened more such attacks, including against the USA. Again, this might seem outright bizarre, but Daesh appears to be doing everything it can to create a large, multi-national coalition to destroy it. We must keep this in mind every time we consider the retaliatory steps taken by Russia, France and others (see below).
Third, while it is too early to call the recent French attacks a "false flag" it is logical to at least consider that possibility as likely, if not highly likely. I personally do not like knee-jerk conclusions and I would prefer waiting for more info to come out. But at this point in time whether this was a "real" attack or a "false flag" really makes no difference. Why? Because whether the French 'deep state' was an accomplice/culprit or whether the regime is completely incompetent, the "action is in the reaction" – that is to say that the French are getting involved with their own military operation in Syria and they are doing so in coordination with the Russians. So, at this point in time, I suggest focusing on that.
But first, let's look at the really important development this week.
Russia dramatically increases her anti-Daesh operations
While you can read my initial assessment here, the dramatic surge in Russian strikes against Daesh is important enough to take a more detailed look at it.
First, in purely military terms, what the Russians did was both predictable (and I had predicted just that for several weeks now) and highly significant. The small Russian contingent at the Khmeimim air base in Latakia was, if amazingly skilled and outright heroic, simply too small to really hurt Daesh. Keep in mind that Russia does not have the kind of power projection capabilities the USA has and that regardless of that disadvantage, the Russian succeeded in creating a full airport capable of supporting the 24/7 night and day operation of about 50 aircraft in a record time. And they did that without the Empire ever getting any good intelligence about what the Russians were up to. By the time the Empire understood what the Russians had done, it was way too late to stop them. In terms of organization and logistics, this was an absolutely brilliant operation and the folks who organized it most certainly deserve to get a medal and promotion for it. I mention that here because it was probably simply impossible to bring in a bigger force. Even right now the Khmeimim air base is over-saturated with flights and the extra aircraft flow in will make a very difficult situation even worse. This is why I predicted that the long-range aviation would have to be brought in at least as a stop-gap measure until either a "Khmeimim 2" airport is built near Latakia or another airfield(s) become(s) available (maybe in Iran). Bottom line is this: bombing or not bombing, the Russians had no choice but to bring in the long-range aviation.
Second, and this is significant, the Russians clearly decided to take advantage of the fact that the long-range aviation was not constrained by any logistical difficulties: the force they brought in this time around is a big and powerful one: not only will another 37 aircraft now join the Russian force in Syria (including the formidable SU-34: to the 4 already present in Syria another 8 will be added for a total force of 12), but 25 long-range bombers are now fully dedicated to the Russian effort, including Tu-22M3, Tu-95MC and Tu-160. Now this is a "big stick". Even the "old" Tu-95MC and Tu-22M3 are highly modernized versions of excellent airframes who can deliver plenty of very powerful and highly accurate munitions in any weather conditions, including gravity bombs and strategic cruise missiles. In other words, Russia has at least doubled her Syria-based capabilities and much more than doubled it if the Russia-based long-range bombers are included. From being a small force, the Russian air force contingent now dwarfs what the French will bring in on their Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier and what the Empire has been using until now. We can now expect the Daesh logistics, communications and infrastructure to suffer a major degradation. And just to make sure that it hurts were it counts, the Russians began their long-range attacks with strikes on oil processing and distribution networks, including depots, trucks, fueling stations, etc. The Russian long-range bombers will not make a big difference to the Daesh frontline fighters, but their attacks on the Daesh infrastructure will free the Russian helicopters and Su-25s to finally provide close air support to the Syrian forces (so far, this task was mostly limited to the Syrian Air force which cannot fly at night). I also believe that the current SU-24 and SU-34 force will also be given much more frontline attack missions to provide the Syrians with much needed firepower. Bottom line: the Russians have brought in a "big stick" and this time Daesh will really hurt. But, remember, Daesh wanted exactly that (see above).
Third. The Kremlin did an excellent job of "selling" this dramatic increase of the pace and intensity of Russian operations in Syria. Polls show that most Russians fully approve. However, from personal contacts in Russia, I am told that they approve but are getting very uncomfortable. There is no denying that Russia has now suffered from what I like to call a "mandate creep": from going in to support the Syrians and fighting the Takfiri crazies away from home rather than at home, Russia is now promising retribution for the murder of her citizens. Putin made that absolutely clear when he said that military forces and special services will be used to hunt down the perpetrators of this atrocity. He said:
We will find and punish these criminals. We will do this with no limitation period. We will find out all their names. Will will hunt them down everywhere, regardless of where they are hiding. We will find them in any location on the planet and we will punish them. (...).
He even added a "Dubya" -like warning that anybody supporting or protecting them will be fully responsible for the consequences of doing so.
All those who might try to render assistance to these criminals must know that the consequences for such a protection will lie entirely upon them.
Keep in mind that the last time Putin issued such a warning was in 1999 when he promised that Russia would hunt down the Chechen Wahabi terrorist everywhere, "even in toilets", and kill every one of them. At this occasion Putin used a colorful Russian slang idiom "мочить" which can very roughly be translated as "off them off" (or even to "f**king blast them"). What is less remembered is that the Russians did just that: they killed every single Takfiri insurgency leader including Baraev, Dudaev, Maskhadov, Iandarbiev, Hattab, Raduev, Basaev and many many others. Some of these executions were botched (Iandarbiev) some were superb (Dudaev, Hattab). But Putin got every single one of them. Every one. Putin has just made exactly the same threat, though in more diplomatic terms. And while most Russian agree with Putin, and while they know that he does not make empty threats, they also realize that suddenly a small and local military operation has turned into a potentially worldwide chase for terrorists. Considering how poorly the USA did just that after 9/11 there are plenty of good reasons to be worried. But I would also immediately add that most Russians also realize that Putin and Dubya are in different leagues and that while the USA seems to be chronically unable to do anything right "Russia does not start wars – she ends them" (as the expression goes in Russia). Bottom line: I believe that the Russians will not repeat the mistakes made by the clueless US Neocons and that the hunt for Daesh leaders is now on.
Fourth. There is an uncanny political dimension to this about which I am frankly very unsure. Everybody in Russia knows that Qatar is the prime sponsor of terrorism in Syria and in Egypt. How will the Kremlin square that knowledge with the publicly made promise to punish every person guilty for the murder of 224 Russian citizens in anybody's guess. Since Qatar is basically one giant US base, there is no way to strike at Qatar without hitting the CENTCOM. Alternatively, the Russians could decided to hunt down and kill specific Qatari officials in various "accidents". What is certain is that the Russian foreign intelligence service – SVR – has teams capable of such actions (Zaslon, Vympel), as does the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff – GRU – which has Spetsnaz GRU officer teams and special operation forces SSO units capable of such operations. For better deniability (assuming that is a goal), the Russians might also use their deep connections inside the Russian mob (quite a few of whom are ex-secret services, especially in the middle-ranks) to "subcontract" such an operation. Whatever options the Kremlin choses, I would not sleep well if I was a Qatari official involved in this atrocity. Bottom line: Putin has publicly made it a point of personal honor to get every single one of the bastards responsible, regardless of where or who they are, and I strongly believe that he will deliver on that promise.
Fifth. There are other nations besides Qatar who are also very much co-sponsors of Daesh. They include Turkey (and, by extension, NATO), the KSA and even the Ukraine (see here and here). Potentially, all of them can become targets of Russian retaliation (whatever form it takes). Finally, there are all the western financial institution who are providing crucial services for Daesh, including many involving the export of oil from Daesh controlled territory and the import of modern weapon (primarily US-made) into Daesh territory. The list is long and the fact that the Russians have now openly threatened a long list of powerful entities is certainly a dramatic increase in the scope of the Russian involvement in this war.
Sixth. As with any escalation the stakes and the risks for Russia have now sharply increased. The timeframe has now officially changed from "about three months" to "as long as needed", the size and nature of the force committed now fully engages the Russian political prestige and all of the above makes Russia a prime target for Daesh retaliation, both inside and outside Russia. Now that Putin has officially declared that Russian special services are tasked with the elimination of those who blew up the Russian aircraft, the use of some kind of "boots on the ground", even if these are "special boots", becomes much more likely. For somebody like myself who has always been very reluctant about the use of military force it is disturbing to see how rapidly Russia is getting pulled-in into the war in Syria with no exit strategy I can discern, at least not in the foreseeable future. I personally do not believe that the Russians will send in boots, but I cannot say that I am categorically certain that this will not happen. Currently unpredictable events might well force them to.
The attacks in Paris
Tragic and horrible as these attacks were, the first thing that comes to my mind is the obscene difference in which the western media and zombified public treated 129 (provisional figure) murdered French and 224 murdered Russians. We had the "Je Suis Charlie" abomination and now we have the "Je Suis Paris" collective (planetary!) grief-fest. I don't recall any "Je Suis Russie", or "Je Suis Donbass" grief-fests? Or any "Je Suis Aleppo" or even "Je Suis Iraq". Apparently, Russian or Arab lives matter a hell of a lot less than US or French lives (even if only in Iraq the body count is well over a million!). This is disgusting, unworthy of respect, utterly dishonest and terminally stupid. This is no "homage" to any victims, but your garden variety media-induced hysteria. The West ought to be ashamed of such pathetic lack of simple courage and maturity. Truly, did they really believe that they can play at such "terrorist games" and not eventually get hurt themselves (by a false flag or otherwise)?! Did not Putin warn the West of exactly that when he said:
I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you've done? But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity. (...) In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. (...) The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade. It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them. I'd like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it's a big question: who's playing who here? The recent incident where the most "moderate" opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that. We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception. Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can't allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?
Prophetic words by Putin indeed. But since the AngloZionists have a long and "distinguished" tradition of using death-squads, vicious dictatorships and, of course, terrorists, Putin's words were ignored. Heck, even after the Paris attacked the West is still supporting Nazis in the Ukraine! I suppose it will take some Nazi atrocity in London, Warsaw or Munich to wake up the zombified western general public to the simple reality that sponsoring and using terrorist is always a very dangerous policy. If not, then the West will continue on a neverending cycle of terrorism sponsoring and grief-fests, over and over again.
[Sidebar: I am often criticized for stating that Russia is not part of the West, ever was, and never will be. If you believe that I am wrong, ask yourself a simple question: why is it that Russian victims of atrocities (including Western sponsored atrocities!) are treated just like Black or Brown people and not like the other putatively "civilized" Whites? QED.]
Oh how much I wish most people in the West could understand Russian read the Russians newspapers, watch Russian talkshows or listen to Russian conferences! They would see something which they have been conditioned to consider impossible: far from fearing the West, most Russians find it crippled with narrow-minded consumerism, devoid from any real moral or ethical values, fantastically ignorant and provincial and suffering from terminal infantilism. Even the tiny pro-Western minority has now given up on defending the West and, at most, it retorts against the typical tsunami of anti-western arguments something like "what about us – are we not as bad?" or even "let's not sink down to their level!". It is quite amazing to see that happening in a country which used to almost worship anything western just 20-30 years ago! I should add that if the most despised and ridiculed country must, of course, be Poland, France is not far behind in the list of "most pathetic", As for the USA, it is the least despised adversary simply because most Russian respect the US for defending whatever it perceives has its national interests and for making Europe it's "bitch". The Russians always say that to get something done one must talk to the USA and not waste time with its European colony.
If we look beyond all that rather shameful display of narcissistic self-pity, the real question is what is France going to do about it? Here again, there are two dimensions:
First, in purely military terms France will now commit the Charles de Gaulle with its wing of Rafales to the strikes on Daesh. Good, but compared to what the Russians are brining to the fight, it's really irrelevant.
Second, in purely political terms, the French just might do something very interesting: apparently they have agreed with the Russians that the Russian forces in Syria will provide "cover" for the French. I am not really sure why a Rafale would need "cover" but whatever – what matters here is that the French have de-facto entered into an alliance with Russia over Syria and that, in turn, could open the door for other western countries. In other words, we just might (finally!) see a multi-national Russian-lead alliance take on the fight with Daesh and that, in turn, means that these countries would de-facto find themselves allied with Damascus. If northern Europe walks in lockstep with Uncle Sam, countries of southern Europe (Italy? Greece?) might decide to assist the Russians, as might Egypt or Jordan. I am not sure that such a coalition will happen, but at least now it might and that, by itself, is also an interesting development. This being said, Hollande is about to meet Obama in the US and he will probably be told in no uncertain terms that he must not "play ally" with Russia. Considering how abjectly subservient Hollande has been the the USA, I am not optimistic at all about the French meaningfully joining forces with Russia.
Third, there is no doubt in my mind, but many others do disagree, that the Zionist regime in power in Paris is making the maximal use of all these events to stir up an anti-Muslim hysteria in France. And I am not talking about the stupidity of insisting to serve an non-halal meal with wine to an Iranian leader who also happens to be a cleric, or the now "old" anti-hijab harassment in French schools. What I am talking about is the openly declared idea that traditional Islam is incompatible with the secular French Republic and that it therefore represents a danger to society. Conversely, the only "good" form of Islam is one of abject collaborationism with the Zionist regime typified by the infamous Hassen Chalghoumi, Imam of the mosque in Drancy. The message is xclear: the only "good Muslim" is a Zionist Muslim. All others are potential or actual, terrorists and shall be treated as such. That, in turn, makes it easier for Takfiri recruiters to find more volunteers for their terrorist operations which, in turn, make it possible to the regime to pass even more draconian laws, including laws against free speech or Internet freedom. Being a real, pious and practicing, Muslim in France will become very, very hard in the near future. It certainly appears to me that the warnings of Sheikh Imran Hosein are coming true.
The unknown "breaking point" of Daesh
After six weeks of very hard fighting Russia has brought in the big stick, but those who expect Daesh to collapse under Russian air operations should not rejoice too soon. Breaking Daesh will probably take a much bigger effort. But let me explain why I am saying "probably".
For the first time in many weeks and months Daesh is truly in a difficult situation, not a desperate one yet, but a difficult one. Unless something changes in the current dynamic, time is now beginning to run against Daesh. Still, the resilience of Daesh in the current conditions is close to impossible to predict, at least without some very good information from the frontlines and that is something which most analysts, including myself, don't have. When a force is put under pressure the way Daesh has been, there is a breaking point somewhere in the future at which point the force collapses really fast. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to estimate how far away in time such a (wholly theoretical) breaking point might be because it really depends on the morale and determination of the Daesh fighters on the ground. All we can say at this point in time is that such a breaking point exists in a theoretical future and that we hope that it will be reached soon. But we also have to be aware that this might not be the case at all. Not only that, but we have to take a long hard look at the most puzzling issue of them all: why did Daesh deliberately place itself in such a position. Here are a few hypotheses I can come up with:
1) Daesh leaders are crazed lunatics. They are in such a hurry to get to heaven that all they want is to die in combat against the infidels. Alternatively, they are so deluded about their power that they think that they can take on the entire planet and prevail. While I cannot discount this hypothesis completely, I find it highly unlikely simply because even if the rank-and-file Takfiri is an ignorant goat herder, the middle and top level commanders are clearly sophisticated and well-educated.
2) Daesh has outlived its utility for the AngloZionist Empire and now it is sent into a battle it cannot win, but which will kill off thousands of now useless liver-eating sociopaths. Maybe. I don't know where any evidence to support this hypothesis could be found, but this one at least make sense to me.
3) The real purpose for Daesh has always been the same: to inflict such damage to the entire Middle-East that, by comparison, an Israeli occupation would appear as a liberation to the few lucky ones who would survive the medieval horrors meted out by Daesh on a daily basis on all the territories it controls. So the bigger and the bloodier the fight, the better for the Israelis who have taken a relatively strong state controlled by relatively strong Baathist leaders – Assad père et fils – and who have now turned it into a heap of smoldering ruins. The problem with this theory is that unless something changes Daesh will not win, but lose, and that Assad will come out not weaker, but much stronger. And I won't even mention the fact that Syria now has a small, but battle hardened military whereas the putatively "invincible" Tsahal only is experienced at shooting unarmed civilians. So if there was an Israeli plan to prepare for a future "Grand Israel" it backfired pretty badly.
Frankly, I find none of the hypotheses above really convincing and that makes me nervous. The question which always haunts all analysts is "what am I missing" and, in this case, it also haunts me. I honestly cannot imagine that the Daesh leaders would sincerely believe that they can win the kind of "war against everybody" they apparently are determined to fight. I would hope that somebody with better understanding of Daesh, fluent in Arabic and well-versed in Takfiri literature would give us all the reply to this apparently simple question: what does Daesh really want? I will gladly admit that I have no idea. And that worries me a lot.
The Resistance and its options
Seven weeks into the Russian intervention, the Resistance to the Empire is doing well and it still has the potential to intensify its struggle. First and foremost, what is most needed at this point in time are more combatants on the ground. I still believe that the Russians are not going to provide ground troops for Syria. My guess is that Hezbollah is pretty close to being maxed out. Unless I am missing something, this means that the only party capable of providing many more combatants on the ground is Iran. Right now, the official line out of Moscow, is that one of the goals of the Russian intervention is to give the Syrians enough time to reorganize and field a much bigger force. Maybe. I hope that they can do that soon enough to fully use the momentum created by the Russian intervention.
As for the Russians, they are also coming close to being maxed out. In terms of air force, they could have allocated even more aircraft, but they did not do so simply because they know that there is only that much any air force can do when intervening in a civil war. Still, this time around the Russians really "mean business": According to the latest figures, the latest Russian strikes was formidable: ten ships from the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean coordinated strategic cruise missile strikes on Daesh targets (18 cruise missiles were fired by only four ships the Caspian Sea flotilla see footage here: https://youtu.be/yf2SZ_gjtA0). According to official figures, in just four days, the Russian air force have conducted 522 sorties, deploying more than 100 cruise missiles and 1,400 tons of bombs of various types. Just one cruise missile strike in Deir ez-Zor had killed more than 600 militants. Clearly, Daesh is taking a formidable beating (the "pretend airstrikes" of the US-lead "pretend coalition" probably gave them a false sense of security of what an angry superpower can *really* do when it means it).
I am quite certain that Russia can keep up this pace of operations for a long while: while the stocks of the latest "Kalibr-NK" are reportedly low, Russia is now using a lot of her immense Cold War arsenal where there stocks of cruise missiles and gravity bombs are plentiful. Russia will run out of targets long before she runs out of these strategic weapons. This is no joke, by the way: it makes no sense to fire multi-million Ruble cruise missiles at non-lucrative, secondary or even tactical targets. The situation is better with relatively cheaper gravity bombs, but the biggest problem is that Daesh targets will eventually split into two groups: destroyed ones and well hidden ones. At this point the Russian intervention will not become useless, but it will reach a point of diminishing marginal returns, both in a financial and in a strategic sense. This happened to the USA and NATO in Kosovo and it happened to Israel in Lebanon. Of course, the AngloZionists then switched their attention to what they call "infrastructure" and "support" target destruction, but which are basically terror strikes against the civilian population. Russia will not engage in such systematic policy of war crimes and thus the option of bombing Raqqa into oblivion is not something we will see the Russians do (the US, in contrast, probably will). This leaves only the naval component of the Russian task force.
The main task of the Russian naval task force has been to protect the Russian logistics and to provide air defenses to the newly built airbase with Latakia. Apparently, Russian denial notwithstanding, there are S-400s in Khmeimim, but if not, we can assume that S-300s are there. So the air-defense task for the Russian naval task force is now been replaced by a role of support for the Russian logistical effort which I expect to not only continue, but even to also sharply increase. This is where the Russians can do the most good and where they are not maxed out: help the Syrians reequip, reassemble, reorganize, retrain and *finally* provide them with relatively modern equipment (at least on par with what Daesh has). My guess is that after 4 years of war the Syrians need literally *everything* and this is were the Russians can play a crucial role.
The current Russian naval task force allocated to Syria is far from being trivial, see for yourself: attached pic
This is by no means a small force. Still, there have been some speculations that the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov might join the naval task force off the Syrian coast. I find that rather unlikely. Unlike the US aircraft carriers, the Admiral Kuznetsov was designed from day 1 to be primarily an anti-aircraft platform (primarily to protect the Russian submarine bastions) and not as a landstrike aircraft carrier. The Russians are currently reconsidering this role, but for the time being the Kuznetsov has very limited landstrike capabilities. Of course, if needed, the Kuznetsov could be used to strengthen the air-defense capabilities of Syria or the Russian contingent in Syria, but that is not something which will directly affect Daesh. Still, I would not count out the Kuznetsov either: according to the latest reports, she will be sent to a patrolling area off the Kola Peninsula, but that is not set in stone.
In terms of direct attack support, a possible Russian option would be to use submarine-based cruise missiles, but with 25 long-range strategic bombers already allocated to this task, this would not be a game changer either. My feeling is that the Russians are now as strongly committed as they can be. The only thing they could do now would be to increase the flow of modern weapons to Syria and to provide the technical personnel to train the Syrians. In my opinion this, along with an energetic political campaign to force the West to accept the facts on the ground, is the most likely Russian strategy for the future: continue to pound Daesh, while re-building the Syrian military and "engaging" Russia's western "partners".
Frankly, I will conclude by saying that I find this Russian strategy as militarily sound as it is morally correct. Russia cannot win this war "for" the Syrians. The best thing Russian can do is to provide meaningful help, and that she is very much doing.
With Hezbollah probably maxed-out, the big unknown is Iran: will the Iranians dare to bring in a much larger contingent of ground-forces to take the pressure off the Syrians? I hope not – because that would mean that the Syrian could do well even without such aid, but I still consider an Iranian surge as very likely.
As for the Syrians, Assad has just declared that he would not leave power before the defeat of Daesh. In other words, Assad has just turned the tables on the West and declared that the "departure" (i.e. elimination) of Daesh is now a pre-condition of his departure. Only time will show whether this is grandstanding or true confidence.
What about the "Indispensable Nation":
I realize that bashing the USA is always a popular exercise, but for all my hostility to the AngloZionist Empire I also have to admit that the US is in a very bad and complicated position: it has created a bloody mess (literally), then it painted itself into a political corner, and all of its so-called 'regional allies' are, I believe, inherently disloyal and pursue their own interests. If you look at the relationship between the USA, on one hand, and countries like Turkey, Qatar, the KSA or Israel on the other, it really is hard to establish who uses whom and whether what we are seeing is a case of a tail wagging the dog. Take Qatar: there is no doubt that the presence of CENTCOM in Qatar gave the Qatari a strong sense of impunity which, in turn, bred arrogance and, frankly, irresponsibility. The Qatari wanted Assad "out" so they could get their gas to the Mediterranean, but now they are directly involved in the bombing of a Russian airliner. As for their much wanted pipeline, they can forget it for at least a decade now. How smart was that? More relevantly: is Qatar a good ally for the USA? What about Turkey which is actively supporting, financing, equipping and training Daesh (and al-Qaeda – same difference!) under the convenient protection of NATO. They apparently cannot decide which is worse: Assad or the Kurds, and since they fear them both, they end up in bed with liver-eating sociopaths. Is that a good ally for the USA? I won't even go into the Israeli issue – we all know that AIPAC runs Congress and the Neocons try run the White House. None of which elicits any big love or loyalty from the Israelis who are constantly looking at the "Russian option" (partnering up with Russia) to get things done in the Middle-East. Besides, since the slow-mo genocide of Palestinians by the Ziocrazies currently in power is continuing, being allied to the Israelis means being hated by everybody else. Still, at least and unlike the other "regional allies" of the USA, the Israeli regime itself is stable, fairly predictable and can unleash an immense amount of violence. So compared to the Saudis, the Israelis look outright attractive. Still, at the end of the day, the USA has to try to get out of this mess without alienating its allies too much, but also without being manipulated by them.
Some seem to believe that the correct policy for the USA would be to work together with Russia. While this would undoubtedly make sense for the USA as a country, it would make no sense at all for the USA as an Empire. For the US (AngloZionist) Empire and the "deep state" forces which run it Russia is, indeed, a far bigger threat because Russia directly threatens the imperial status of the USA. The USA can either be the "Indispensable Nation" and world hegemon, or a "normal country" part of a civilized and multipolar world system ruled by the rule of law. It cannot be (or do) both. So when the US "deep state" is categorical in its refusal to do anything meaningful with Russia, it does act logically, at least from its point of view. As any other Empire, the USA sees its relationship with any competitor (actual or possible) as a zero-sum game which means that anything good for Russia is bad for the USA and vice-versa. Yes, this is sick and sociopathic, but this is how all Empires function. Hence the current US policies: the only good coalition is a US-lead one, any anti-Russian force must be supported, there will be no negotiations with Russia – only demands and ultimatums, etc. Add to this the apparently total lack of well-educated and competent diplomats (Americans get killed in every single negotiation they have conducted with the Russians), and you will see why the US is so averse to any notion of being anything other than hostile and confrontational with Russia.
The USA is in a terrible mess, the upcoming elections are only making matters worse and that makes the USA highly unpredictable. Yes, there is, I suppose, a small chance that the French might set a precedent for collaboration with Russia, but I am not holding my breath here. Maybe if another massacre is committed in Europe, especially Germany, but even that is a long shot. Still, there have been cases in history when a slave gave some good advice to his master and maybe this will happen this time around. I sure hope so.
Source: The Saker, Unz Review, 20 November 2015
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-seven-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-dramatic-surge-in-intensity/
A 'warning shot'- The crazy logic of UK's Hammond and what lies behind it
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/322293-uk-policy-terrorism-hammond/
Published time: 16 Nov, 2015 13:44
Just imagine if the Russian Foreign Minister had said after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 that the act of terrorism was a 'warning shot' for the UK and that he hoped it would make the UK's foreign policy more flexible.
There would I'm sure, be a massive outcry. The Russians were shamefully condoning terrorism, we'd have been told. How sick of them to call the bombs a 'warning shot' and hope that they changed UK policy! One can only imagine what the headline of the Sun would have been ("NO WAY, SERGEYI!" would be my bet). Yet this is what British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said in the aftermath of the Russian plane tragedy in the Sinai - and very few people- certainly in Western leading circles seemed outraged.
This glaring double standard is not the only thing which is noteworthy about Hammond's comments. Let's look at the logic behind what the Foreign Secretary is saying.
By calling it a 'warning shot' to Russia he is effectively saying that ISIS is hitting back in response to Russia's bombing in Syria. OK - that seems logical enough - especially in the light of this weekend's events in Paris. But hang on a minute. Don't you remember how Hammond and his fellow neocons spent the weeks leading up to the telling us how Russia WASN'T really targeting ISIS, but instead hitting 'civilians' and moderate rebels? The Daily Beast even ran an article entitled 'Russia's giving ISIS an air force'.
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference on October 4, Hammond effectively accused Russia of lying about attacking ISIS. "You have a strong propaganda message that says you're doing one thing while in fact you are doing something completely different and when challenged you just flatly deny it," he declared. "You try talking to the Russians," he went on. "They just keep repeating their position - that is by the way also the Iranian position - and it is just incredible."
But if what Hammond said at the Tory conference was true why would the Islamic State then bomb a Russian plane? You can't say on one day that Russia is helping ISIS and that ISIS is gaining ground because of Russian actions and the next day claim that ISIS is bombing a Russian airline because they are, er.. angry with Russia. Or rather you can say that, if you think that if you're a neocon and arrogantly think that whole of the Western world are a bunch of total simpletons with memories that only go back a few hours.
That's not the only thing that doesn't add up. UK hawks like Hammond, and former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, have used the alleged bringing down of a Russian civilian plane (which they're sure was done by ISIS) to give another big push to their argument Britain should be bombing the Islamic State too - as it would make British citizens safer. Again, let's just think about this one for a minute.
If, as Hammond says, the plane accident was a 'warning shot' for Russia, how will bombing ISIS make British citizens safe? Surely it would mean British planes full of tourists would be targeted by ISIS too? The hawks are effectively saying to us: "That man over there was badly stung because he stirred up a hornet's nest. To make us safe from being stung, we need to stir up the hornet's nest too." They want their country to do the very thing that they claim brought on an attack on another country - and all because they want to make their country safe. It's all very reminiscent of the arguments that neocons like Hammond made in the lead up to the Iraq war. (Hammond by the way 'consistently voted in favor of the Iraq war')
We were told we had to attack Saddam Hussein because he was a very evil man who had WMDs which threatened us and which could be ready for use within 45 minutes. But if he did have WMDs then why do the very thing that would provoke the very evil man to use them?
You didn't have to be a professor of logic to see the holes in the neocons arguments in 2002/3 and you don't have to be one now to see the equally big holes in their arguments in 2015. But there is, I believe, a method in the madness.
Firstly, it was of paramount importance for Western hawks to insist that the plane crash was as an ISIS bomb - even at a time when it was still uncertain what could have brought the plane down - in order to pressurize Russia to re-evaluate its intervention in Syria which is doing great harm to the Islamic State.
The problem of course is that the 'warning shot' line contradicts the earlier official narrative that Russia wasn't hitting ISIS. The hawks are clearly hoping that we've all forgotten about that. But the positives from coming out quickly and blaming Islamic State strongly outweighed the negatives. That's because of point two.
At the moment there's a real need to boost support for Britain's bombing of Syria ostensibly against ISIS, but with the real aim of hastening the demise of the secular Assad government which has been fighting ISIS. For the neocons, the timing of the Metrojet tragedy, as my OpEdge colleague Dan Glazebrook noted here, was perfect.
Only a few days before the Metrojet tragedy, we'd read how the British government was having to postpone its plans for a Parliamentary vote on bombing Syria as it was clear that they would not get a majority in the Commons.
The alleged downing of the plane could be - and was - used by the hawks to strengthen their case that Britain had to 'intervene' in Syria. We had to go in and attack the people that Russia was only pretending to fight but who nevertheless had downed a Russian plane.
For many, British government's policy on Syria appears hopelessly inconsistent. In 2013, we were told we had to go to intervene in Syria to stop Assad; in 2015, the same people are telling us we have to intervene in Syria to stop ISIS. But there really is no inconsistency, once one understands that even before the so-called Arab Spring hit Syria in early 2011, David Cameron and his fellow neocons were hell-bent on regime change.
We know from WikiLeaks that US plans to overthrow Assad go back to at least 2006 and we also know how closely the UK follows the US in foreign policy.
The former French Foreign Minister and Socialist politician Roland Dumas revealed that two years before the Arab Spring, he had met with top British officials who told him they were 'preparing something' in Syria. "Britain was preparing the invasion of the rebels in Syria... in the simple purpose of removing the Syrian government," Dumas said.
To topple Assad, Britain and its allies planned to rely on jihadist death squads - euphemistically labeled 'rebels'- and whose cause would be championed by neocon columnists and their faux-left allies.
But it soon became clear that the Syrian government was too strong and that direct Western military intervention would be needed to help the 'rebels' achieve success, as in Libya. There were attempts to get resolutions past the UN Security Council which would have opened the door to direct intervention, but these were blocked by Russia and China. In May 2013, the UK - along with France - pressurized other EU members to vote to end an arms embargo on Syrian 'rebels' - a move which I strongly criticized on RT in words that have sadly proved very prophetic:
"I think there will be a massive blowback from this because there's no doubt – it's 100 per cent sure – that if Britain and France send more weapons into this arena they will end up in the hands of groups like the Al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda-created groups. And these will come back to be used against British citizens in Britain perhaps and across the world. And so, we've got a real problem here. We've got a British neo-conservative government that's actually lining up on the same side as Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists in Syria."
MI5 did its bit too. Terrorist trials, such as the one of Bherlin Gildo, have collapsed when it was revealed that Britain's intelligence and security services were actually backing the same groups in Syria as the alleged terrorists.
In August 2013, there was a fresh push to get direct military intervention against Assad when news broke of a chemical weapons attack at Ghouta in the suburbs of Damascus, which was of course blamed straight away on the Syrian government, even before any evidence had been properly examined. Again, we were expected to believe some strange logic, namely that the Syrian authorities - knowing that the US and its allies were looking for a pretext to attack - used chemical weapons on their opponents at the very time that a UN chemical weapons team was in Damascus.
However, to the immense frustration of the hawks, the British Parliament voted against intervention. Hawkish Minister Michael Gove shouted at MPs who had voted against bombing a government that was fighting IS and Al-Qaeda affiliates. Neocon columnists as I described here,raged at Parliamentarians for listening to the British people (71 percent of whom supported the MPs decision on Syria) and not them.
As we headed in 2014, the problem for the Syrian regime changers was that it was abundantly clear that there was nothing very moderate about the people fighting the Syrian government. What had been dismissed as 'Russian propaganda' in 2012 or 2013 was now accepted by most people as the reality. The Islamic State was on the advance and Western policy had an awful lot to do with it.
The wings of ISIS had to be clipped, but the West did not want them destroyed. The US started bombing Islamic State, but it was hardly 'Shock and Awe'. A phony war had begun, while in the meantime, arms continue to flow in to so-called 'moderate rebels'- arms which, surprise surprise, ended up in the hands of ISIS, and Al-Qaeda affiliates.
By the middle of this summer the strategy seemed to be paying dividends. The Syrian Army had taken big hits. The Assad government looked in greater peril than at any time since 2012. The refugee crisis would be spun by the war lobby to get support for direct UK involvement in Syria.
Right on cue, Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper exhorted us to Bomb Syria 'for Aylan'.
But in September the plans all went horribly wrong. Firstly, despite the best efforts of pro-intervention 'Blairites' and their media cheerleaders, Labour elected an anti-war leader, Jeremy Corbyn. With a Parliamentary majority of only 12, it would be very hard for Cameron and Hammond to get a majority for bombing Syria.
If we take a closer look at the journalists and commentators who most obsessively smeared and attacked Corbyn in the leadership campaign we find a very strong overlap with those who have been calling for direct British military intervention against Assad. Corbyn posed a real threat to the regime changers' plans - and they knew it, which is why they tried everything they could to stop him.
Even more damaging to the neocons, there was the Russian intervention. Unlike the US and its allies, the Russians really were aiming to destroy ISIS. There was no phony war here. The Russian intervention would not only be a game changer, it threatened to be a game ender.
So what to do? Straight away the regime changers' strategy was clear- discredit the Russian anti-terrorist campaign by saying that they weren't targeting ISIS but in fact helping to make ISIS stronger! Commentators who had showed zero concern over civilians casualties when the US was bombing Syria suddenly became terribly concerned over casualties caused by the Russian campaign. Overnight, fanatical warmongers became peaceniks. Public opinion had to be turned against the Russian operation.
But when Metrojet 9268 came down in the Sinai on October 31, there had to be a very hasty script revision: 'Russia was attacked because it HAD been fighting IS!'
For the UK to achieve its goal of regime change in Syria two things now need to happen.
Russia must stop - or reduce significantly its anti-terrorist operation - something that Philip Hammond clearly wants to happen. Let's reiterate his words: "We'll see whether the Russians now double down or whether they decide that they never wanted to be too deeply engaged anyway in Syria and that this is a warning shot to them."
Secondly, the UK must start bombing Syria and together with the US and its other allies, use military force to reverse the advances the Syrian Army has made in the past few weeks. Of course the public reason given for intervention must be that the UK government wants to do its bit in helping to defeat ISIS. The much publicized droning of 'Jihadi John' is meant to be proof that Cameron and co really want to get serious against Islamic State. But we know that regime change and not defeating ISIS remains the goal because if the British government really did want to defeat Islamic State they would be assisting Russia and the Syrian government in their anti-ISIS operation, and not trying all they can to undermine it. The imposition of no fly zones has been consistently called for by Western interventionists - and that alone tells us who their target is, as the Islamic State, does not have an air-force. You don't have to be Lieutenant Colombo to work this one out.
Philip Hammond's logic might seem crazy, but it isn't so crazy after all, if we understand what is the UK government's real agenda. If your aim is to topple the Syrian government, then the Foreign Secretary's recent utterances all make perfect sense. In fact, it would have been illogical for him to have said anything else. For all the apparent inconsistencies, we should not be fooled. There is always method in the neocon madness.
Getting very hot with the Turks shooting down a Russian plane for flying over their territory today.
Turkey being a full NATO member involves us all.
It only takes a hot head and we will be fighting each other, France declaring open war on the terrorists, but who are the terrorists, it is already Russia on one side and NATO/UN on the other, and the terrorist factions change their name each week depending at whom you want to shoot.
What a bloody mess
regards
Mike 8)
Well there is this http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/un-security-council-backs-russias-war-against-syrian-jihadis-hilt/ri11364
Russia can now fully and legally under international law bomb and attack the Illegally U.S. backed Terrorists in Syria, the U.S. on the other hand and any other country is acting outside of international law by any actions it undertakes inside Syria's borders.
If the Russian Jet did in fact cross the border, and even though it posed no threat to Turkey then they did have the right to shoot it down,
However this is just another example of Turkey and NATO do not really want Russia to kill all the Terrorists, they don't want them to kill any in fact.
More evidence that the U.S. and the other allies are supporting ISIS, and are still against Russia, because the U.S. desires that. Russia is making the U.S. and the allies look like criminals and incompetent.
If the Jet was not in Turkey air space then Turkey has committed a war crime and should expect reprisals from either the international courts and or Russia.
What were they thinking ? Why would they even want to shoot down a Russian Jet if they were not against the actions of Russia killing all Terrorists inside Syria.
Shame on Turkey, even if the Jet did stray, which I do not believe, they had no threat to them and no real reason to do that. However I think the pilots ejected so depending on where they came down will tell a lot.
I think the Turks seen a Russian jet close to the border by itself and took the opportunity to make it's master the U.S. pleased with them. Pathetic really. Whatever they get they deserve. I hope it goes to the courts and it gets made public the reasons and events.
Exposing US. foreign policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzDFqVdd80c
UN Security Council Backs Russia in Syria against all Terrorist groups. Legal as can be. The U.S. and allies on the other hand are breaking international law daily.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/un-security-council-backs-russias-war-against-syrian-jihadis-hilt/ri11364
Pentagon report proves U.S. complicity in ISIS.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/ex-intel-officials-pentagon-report-proves-us-complicity-in-isis-fabef96e20da#.qk32m7z4e
Makes no sense for the U.S. and co. to arm a group then to bomb them all. This Apache is "Escorting" an ISIS convoy into Syria. It's there to make sure they remain un-bombed. The crimes are evident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFFb5E22TvE
Russia decimating ISIS. Making the U.S. look either criminal or incompetent in the extreme, we know the case is the former.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg9TqwlbB_w
EDIT: the Pilots came down inside Syria it was just reported on the mainstream news and the "Rebels" have them (bodies), a Russian Chopper went to try to get the pilots but was also downed inside Syria but by a rebel/terrorist/ISIS rocket.. Expect some serious escalation in that region. Russia will make the area dust and fertilizer.
..
Expect desperate actions from the U.S. and it's subordinate "allies", as Russia destroys all the weapons the U.S. and co. had supplied to said Terrorists and blow the Terrorists to pieces. .
..
The U.S. has been acting as ISIS's Air cover to topple Assad, Now the Russians have exposed their crimes and are acting to undo some of the chaos the U.S. has backed (created).
All I can say is, go Russia, blow them all to the sky.
Direct hit on boasting ISIS member.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-E6_tUXPqw
They have no chance. Russia is decimating them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67LPWv40ZCI
Another boaster blown up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5WTsXxafQ
They shoot at a Russian jet with an old anti aircraft gun and then get bombed. lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctirIlbRpTw
.
Saddam-style: ISIS oil exports worth $500m a year 'conducted through Turkey'
Published time: 30 Oct, 2015 19:17
https://www.rt.com/news/320190-isis-oil-saddam-turkey/
Turkey to 'act militarily' against ISIS in coming days – foreign minister
Published time: 5 Nov, 2015 12:55
https://www.rt.com/news/320868-turkey-military-operation-isis/
Friday 13th France attack shock: Paris terror mayhem in dramatic images
Published time: 15 Nov, 2015 01:37
https://www.rt.com/news/322104-paris-attacks-terrorism-france/
Putin: ISIS financed from 40 countries, including G20 members
Published time: 16 Nov, 2015 14:29
https://www.rt.com/news/322305-isis-financed-40-countries/
US, Turkey launch operation to take entire border with Syria under control – Kerry
Published time: 17 Nov, 2015 13:35
https://www.rt.com/usa/322428-turkey-us-syria-kerry/
Russian warplanes disrupt ISIS oil sales channels; destroy 500 terrorist oil trucks in Syria
Published time: 18 Nov, 2015 17:31
https://www.rt.com/news/322614-russian-warplanes-isis-oil-trucks/
Putin: Downing of Russian jet over Syria stab in the back by terrorist accomplices
Published time: 24 Nov, 2015 12:58
https://www.rt.com/news/323262-putin-downing-plane-syria/
Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast, ordered to destroy any target posing danger
Published time: 24 Nov, 2015 18:16
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
Struggling to Starve ISIS of Oil Revenue, U.S. Seeks Assistance From Turkey
SEPT. 13, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/struggling-to-starve-isis-of-oil-revenue-us-seeks-assistance-from-turkey.html?_r=0
By DAVID E. SANGER and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is struggling to cut off the millions of dollars in oil revenue that has made the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria one of the wealthiest terror groups in history, but so far has been unable to persuade Turkey, the NATO ally where much of the oil is traded on the black market, to crack down on an extensive sales network.
Western intelligence officials say they can track the ISIS oil shipments as they move across Iraq and into Turkey's southern border regions. Despite extensive discussions inside the Pentagon, American forces have so far not attacked the tanker trucks, though a senior administration official said Friday "that remains an option."
In public, the administration has been unwilling to criticize Turkey, which insists it has little control over the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria across its borders, or the flow of oil back out. One senior official, calling President Obama's recent conversations with Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, "sensitive," said the decisions about what the country will do to counter ISIS "will be theirs to make."SEPT. 13, 2014
But behind the scenes, the conversations about the Sunni extremist group's ability to gather vast sums to finance its operations have become increasingly tense since Mr. Obama's vow on Wednesday night to degrade and ultimately destroy the group.
Turkey's failure thus far to help choke off the oil trade symbolizes the magnitude of the challenges facing the administration both in assembling a coalition to counter the Sunni militant group and in starving its lifeblood. ISIS' access to cash is critical to its ability to recruit members, meet its growing payroll of fighters, expand its reach and operate across the territory of two countries.
"Turkey in many ways is a wild card in this coalition equation," said Juan Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of "Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare." "It's a great disappointment: There is a real danger that the effort to degrade and destroy ISIS is at risk. You have a major NATO ally, and it is not clear they are willing and able to cut off flows of funds, fighters and support to ISIS."
Turkey declined to sign a communiqué on Thursday in Saudi Arabia that committed Persian Gulf states in the region to counter ISIS, even limited to the extent each nation considered "appropriate." Turkish officials told their American counterparts that with 49 Turkish diplomats being held as hostages in Iraq, they could not risk taking a public stance against the terror group.
Still, administration officials say they believe Turkey could substantially disrupt the cash flow to ISIS if it tried.
"Like any sort of black market smuggling operation, if you devote the resources and the effort to attack it, you are unlikely to eradicate it, but you are likely to put a very significant dent in it," a senior administration official said on Saturday.
A second senior official said that Mr. Obama's national security team had spoken several times with Mr. Erdogan and other top Turkish officials in the past two weeks about what they can do to help counter ISIS, and that ISIS' financing was part of those discussions. "Stopping the flow of foreign fighters, border security and dismantling ISIL funding networks are also key aspects of our strategy, and we will continue to work closely with Turkey and our other partners in the region on these efforts in the days ahead," the official said, using a different acronym to describe the militant organization.
At the core of the talks are the dozen or so oil fields and refineries in Iraq and Syria on territory the group has controlled. The output has provided a steady stream of financing, which experts place at $1 million to $2 million a day — a pittance in terms of the global oil market, but a huge windfall for a terror group.
"Oil is a huge part of the financing equation" that empowers ISIS, said James Phillips, the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based research center.
The territory ISIS controls in Iraq alone is currently producing anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 barrels of oil a day, which can fetch a minimum of $1.2 million on the black market, according to Luay al-Khatteeb, a visiting foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, who also directs the Iraq Energy Institute. Some estimates have placed the daily income ISIS derives from oil sales at $2 million, though American officials are skeptical it is that high.
"The key gateway through that black market is the southern corridor of Turkey," Mr. Khatteeb said. "Turkey is becoming part of this black economy" that funds ISIS.
But targeting the smuggling network has proved a major challenge, and so far the Turkish authorities have been unwilling to cooperate.
"They've been turning a blind eye to it, because they benefit from the lower price of smuggled black-market oil," Mr. Phillips said, "and I'm sure there are substantial numbers of Turks that are also profiting from this, maybe even government officials.".
The supply chain of routes, individuals, families and organizations that allow the oil to flow are well-established, some dating back decades, to when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq smuggled oil during the United Nations' oil-for-food program. "Those borders have never been sealed, and they never will be sealed," Mr. Phillips said.
For the Obama administration, getting at ISIS' oil revenue is far more complex than, say, its crackdown on Iran. That has been the administration's most successful use of sanctions, and officials credit the effects on Iran's economy, along with American sabotage of its nuclear facilities, for Iran's reluctant decision to negotiate on the future of its nuclear enrichment program.
But Iran used fairly conventional means of reaching oil markets, and not one of its techniques applies to ISIS' black-market sales, which take place mostly through networks of smugglers.
The long-term American plan appears focused on persuading Turkey to crack down on the smuggling networks — some of which, one Western diplomat noted, "benefit a powerful Turkish elite" — and aiming at the refiners who would ultimately have to turn the crude oil into petrochemical products. But gathering the intelligence is a slow process, analysts say.
"It's hard to use any of the suite of tools that are available to the U.S. Treasury Department to sanction people in this case," said Patrick B. Johnston, a RAND Corporation researcher who is working on a top-to-bottom study of ISIS' financing and organization. "Getting a grip on who the right financial targets would be at the Treasury Department would be difficult."
That is equally true of the other major source of ISIS money — its extortion activities in the areas it controls, said Mr. Johnston, who is examining declassified documents that detail the group's funding streams. ISIS demands anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent of revenue from businesses in its territories and operates other "mafia-style" rackets that yield as much as $1 million a day.
QuoteFor the Obama administration, getting at ISIS' oil revenue is far more complex than, say, its crackdown on Iran. That has been the administration's most successful use of sanctions, and officials credit the effects on Iran's economy, along with American sabotage of its nuclear facilities, for Iran's reluctant decision to negotiate on the future of its nuclear enrichment program.
WTF Complex ! Rubbish.
Maybe it is "complex" for the U.S. being that they do as they are told by the Central Banking cartel and who ever else. But for Russia it is simple, Turkey may well have committed an act of war and may face serious reprisals, both for shooting down the Russian Jet and for aiding ISIS and allowing oil trade from ISIS to the Black market. Seems ridiculous for the U.S. not to be on Turkey's ass for the oil convoys, but then the U.S. is not trying to stop the oil convoys which give ISIS money and more weapons and fitted out toyotas ect.
For Russia it would seem simple, just increase their air presence in that area and provoke another attack, then go to war on Turkey if Turkish planes attack them in Syrian airspace.
Looks almost time for Iran to enter the picture and maybe China as well. The U.S. better begin to abide by international law. The Russians are serious, they do not back down easily nor should they. They have plenty of Allies as well.
If Russia waged war on Turkey that would really hurt ISIS as well. Of course. Same with all the countries aiding ISIS, they are all complicit in crimes against humanity and international war crimes ect.
They should accept defeat before things get too serious. But will they ? That might mean some apparently powerful people in the west and their allies could be put on trial.
The mainstream media propaganda machine can only do so much and they may well be committing some kind of crimes as well.
.
Funny Video Shows a lot of Americans see through the propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHkf0dT8k2E
Interesting podcast. You may want to have a listen and make plans accordingly.
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_112315_hr1.mp3
They think Russia is silly and does not already know these things and has not already made contingencies for it. They are incorrect.
..
I'm ready. I even look like a Jihadist. I could fool them maybe. Impersonate one, except for the Arabic. If I could fool one to give me a gun during an attack I could turn it on them. I know my way around an assault rifle, especially AK's and SKS's, SKK's. Never handled an AR but I have done my study, and it looks easy.
I'll take em on with a bow and arrows. Not got much to lose.
The problem is most people already know about the serious crimes of their government but cognitive dissonance is the fad these days. Ostrich disease.
A quick blip from an insider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a98uJTo0RkI
Wow Matt, I did not expect to hear him saying those things. Some people see "The writing on the wall" as it were and comprehend it, but most just see graffiti and ignore it all.
Thanks for posting that. Eye opener.
'Blowback Terrorism': 'CIA-Backed Wars' Helped ISIL to 'Flourish'
12:59 20.11.2015
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151120/1030443628/us-europe-isis-mujahideen-regime-change.html
ISIL can only be defeated if the US and European leadership understands that their policies aimed at changing regimes in the Middle East have helped the brutal group to "flourish," leading economist Jeffrey Sachs asserted.
The downing of a Russian passenger jet in Egypt, the Paris massacre, the deadly bombings in Beirut and other terrorist acts masterminded by ISIL lend a new urgency to the multinational counterterrorism efforts in Syria.
But we will only be able to truly tackle ISIL and other Islamist groups if we understand their origins.
"Painful as it is to admit, the West, especially the United States, bears significant responsibility for creating the conditions in which ISIS has flourished. Only a change in US and European foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle East can reduce the risk of further terrorism," Sachs wrote for the Project Syndicate.
The director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University described recent attacks as "blowback terrorism." In his opinion, they are "a dreadful unintended" consequence of "repeated US and European covert and overt military actions" meant to topple governments in African and Middle Eastern countries in order to "install regimes compliant with Western interests."
These efforts also included a CIA-led operation to create a force tasked with ousting the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Young Sunni fighters – recruited, trained and armed by US intelligence services – became known as the Mujahideen.
"By promoting the core vision of a jihad to defend the lands of Islam (Dar al-Islam) from outsiders, the CIA produced a hardened fighting force of thousands of young men displaced from their homes and stoked for battle. It is this initial fighting force – and the ideology that motivated it – that today still forms the basis of the Sunni jihadist insurgencies, including ISIS," Sachs explained.
In the 1990s, the Mujahideen directed their efforts against the country that helped create them. This trend was reinforced in the 2000s.
"America's unprovoked war on Iraq in 2003 unleashed the demons. Not only was the war itself launched on the basis of CIA lies; it also aimed to create a Shia-led regime subservient to the US and anathema to the Sunni jihadists and the many more Sunni Iraqis who were ready to take up arms," Sachs noted.
The NATO-led operation in Libya and the Western stance on Syria helped destabilize these countries and the region further.
An efficient anti-ISIL strategy, according to Sachs, should consist of three components. The key step is to put a definitive end to covert CIA operations. Not only have they failed to achieve their intended purposes, they have created political and social vacuum which terrorists use to their advantage.
The second step will see all major stakeholders, including the US and Russia, working out a roadmap to settle the years-long Syrian conflict under the auspices of the United Nations.
"The UN framework should include an immediate end to the insurgency against Assad that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have pursued; a Syrian cease-fire; a UN-mandated military force to confront ISIS; and a political transition in Syria dictated not by the US, but by a UN consensus to support a non-violent political reconstruction," Sachs detailed.
Finally, lasting peace can only be achieved through sustainable development in the war-ravaged regions, meaning they need "a surge of investment" in all areas, including education, health, renewable energy, agriculture and infrastructure.
"More wars – especially CIA-backed, Western-led wars – will solve nothing," the economist concluded.
Blowback (intelligence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29
Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the aggressor. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as "random" acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are unaware of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.
Blowback is unintended consequences. What we see now with the tidal wave of refugees is the product of deliberate strategic planning pre-meditation, and not blowback.
The open borders policy was implemented in Europe more than a decade ago, to facilitate the simplest integration of millions of war displaced refugees into the heart of our homelands, creating a permanent state of perpetual war tension.
Radicalised they have been pre-positioned as justification for perpetual terrorist attacks. Some will be naturally radicalised and some having only pure hatred in their hearts.. created from the experience of surviving the bombing of their homeland, the execution of their family, friends and way of life. This provides perfect cover for deep assets within the police military intelligence command structure, or secret groups of powerful individuals hiding in the shadows, to create a Paris scale massacre and reap the benefit of public emotion event trauma to ram through tyrannical policy immediately after the event.. deliberately treating the symptoms of a self inflicted wound, rather than providing the cure by dealing with the root of the problem.
9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html
Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire
By Daily Mail Reporter
Updated: 13:59, 2 November 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.
Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.
But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
Because of the time span of the events, everyone was able to evacuate the building and there were no casualties within Building 7.
Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result.
Kinda looks like an instantaneous implosion collapse to me! The Penthouse drops first!! :D
'Commercial scale' oil smuggling into Turkey becomes priority target of anti-ISIS strikes
Published time: 27 Nov, 2015 00:42
https://www.rt.com/news/323603-isis-oil-smuggling-turkey/
Islamic State's daring and impudent oil smuggling into Turkey should become a high-priority target in order to cripple the terrorist group, President Putin said, backed by French President Francois Hollande. Both agree that the source of terrorist financing must be hit first and foremost.
"Vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon," said Putin, reminding the press that the scale of the issue was discussed at the G20 summit in Antalya earlier this month, where the Russian leader demonstrated reconnaissance footage taken by Russian pilots.
The views resemble a "living oil pipe" stretched from ISIS and rebel controlled areas of Syria into Turkey, the Russian President stressed. "Day and night they are going to Turkey. Trucks always go there loaded, and back from there – empty."
"We are talking about a commercial-scale supply of oil from the occupied Syrian territories seized by terrorists. It is from these areas [that oil comes from], and not with any others. And we can see it from the air, where these vehicles are going," Putin said.
"We assume that the top political leadership of Turkey might not know anything about this [illegal oil trade]. Hard to believe, but it is theoretically possible," Putin said, adding that this however does not excuse Ankara from not stopping the illegal smuggling of oil.
Putin pointed out the lack of smoke from any fires or the existence of any commercial enterprises created to deal with the destruction of oil, which would be possible to find if the Turkish leadership is aware and is seizing and destroying smuggled products, as it claims.
"But if the top political leadership [in Turkey] doesn't know anything about this, let them find out. I can admit that there may be some elements of corruption, secret dealing, they should sort it out," said Putin.
Putin stated that sales of oil from ISIS are in direct violation of international law, and that the proceeds from 'black gold' cost innocent people their lives.
"In this respect there is a special UN Security Council resolution banning the direct purchase of oil from terrorists, because these barrels, that they supply, it is not just oil, there is the blood of our citizens, because from the money [received], terrorists buy weapons, ammunition, and then conduct bloody actions," Putin said.
However, the Turkish leadership is not rushing to investigate whether any of the ISIS oil smuggling routes end up in Turkey, with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself refuting any suspicions that Syrian oil might be getting into his country illegally as absolute "slander."
"Those who claim we buy oil from Daesh [ISIS] are obliged to prove it," Erdogan said earlier on Thursday in an attempt to shift the blame for ISIS oil profits onto Damascus. "If not, you are a slanderer. Shame on you!"
"ISIL sells the oil they drill to Assad. To Assad. Talk this over with Assad you support," Erdogan said, as cited by AFP.
Putin reminded that ISIS claimed responsibility for a number of deadly terrorist acts throughout the world, including the Russian plane bombing in Sinai and the series of Paris attacks in mid-November.
After French President Francois Hollande's meeting with Putin on Wednesday, he said that the focus of the fight against terror should be the destruction of the Islamic State oil trade.
"It is necessary to hit ISIS training centers, to hit those centers where this terrorist army is being trained," Hollande said.
"But the main thing is to hit the sources of financing, which give [the terror group] life in the first place – first of all oil," The French leader emphasized.
The most effective way, the French leader said is to target "trucks that transport oil," transferring it to buyers on the black market, "thus giving ISIS uncontrolled amount of money."
The Russian Foreign ministry meanwhile wants Ankara to properly address reports of its alleged involvement with ISIS oil smuggling.
"We have a very large number of questions ... [for] the Turkish side in relation to information found in the media and social networks about the relationship with the terrorists on the oil business, all kinds of assistance to groups that carry out the relevant activities," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova.
Meanwhile the Russian air force continues to engage terrorist targets in Syria and increasingly focusing on illegal terrorist oil smuggling. Between November 23 and26 the Russian air force carried out 134 sorties on 449 targets.
"Russian aviation continues to strike refining facilities in the territories controlled by ISIS terrorist organization," defense ministry spokesman General-Major Igor Konashenkov told a media briefing on Wednesday. In the past few daysm Russian aircraft has destroyed oil trucks, refineries, and oil storage facilities in the provinces of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa.
Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/26/2015 19:55 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
Russia's Sergey Lavrov is not one foreign minister known to mince his words. Just earlier today, 24 hours after a Russian plane was brought down by the country whose president three years ago said "a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", had this to say: "We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation" by Turkey.
But even that was tame compared to what Lavrov said to his Turkish counterparty Mevlut Cavusoglu earlier today during a phone call between the two (Lavrov who was supposed to travel to Turkey has since canceled such plans).
As Sputnik transcribes, according to a press release from Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lavrov pointed out that, "by shooting down a Russian plane on a counter-terrorist mission of the Russian Aerospace Force in Syria, and one that did not violate Turkey's airspace, the Turkish government has in effect sided with ISIS."
It was in this context when Lavrov added that "Turkey's actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective."
More importantly, Lavrov pointed to Turkey's role in the propping up the terror network through the oil trade. Per the Russian statement:
"The Russian Minister reminded his counterpart about Turkey's involvement in the ISIS' illegal trade in oil, which is transported via the area where the Russian plane was shot down, and about the terrorist infrastructure, arms and munitions depots and control centers that are also located there."
Others reaffirmed Lavrov's stance, such as retired French General Dominique Trinquand, who said that "Turkey is either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people," he said.
The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"
Precisely one week later, in even more tragic circumstances, suddenly everyone is asking this question.
And while we patiently dig to find who the on and offshore "commodity trading" middleman are, who cart away ISIS oil to European and other international markets in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, one name keeps popping up as the primary culprit of regional demand for the Islamic State's "terrorist oil" - that of Turkish president Recep Erdogan's son: Bilal Erdogan.
His very brief bio:
Necmettin Bilal Erdogan, commonly known as Bilal Erdogan (born 23 April 1980) is the third child of Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, the current President of Turkey.
After graduating from Kartal Imam Hatip High School in 1999, Bilal Erdogan moved to the US for undergraduate education. He also earned a Masters Degree in John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2004. After graduation, he served in the World Bank as intern for a while. He returned Turkey in 2006 and started to his business life. Bilal Erdogan is one of the three equal shareholders of "BMZ Group Denizcilik ", a marine transportation corporation.
In the next few days, we will present a full breakdown of Bilal's various business ventures, starting with his BMZ Group which is the name implicated most often in the smuggling of illegal Iraqi and Islamic State through to the western supply chain, but for now here is a brief, if very disturbing snapshot, of both father and son Erdogan by F. William Engdahl, one which should make everyone ask whether the son of Turkey's president (and thus, the father) is the silent mastermind who has been responsible for converting millions of barrels of Syrian Oil into hundreds of millions of dollars of Islamic State revenue.
By F. William Engdahl, posted originally in New Eastern Outlook:
24.08.2015
http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/24/erdogan-s-dirty-dangerous-isis-games/
Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games
More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. Turkey, as a result of Erdogan's pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.
In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan's regime was backing ISIS with "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons..." Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an's permission to use Turkey's Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan's backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.
ISIS militants were trained by US, Israeli and now it emerges, by Turkish special forces at secret bases in Konya Province inside the Turkish border to Syria, over the past three years. Erdo?an's involvement in ISIS goes much deeper. At a time when Washington, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar appear to have cut off their support for ISIS, they remaining amazingly durable. The reason appears to be the scale of the backing from Erdo?an and his fellow neo-Ottoman Sunni Islam Prime Minister, Ahmet Davuto?lu.
Nice Family Business
The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdogan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.
Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdogan's maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS' smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.
Gürsel Tekin vice-president of the Turkish Republican Peoples' Party, CHP, declared in a recent Turkish media interview, "President Erdogan claims that according to international transportation conventions there is no legal infraction concerning Bilal's illicit activities and his son is doing an ordinary business with the registered Japanese companies, but in fact Bilal Erdo?an is up to his neck in complicity with terrorism, but as long as his father holds office he will be immune from any judicial prosecution." Tekin adds that Bilal's maritime company doing the oil trades for ISIS, BMZ Ltd, is "a family business and president Erdogan's close relatives hold shares in BMZ and they misused public funds and took illicit loans from Turkish banks."
Turkish President's daughter heads a covert medical corps to help ISIS injured members, reveals a disgruntled nurse
15 July 2015
http://awdnews.com/top-news/turkish-president%E2%80%99s-daughter-heads-a-covert-medical-corps-to-help-isis-injured-members,-reveals-a-disgruntled-nurse
In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.
Turkish citizen Ramazan Bagol, captured this month by Kurdish People's Defence Units,YPG, as he attempted to join ISIS from Konya province, told his captors that said he was sent to ISIS by the 'Ismailia Sect,' a strict Turkish Islam sect reported to be tied to Recep Erdogan. Baol said the sect recruits members and provides logistic support to the radical Islamist organization. He added that the Sect gives jihad training in neighborhoods of Konya and sends those trained here to join ISIS gangs in Syria.
According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan "organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch...with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. "
Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan's then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.
Gen. John R. Allen, an opponent of Obama's Iran peace strategy, now US diplomatic envoy coordinating the coalition against the Islamic State, exceeded his authorized role after meeting with Erdogan and "promised to create a "no-fly zone" ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the "Juppé-Wright plan". The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK." Meyssan adds:
Turkey and U.S. Plan to Create Syria 'Safe Zone' Free of ISIS
By ANNE BARNARD, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITTJULY 27, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/world/middleeast/turkey-and-us-agree-on-plan-to-clear-isis-from-strip-of-northern-syria.html?ref=topics&_r=1
There are never winners in war and Erdogan's war against Syria's Assad demonstrates that in bold. Turkey and the world deserve better. Ahmet Davutoglu's famous "Zero Problems With Neighbors" foreign policy has been turned into massive problems with all neighbors due to the foolish ambitions of Erdogan and his gang.
World Governments Caught Supporting ISIS
Submitted by IWB, on November 26th, 2015
http://investmentwatchblog.com/world-governments-caught-supporting-isis/
Just how long can the international community pretend to keep it's dirty secret in the proverbial closet that they actually support ISIS? Lines are clearly being drawn as NATO ally Turkey shot down a Russian jet fighter, and then shot the ejected pilots dead as they descended in parachutes, claiming the jet was in Turkish airspace. Putin claimed the jet was downed 4 kilometers from the Turkish border in Syria . As Putin expressed outrage, calling the attack a stab in the back and threatened consequences, the Russian rescue helicopter attending to the downed jet was shot down. Fired on by Obama's supposed Moderate Syrian Rebels. The incident occurred just days after Turkish officials warned Russia to "immediately end its operation" against ISIS after warplanes bombed border regions.
Recently it was revealed the Obama White House is giving ISIS a 45 minute warning before bombing their oil tankers by dropping leaflets advising potential jihadists to flee before air strikes in Syria. The leaflet drops are justified under the premise that the oil tanker drivers might be civilians and not ISIS recruits.
On Monday the State Department issued a "Worldwide Travel Alert." You're not safe anywhere. " This Travel Alert expires on February 24, 2016," the alert posted on the State Department's website says. If you plan to travel abroad during the holiday, the government says you should register with them.
Incidentally, in standard bullying doublespeak Jeh Johnson at the Department of Homeland Security declared there is no "specific," "credible" or "imminent" terror threat at this time.
As the Nato Allies and New World Order stalwarts impatiently sit on their hands. It is beginning to become abundantly clear. The collateral damage to the hidden globalist backed ISIS campaign Russia is racking up, is reaching a breaking point.
RAND PAUL TELLS US THE TRUTH "CIA FUNDED ISIS UNDER OBAMA ADMIN TO PROMOTE MORE WAR IN MIDDLE EAST"
Submitted by IWB, on November 25th, 2015
http://investmentwatchblog.com/rand-paul-tells-us-the-truth-cia-funded-isis-under-obama-admin-to-promote-more-war-in-middle-east/
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.11.25, 12:27:25
I'll take em on with a bow and arrows. Not got much to lose.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein
The Gun DebateMajor L. Caudill United States Marine Corps (Retired)
http://www.texaschl.us/article_gun_debate.htm
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong and the many and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Reasonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]
Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[4]
In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event, phenomenon or behaviour.[5] The field of logic studies ways in which human beings reason through argument.[6]
Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason, e.g. which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally. Animal psychology considers the question of whether animals other than humans can reason.
Forcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object.[1] In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. It is measured in the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F.
The original form of Newton's second law states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes with time. If the mass of the object is constant, this law implies that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on the object, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass of the object
Related concepts to force include: thrust, which increases the velocity of an object; drag, which decreases the velocity of an object; and torque, which produces changes in rotational speed of an object. In an extended body, each part usually applies forces on the adjacent parts; the distribution of such forces through the body is the so-called mechanical stress. Pressure is a simple type of stress. Stress usually causes deformation of solid materials, or flow in fluids.
Sound advice I think. omg.
An excellent post EA!
If a society could be created where the defender is always at an advantage (not just even), war and violence would almost be completely extinguished.
The following quote is a really bad idea:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."
-- George Orwell
The good news is some are speaking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a98uJTo0RkI
Now will people listen and take action...?
I agree the force and reason argument is a sound one, also it can be extrapolated to cover entire countries as individuals. However on the personal level, it would make no sense to allow people with mental disorders to own and carry firearms. This immediately puts them at a disadvantage. There are other groups of the population that fall into a similar category, they cannot for some reason own or carry firearms, and with good reason. That precludes them from ever being in a position to reason with armed people who try to or do force them to do things against their will.
I am an advocate of the right to bear arms. And it is the great leveler. But it is not just the firearms that even the playing field, ie. a bullet proof vest is a class "E" weapon here. If bullet proof vests were legal and common then the police would have to alter their training because shooting at the "center of mass" won't work so well if the target is wearing a BPV. They would need to aim at groin/leg shots or head/arm shots. Bullet proof vests would make the police very nervous because they might need to employ more reasoning in a given situation if the person is wearing a BPV, of course they could give a police direction to the offender to remove the BPV so as to allow them to shoot the said offender dead more easily, I doubt that would work.
All that said I think we all should be able to at least own a bullet proof vest and calling it a weapon is just silly.
Same with a shoulder holster itself is a class M weapon, and that is with no side arm just the empty holster. I'll be trying to become the holder of up to a class "M" weapons licence, but remain not confident of the prospect of any licence even though I have no violent background, I'll see. Even a Category "A" Licence would allow me to own a .22 bolt action rifle and a shotgun. A good start.
First things first I need to build a gun safe, it needs weigh over 150 kilograms not to need to be bolted to the house or floor, no problem, I have a door design in mind. And an ammo/bolt safe as well, it will need to a fair size also. O0
Queensland Australia. Weapons categories.
QuoteCategory A weapons
(1) Each of the following is a category A weapon if it has not been rendered permanently inoperable-
a) a miniature cannon under 120 cm in barrel length that is a black powder and muzzle loading cannon, depicting a scale model of an historical artillery piece or naval gun;
b) an air rifle;
c) a blank-fire firearm at least 75 cm in length;
d) a rim-fire rifle (other than a self-loading rim-fire rifle);
e) a shotgun other than a pump action shotgun or self-loading shotgun;
f) a powerhead;
g) a break action shotgun and rim-fire rifle combination.
(2) A conversion unit is also a category A weapon.
(3) In this section-- "conversion unit" means a unit or device or barrel that is capable of being used for converting a category A weapon that is a firearm from one calibre to another calibre.
Category B weapons
(1) Each of the following is a category B weapon if it has not been rendered permanently inoperable--
a) a muzzle-loading firearm;
b) a single shot centre-fire rifle;
c) a double barrel centre-fire rifle;
d) a repeating centre-fire rifle;
e) a break action shotgun and centre-fire rifle combination.
(2) A conversion unit is also a category A weapon.
(3) In this section-- "conversion unit" means a unit or device or barrel that is capable of being used for converting a category B weapon that is a firearm from one calibre to another calibre.
Category C weapons
Each of the following is a category C weapon if it has not been rendered permanently inoperable—
a) a semiautomatic rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds;
b) a semiautomatic shotgun with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds;
c) a pump action shotgun with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds.
Category D weapons
(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—
a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;
b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle with either an integral or detachable magazine;
c) a self-loading shotgun with either an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds and a pump action shotgun with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;
d) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the subsection even if the weapon is permanently inoperable.
Category E weapons
A bulletproof vest or protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles is a category E weapon.
Category H weapons
(1) A firearm, including an air pistol and a blank-fire firearm, under 75 cm in length, other than a powerhead, is a category H weapon, regardless of whether it has been rendered permanently inoperable;
(2) A conversion unit is also a category H weapon;
(3) This section does not apply to a powerhead or category C, D or R weapon;
(4) In this section-- "conversion unit" means a unit or device or barrel that is capable of being used for converting a category H weapon that is a firearm from one calibre to another calibre.
For schedule 2 of the Act, each of the following comprises a class of category H weapon—
(a) an air pistol;
(b) a centre-fire pistol with a calibre of not more than .38 inch or a black-powder pistol;
(c) a centre-fire pistol with a calibre of more than .38 inch but not more than .45 inch;
(d) a rim-fire pistol.
Category M weapons
Each of the following is a category M weapon--
(a) any clothing, apparel, accessory or article designed to disguise any weapon or other cutting or piercing instrument capable of causing bodily harm;
(b) any of the following that is primarily designed for the control of native or feral animals-
(i) an antipersonnel gas of a corrosive, noxious or irritant nature or that is capable of causing bodily harm and any weapon capable of discharging the gas by any means;
(ii) an antipersonnel substance of a corrosive, noxious or irritant nature or that is capable of causing bodily harm and any weapon capable of discharging the substance by any means;
(c) any knife so designed or constructed so as to be used as a weapon that while the knife is held in hand, the blade may be released by that hand;
(d) any clothing, apparel, adornment or accessory designed for use as a weapon or a cutting or piercing instrument capable of causing bodily harm;
(e) any incendiary or inflammable device containing any substance capable of causing bodily harm or damage to property that is primarily designed for vegetation management;
(f) any pistol crossbow designed to be discharged by the use of 1 hand (that is not a toy pistol crossbow) that when discharged is capable of causing damage or injury to property or capable of causing bodily harm;
(g) any crossbow designed to be discharged by the use of 2 hands that, when discharged, is capable of causing damage or injury to property or capable of causing bodily harm;
(h) a Chinese throwing iron that is a hard non-flexible plate having 3 or more radiating points with 1 or more sharp edges in the shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond or geometric shape and constructed or designed to be thrown as a weapon;
(i) a flail or similar device constructed and designed as a weapon consisting of in part a striking head and which, if used offensively against a person, is capable of causing bodily harm;
(j) a device known as a 'manrikiguisari' or 'kusari', consisting of a length of rope, cord, wire or chain fastened at each end to a geometrically shaped weight or handgrip and constructed or designed for use as a weapon;
(k) a device known as a knuckleduster or any device made or adapted for use as a knuckleduster and which, if used offensively against a person, is capable of causing bodily harm;
(l) a weighted glove designed or constructed to be used as a weapon;
(m) a mace or any similar article (other than a ceremonial mace made for and used solely as a symbol of authority on ceremonial occasions); and/or;
(n) any device, not a toy, constructed or designed as a telescopic baton, the extension of which is actuated by the operation of a mechanical trigger.
Category R weapons
Each of the following is a category R weapon--
(a) a machine gun or submachine gun that is fully automatic in its operation and actuated by energy developed when it is being fired or has multiple revolving barrels, and any replica or facsimile of a machine gun or submachine gun that is not a toy;
(b) a unit or device that is capable of being used for converting any firearm to a weapon mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c) a firearm capable of firing 50 calibre BMG cartridge ammunition;
(d) an antipersonnel gas, and an antipersonnel substance, of a corrosive, noxious or irritant nature or that is capable of causing bodily harm, and any weapon capable of discharging the gas or substance by any means, other than a gas or substance and any weapon capable of discharging the gas or substance that is primarily designed for the control of native or feral animals;
(e) an acoustical antipersonnel device of an intensity that is capable of causing bodily harm;
(f) an electrical antipersonnel device of an intensity that is capable of causing bodily harm;
(g) a hand grenade, other than an inert hand grenade, and an antipersonnel mine;
(h) a silencer or other device or contrivance made or used, or capable of being used, or intended to be used, for reducing the sound caused by discharging a firearm;
(i) a rocket launcher, recoilless rifle, antitank rifle, a bazooka or a rocket propelled grenade type launcher;
(j) a mortar, all artillery and any incendiary or inflammable device containing any substance capable of causing bodily harm or damage to property, other than an incendiary or inflammable device primarily designed for vegetation management.
Restricted Item
The following items are restricted items for section 67 of the Act--
(a) handcuffs, thumbcuffs or other similar restraints;
(b) nunchaku or kung-fu sticks or any similar device which consists of 2 hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes or rods connected by a length of rope, cord, wire or chain constructed or designed to be used in connection with the practice of a system of self-defence and which, if used offensively against a person, is or are capable of causing bodily harm;
(c) a billy club, a baton or any device constructed or designed as a telescopic baton, not being a toy or a category M weapon, that if used is capable of causing bodily harm;
(d) any studded glove which if used offensively against a person is capable of causing bodily harm.
I did not see any mention of stun guns or just the hand held "shocker".
I guess a stun gun is covered under the blank firing weapons in Category "H",
but a hand held stunner is not a fire arm I guess and was omitted.
It might be covered under some other law.
Interesting that the Bullet Proof Vest is in a category "E" all on it's own and one can legally have a
self loading center fire rifle easier than legally having the BPV. Where is the logic in that I wonder !
BPV must be very dangerous to other people health and safety, lol.
I get the premise but i disagree.
P.S.
OMG. I found the shocker is in Category "R",
Quote(f) an electrical antipersonnel device of an intensity that is capable of causing bodily harm;
Same category as a machine gun, grenade, Rocket Launcher and Mortar. HFWAFLOBS.
Electric fence must pulse too slowly to be considered able to cause bodily harm, and, luckily for me, in a "Rough Area of Town" it is perfectly legal to arrange an electric fence around the border/fence line as long as it is so many inches inside the fence, this can be done in order to control dogs, I can put an electrified wire all around the inside of the top of the fence so that it would be almost impossible to climb over the fence without getting shocked and if you did get in you would definitely get shocked trying to get out. I could set it on a timer between 6 pm and 6 am. I could even include the handrails to the house and some things in the electrified circuit but on a manual switch that I must open to open the door so as to de-energize that part of the circuit and prevent self shocking, the energizer I have can be plugged into the mains or battery powered so when on mains it really puts out a good shock, which causes me pain for a while after, however if a person or animal gets entwined or stuck in an electric fence they will eventually die from the strain of the repeated shocks. One problem is if they are smart and want to get in they can just short the electrified wire to ground and the fence is then useless past that point if the fence is not arranged to be fed by both ends.
Hmmm..? written by William Hague or an intelligence asset publishing under Hague's name and rank ?
'Don't rule out British boots on the ground in Syria,' says William Hague
https://www.rt.com/uk/323412-hague-ground-troops-syria/
Published time: 25 Nov, 2015 12:23
British authorities should not exclude the possibility of sending ground troops to Syria if they want to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) former Foreign Secretary William Hague has suggested.
In a piece for the Telegraph, he argues the extremist group, which controls swathes of Syria and Iraq, cannot be destroyed without boots on the ground.
"That [military presence] should be Syrians, Iraqis or other Arabs, but it would be a mistake for Britain or other Western nations to rule out some of our own forces operating there if that can make the crucial difference to the outcome," he writes.
Hague's remarks come a day before Prime Minister David Cameron makes his case in the House of Commons for extending RAF airstrikes against Islamic State from Iraq into Syria. His case will be made before a vote next week.
Hague, who served as foreign secretary between 2010 and 2014, said the case for military operations in Syria is very different to that of the Iraq invasion in 2003.
He said the long-overdue Chilcot Inquiry report into the Iraq war will be "a time to acknowledge that we were wrong about the invasion of Iraq."
"We relied too much on evidence that turned out to be flimsy, and let our most important ally, the United States, become exhausted when there were many other battles to fight," he adds.
However, "the contrasting lessons of [the Rwandan genocide] and Iraq should show all of us that there is no simple, binary choice about being pro- or anti-intervention overseas," he writes.
In Rwanda, the international community failed to intervene, and hundreds of thousands of Tutsi people were slaughtered by members of the Hutu majority.
Hague also believes the memorial to the Rwandan genocide should be visited by "every pacifist, every 'stop the war' fanatic, every leader of the opposition who struggles with the concept of using the military at all, for it teaches us that there are circumstances where standing aside is incompatible with basic humanity, morality and mercy."
The former foreign secretary suggests one solution to the ongoing conflict would be to partition Syria and Iraq.
"The borders of Syria and Iraq were largely drawn by two British and French diplomats in 1916," he writes. "They should not be considered immutable."
"If the leaders of either country cannot construct a state where all communities can live together, it will be right to consider international support for their partition. Kurds have shown their ability to run their own affairs. A subdivided Syria might now be the only one that can be at peace."
Cameron has said he will not hold a vote on airstrikes until he is guaranteed support from MPs.
The Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has said it is crucial that adequate post-war planning is made. It said Cameron has yet to present a coherent strategy to tackle the extremist group.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is expected to continue to oppose military intervention.
Real Rwandan genocide & brainwashing of the Western mind
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/real-genocide-rwanda-hutu-extremist-848/
Published time: 11 Apr, 2014 10:04
Every year in the first week of April Western media venues are flooded with stories that begin with statements about the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, "where at least 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus died at the hands of Hutu extremists."
Such stories recount the official narrative about the 'Genocide in Rwanda', a narrative that has five or six key elements that have been almost canonized and are repeated robotically by Western English-speaking news consumers from all walks of life, economic classes, and political leanings.
1. At least 800,000 people killed;
2. Mostly ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus;
3. Slaughtered with machetes (and picks, hoes, adzes, other crude tools);
4. It was meaningless tribal savagery;
5. Committed by Hutu extremists;
6. In 100 days of genocide;
7. We (Westerners) were 'bystanders' and did nothing.
These jingoistic phrases have been systematically cemented into the minds of Westerners through more than 20 years of insidious Western media propaganda, including the printed word, radio programs, still photographs, video and film, and they are generally reproduced ad nauseum by emergent 'social' media.
There is little truth to the official narrative.
'Tutsis as victims, Hutus as oppressors?'
Twenty years after the pivotal events of 1994, it is time that Western media 'news' consumers – scholars, peace workers, academics, clergy, politicians, humanitarian aid workers, everyone – took responsibility for their own participation in the 'Rwanda Genocide' hysteria or, as it is, industry.
Let's set the stage for the so-called '100 days of Genocide' that purportedly began April 6, 1994, and purportedly ended July 15, 1994, in Rwanda. We can offer some critical facts that anyone who wants to mourn and sob about life and death in Rwanda ought to understand before they open their mouths and display sheer ignorance.
To begin with, 'Hutu' and 'Tutsi' are socio-economic and socio-political categories: these are not 'tribes'. Most of the 'Rwanda Genocide' narrative is mythology relying on simplifications, stereotypes and reductionisms about Hutus and Tutsis as tribal savages. This stuff is right out of Tarzan movies.
Prior to the imperial occupation that began after 1890, 'Tutsi' kings ruled Ruanda-Urundi. 'Tutsi' cattle herders comprised some 20 percent of the population, ruling over the 80 percent 'Hutu' majority with egregious violence. First the Germans (to 1916) then the Belgians (to 1960) ruled 'their' colony by nurturing a 'Tutsi' power structure to exploit the 'Hutu' masses. The 'Tutsi' comprador class served the colonial occupation, where brutality, slavery and terrorism were used to keep the 'Hutu' masses in the fields. A 'Tutsi' could lose all his cattle and descend into the ranks of the peasant 'Hutu' agriculturalists and, though far less likely, a 'Hutu' could gain cattle and join the Tutsi elites. The colonial fathers issued ID cards, measured noses and cranial dimensions, and duly clarified who be 'Hutu' and who be 'Tutsi'. There was, of course, much money to be made.
Witnessing the global 'Third World' independence (sic) movements of the 1950s, and supported by the Belgian Catholic priests, the 'Hutus' in Rwanda overthrew the 'Tutsi' monarchy in the 'revolution' of 1959-1960. Some people died, some people fled, some people stayed, and the next 30 years saw majority 'Hutu' rule, with Rwanda under constant attack by elite 'Tutsi' guerrillas.
Noting the winds of change, Belgium quickly swapped their support to the Hutu majority, established a comprador class of 'Hutu' elites, and protected their interests. There was, of course, much money to be made. Thousands of elite 'Tutsis' connected to the former power structure fled to Uganda, Tanzania, Europe and North America.
At the height of the Cold War, the elite 'Tutsi' refugees (sic) influenced the Non-Aligned Movement – newly-independent (sic) states like Brazil, India, Malaysia, etc. – screaming bloody murder and "We are the victims of imperial aggression!" all the while. This is the falsified history of 'Tutsis' as 'victims' inculcated by the arrogant elite 'Tutsi' rulers. These facts are key to the official narrative: Tutsis as victims, Hutus as oppressors.
Like any monarchy, the 'Tutsi' elites believe(d) they are God's Chosen People, the Jews of Africa, the natural-born rulers over millions of Hutu (and Tutsi) peasants.
Adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement – funded, armed, trained outside Rwanda – the elite 'Tutsi' guerrillas attacked Rwanda throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, sowing the most egregious terrorism, usually under cover of night. Every time the 'Tutsi' guerrillas attacked Rwanda – whether from outside during the 1960s or from inside during the 1990s – the in-country French-speaking 'Tutsis' suffered reprisals. The 'Tutsis as victims' narrative continued to expand, and while the Hutus were blamed for atrocities, usually retaliatory, the 'Tutsi' were coddled and protected.
Guerrilla incursions involved bombings of cafes, nightclubs, bars, restaurants and buses. The very real suffering of the French-speaking 'Tutsi' people inside Rwanda – those who 'stayed behind' – was written off by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF, a 'Tutsi' political party created in 1987 by the Tutsi refugee diaspora in Uganda, now the ruling party in Rwanda) as collateral damage. The English-speaking Ugandans, the elite 'Tutsi' refugees (sic), who had Ugandan citizenship and high posts in the Ugandan military, defined them as Hutu collaborators. The RPF didn't care whether they lived or died.
The foreign element
Enter, by coup d'etat, the Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana, who ruled Rwanda from 1973 to April 6, 1994, backed by France. Historically, France was to Africa what the United States was to Latin America. Britain and Portugal controlled a few protectorates, Belgium plundered the Congo and Ruanda-Urundi, but Francophone power in Africa was vast, deeply entrenched and militarily brutal.
Habyarimana ran a one-party dictatorship, but French-speaking Tutsis who stayed behind were able to achieve some economic status, though they were kept in check, given their small numbers. Of course, this wasn't good enough for the elite 'Tutsis' outside Rwanda. The United States, Canada, Britain and Israel wanted more of the African pie, and Paul Kagame was the man to get it for them.
English-speaking 'Tutsis' who grew up in Uganda – Paul Kagame, James Kabarebe, Fred Rwigyema, Patrick Karegeya, Laurent Nkundabatware, and thousands of others – were the soldiers of Yoweri Museveni's guerrilla army. They committed massive atrocities in Uganda, (1980-1985), where absolute terrorism was used to remove a socialist government run by an ungrateful African. The victims in Uganda were also blamed for genocide, turning the truth upside-down. This is how Museveni and Kagame – his director of military intelligence – brought Uganda back in line with the geopolitical dictates of the West: aka disaster capitalism. There was, of course, a lot of money to be made.
They burned entire villages. The RPF deceived peasants into coming to meetings only to obliterate them coldly. The RPF even created crematoriums to 'disappear' the skeletons and skulls, until they realized the efficacy of the model of the Jewish Holocaust death camp memorials: pile up shoes, clothing, skeletons and skulls; create an industry whose currency is the moral outrage and psychological terror of 'genocide'. And please do not be confused: nothing is more terrifying to the Western psyche. (Of course, the same 'device' was created and used by the Museveni terror apparatus in the Lowero Triangle of Uganda, but it was preceded by Cambodia, where Pol Pot was the preeminent demon of the day, and the carpet-bombing, napalm strikes, or terror operations like Project Phoenix are dismissed.)
Media war
The New York Times led the charge into Rwanda, and the Western media continued to beat the 'Tutsis as victims' drum roll. There was, after all, a lot of money to be made. Wall Street vultures began drooling. Military and intelligence operatives like David Kimche (Israel) and Roger Winter (USA) jockeyed for position – organizing logistics, maintaining supply chains, arranging weapons shipments – to support 'our' man Kagame and our proxy guerrilla army, the RPF. The Washington Post, Boston Globe, CNN, the Observer all described the RPF guerrillas as a highly 'disciplined' army: if any woman was raped or civilian massacred, it was an accident, a rogue soldier, and said soldier would be duly punished (of course, they never were).
Paul Kagame put into practice what his teachers, the military strategists at the US Army Command and Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (USA), taught him: psychological operations and how to overthrow a country.
As the English-speaking 'Tutsis' marched into Rwanda they conscripted and lured 'Tutsi' youth to the 'freedom' cause. These were young French-speaking Tutsis who were also subjected to Kagame's ruthless modus operandi: many of them were tortured, killed, disappeared, but many survived the initiation into the RPF. Kagame and his elite Ugandan comrades didn't trust Tutsis who had stayed behind, and they clearly sacrificed the French-speaking Tutsis of Rwanda for the cause of absolute military power.
While the power of the Rwandan Patriotic Army grew day by day, supplied from Uganda, funded by World Bank loans to Museveni, the Habyarimana government was attacked on all fronts, shackled with debt, weapons blockades, demonized by the international press, the humanitarians (sic) and world opinion.
Meanwhile, next door in Burundi, the elite 'Tutsi'-dominated regime committed a genocide in 1972: some 200,000 to 300,000 mostly Hutu people were raped, tortured, and massacred, while hundreds of thousands more fled to neighboring countries, including Rwanda. The preeminent Africa scholar Rene Lemarchand describes this as a genocide 'denied and forgotten'.
Instead of punishing the invading 'Tutsi' Ugandan forces, led by Kagame, the world punished the Habyarimana regime: political pluralism, multiparty elections, peace accords assuring power-sharing for the RPF: no diplomatic or political sacrifice was enough. Meanwhile, Kagame and the RPF grew in strength and numbers, better equipped, better trained, striking under cover of night like cockroaches – Inyenzi – the term that Tutsi guerrillas of the 1960s proudly self-identified with.
Just as Museveni had infiltrated, massacred and terrorized Uganda (1980-1985), the RPF infiltrated soldiers disguised as civilians into Hutu villages, Hutu political parties, even into Hutu youth groups organized to defend Rwanda from the invading terrorist guerrillas. While the RPF used the airwaves to terrorize the people, scapegoat and stereotype enemies real and perceived, and whip up fear of 'Hutu power' – the same kinds of nasty propaganda, often sexualized, used by the Kagame regime to demonize its detractors from the West even today – we only even hear about 'Hutu power' hate radio.
April 6, 1994, President Habyarimana, his chief of staff, the president of Burundi, the French pilots – all murdered over Kigali in the surface-to-air missile attack on the presidential jet. Here is another pivotal world event that should be commemorated and remembered: the RPF assassination of two presidents.
The Western media soon began describing this terrorist action as 'a mysterious plane crash' and, using the now-entrenched upside-down narrative that defined 'Tutsis' the victims and 'Hutus' as killers, the double-presidential assassinations were blamed on Hutu 'extremists'.
The United States blocked every attempt to investigate the 'plane crash' and the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR) suppressed any evidence that emerged, even removing officials who touched the truth too closely. Kagame, all the while was crying crocodile tears, screaming "We are the victims of genocide," confronting the West with its blatant 'moral failure' to abide the slogan 'never again'.
Real Hutu extremists
What is a Hutu extremist? According to the official mythology, a 'Hutu extremist' is a Hutu who ruthlessly and coldly set out to wipe every Tutsi off the face of the earth. In reality, a Hutu 'extremist' was any Hutu who saw total war coming at the hands of their erstwhile elite Tutsi oppressors. A Hutu 'extremist' was someone who understood only too well that the elite 'Tutsis' invading from Uganda, the elite 'Tutsis' massacring thousands of people, the elite 'Tutsis' (read RPF) infiltrating of social, economic, military and political institutions in Rwanda, the elite 'Tutsi' Inyenzi bombings of public places and their assassinations of countless political figures and pesky Rwandan journalists, or the elite 'Tutsis' slaughtering of thousands of innocent Hutu men, women and children and wiping entire Hutu villages off the map, that these were very real certainties that Hutu's had a right and necessity to defend themselves against.
What is a Hutu 'moderate'? Any Hutu who believed that the RPF offered a democratic alternative to one-party dictatorship, that Paul Kagame was sincere in his proclamations of political pluralism, freedom and brotherhood. These were empty promises.
The genocide of the majority Hutu people, launched October 1, 1990, proceeded unabated during the RPF march to power in Rwanda, and it was even more clearly executed during the RPF hunting and slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children – mostly Hutus – in the Congo. These were organized campaigns of genocide, with intent to rape, murder and disappear Hutu people because they were Hutu people, and the perpetrators were the elite 'Tutsis' from Uganda.
No such planning or organization of genocidal intent has been proven against the Hutu government of Juvenal Habyarimana - which, in any case, was decapitated on April 6, 1994 - or against the Interim Hutu government that briefly held sway after April 6, 1994, and the judges at the ICTR have found as such. There were indeed hundreds of thousands of French-speaking Tutsis raped, brutalized and massacred in what amount to very real acts of genocide in Rwanda, and these occurred over the now sacred '100 days of genocide'. But there were also hundreds of thousands of Hutus killed, and far more Hutu than Tutsi.
Hutu lands were cleared of their owners, taken by foreign 'Tutsi' who flooded in on the heels of the RPF. And by the way, practically everyone in Rwanda owns a machete; there were massive imports in January of 1994, by a British citizen; purchases of machetes occurred using World Bank funds, for agricultural use, not for an evil genocide conspiracy. Anyway, the RPF routinely killed people with machetes, to save on bullets, and disguise the perpetrators.
And today, terror reigns silently in Rwanda.
Facts don't seem to matter however, because Western hysteria has been whipped up by the media, the Pentagon, the intelligence sector, and by the Kagame regime. The Western psyche has been indoctrinated to believe exactly what Kagame and his benefactors want us to believe. We stood by, we did nothing, we should have stopped 'the genocide'.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There was a coup d'etat in Rwanda. The victors, the oppressors, the killers have been applauded, shielded, and/or hidden from the eyes of the world. A proxy army of elite 'Tutsis' murdered with abandon in Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, and Congo, where they are still murdering with abandon.
The real coup d'etat has been the brainwashing of the Western mind and psyche, transforming rational discerning individuals into hysterical self-congratulatory humanitarians (sic), unable to separate truth from lie, and certain of their conclusions, no matter how erroneous. Just show them a machete, or a skull, or a weeping 'Tutsi' 'survivor' of 'genocide' and you can count on their compliance in commemorating the anniversary of 'Genocide' in Rwanda, and bowing at the feet of Paul Kagame. There is, of course, much money to be made.
Keith Harmon Snow, for RT
Keith Harmon Snow is a war correspondent and photographer who has worked in 16 African countries, including conflict areas in Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and Sudan. A former genocide and war crimes investigator for Genocide Watch, Survivor's Rights International and the United Nations, who has worked at the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, testified at numerous US immigration asylum hearings for Rwandan and Congolese refugees and testified at the Audiencia Nacionale in Madrid, Spain, in support of the war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide indictments issued against the top 40 Rwandan Patriotic Front officers. He is persona non grata in Rwanda and Ethiopia.
NATO funds ISIS >:(
Russia presents proof of Turkey's role in ISIS oil trade
https://www.rt.com/news/324263-russia-briefing-isis-funding/
Published time: 2 Dec, 2015 12:26
The Russian Defense Ministry has released evidence which it says unmasks vast illegal oil trade by Islamic State and points to Turkey as the main destination for the smuggled petrol, implicating its leadership in aiding the terrorists.
The Russian Defense Ministry held a major briefing on new findings concerning IS funding in Moscow on Wednesday.
According to Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, Russia is aware of three main oil smuggling routes to Turkey.
"Today, we are presenting only some of the facts that confirm that a whole team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from their neighbors is operating in the region," Antonov said, adding that this oil "in large quantities" enters the territory of Turkey via "live oil pipelines," consisting of thousands of oil trucks.
Antonov added that Turkey is the main buyer of smuggled oil coming from Iraq and Syria.
"According to our data, the top political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family – is involved in this criminal business."
However, since the start of Russia's anti-terrorist operation in Syria on September 30, the income of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) militants from illegal oil smuggling has been significantly reduced, the ministry said.
"The income of this terrorist organization was about $3 million per day. After two months of Russian airstrikes their income was about $1.5 million a day," Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy said.
At the briefing the ministry presented photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes on IS oil storage facilities and maps detailing the movement of smuggled oil. More evidence is to be published on the ministry's website in the coming says, Rudskoy said.
The US-led coalition is not bombing IS oil trucks, Rudskoy said.
For the past two months, Russia's airstrikes hit 32 oil complexes, 11 refineries, 23 oil pumping stations, Rudskoy said, adding that the Russian military had also destroyed 1,080 trucks carrying oil products.
"These [airstrikes] helped reduce the trade of the oil illegally extracted on the Syrian territory by almost 50 percent."
Up to 2,000 fighters, 120 tons of ammunition and 250 vehicles have been delivered to Islamic State and Al-Nusra militants from Turkish territory, chief of National Centre for State Defense Control Lt.Gen. Mikhail Mizintsev said.
"According to reliable intelligence reports, the Turkish side has been taking such actions for a long time and on a regular basis. And most importantly, it is not planning to stop them."
"One thing is clear. The role that Turkey is playing in this area is in many ways destructive and it's affecting the European security, it's affecting its neighbors. Ultimately it's affecting its own society," Uzi Arad, former head of research at Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency told RT.
Responding to the Russian allegations, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that nobody had a right to "slander" Turkey by accusing it of buying oil from Islamic State.
Speaking at a university in the Qatari capital, Doha, on Wednesday, Erdogan once again claimed that he would resign if such accusations were proven to be true and stressed that he did not want Turkey's relations with Russia to deteriorate further.
Following Russian accusations, the US has again defended Turkey, denying any ties between Ankara and Islamic State.
"We flatly reject any notion that the Turks are somehow working with ISIL. Preposterous. And really very, kind of ridiculous," Steve Warren, Pentagon spokesman, said.
He called Turkey "a great partner" to Washington in fighting against IS terrorists in Syrian and Iraq.
"They're hosting our aircraft. They're conducting strikes. They're supporting the moderate Syrian opposition," Warren explained.
Iraq will immediately file a protest in the UN Security Council if claims that Turkey is illegally purchasing oil from Islamic State terrorists are confirmed, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said.
"If the Iraqi government receives enough evidence and details, without any hesitation it will file a protest at the UN Security Council and all other relevant international bodies," Naseer Nuri, ministry's spokesman, told Sputnik.
According to Nuri, certain "general information about the smuggling of Iraqi oil by trucks to certain countries, including Turkey" is already available.
"This oil is used to fund Daesh (IS)", he added.
December 19, 2014
NATO's Destruction of Libya
by Brian Cloughley
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/19/natos-destruction-of-libya/
On March 19, 2011 the United States led NATO countries in a blitz of aircraft and missile strikes against the government of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's batty dictator who was visited in 2004 and 2007 by British prime minister Tony Blair, in 2007 by French president Sarkozy, in 2008 by US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and in 2009 by Italian prime minister Berlusconi, all of whom cordially assured him that relations between their countries and his were comfortable.
Gaddafi was a despot and persecuted his enemies quite as savagely as the dictator Hosni Mubarak in neighbouring Egypt, but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the BBC had to admit that Gaddafi's "particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare and subsidized housing and transport," although "wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite" (which doesn't happen anywhere else, of course). The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi's Libya had a literacy rate of 94.2% (better than Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, for example), and the World Health Organization recorded a life expectancy of 72.3 years, among the highest in the developing world.
But back to the western figures who flocked to Libya before NATO's war. A leaked 2009 US diplomatic cable recorded that "Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the US interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship" while Senator Lieberman declared Libya "an important ally in the war on terrorism." Condoleezza Rice said the US-Libya "relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now and I think tonight does mark a new phase," and Britain's Blair considered his meeting "positive and constructive" because his country's relationship with Libya had "been completely transformed in these last few years. We now have very strong co-operation on counter-terrorism and defense."
The BBC reported that "As Mr Blair met Mr Gaddafi it was announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550 million for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast." The US oil companies ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were also deeply involved in Libya's oil production, because it has the world's ninth largest oil reserves.
Things were looking good for Libya.
But on January 21, 2011 Reuters reported that "Muammar Gaddafi said his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices." He suggested that "oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production."
Then in February, immediately after Gaddafi's hint of nationalization of Libya's oil resources, there was an uprising by rebels who wanted to overthrow him and on March 17 the UN Security Council established a 'no-fly zone' in Libya "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country." The insurgents were supported by the US, Britain and twelve of their 26 NATO allies (notably not Germany or Turkey), three Arab nations (not including Saudi Arabia), and Sweden which has abandoned honorable neutrality and become a NATO country in all but name. Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia excluded themselves from the Resolution, advocating peaceful resolution of Libya's internal conflict and warning against "unintended consequences of armed intervention."
Two days after the "no-fly" resolution the US-led NATO onslaught began and continued for seven months, until the end of October. On April 30 a US missile killed one of Gaddafi's sons and three of his grandchildren in what NATO called "a precision strike" against a "military command and control building." When asked about a massive attack on Gaddafi's residential compound the Pentagon's spokesman announced that "We are not targeting his residence. We have no indication of any civilian casualties."
At the height of the attacks on Libya US President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and French President Nicolas Sarkozy jointly declared that "as we continue military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya . . . Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Gaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society." Gaddafi's opinion was that "You have proved to the world that you are not civilized, that you are terrorists — animals attacking a nation that did nothing against you."
On October 20 Gaddafi did indeed "go for good," being brutally murdered by one of the rebel groups. Obama greeted his death with enthusiasm, saying that "Today we can definitively say that the Gadhafi regime has come to an end. The last major regime strongholds have fallen. The new government is consolidating control over the country. And one of the world's longest-serving dictators is no more."
NATO carried out 9,658 air attacks on Libya and the BBC reported that "throughout the seven-month campaign Nato admitted there had been one weapon 'malfunction.' On 19 June, several civilians were reported to have been killed when a missile hit buildings in Tripoli. A Nato spokesman later said that 'a potential weapon system failure occurred and this caused the weapon not to hit the intended target'." (There were also 105 US drone strikes about which nothing is known.)
It is astonishing, even miraculous, that out of 9,658 airstrikes only one killed any civilians. But Human Rights Watch has a different take on the matter (see HRW), and records that there were many civilians killed — although its report is irrelevant because not one single person of any US-NATO country has been or ever will be independently investigated for killing any civilian, anywhere in the world, by missile, bomb or rocket.
We were told that the aim of the US-NATO war on Libya was to achieve democracy by bombing and the UK's prime minister Cameron declared that "I'm an optimist about Libya; I've been an optimist all the way through and I'm optimistic about the National Transitional Council and what they are able to achieve. I think when you look at Tripoli today, yes, of course, there are huge challenges — getting water to that city, making sure there is law and order — but actually so far, the cynics and the armchair generals have been proved wrong."
The "cynics" — better described as realists — and armchair generals were right, of course, in predicting that the country's collapse was inevitable; just as they had been right about forecasting chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But two highly-placed intellectuals, Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013, and Admiral James G ('Zorba') Stavridis, the US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period, had their own views and wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs in 2012 that
NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi.
According to these objective analysts Libya was liberated and became a free country thanks to NATO. And they were supported by columnists like Nicholas Kristof who wrote that "Libya is a reminder that sometimes it is possible to use military tools to advance humanitarian causes." That statement would be hilarious were it not so obscenely bizarre, because Libya has collapsed into anarchic ruin. Britain's declaration to the UN in 2012 that "today, Tripoli and Benghazi are cities transformed. Where there was fear, now there is hope and an optimism and belief that is truly inspiring," has been shown to be preposterous. As CNN reports, "Assassinations, kidnappings, blockades of oil refineries, rival militias battling on the streets, Islamist extremists setting up camps, and above all chronically weak government have all made Libya a dangerous place and one whose instability is already spilling across borders and into the Mediterranean. There is effectively no rule of law in Libya." How "truly inspiring," to be sure.
According to Amnesty International, "since July 2014 at least 287,000 people have been internally displaced as a result of indiscriminate attacks and a fear of being targeted by militias, and a further 100,000 have been forced to flee the country in fear for their lives." Western nations have withdrawn their diplomatic missions and Britain warns its citizens "against all travel to Libya due to the ongoing fighting and greater instability throughout the country."
NATO has done nothing whatever to "repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society" which Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy declared so necessary while their bombs and rockets and Tomahawk missiles were destroying homes, hospitals and basic utilities. And not one of these people — the excited world leaders, the condescending commentators or the expert intellectuals who foolishly claimed that "NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention" — has indicated the slightest regret for their enthusiastic approval of the onslaught that led to devastation and disaster.
During their war on Libya, Obama and Cameron declared that "We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya." Tell that to the millions of Libyans whose lives have been destroyed by NATO's "model intervention." The scale of human suffering is not as terrible as that inflicted on Iraq by the US-UK war, but it is still appalling. On November 30, for example, Reuters reported that "about 400 people have been killed in six weeks of heavy fighting between Libyan pro-government forces and Islamist groups in Libya's second-largest city Benghazi." So much for the "better times" that were to be enjoyed after NATO's seven month blitz of missile and bombing strikes.
And what next for NATO? Where will it chose to mount its next "model intervention" after its destruction of Libya and its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?
NATO is desperate for a cause to justify its survival and is enthusiastically moving forces further east in Europe, involving thousands of US troops in "exercises" in Ukraine and US and other deployments to Poland and the Baltic States. It has created a multi-national "Baltic Air Policing Mission" and is carrying out the fatuously-named "Operation Atlantic Resolve" to menace Russia.
But NATO, and especially the US, should bear in mind the wise words of Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia, who warned against the "unintended consequences of armed intervention." As Mr Putin remarked on December 4, "Hitler . . . wanted to destroy Russia and got to the Urals. However, everyone remembers how that ended." Exactly.
Brian Cloughley lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.
What I think happened in Benghazi
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/benghazi.php#axzz3tC4XCG00
By Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com
UPDATE: It is known now, through the subsequent email and cable releases, that the responsibility for the attack was claimed by Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda's affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula.
Not a spontaneous mob protesting a YouTube video. But a planned attack by group which has already been exposed as having deep ties to the United States intelligence agencies.
In Hillary's testimony before the Benghazi Committee, it has been confirmed that the State Department and the White House knew the attack was not a spontaneous protest over a video, even though that was the lie told to the American people.
The next obvious question (pointedly not asked by the Benghazi committee) was why this terror attack was concealed from the American people? Terror attacks are very useful for the US Government to justify its aggression against other countries. So much so that the FBI has devoted a large amount of resources to setting up patsies as news-worthy terrorists! So, why was Benghazi claimed to be a spontaneous protest over a video? Perhaps to avoid the question of just why the terrorists attacked that particular target?
We already know that the consulate in Benghazi was a hub for running guns from Libya to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria, a fact the White House would not want the American people, told that ISIS and Al Qaeda were our enemies, to catch wind of!
But more recently, Paula Broadwell, former CIA Director David Petraeus' biographer/lover, has blown the lid off another secret buried inside the consulate in Benghazi; that it was one of the CIA's clandestine torture dungeons! This means that the attack on the consulate was a rescue mission, to free Libyans being tortured by the CIA. and that too is a secret the White House would not want the American people to catch wind of!
The Consulate in Benghazi was never an official US Consulate. It was never listed as such on the State Department websitem, which chows only the US Consulate in Tripoli.
As we watch the Congressional Hearings and news coverage on the attack on the Benghazi consulate, we see the usual signs of yet another official attempt to generate a highly fictitious official version of events. We see the blame shifting and the pointed fingers as everyone dances the "Potomac Two-Step" to the beat of nervous pulse rates.
What Really Happened?
We may never know, but after some consideration and application of Occam's Razor, this is what I think may have been going on.
First, there are numerous reports that US weapons that had been used against Gadaffi in Libya were being funneled through the Consulate in Benghazi to the mercenary forces fighting the US' proxy war against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. But many of those mercenary forces were Al Qaeda and ISIS, the declared enemies of the United States' "War on Terror!"
Exposure of this covert gun-running threatened to reveal to the American public that the entire "War on Terror" was a hoax, covering up what was actually a program to conquer and control the oil nations of the Middle East (as General Wesley Clarke had revealed in 2003).
The Consulate in Benghazi, as the operations hub for the gun-running, contained all the records that might prove embarrassing should they be revealed, and at some point in late 2012, with Obama looking like a one term President, the decision was made to destroy those records to erase all evidence of the crime and blame terrorists for it.
The official story is that on the night of 9/11/12, coinciding with the anniversary of the false-flag attacks in New York City, "Al Qaeda", enraged over a trailer for a non-existent Mohammed-bashing movie, attacked the Consulate, killing the Ambassador. Bad Muslims, no cookie!
But there are some interesting facts to consider.
There is ample evidence that the US Government knew something was going to happen days, maybe as much as a week, ahead of time. Yet they did not increase security at the Consulate or remove the Ambassador.
There were CIA and SEALS nearby who heard the gunfire but were ordered to stand down. Just where that order came from appears to be the White House, despite an early effort to pin the blame on CIA, which was denied by Patraeus, leading to exposure of a sex scandal and his forced retirement on November 9th.
There are reports that a Predator drone was overhead, "real timing" the video of the attack back to the White House situation room. Given that the Predator only has a top speed of 137 miles per hour, the drone had to be en route to the Consulate long before the violence started.
So here is what I think was going on, over and above erasing the records of gun-running. Since there had to be a "Terror attack" to destroy the evidence of treason, why not also use the attack to boost Obama's re-election campaign?
"He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can't think of how he could do that." -- Robert Shapiro, former Clinton official and Obama supporter quoted by Financial Times in July 2010
Polls in September 2012 showed the Presidential race neck and neck. Many media outlets were openly predicting a Romney victory. Obama had failed to garner public approval over the killing of a man claimed (but never proven) to be Osama bin Laden, mostly because of the manner in which the body was disposed of and the obvious faked photos leaked onto the internet.
Obama needed a publicity stunt.
A small team of "Al Qaeda" terrorists, or someone playing at being Al Qaeda terrorists, were supposed to enter the Consulate and take the Ambassador and his staff hostage. Obama would let the drama build for a few days, allowing the media to hype the story, then send in the SEAL teams to "rescue" the hostages, then campaign on how he did not let the situation turn into a repeat of the Iranian hostage crisis, which would have dovetailed with the Iran bashing (and Argo).
But the best laid plans of mice and men (and Candidates) gang aft agley, as they say. We know that the CIA operatives at the annex could hear the gunfire from the Consulate. Looking at the consulate through Google Earth, one sees heavily populated residential areas less than half a mile to the east and southwest, who no doubt heard the gunfire coming from the consulate as well. Given how quickly sympathetic protests erupted across the Middle East during this incident, it is clear that the region is an anti-American powder keg awaiting a spark, which Obama inadvertently provided with his staged terror attack.
The initial "Al Qaeda" (or reasonable facsimile thereof) was a small group, but were quickly joined by Libyans pouring in from adjoining neighborhoods. What was a planned and rehearsed operation to "kidnap" the Ambassador triggered a spontaneous riot with at least 200 participants on the ground, and spun out of control, leading to the deaths of the Ambassador and others.
Obama's carefully prepped operation to make himself look like a hero instantly turned into an epic fail.
Then the "cleanup" began, first with the assassination of one of the main "terrorists" in Cairo on October 25th, an explosion at the Benghazi Police Station on November 4th, and the assassination of the Benghazi police chief on November 20th. Facebook even went as far as to censor the Navy SEALs to prevent anyone there on the ground from speaking out to the net. And the man who made the YouTube trailer for the non-existent film on which the riots were blamed was sent to prison!
This explanation fits all the available facts.
See original article at link for all sources used to build the working model.
US weapons that had been used against Gadaffi in Libya were being funneled through the Consulate in Benghazi to the mercenary forces fighting the US' proxy war against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. But many of those mercenary forces were Al Qaeda and ISIS, the declared enemies of the United States' "War on Terror!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg
Aug 24, 2015
Ex-DIA boss Michael Flynn: White House took "willful decision" to fund, train Syria Islamists ISIS
"Willful Decision" Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support Free Syrian Army (FSA) Islamists that became (ISIS): Former US Intelligence Chief ...
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
30 August 2013
Meanwhile, Mr Assad told a group of Yemeni MPs on Thursday that Syria would defend itself against any aggression, according to Syria's Sana news agency.
"Syria, with its steadfast people and brave army, will continue eliminating terrorism, which is utilised by Israel and Western countries to serve their interests in fragmenting the region," he said.
Breaking international law in Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323396-unsc-isis-syria-us/
Published time: 25 Nov, 2015 11:01
The war drums are getting louder in the aftermath of ISIS attacks in Paris, as Western countries gear up to launch further airstrikes in Syria. But obscured in the fine print of countless resolutions and media headlines is this: the West has no legal basis for military intervention. Their strikes are illegal.
"It is always preferable in these circumstances to have the full backing of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) but I have to say what matters most of all is that any actions we would take would...be legal," explained UK Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons last Wednesday.
Legal? No, there's not a scrap of evidence that UK airstrikes would be lawful in their current incarnation.
Then just two days later, on Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2249, aimed at rallying the world behind the fairly obvious notion that ISIS is an "unprecedented threat to international peace and security."
"It's a call to action to member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures against (ISIS) and other terrorist groups," British UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told reporters.
The phrase "all necessary measures" was broadly interpreted – if not explicitly sanctioning the "use of force" in Syria, then as a wink to it.
Let's examine the pertinent language of UNSCR 2249:
The resolution "calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter...on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq."
Note that the resolution demands "compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter." This is probably the most significant explainer to the "all necessary measures" phrase. Use of force is one of the most difficult things for the UNSC to sanction – it is a last resort measure, and a rare one. The lack of Chapter 7 language in the resolution pretty much means that 'use of force' is not on the menu unless states have other means to wrangle "compliance with international law."
What you need to know about international law
It is important to understand that the United Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War 2 expressly to prevent war and to regulate and inhibit the use of force in settling disputes among its member states. This is the UN's big function – to "maintain international peace and security," as enshrined in the UN Charter's very first article.
There are a lot of laws that seek to govern and prevent wars, but the Western nations looking to launch airstrikes in Syria have made things easy for us – they have cited the law that they believe justifies their military intervention: specifically, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It reads, in part:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
So doesn't France, for instance, enjoy the inherent right to bomb ISIS targets in Syria as an act of self-defense - in order to prevent further attacks?
And don't members of the US-led coalition, who cite the "collective self-defense" of Iraq (the Iraqi government has formally made this request), have the right to prevent further ISIS attacks from Syrian territory into Iraqi areas?
Well, no. Article 51, as conceived in the UN Charter, refers to attacks between territorial states, not with non-state actors like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Syria, after all, did not attack France or Iraq – or Turkey, Australia, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
And here's where it gets interesting.
Western leaders are employing two distinct strategies to obfuscate the lack of legal justification for intervention in Syria. The first is the use of propaganda to build narratives about Syria that support their legal argumentation. The second is a shrewd effort to cite legal "theory" as a means to 'stretch' existing law into a shape that supports their objectives.
The "Unwilling and Unable" Theory – the "Unable" argument
The unwilling and unable theory – as related to the Syria/ISIS situation - essentially argues that the Syrian state is both unwilling and unable to target the non-state actor based within its territory (ISIS, in this case) that poses a threat to another state.
Let's break this down further.
Ostensibly, Syria is 'unable' to sufficiently degrade or destroy ISIS because, as we can clearly see, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory within Syria's borders that its national army has not been able to reclaim.
This made some sense - until September 30 when Russia entered the Syrian military theater and began to launch widespread airstrikes against terrorist targets inside Syria.
As a major global military power, Russia is clearly 'able' to thwart ISIS –certainly just as well as most of the Western NATO states participating in airstrikes already. Moreover, as Russia is operating there due to a direct Syrian government appeal for assistance, the Russian military role in Syria is perfectly legal.
This development struck a blow at the US-led coalition's legal justification for strikes in Syria. Not that the coalition's actions were ever legal – "unwilling and unable" is merely a theory and has no basis in customary international law.
About this new Russian role, Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Virginia, says:
"The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria's neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government's consent."
In recent weeks, the Russians have made ISIS the target of many of its airstrikes, and are day by day improving coordination efficiencies with the ground troops and air force of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies -Iran, Hezbollah and other foreign groups who are also in Syria legally, at the invitation of the Syrian state.
Certainly, the balance of power on the ground in Syria has started to shift away from militants and terrorist groups since Russia launched its campaign seven weeks ago – much more than we have seen in a year of coalition strikes.
The "Unwilling and Unable" Theory – the "Unwilling" argument
Now for the 'unwilling' part of the theory. And this is where the role of Western governments in seeding 'propaganda' comes into play.
The US and its allies have been arguing for the past few years that the Syrian government is either in cahoots with ISIS, benefits from ISIS' existence, or is a major recruiting magnet for the terror group.
Western media, in particular, has made a point of underplaying the SAA's military confrontations with ISIS, often suggesting that the government actively avoids ISIS-controlled areas.
The net result of this narrative has been to convey the message that the Syrian government has been 'unwilling' to diminish the terror group's base within the country.
But is this true?
ISIS was born from the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in April, 2013 when the group's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a short-lived union of ISI and Syria's Al-Qaeda branch, Jabhat al-Nusra. Armed militants in Syria have switched around their militia allegiances many times throughout this conflict, so it would be disingenuous to suggest the Syrian army has not fought each and every one of these groups at some point since early 2011.
If ISIS was viewed as a 'neglected' target at any juncture, it has been mainly because the terror group was focused on land grabs for its "Caliphate" in the largely barren north-east areas of the country - away from the congested urban centers and infrastructure hubs that have defined the SAA's military priorities.
But ISIS has always remained a fixture in the SAA's sights. The Syrian army has fought or targeted ISIS, specifically, in dozens of battlefields since the organization's inception, and continues to do so. In Deir Hafer Plains, Mennagh, Kuweires, Tal Arn, al-Safira, Tal Hasel and the Aleppo Industrial District. In the suburbs and countryside of Damascus - most famously in Yarmouk this year - where the SAA and its allies thwarted ISIS' advance into the capital city. In the Qalamun mountains, in Christian Qara and Faleeta. In Deir Ezzor, where ISIS would join forces with the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA): al-Husseiniyeh, Hatla, Sakr Island, al-Hamadiyah, al-Rashidiyah, al-Jubeileh, Sheikh Yasseen, Mohassan, al-Kanamat, al-Sina'a, al-Amal, al-Haweeqa, al-Ayyash, the Ghassan Aboud neighborhood, al-Tayyim Oil Fields and the Deir ez-Zor military airport. In Hasakah Province - Hasakah city itself, al-Qamishli, Regiment 121 and its environs, the Kawkab and Abdel-Aziz Mountains. In Raqqa, the Islamic State's capital in Syria, the SAA combatted ISIS in Division 17, Brigade 93 and Tabaqa Airbase. In Hama Province, the entire al-Salamiyah District - Ithriyah, Sheikh Hajar, Khanasser. In the province of Homs, the eastern countryside: Palmyra, Sukaneh, Quraytayn, Mahin, Sadad, Jubb al-Ahmar, the T-4 Airbase and the Iraqi border crossing. In Suweida, the northern countryside.
If anything, the Russian intervention has assisted the Syrian state in going on the offensive against ISIS and other like-minded terror groups. Before Russia moved in, the SAA was hunkering down in and around key strategic areas to protect these hubs. Today, Syria and its allies are hitting targets by land and air in the kinds of coordinated offensives we have not seen before.
Seeding 'propaganda'
The role of propaganda and carefully manipulated narratives should not be underestimated in laying the groundwork for foreign military intervention in Syria.
From "the dictator is killing his own people" to the "regime is using chemical weapons" to the need to establish "No Fly Zones" to safeguard "refugees fleeing Assad"...propaganda has been liberally used to build the justification for foreign military intervention.
Article 2 of the UN Charter states, in part:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
It's hard to see how Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity has not been systematically violated throughout the nearly five years of this conflict, by the very states that make up the US-led coalition. The US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and other nations have poured weapons, funds, troops and assistance into undermining a UN member state at every turn.
"Legitimacy" is the essential foundation upon which governance rests. Vilify a sitting government, shut down multiple embassies, isolate a regime in international forums, and you can destroy the fragile veneer of legitimacy of a king, president or prime minister.
But efforts to delegitimize the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have also served to lay the groundwork for coalition airstrikes in Syria.
If Assad is viewed to lack "legitimacy," the coalition creates the impression that there is no real government from which it can gain the necessary authority to launch its airstrikes.
This mere 'impression' provided the pretext for Washington to announce it was sending 50 Special Forces troops into Syria, as though the US wasn't violating every tenet of international law in doing so. "It's okay – there's no real government there," we are convinced.
Media reports repeatedly highlight the 'percentages' of territory outside the grasp of Syrian government forces – this too serves a purpose. One of the essentials of a state is that it consists of territory over which it governs.
If only 50 percent of Syria is under government control, the argument goes, "then surely we can just walk into the other 'ungoverned' parts" – as when US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and US Senator John McCain just strolled illegally across the border of the sovereign Syrian state.
Sweep aside these 'impressions' and bury them well. The Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad is viewed by the United Nations as the only legitimate government in Syria. Every official UN interaction with the state is directed at this government. The Syrian seat at the UN is occupied by Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari, a representative of Assad's government. It doesn't matter how many Syrian embassies in how many capitals are shut down – or how many governments-in-exile are established. The UN only recognizes one.
As one UN official told me in private: "Control of surface territory doesn't count. The government of Kuwait when its entire territory was occupied by Iraq – and it was in exile – was still the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Syrian government could have 10 percent of its surface left – the decision of the UN Security Council is all that matters from the perspective of international law, even if other governments recognize a new Syrian government."
Countdown to more illegal airstrikes?
If there was any lingering doubt about the illegality of coalition activities in Syria, the Syrian government put these to rest in September, in two letters to the UNSC that denounced foreign airstrikes as unlawful:
"If any State invokes the excuse of counter-terrorism in order to be present on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian Government whether on the country's land or in its airspace or territorial waters, its action shall be considered a violation of Syrian sovereignty."
Yet still, upon the adoption of UNSC Resolution 2249 last Friday, US Deputy Representative to the United Nations Michele Sison insisted that "in accordance with the UN Charter and its recognition of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense," the US would use "necessary and proportionate military action" in Syria.
The website for the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) promptly pointed out the obvious:
"The resolution is worded so as to suggest there is Security Council support for the use of force against IS. However, though the resolution, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against IS, the resolution does not actually authorize any actions against IS, nor does it provide a legal basis for the use of force against IS either in Syria or in Iraq."
On Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron plans to unveil his new "comprehensive strategy" to tackle ISIS, which we are told will include launching airstrikes in Syria.
We already know the legal pretext he will spin – "unwilling and unable," Article 51, UN Charter, individual and collective self-defense, and so forth.
But if Cameron's September 7 comments at the House of Commons are any indication, he will use the following logic to argue that the UK has no other choice than to resort to 'use of force' in Syria. In response to questions about two illegal drone attacks targeting British nationals in Syria, the prime minister emphasized:
"These people were in a part of Syria where there was no government, no one to work with, and no other way of addressing this threat...When we are dealing with people in ISIL-dominated Syria—there is no government, there are no troops on the ground—there is no other way of dealing with them than the route that we took."
But Cameron does have another route available to him - and it is the only 'legal' option for military involvement in Syria.
If the UK's intention is solely to degrade and destroy ISIS, then it must request authorization from the Syrian government to participate in a coordinated military campaign that could help speed up the task.
If Western (and allied Arab) leaders can't stomach dealing with the Assad government on this issue, then by all means work through an intermediary – like the Russians – who can coordinate and authorize military operations on behalf of their Syrian ally.
The Syrian government has said on multiple occasions that it welcomes sincere international efforts to fight terrorism inside its territory. But these efforts must come under the direction of a central legal authority that can lead a broad campaign on the ground and in the air.
The West argues that, unlike in Iraq, it seeks to maintain the institutions of the Syrian state if Assad were to step down. The SAA is one of these 'institutions' - why not coordinate with it now?
But after seven weeks of Russian airstrikes coordinated with extensive ground troops (which the coalition lacks), none of these scenarios may even be warranted. ISIS and other extremist groups have lost ground in recent weeks, and if this trend continues, coalition states should fall back and focus on other key ISIS-busting activities referenced in UNSCR 2249 – squeezing terror financing, locking down key borders, sharing intelligence..."all necessary measures" to destroy this group.
If the 'international community' wants to return 'peace and stability' to the Syrian state, it seems prudent to point out that its very first course of action should be to stop breaking international law in Syria.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony's College, Oxford University and has a master's degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar English, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani
From Pol Pot to ISIS: The Blood Never Dried
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/322483-isis-pol-pot-Khmer-Rouge/
Published time: 17 Nov, 2015 20:45
Following the ISIS outrages in Beirut and Paris, John Pilger updates this prescient essay on the root causes of terrorism and what we can do about it.
In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama wages his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and Francois Hollande promises a "merciless" attack on that ruined country, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.
As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery - including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields - I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today's Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.
According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of "fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders". Once Nixon's and Kissinger's B-52 bombers had gone to work as part of "Operation Menu", the west's ultimate demon could not believe his luck. The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They leveled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left giant necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors "froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told... That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over." A Finnish Government Commission of Inquiry estimated that 600,000 Cambodians died in the ensuing civil war and described the bombing as the "first stage in a decade of genocide". What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed. Under their bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.
ISIS has a similar past and present. By most scholarly measure, Bush and Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of at least 700,000 people - in a country that had no history of jihadism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common. Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear. On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence.
Bush and Blair blew all this to bits. Iraq is now a nest of jihadism. Al-Qaeda - like Pol Pot's "jihadists" - seized the opportunity provided by the onslaught of Shock and Awe and the civil war that followed. "Rebel" Syria offered even greater rewards, with CIA and Gulf state ratlines of weapons, logistics and money running through Turkey. The arrival of foreign recruits was inevitable. A former British ambassador, Oliver Miles, wrote, "The [Cameron] government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy - and in particular our Middle East wars - had been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here."
ISIS is the progeny of those in Washington, London and Paris who, in conspiring to destroy Iraq, Syria and Libya, committed an epic crime against humanity. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies, making accomplices of those who suppress this critical truth.
It is 23 years since a holocaust enveloped Iraq, immediately after the first Gulf War, when the US and Britain hijacked the United Nations Security Council and imposed punitive "sanctions" on the Iraqi population - ironically, reinforcing the domestic authority of Saddam Hussein. It was like a medieval siege. Almost everything that sustained a modern state was, in the jargon, "blocked" - from chlorine for making the water supply safe to school pencils, parts for X-ray machines, common painkillers and drugs to combat previously unknown cancers carried in the dust from the southern battlefields contaminated with Depleted Uranium. Just before Christmas 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry in London restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever. Kim Howells, parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Blair government, explained why. "The children's vaccines", he said, "were capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction". The British Government could get away with such an outrage because media reporting of Iraq - much of it manipulated by the Foreign Office - blamed Saddam Hussein for everything.
Under a bogus "humanitarian" Oil for Food Programme, $100 was allotted for each Iraqi to live on for a year. This figure had to pay for the entire society's infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water. "Imagine," the UN Assistant Secretary General, Hans Von Sponeck, told me, "setting that pittance against the lack of clean water, and the fact that the majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of getting from day to day, and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable." Disgusted, Von Sponeck resigned as UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq. His predecessor, Denis Halliday, an equally distinguished senior UN official, had also resigned. "I was instructed," Halliday said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults."
A study by the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, found that between 1991 and 1998, the height of the blockade, there were 500,000 "excess" deaths of Iraqi infants under the age of five. An American TV reporter put this to Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the United Nations, asking her, "Is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."
In 2007, the senior British official responsible for the sanctions, Carne Ross, known as "Mr. Iraq", told a parliamentary selection committee, "[The US and UK governments] effectively denied the entire population a means to live." When I interviewed Carne Ross three years later, he was consumed by regret and contrition. "I feel ashamed," he said. He is today a rare truth-teller of how governments deceive and how a compliant media plays a critical role in disseminating and maintaining the deception. "We would feed [journalists] factoids of sanitized intelligence," he said, "or we'd freeze them out." Last year, a not untypical headline in the Guardian read: "Faced with the horror of Isis we must act." The "we must act" is a ghost risen, a warning of the suppression of informed memory, facts, lessons learned and regrets or shame. The author of the article was Peter Hain, the former Foreign Office minister responsible for Iraq under Blair. In 1998, when Denis Halliday revealed the extent of the suffering in Iraq for which the Blair Government shared primary responsibility, Hain abused him on the BBC's Newsnight as an "apologist for Saddam". In 2003, Hain backed Blair's invasion of stricken Iraq on the basis of transparent lies. At a subsequent Labour Party conference, he dismissed the invasion as a "fringe issue".
Here was Hain demanding "air strikes, drones, military equipment and other support" for those "facing genocide" in Iraq and Syria. This will further "the imperative of a political solution". The day Hain's article appeared, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck happened to be in London and came to visit me. They were not shocked by the lethal hypocrisy of a politician, but lamented the enduring, almost inexplicable absence of intelligent diplomacy in negotiating a semblance of truce. Across the world, from Northern Ireland to Nepal, those regarding each other as terrorists and heretics have faced each other across a table. Why not now in Iraq and Syria? Instead, there is a vapid, almost sociopathic verboseness from Cameron, Hollande, Obama and their "coalition of the willing" as they prescribe more violence delivered from 30,000 feet on places where the blood of previous adventures never dried. They seem to relish their own violence and stupidity so much they want it to overthrow their one potentially valuable ally, the government in Syria.
This is nothing new, as the following leaked UK-US intelligence file illustrates:
"In order to facilitate the action of liberative [sic] forces... a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals [and] to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria. CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main [sic] incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals... a necessary degree of fear... frontier and [staged] border clashes [will] provide a pretext for intervention... the CIA and SIS should use... capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension."
That was written in 1957, although it could have been written yesterday. In the imperial world, nothing essentially changes. In 2013, the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed that "two years before the Arab spring", he was told in London that a war on Syria was planned. "I am going to tell you something," he said in an interview with the French TV channel LPC, "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria... Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate... This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned."
The only effective opponents of ISIS are accredited demons of the west - Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and now Russia. The obstacle is Turkey, an "ally" and a member of NATO, which has conspired with the CIA, MI6 and the Gulf medievalists to channel support to the Syrian "rebels", including those now calling themselves ISIS. Supporting Turkey in its long-held ambition for regional dominance by overthrowing the Assad government beckons a major conventional war and the horrific dismemberment of the most ethnically diverse state in the Middle East.
A truce - however difficult to negotiate and achieve - is the only way out of this maze; otherwise, the atrocities in Paris and Beirut will be repeated. Together with a truce, the leading perpetrators and overseers of violence in the Middle East - the Americans and Europeans - must themselves "de-radicalize" and demonstrate a good faith to alienated Muslim communities everywhere, including those at home. There should be an immediate cessation of all shipments of war materials to Israel and recognition of the State of Palestine. The issue of Palestine is the region's most festering open wound, and the oft-stated justification for the rise of Islamic extremism. Osama bin Laden made that clear. Palestine also offers hope. Give justice to the Palestinians and you begin to change the world around them.
More than 40 years ago, the Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia unleashed a torrent of suffering from which that country has never recovered. The same is true of the Blair-Bush crime in Iraq, and the NATO and "coalition" crimes in Libya and Syria. With impeccable timing, Henry Kissinger's latest self-serving tome has been released with its satirical title, "World Order". In one fawning review, Kissinger is described as a "key shaper of a world order that remained stable for a quarter of a century". Tell that to the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Chile, East Timor and all the other victims of his "statecraft". Only when "we" recognize the war criminals in our midst and stop denying ourselves the truth will the blood begin to dry.
John Pilger
UK military's secret plan to train Syrian rebels to topple Bashar al-Assad
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/uk-military-secret-plan-train-syrian-rebels-topple-bashar-al-assad
The British military drew up a secret plan two years ago to train a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel force aimed at toppling president Bashar al-Assad.
The plan was the brainchild of General Sir David Richards, then chief of staff. The military regularly draws up contingency plans for all kinds of scenarios, but this one was considered more seriously than most and widely circulated – including to Downing Street and senior US military staff. It was shelved as being too risky.
The Ministry of Defence declined to confirm or comment. But according to the BBC, Richards proposed an international coalition to vet and train an army of moderate Syrian rebels at bases in Turkey and Jordan for about a year.
It would then march on Damascus, with air cover from western forces and Gulf allies. The plan was drawn up at a time of strong support in the UK and US governments for intervention in the Syrian civil war by arming and training the rebels. Among prominent supporters in the US were then secretary of state Hillary Clinton, then defence secretary Leon Panetta and David Petraeus, who served as the head of the CIA as well as the head of US central command and the coalition forces in Afghanistan.
But Barack Obama, who had devoted much of his presidency to getting US troops out of Iraq, opposed the prospect of becoming caught up in another Middle East conflict – particularly arming rebels from hardline militant groups hostile to the US.
Any chance of British involvement was finally scuppered when MPs voted against action in August last year.
Lord Richards' proposal was aimed at ending a civil war estimated to have cost more than 100,000 lives.
Two years on, Obama – worried about increased instability in the region – has had a rethink as hardline militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is taking over swaths of Iraq and parts of Syria. He has asked Congress to approve $500m (£291m) in funding to train Syrian rebels.
Monzer Akbik, from opposition group the Syrian National Coalition, told the BBC: "A huge opportunity was missed and that opportunity could have saved tens of thousands of lives actually and could have saved also a huge humanitarian catastrophe.
"The international community did not intervene to prevent those crimes and at the same time it did not actively support the moderate elements on the ground."
Training a rebel Syrian army is the wrong way to end the bloodshed
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100278690/training-a-rebel-syrian-army-is-the-wrong-way-to-end-the-bloodshed/
Last updated: July 4th, 2014
Con Coughlin
The revelation that General David Richards, the former head of Britain's Armed Forces, drew up plans to train a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army shows just how desperate the British government was to become embroiled in Syria's brutal civil war.
During his three-year tenure as Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, as he has now become, was deeply sceptical of the Coalition's willingness to embark on ill-considered – and potentially catastrophic – military adventures in the Arab world.
In his capacity as a senior advisor to the National Security Council, which David Cameron personally chairs, Lord Richards was deeply sceptical of the Prime Minister's obsession with overthrowing the Libyan regime of Col Muammar Gaddafi. You only have to look at the disastrous state in which Libya today finds itself, with rival Islamist militias vying for control, to see whose judgement was more sound on this issue.
And it was a similar case with Syria, with Lord Richards, together with Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, consistently urging the Coalition to proceed with caution, rather than get itself involved in another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict.
At the time Lord Richards drew up plans to train a rebel army, David Cameron and his advisers were pressing hard for Britain to undertake some form of military intervention in Syria, whether it was the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from the Assad regime's murderous tactics, or providing arms to the rebels.
Indeed, the Coalition's bewildering obsession with involving Britain militarily in the Syrian conflict only ended with last summer's disastrous Commons vote, where the overwhelming majority of MPs voted against launching air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Throughout this turbulent period Lord Richards was against half-hearted military gestures, not least because he understood – as Mr Cameron did not – that taking such actions, however well-intentioned, ran the risk of escalation and of deeper British involvement. For example, if you set up a no-fly zone and it comes under attack from the Syrian regime, then you have to respond. Then, if you respond, the the Assad's regime's allies – notably Russia and Iran – will feel compelled to intervene themselves, and before you know it you have the seeds of World War Three being sown.
To counter the Coalition's gung-ho attitude, Lord Richards's contrary proposal was that, if Britain really did want to involve itself in the Syrian conflict, then the best solution was to train up a proper Syrian force that could the job on Britain's behalf. Apart from keeping British personnel out of the conflict, training a Syrian army might also give Britain some influence over the conflict's outcome.
The plan was ditched by the Coalition as being too ambitious, and not in keeping with Downing Street's desire to be seen grabbing all the headlines by leading from the front, rather than involving itself in the sort of clandestine operation the CIA thrives upon.
Personally, I am not convinced it should even have been considered in the first place. The last thing Syria and the rest of the Middle East needs at the moment is more guns and militiamen. To my mind that is simply a recipe for disaster.
Rather than pushing for military intervention, perhaps our ministers would have been better employed trying to put pressure on the warring parties to agree a ceasefire, and bring to an end the murderous cycle of violence that has so far killed in excess of 120,000 people.
Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence Editor and a world-renowned expert on global security and terrorism issues. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books. His new book, Churchill's First War: Young Winston and the fight against the Taliban, is published by Macmillan in London and Thomas Dunne Books in New York. He appears regularly on radio and television in Britain and America.
Syria conflict: UK planned to train and equip 100,000 rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28148943
3 July 2014
#SyriaVote: MPs to vote on whether to launch UK airstrikes against ISIS in Syria Live updates
https://www.rt.com/uk/324233-syrian-airstrikes-debate-updates/
MPs are holding a full-day, 10 1/2-hour debate on whether British should launch airstrikes against Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Syria. They will vote at 22:00 GMT. Anti-war protesters will stage a mass "die-in" outside the Houses of Parliament.
Less then one hour until the vote, 21:13 GMT here now.
Remember that IS/ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State/Daesh/Al Qaeda/Moderate Rebels/ etc.. is a Western creation, it is a proxy force designed to justify an action that is repugnant to a moral human.
British MPs have voted 397 to 223 in favor of launching airstrikes against ISIS in Syria - a 174 majority.
Yes we armed and trained them but the Ideology they follow is pure Islam, we did not teach them that!
That is the biggest problem, islamic ideology, but our dumb arse's in charge just can't get it through their heads. So consequently we are on the wrong side of things, can't wait to get rid of the muslim in the white house!
I owe you an apology Room3327.
I listened to a guy by the name of Larry Nichols and he pretty much confirmed what you have been saying. He even gave out on-the-air the coordinates to some of the key ISIS command and control sites in Syria, which were promptly destroyed, probably by Russia.
So we know these people mean us harm, but we also have to look behind the scenes and determine who is funding them.
We have our work cut out for us, then comes the mass of public hangings once we find those responsible.
No rest for the weary...
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.03, 02:19:43
I owe you an apology Room3327.
I listened to a guy by the name of Larry Nichols and he pretty much confirmed what you have been saying. He even gave out on-the-air the coordinates to some of the key ISIS command and control sites in Syria, which were promptly destroyed, probably by Russia.
So we know these people mean us harm, but we also have to look behind the scenes and determine who is funding them.
We have our work cut out for us, then comes the mass of public hangings once we find those responsible.
No rest for the weary...
Matt,
Apology accepted, I thank you for that, I have been beating my head against a wall for almost ten years trying to get people to wake up to the the threat we all face. I have been called most anything you can think of by people who don't know a thing about what they are talking about, but I'm the bad guy. Why is it everyone wants to shoot the messenger? I have no hate for muslims I merely look at the facts, I do however hate Islam for the POS it is and anyone who has actually looked into it would agree with me. May the Truth Live! Wake up people!
Room3327
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.03, 00:45:42
Yes we armed and trained them but the Ideology they follow is pure Islam, we did not teach them that!
I acknowledge your statement that the Western Establishment is behind the perpetual state of terrorist war tension, as correct.
I do not acknowledge your statement that the ideology 'they' follow is pure Islam, as correct.
I implore you to define the difference between Islam and Muslim in contrast to the statements you have made and the erroneous conclusions you reach:
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.03, 17:48:03
I have no hate for muslims I merely look at the facts, I do however hate Islam for the POS it is and anyone who has actually looked into it would agree with me.
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-muslim-and-islam/
What is the difference between Muslim and Islam?Thus, at the outset the word Islam means a religion whereas the word Muslim means a person who follows Islam. This is the linguistic difference between the usages of the two words. The word Islam is also at times used to denote a community of belief. Islamic thought means religious tenets that pertain to Islam.
The word Muslim is used to denote or distinguish a person that practices the religion of Islam. Look at the usage, 'Do you know the Muslim that lives in your neighborhood?' The usage 'Muslim religion' is wrong. The usage should be 'Islam religion' for that matter.
Takfiri extremists wage war on Islamhttp://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/18/346291/takfiri-extremists-wage-war-on-islam/
They say they are fighting for an "Islamic state." But their actions tell a different story.Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:59AMBy brutalizing civilians and committing war crimes, the Takfiri extremists in Syria are violating the very shariah they claim to be fighting for.
On Thursday, UN officials said the Takfiris are committing "a 'soaring' number of executions" that appear to be war crimes. The Associated Press reported: "U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says that over the past two weeks her office has received reports of a succession of mass executions of civilians and fighters who were no longer participating in hostilities in Aleppo, Idlib and Raqqa by hardline armed opposition groups in Syria, in particular by the al-Qaida linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
By claiming they are fighting for an "Islamic state" while committing horrendous war crimes, the Takfiris are waging a public relations jihad against Islam. No wonder the Zionists support them!
I recently debated Michael Parenti, a secularist critic of religion, on my radio show. When I mentioned that Islam is the most tolerant of the three Abrahamic monotheisms, citing historical examples of Muslims protecting religious diversity, Parenti responded: Yes, that may have been true in the past, but look at Muslims now! Look at what they're doing in Syria!
I tried to explain that the Takfiri extremists in Syria do not represent the world's Muslims. But since the Takfiris use and abuse the word "Islamic," and draw support from Saudi Arabia – the custodian of the Muslim holy cities – people like Michael Parenti use them as examples of the alleged extremism of Islam.
What kind of "Islam" advocates ripping out the heart of a dead enemy and eating it for the camera? What kind of "Islam" allows the procuring of women for illicit temporary relationships with soldiers? What kind of "Islam" condones mass executions of people because they are Christians or moderate Muslims?
Though war is a bloody and unpleasant business, Muslims commanders and soldiers have historically been known for their unusual degree of chivalry, mercy, and restraint. When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) conquered his absolute worst enemies – the Meccans who had so horribly persecuted him and his followers – he foreswore revenge and commanded mercy. The opening of Mecca was the nearest thing to a bloodless conquest in the history of warfare.
The example of the Prophet (PBUH) has inspired countless examples of Muslim chivalry, or "futuwwa," throughout history. Indeed, it was the "futuwwa" of the courteous, compassionate, self-abnegating Muslim warriors of Islamic Spain – whose kind, gentle, devoted treatment of women was then-unheard-of in Europe – who brought the notions of chivalry and courtly love to the West.
By contrast, it was the Muslims' most fanatical enemy, Hind, who ripped the liver out of the fallen Muslim warrior Hamza and ate it on the battlefield. The Takfiri cannibal who ate the Syrian soldier's heart was symbolically declaring to the world that he was an enemy of Islam – just like Hind. Most Muslims understand this. But non-Muslims around the world who witness such atrocities are likely to mistakenly attribute them to Islam, or "Islamic extremism."
The Takfiris are committing more and more atrocities, not only against Syrian government forces, Christians, and moderate Muslims, but also against each other. According to news reports, infighting between the al-Qaida affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other Takfiri and anti-government groups in Syria has killed hundreds of people over the past two weeks.
The Takfiris make a habit of executing people who do not share their fanatical misinterpretation of Islam. This practice is utterly un-Islamic. Throughout history, Muslims have been enjoined to protect people of other religions. One noteworthy example: When the great Christian Saint Francis – the current Pope's namesake – decided he wanted to become a martyr, he traveled into Islamic territory in order to preach Christianity and argue strongly against Islam. Francis expected the Muslims would kill him, just as the Christians would have killed a Muslim who entered Christian territory to argue strongly against Christianity. It was, after all, the year 1219, and the Fifth Crusade was raging.
But no matter how hard he argued against Islam, Francis could not provoke any Muslims to violence. Sultan al-Kamil, the nephew of Salah ad-Din (Saladin), welcomed Francis to his camp and spent long nights with him in religious discussions. Neither converted the other, but the outcome was mutual respect.
Sultan al-Kamil's uncle Salah ad-Din had similarly won the respect of Christians when he re-conquered al-Quds (Jerusalem) and followed the prophetic example of showing mercy to his enemies.
Today, the headlines are dominated by the likes of al-Qaeda, which claims to be defending Muslims, but actually seems to be an anti-Islam public relations campaign. Ordinary Muslims are caught between the self-styled "Islamic terrorists" and the only slightly less obnoxious, foundation-funded "professional moderate Muslims" who are willing to sell out their faith and keep their mouths shut about the 9/11-triggered War on Islam. It's a New World Order pincer operation, designed to weaken Islam and make the world safe for usury, Zionism, and crass materialism.
Fortunately, the world's Muslims are increasingly speaking out against the Takfiris in general, and the persecution of Christians in particular. A group called the Covenants Initiative is asking Muslims to sign a statement bearing witness to the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with the Christians of the World. The Covenants Project is on-line at www.CovenantsOfTheProphet.com.
Genuine Islam is a moderate "middle way," not a fanatical, intolerant, or violent faith. Its strongest defense against the Takfiris and their New World Order sponsors is the truth. As the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said, "The best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant."Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.03, 02:19:43
So we know these people mean us harm, but we also have to look behind the scenes and determine who is funding them.
We have our work cut out for us, then comes the mass of public hangings once we find those responsible.
No rest for the weary...
While a Superpower like Russia champions international law as a choice of reason before force, I will support them.
The moment such difference potential is perceived to cease to exist internationally, I will issue ESO: 04 and stand within the law.
My sacrifice will highlight the tyrannical oppression in the social suppression of self determination and sovereignty, and define me for eternity.
Work with me to avoid such potential outcomes, I implore you. The right to a fair trial based upon the unobscured evidence, is paramount to Everyman's future existence.
Here's one Room3327. She explains it in pretty simple terms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGE2eBUdlQ
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.03, 20:01:09
I acknowledge your statement that the Western Establishment is behind the perpetual state of terrorist war tension, as correct.
I do not acknowledge your statement that the ideology 'they' follow is pure Islam, as correct.
I implore you to define the difference between Islam and Muslim in contrast to the statements you have made and the erroneous conclusions you reach:
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-muslim-and-islam/
What is the difference between Muslim and Islam?
Thus, at the outset the word Islam means a religion whereas the word Muslim means a person who follows Islam. This is the linguistic difference between the usages of the two words. The word Islam is also at times used to denote a community of belief. Islamic thought means religious tenets that pertain to Islam.
The word Muslim is used to denote or distinguish a person that practices the religion of Islam. Look at the usage, 'Do you know the Muslim that lives in your neighborhood?' The usage 'Muslim religion' is wrong. The usage should be 'Islam religion' for that matter.
Takfiri extremists wage war on Islam
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/18/346291/takfiri-extremists-wage-war-on-islam/
They say they are fighting for an "Islamic state." But their actions tell a different story.
Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:59AM
By brutalizing civilians and committing war crimes, the Takfiri extremists in Syria are violating the very shariah they claim to be fighting for.
On Thursday, UN officials said the Takfiris are committing "a 'soaring' number of executions" that appear to be war crimes. The Associated Press reported: "U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says that over the past two weeks her office has received reports of a succession of mass executions of civilians and fighters who were no longer participating in hostilities in Aleppo, Idlib and Raqqa by hardline armed opposition groups in Syria, in particular by the al-Qaida linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
By claiming they are fighting for an "Islamic state" while committing horrendous war crimes, the Takfiris are waging a public relations jihad against Islam. No wonder the Zionists support them!
I recently debated Michael Parenti, a secularist critic of religion, on my radio show. When I mentioned that Islam is the most tolerant of the three Abrahamic monotheisms, citing historical examples of Muslims protecting religious diversity, Parenti responded: Yes, that may have been true in the past, but look at Muslims now! Look at what they're doing in Syria!
I tried to explain that the Takfiri extremists in Syria do not represent the world's Muslims. But since the Takfiris use and abuse the word "Islamic," and draw support from Saudi Arabia – the custodian of the Muslim holy cities – people like Michael Parenti use them as examples of the alleged extremism of Islam.
What kind of "Islam" advocates ripping out the heart of a dead enemy and eating it for the camera? What kind of "Islam" allows the procuring of women for illicit temporary relationships with soldiers? What kind of "Islam" condones mass executions of people because they are Christians or moderate Muslims?
Though war is a bloody and unpleasant business, Muslims commanders and soldiers have historically been known for their unusual degree of chivalry, mercy, and restraint. When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) conquered his absolute worst enemies – the Meccans who had so horribly persecuted him and his followers – he foreswore revenge and commanded mercy. The opening of Mecca was the nearest thing to a bloodless conquest in the history of warfare.
The example of the Prophet (PBUH) has inspired countless examples of Muslim chivalry, or "futuwwa," throughout history. Indeed, it was the "futuwwa" of the courteous, compassionate, self-abnegating Muslim warriors of Islamic Spain – whose kind, gentle, devoted treatment of women was then-unheard-of in Europe – who brought the notions of chivalry and courtly love to the West.
By contrast, it was the Muslims' most fanatical enemy, Hind, who ripped the liver out of the fallen Muslim warrior Hamza and ate it on the battlefield. The Takfiri cannibal who ate the Syrian soldier's heart was symbolically declaring to the world that he was an enemy of Islam – just like Hind. Most Muslims understand this. But non-Muslims around the world who witness such atrocities are likely to mistakenly attribute them to Islam, or "Islamic extremism."
The Takfiris are committing more and more atrocities, not only against Syrian government forces, Christians, and moderate Muslims, but also against each other. According to news reports, infighting between the al-Qaida affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other Takfiri and anti-government groups in Syria has killed hundreds of people over the past two weeks.
The Takfiris make a habit of executing people who do not share their fanatical misinterpretation of Islam. This practice is utterly un-Islamic. Throughout history, Muslims have been enjoined to protect people of other religions. One noteworthy example: When the great Christian Saint Francis – the current Pope's namesake – decided he wanted to become a martyr, he traveled into Islamic territory in order to preach Christianity and argue strongly against Islam. Francis expected the Muslims would kill him, just as the Christians would have killed a Muslim who entered Christian territory to argue strongly against Christianity. It was, after all, the year 1219, and the Fifth Crusade was raging.
But no matter how hard he argued against Islam, Francis could not provoke any Muslims to violence. Sultan al-Kamil, the nephew of Salah ad-Din (Saladin), welcomed Francis to his camp and spent long nights with him in religious discussions. Neither converted the other, but the outcome was mutual respect.
Sultan al-Kamil's uncle Salah ad-Din had similarly won the respect of Christians when he re-conquered al-Quds (Jerusalem) and followed the prophetic example of showing mercy to his enemies.
Today, the headlines are dominated by the likes of al-Qaeda, which claims to be defending Muslims, but actually seems to be an anti-Islam public relations campaign. Ordinary Muslims are caught between the self-styled "Islamic terrorists" and the only slightly less obnoxious, foundation-funded "professional moderate Muslims" who are willing to sell out their faith and keep their mouths shut about the 9/11-triggered War on Islam. It's a New World Order pincer operation, designed to weaken Islam and make the world safe for usury, Zionism, and crass materialism.
Fortunately, the world's Muslims are increasingly speaking out against the Takfiris in general, and the persecution of Christians in particular. A group called the Covenants Initiative is asking Muslims to sign a statement bearing witness to the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with the Christians of the World. The Covenants Project is on-line at www.CovenantsOfTheProphet.com.
Genuine Islam is a moderate "middle way," not a fanatical, intolerant, or violent faith. Its strongest defense against the Takfiris and their New World Order sponsors is the truth. As the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said, "The best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant."
While a Superpower like Russia champions international law as a choice of reason before force, I will support them.
The moment such difference potential is perceived to cease to exist internationally, I will issue ESO: 04 and stand within the law.
My sacrifice will highlight the tyrannical oppression in lack of self determination and sovereignty, and define me.
Work with me to avoid such potential outcomes, I implore you. The right to a fair trial based upon the unobscured evidence, is paramount to Everyman's future existence.
Man talk about obfuscation of the issue, you're obviously one of the people I was talking of that have a lot to say about something they know little about.
All these groups you are talking about are working from the
same play book, called the Koran try reading it once if you think it is an Abrahamic religion. It is not! Yes Mohammed plagerized the Jews and Christians some, but to call it an Abrahamic religion you know not what you are saying.
The mess your talking about above is a direct result of Islamic doctrine and Ideology but you would have to understand that to know. So instead of talking big why don't you try reading the ideology or are you too politically correct to bother. I am so tired of this same crap from people that know nothing about Islam but they are going to defend it come what may. I have heard all the rebuttals, I have been called many names, and I still stand my ground.
I am not wrong and someday those that don't know it now, will. All the intricacies of whats happening like you and Muppethead talk about are just symptoms of the real problem which is the koran and islamic ideology. All the rest is just bumpkin heads who have no idea of what their doing, most of our governments included in that, keeping up the political correctness and multi-culti BS because they have not taken the time to really find out and it sounds so good, anyone spouting it must be a good person yes re-elect me because I sound so good. Get a clue.
Room
Getting to the very core of the matter, where the rottenness
originates, is a very difficult task for the many. Overcoming
the propaganda induced mind-set is more unsettling than
the many are willing to endure. Taking refuge in wrong beliefs
is much more comfortable than opening one's eyes to "see"
the painful truths.
The Son of Man provided us with answers which are affirmed
by the Protocols of the Learned Elders. Taking an honest
look at how our World is managed today will clearly indicate
by whom we are being dis-informed. But only if we are willing
to endure the painful Truths.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.12.03, 20:58:37
Getting to the very core of the matter, where the rottenness
originates, is a very difficult task for the many. Overcoming
the propaganda induced mind-set is more unsettling than
the many are willing to endure. Taking refuge in wrong beliefs
is much more comfortable than opening one's eyes to "see"
the painful truths.
The Son of Man provided us with answers which are affirmed
by the Protocols of the Learned Elders. Taking an honest
look at how our World is managed today will clearly indicate
by whom we are being dis-informed. But only if we are willing
to endure the painful Truths.
Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell, but just to be sure you do know that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by a Russian Czar and some other guy because they were mad at the Jews,
It is propaganda and when you call me or others persons of the book I know you are a muslim because only muslims know Christians and Jews as people of the book which they are called a number of times in the koran. Christians and Jews do not know of themselves as people of the book or call others that. I have never heard a Christian use that terminology only muslims. I know you have tried to tell us your a christian but I don't see it in your words or what you post. In my opinion no Christian would post like you do, If you are agreeing with me well I don't know what to say to that maybe I have you wrong.
Room
It goes back a long way. (http://henrymakow.com/2015/12/Flashback-The-Plan-for-Jewish-World-Domination.html)
All "religions" have been corrupted in order to
facilitate the PLAN. The Synagogue of Satan
has amassed enormous financial power and
influence.
The Book or The Books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible).
The PLAN is exceedingly comprehensive and leaves
no stone unturned (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=125587).
The PLAN leaves nothing to "chance" as every
outcome is cleverly provided for years in advance. (http://www.zengardner.com/the-fall-of-america-signals-the-rise-of-the-new-world-order/)
If we prepare ourselves "mentally" for what is yet
to come we will have a better chance of working
through it. (http://www.zengardner.com/only-good-can-come-of-it-10-things-to-remember-in-times-of-trouble/)
Quote from: muDped on 2015.12.03, 22:33:53
It goes back a long way. (http://henrymakow.com/2015/12/Flashback-The-Plan-for-Jewish-World-Domination.html)
All "religions" have been corrupted in order to
facilitate the PLAN. The Synagogue of Satan
has amassed enormous financial power and
influence.
The Book or The Books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible).
The PLAN is exceedingly comprehensive and leaves
no stone unturned (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=125587).
I'll take that as a no, you are not in agreement with me, thank you for letting me know. :D
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.03, 23:16:53
I'll take that as a no, you are not in agreement with me, thank you for letting me know. :D
I have not yet come across anyone who is in agreement with you Room3327, execpt those that wish to obfuscate the truth, like this man:
Blair welcomes Syria airstrikes, says ISIS ideology stretches 'deep into Muslim society' https://www.rt.com/uk/324729-blair-syria-airstrikes-isis/
Published time: 4 Dec, 2015 11:15
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has praised the British government's decision to extend airstrikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) from Iraq into Syria, calling it an "important" decision to confront threats "within our home."
Speaking to an audience at the Library of Congress in Washington, Blair insisted that defeating the terror group on the ground is only the first step in tackling extremism, claiming the ideology itself must be eradicated.
On Wednesday evening British MPs voted overwhelmingly in favor of launching airstrikes against IS targets in Syria.
Mere hours after the vote, RAF Tornado jets carried out bombing raids on oilfields in the east of the country.
However, Blair cautioned that airstrikes are "only a necessary beginning."
"For Europe, there is a huge calculation to be made. This security threat is at our door. It is actually within our home," he said.
"We have a paramount interest in defeating it, which is why last night's vote in the British House of Commons was so important.
"Europe has to create, within its nation states, the armed force capability to allow us not just to play our part, but to lead."
Blair, who led the UK into the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said extremist ideology must be tackled in order to defeat IS. He claimed key aspects of IS ideology stretch "deep into parts of Muslim society."
"A belief in innate hostility between Islam and the West is not the preserve of the few.
"Of course a large majority of Muslims completely reject Daesh (IS)-like jihadism and the terrorism which comes with it.
"However, in many Muslim countries large numbers also believe that the CIA or Jews were behind 9/11. Clerics who proclaim that non-believers and apostates must be killed or call for jihad against Jews have Twitter followings running into millions ... The ideology has deep roots. We have to reach right the way down and uproot it."
He said IS and its allied groups must be defeated in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and parts of Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa.
"Defeating Daesh is only a necessary beginning. Force alone will not prevail. The challenge goes far wider and deeper than the atrocities of the jihadist fanatics. The Islamist ideology has also to be confronted.
"Today it can be, in alliance with the modernizing and sensible voices within Islam determined to take the name and reputation of the faith of Islam back from the extremists. A continued failure to recognize the scale of the challenge and to construct the means necessary to meet it, will result in terrorist attacks potentially worse than those in Paris, producing a backlash which then stigmatizes the majority of decent, law-abiding Muslims and puts the very alliance so necessary at risk, creating a further cycle of chaos and violence."
A piece of advice Matt, when you go handing out apologies to online anonymous personalities because you have simply heard someone else say the same thing, you damage your credibility. Room 3327 has no credibility on this forum, absolutely none. A thinking man requires opinions to be backed up with facts, sources and checkable references, Room offers none of this, and never has done, during his hysterical shrieking that it is all as simple as blaming Islam.
Now, factor in that "Islam" has been logistically placed by the West in the heart of our communities and we have a perfect recipe for open ended perpetual war and a state of terrorist tension. The only thing that can save us is overt acknowledgement that the rule of international law is to be enforced, the criminals who have broken it will be investigated and hunted down in order to stand fair trial on the known unobfuscated facts. If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, the oppressed will just decide "Fuck it" and then we have a real problem. Those that have seen war spend the rest of their lives trying to prevent it or reveal themselves to be the monsters that their previous actions suggested.
Holy smoke Batman! Erdogan has to go
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/324602-turkey-oil-batman-erdogan/
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been shooting from the lip over the past week since the fatal shooting down of a Russian fighter jet. He truculently denied accusations of supporting terrorism, challenging Russia to prove it. Well, holy smoke Batman!
Yes, Batman. Not the caped screen hero. Instead, we're talking about the city of the same name, located in Turkey's southeastern region. It is where Turkey's state-owned oil industry is centered.
Batman is also where the oil smuggling routes run by the Islamic State terror network are centered, according to surveillance images released this week by the Russian Defense Ministry.
Air reconnaissance photos show thousands of trucks running stolen oil from Syrian state-owned fields in the east of the country converging on the Turkish city of Batman, near the Syrian border.
The oil smuggling operation has been going for at least two years since the so-called Islamic State (IS) terror group took over the oilfields in eastern Syria near the city of Deir Ezzor. The illicit trade is reckoned to have been earning the jihadists up to $3 million a day to help fund their war against the Syrian government of President Assad.
But smuggled oil needs a buyer for the enterprise to work. Enter Turkey. This week, before the latest data release from the Russian Ministry of Defense, President Vladimir Putin repeated claims that Turkish authorities were involved in facilitating the terrorist oil trade. Putin told world leaders at the Paris climate change conference that this was a factor in why Turkish warplanes shot down a Russian fighter jet last week, with the loss of the pilot's life and that of another serviceman during a follow-up rescue mission.
Erdogan reacted angrily to the claim, dismissing it as "slander". Erdogan testily put the challenge to Russia to present its proof.
"The accusation that Turkey allegedly buys crude oil from Islamic State is unacceptable, and to say it is amoral," said Erdogan. "You can't just say things, you need to present evidence. If documents exist — let's see them. If this fact is proven, I will not stay in my position."
If Erdogan is a man of his word, which is doubtful, then he should start packing his bags. Right now.
The evidence presented by Russia's military high command shows beyond any doubt that Turkey is central to Islamic State's illegal oil trade and thus the terror group's ability to fund its violence.
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov didn't mince words about the revelation. He said: "According to our data, the top political leadership of the country – President Erdogan and his family – is involved in this criminal business."
What is particularly incriminating from the Russian data is that the east Syrian oil route operated by IS is destined for the Turkish city of Batman. Batman is the heart of the Turk oil industry. It is where the country's biggest oilfield is located and where major refineries are based.
From Batman there is a 500-kilometre pipeline running westwards to the Mediterranean port cities of Dortyol and Ceyhan, both located in the Gulf of Iskenderun. The pipeline, which has a capacity to supply up to 30 million barrels of crude oil a year, is owned and operated by Turkey's state-owned BOTAS Petroleum Corporation.
The port of Ceyhan is where the licensed shipping company BMZ owned by President Erdogan's son Bilal and other family members is based. BMZ is a big Turkish player in the global oil trade.
Significantly, Turkish newspaper Today's Zaman reported in September this year that Erdogan's BMZ spent $36 million in acquiring two new oil tankers to bring its total fleet to five. The ships are believed to ferry much of their crude oil cargos to Japan and other Asian countries. Business is booming and it's no wonder.
Putin had earlier responded to Erdogan's denials of collusion in terrorist oil smuggling by saying that "it is hard to imagine how the Turkish authorities could not be aware of the industrial-scale transport of oil across its border."
But now Russian aerial images have presented a complete picture of how this massive oil supply is being routed through Turkey with state-owned companies.
The personal complicity of Erdogan through his family shipping business makes his resignation unquestionable. Furthermore, the Turkish president should face prosecution for gross violations of international law amounting to war crimes.
Surely, the Americans must know about the industrial-scale oil smuggling routes? For more than a year, since the US began bombing raids on Syria, allegedly against the Islamic State terror network, the oil smuggling has been untouched.
This week, General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Congressional committee that it was only in the last two months that the Pentagon got serious with airstrikes on IS oil routes. He admitted that for more than a year, the Pentagon hadn't bothered because it wasn't communicating sufficiently with the State Department. Dunford and the US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who was also giving evidence to the same committee, both claimed that the decision not to strike oil trucks run by terrorists was to taken in order to "avoid civilian casualties."
That explanation does not stack up. The fact is, as Russia's Defense Ministry spokesman Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy said; the US has done little to nothing to halt the terror oil trade out of Syria. Russia, by contrast, has destroyed dozens of oil processing facilities and over 1,000 trucks since it began its military intervention less than two months ago – wholesale damage that has cut terror smuggling revenues by 50 percent, according to the Russian military.
Now that Russia has presented a damning picture of how Islamic State and other jihadist terror groups have been financing their terror campaign in Syria a ball of questions is in the US court.
Turkey is a member of the US-led NATO military alliance, the organization supposedly responsible for maintaining security and defense in Europe. Turkey must surely be kicked out of NATO for its role in sponsoring terrorism.
How can France, in particular, remain in the same military alliance with a country that is financing terror groups that were involved in a mass killing on the streets of Paris only three weeks ago?
But Washington and its allies have much more to answer for. Oil convoys heading north into Turkey is just one half of a giant racket, with the other half involving convoys of weapons and jihadists fighters heading south into Syria. US and British military intelligence are implicated in this terror transmission, according to American journalist Seymour Hersh.
The weapons supply from Turkey to terror groups in Syria, with the collusion of Turkish state intelligence, is coming to light with the arrest last week of Turkish journalists who have dared to uncover the state-sponsored oil-for-weapons racket.
Russia's latest evidence presents a stark choice. The world can now see who is fueling conflict and terrorism in Syria and beyond. Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism. And other NATO members are also implicated. If legal sanctions do not follow, then we will know, chillingly, that the world has descended into gangsterism and barbarism.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
Iran has documents on Turkey buying oil from ISIL
http://en.mehrnews.com/news/112542/Iran-has-documents-on-Turkey-buying-oil-from-ISIL?
Sat 5 December 2015 - 09:16
TEHRAN, Dec. 05 (MNA) – The Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei said Friday Iran holds documents that prove Ankara is buying oil from the terrorist group ISIL and is ready to present them.
Mohsen Rezaei said Friday that Iranian military advisers in Syria have filmed and photographed all routes used by ISIL operatives for smuggling oil from fields in eastern Syria to sell it to Turkey as their main client.
"Countries gripped by the scourge of terrorism must remain calm and reduce tension among themselves and use their might and capacities for rooting out ISIL," he said.
To a question as why Turkish officials deny every claim that they are actual clients of oil sold by ISIL, Rezaei said "in case the Turkish government is unaware that Ankara is buying oil from ISIL, we are prepared to show them all the evidence they need."
Following the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish military on Nov. 24, reports have emerged which claim to have documents on the involvement of Turkey in buying oil from ISIL. The Russian President has accused Turkey of shooting down its fighter jet to protect energy supplies from the terrorist militants. Turkish President Recep Teyyip Erdogan said he will resign if this is confirmed.
Turkey has also been facing criticism for facilitating militants' border crossings to join ISIL in Syria, as well as for providing assistance to Takfiri terrorists waging war in the Arab country.
Did Turkey Just Invade Iraq To Protect Erdogan's ISIS Oil Smuggling Routes?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/did-turkey-just-invade-iraq-protect-erdogans-isis-oil-smuggling-routes
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/05/2015 08:53 -0500
On Friday, Turkey sent troops into Iraq.
Contrary to what you might have read, there's really nothing unusual about that.
As you may recall, Turkey's military entered Iraq back in September in hot pursuit of PKK "terrorists" Ankara claimed had fled over the border. And that was just par for the proverbial course. Here's what we said at the time:
In early 2008, Turkish soldiers entered Iraq in a similar effort to eradicate the PKK. "Operation Sun", as the incursion was called, was conducted with Washington's blessing for the most part. "Washington described the PKK as a 'common enemy', and only urged Ankara to keep its incursion short and closely focused," BBC noted at the time, adding that "the positions of the UN and EU have been similar, suggesting a degree of sympathy with Turkey's cause."
And then there was "Operation Steel" in 1995. And "Operation Hammer" in 1997." And "Operation Dawn." And the aplty named "Operation Northern Iraq."
You get the idea.
So while history doesn't repeat itself, it damn sure rhymes and here we are again watching as the Turkish military crosses the Iraqi border as though it's not even there chasing "terrorists" up into the mountains.
What's different this time around, is that this isn't a Kurd-chasing mission.
In fact, if you believe the official line, it's the exact opposite. Turkey has apparently had some 90 troops on the ground in Bashiqa "for two years" on a mission to "train" the Peshmerga. The new troops - around 150 personnel supported by two dozen tanks- will "take over the mission," according to Hurriyet. "Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced," the daily continues, adding that "the deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4."
Ok, so what's important to remember here is that although Erdogan is no "fan-o'-Kurds", Ankara is friendly with the KRG and indeed, Barzani's 632,000 b/d oil operation (which, you're reminded, runs independent of SOMO, much to Baghdad's chagrin) depends heavily on a pipeline that runs from Iraq to Ceyhan. Over the summer, the PKK attacked the pipeline costing the KRG some $250 million in lost revenue. As Rudaw noted at the time, that amounts to an entire month's worth of salaries for the Peshmerga and other security forces, underscoring the extent to which oil sales via Turkey are crucial to the government in Erbil.
You might also remember from "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection," that there seems to be some commingling going on when it comes to Turkish and ISIS crude. Technically, both are "illegal" and because the 45,000 or so barrels per day that ISIS pumps are so inconsequential in the large scheme of things, it's easy for Islamic State crude to get "lost" in the shuffle once it gets to Turkey which works out great for those involved in the smuggling operation (as an aside, Russia has identified what Moscow says are other ISIS oil smuggling routes but we'll focus on northern Iraq for now).
You might notice that there's a certian irony to this whole thing as it relates to the KRG. What the Al-Araby al-Jadeed report (cited in the article linked above) suggests is that the Kurds in Iraq are to some extent complicit in the entire operation which is amusing because it's the sale of undocumented Kurdish crude that allegedly funds the Peshmerga's fight against Islamic State. As with every other dynamic in the region, the entire thing is impossibly convoluted.
With that in mind, consider where these Turkish troops (who, again, are supposed to be "training" the Peshmerga) are located.
So they're right next to Mosul and right between the Kurds and ISIS and, most importantly of all, right on what Al-Araby al-Jadeed claims is the smuggling route for illegal ISIS crude into Turkey from Iraq.
The star on the map is Zakho. Araby al-Jadeed, citing an unnamed Kurdish security officials, employees at the Ibrahim Khalil border crossing between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, and an official at one of three oil companies that deal in IS-smuggled oil, says that once Islamic State oil "is extracted and loaded, the oil tankers leave Nineveh province and head north to the city of Zakho, 88km north of Mosul [and] after IS oil lorries arrive in Zakho - normally 70 to 100 of them at a time - they are met by oil smuggling mafias, a mix of Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, in addition to some Turks and Iranians."
Araby al-Jadeed's story takes a turn for the fantastic after that, but the point is that it seems extraordinarily convenient that just as Russia is making an all-out effort to expose Turkey's role in financing Islamic State's lucrative oil operation and also to destroy ISIS oil convoys in Syria, that Ankara would dispatch troops and two dozen tanks to the exact place in Iraq where some reports suggest the heart of ISIS' Iraqi oil operation lies.
For his part, Iraqi PM Haider al-Abadi has called for Turkey to "immediately" withdraw its troops. He also calls Ankara's incursion a "violation of sovereignty." Here's the full statement.
It has been confirmed to us that Turkish troops numbering around one regiment armoured with tanks and artillery entered the Iraqi territory, and specifically the province of Nineveh claim that they are training Iraqi groups without the request or authorization from the Iraqi federal authorities and this is considered a serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty and does not conform with the good neighbourly relations between Iraq and Turkey.
The Iraqi authorities call on Turkey to respect good neighbourly relations and to withdraw immediately from the Iraqi territory.
That would seem to indicate that Baghdad has never approved the "training mission" that Ankara claims has been going on east of Mosul for two years.
Furthermore, this underscores the fact that Iraq does not want help from NATO when it comes to fighting ISIS. As we reported last week, Iraqis generally believe the US is in bed with Islamic State and you can bet that Russia and Iran will be keen on advising Baghdad to be exceptionally assertive when it comes to expelling a highly suspicious Turkish presence near Najma.
Ultimately, this is yet another escalation from Erdogan and the timing, location, and vague explanation raise all sorts of questions about what exactly those 150 troops and 25 tanks are doing but you can be sure that if Baghdad rebukes Washington and green lights Russian recon and airstrikes in Iraq, we'll find out soon enough.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.05, 16:09:24
Now that Russia has presented a damning picture of how Islamic State and other jihadist terror groups have been financing their terror campaign in Syria a ball of questions is in the US court.
Turkey is a member of the US-led NATO military alliance, the organization supposedly responsible for maintaining security and defense in Europe. Turkey must surely be kicked out of NATO for its role in sponsoring terrorism.
How can France, in particular, remain in the same military alliance with a country that is financing terror groups that were involved in a mass killing on the streets of Paris only three weeks ago?
But Washington and its allies have much more to answer for. Oil convoys heading north into Turkey is just one half of a giant racket, with the other half involving convoys of weapons and jihadists fighters heading south into Syria. US and British military intelligence are implicated in this terror transmission, according to American journalist Seymour Hersh.
The weapons supply from Turkey to terror groups in Syria, with the collusion of Turkish state intelligence, is coming to light with the arrest last week of Turkish journalists who have dared to uncover the state-sponsored oil-for-weapons racket.
Russia's latest evidence presents a stark choice. The world can now see who is fueling conflict and terrorism in Syria and beyond. Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism. And other NATO members are also implicated. If legal sanctions do not follow, then we will know, chillingly, that the world has descended into gangsterism and barbarism.
NATO and the West are raising on a busted flush.
The Turks are going to be thrown under the bus to cover NATO complicity in the creation and sustained support of ISIS (Al Qaeda) to covertly achieve geopolitical goals.
The invasion of Iraq with Turkish tanks and troops NE of Mosul is an act of war. 2016 will be the year of the third major battle of the only World War.
Military chiefs warned Cameron against using 70,000 'moderate' rebels figure
https://www.rt.com/uk/324733-cameron-syria-moderate-rebels/
Published time: 4 Dec, 2015 11:48
Ministry of Defence (MoD) bosses warned Prime Minister David Cameron against claiming there are 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels ready to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), fearing the assertion would echo Tony Blair's Iraq "dodgy dossier."
The revelation comes after the House of Commons voted to extend airstrikes from Iraq into Syria, with the first bombs falling hours later.
According to the Times newspaper, military figures also feared Cameron's claim of such a rebel force may lead MPs to wrongly believe there was a ready-made army on the ground in Syria, therefore influencing the vote.
This led to concerns in the upper echelons of the military establishment that such a claim would later become the Syria war's "dodgy dossier," echoing Tony Blair's now debunked 2003 claims that Saddam Hussein's regime could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.
"There were Ministry of Defence officials who maybe felt scarred after the previous dossier," a senior Whitehall source told the Times.
"They looked at the latest text and said that [the 70,000 figure] could become the '45 minutes' moment of this document.
"The concern was ... [that the 70,000 figure] will become the one thing that everyone latches on to, like the 45 minutes claim."
Some of the most vocal critics of Cameron's claim were among his own party.
During the ten-hour debate on Wednesday, Julian Lewis, Tory chairman of the influential Defence Select Committee, told MPs: "Instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have bogus battalions of moderate fighters."
Speaking to Sky News on Thursday, Lewis said: "Where are these magical 70,000 people and if they are there fighting, how come they haven't been able to roll back ISIL/Daesh?"
"Is it that they're in the wrong place? Is it that they're fighting each other? Or is it that in reality they're not all that moderate and that there are a lot of jihadists among them?" he asked.
Cameron 'deceitful' in Syria Statement – Peter Ford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1BbvbMOp4
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323561-david-cameron-isis-strategy/
RT: David Cameron says a campaign would not repeat the fate of the air strikes in Libya back in 2011 which brought the country to ruins. Are you buying that?
PF: No way. Who is he to say? He talks about sending 70,000 opposition forces. By the way, at least 90 percent of those are jihadis - a slightly different persuasion from IS, but they are Islamist fundamentalists radicals supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar. These are the people that he wants to put in place of Assad. These are the so-called moderates. We saw these moderates three nights ago on television when they downed the Russian plane, shot the pilot descending in his parachute and then pulling the corpse like hyenas. These are the moderates in the book of Mr. Cameron. That is no replacement for the responsible Syrian government that we need to see.
Why the US, France and Britain are destroying Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/324853-us-france-britain-syria/
Published time: 5 Dec, 2015 13:24
Since Russia stepped up to the plate, suddenly western countries can't wait to bomb ISIS. Are they now there to get the job done? Or are they there to stop Russia increasing its influence, and to make sure it doesn't succeed where they failed?
The world is falling over itself to bomb Syria.
The following statement from Reuters summarizes the situation: "Most of the world's powers are now flying combat missions over Iraq and Syria against Islamic State. But any consensus on how to proceed has been thwarted by opposing policies over the 4-year-old civil war in Syria, which has killed 250,000 people, driven 11 million from their homes, left swathes of territory in the hands of jihadist fighters and defied all diplomatic efforts at a solution."
While it may seem to the outside observer that this catalogue of mayhem is the result of incompetence, to me – on the contrary – it is evidence of things going to plan.
I have never, thus far, seen a war the ruling elite clearly wanted to happen not happen.
Here, as in all other cases, there has been a bit of hand-wringing, some crying, some protests, some moving speeches. But like the morality plays of medieval times, after enjoying the sermon dressed as entertainment, life has inevitably carried on as normal with the barons raping and pillaging and everyone else having to put up with that reality.
Destruction of Syria is the plan
This time the plan – at least judging from the outcomes – is to destroy Syria.
Syria has been anathema to the self-appointed arbiters of righteousness: the 'international community', that coterie of hypocrites which arrogates to itself the monopoly on meting out death to those who won't get with the program.
This group dislikes Syria which has had an uncompromising stance towards Israel and an independent financial system, and is using the chance to destroy it to flood Europe with refugees, thus further debasing the makeup of its constituent nations, and simultaneously justifying a lockdown in those countries.
Enter Putin
Everything was going swimmingly until Putin stepped in.
While many in the West who have grown jaundiced at the obvious usurpation of our governments by outside interests ascribe almost saint-like motivations to Putin, I do not. He is a superb strategist. Exactly what he is strategizing for is not clear yet.
What is clear is that his move into Syria threw a spanner in the works of a status quo the US was quite happy with: growing terrorism and mayhem in Syria and spreading nicely to Europe.
Assad himself said a few days ago to the BBC (courtesy of Czech Television) that ISIS was growing smaller after Russian bombing intervention whereas moves by other countries served only to strengthen ISIS and increase their recruitment.
He added: "The facts are telling."
So what do the facts tell?
They tell us that Russia is the only country involved to date which has the removal of ISIS as an actual goal.
Russia is also the only country with a legitimate mandate under international law.
In addition, ISIS was most eloquently outed by author and journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin on Russia Today as a US creation.
In this scenario, the reason for further western efforts in the region is looking increasingly like an attempt to prevent Russia from routing its assets or achieving the informational coup that would follow.
France and Britain milking the crises
The propaganda war is hotting up, with western press issuing unsubstantiated and emotional surmise as news.
Meanwhile, the French and the British are now, of course, bombing Syria.
At home, the French government not only voted to bomb but enacted 'emergency' powers at the same time. And Holland wants to change the constitution to extend these powers.
The Telegraph states: "The draft "Protection of the Nation" bill [...] would extend the right to strip French citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism offences by also including people born in France.
It would also prolong certain powers after a state of emergency was lifted.
No time limit will be inscribed in the constitution under the new proposals. As is currently the case, parliament will decide how long a given state of emergency should last."
This all looks so like a dictator's wet dream, it takes an effort of will to believe it has not been planned this way.
And a man no less respected than Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, formerly Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has raised legitimate questions about the official line on the Paris attacks.
He says: "European peoples want to be French, German, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, Czech, British. They do not want their countries to be a diverse Tower of Babel created by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.
To remain a nationality unto themselves is what Pegida, Farage, and Le Pen offer the voters.
Realizing its vulnerability, it is entirely possible that the French Establishment made a decision to protect its hold on power with a false flag attack that would allow the Establishment to close France's borders and, thereby, deprive Marine Le Pen of her main political issue."
The same event, of course, justifies France's bombing of Syria.
The British government for its part – despite some theatrical hand-wringing – has got on the bandwagon and opted to join in whatever further criminality the US has planned in Syria.
As though to justify the decision, the Telegraph breathlessly informs us that ISIS (or ISIL as it calls it) is planning to attack the UK "next".
It says: "There are unconfirmed reports that Isil has decided that the next target of an attack will be Britain. European security agencies, citing specific intelligence that had been obtained, stated that British Isil operatives in Syria and Iraq were being tasked to return home to launch an attack, CNN reported."
This is the level of the propaganda now: CNN reports security agencies who say that a terrorist group whose name changes every five minutes might be sending members to Britain to do harm.
But this is unconfirmed.
The real reason for this war
I'm going to simplify things: the Plan for a New American Century – a document which was created by neoconservative warmongers in or close to power under George Bush Jr. – listed countries which it wanted the US to attack, namely: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.
The journal-neo.org site states: "[all were] pinpointed as enemies of the U.S. well before the illegal war in Iraq in 2003, as well as the illegal 2011 war in Libya and the ongoing proxy war in Syria."
Retired US General Wesley Clarke went on record in 2007 stating that the fix was in: the U.S. had unilaterally decided to destroy Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
This is not some wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Clarke was a four-star general, and the man who commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.
The pretense of choice
Any objective assessment of who benefits from attacks upon the countries Clarke mentioned would not include any European country – or even the U.S. for that matter.
But the subtext is clear: if Europeans don't want to take part, terrorist attacks will be allowed or contrived until they acquiesce.
In short: the ruling elite wants this war. Our pretend governments voted it through on the nod. And we the people will have to deal with the fallout and put up with random terrorist acts if we wake up and speak out about how this charade is rigged.
At the same time, the people of Syria are subject to bombing raids by the US, France and the UK – none of which have any invitation from the legitimate government of that country – actions which, properly speaking, are acts of war against the country the perpetrators claim to want to help.
My prediction: the clean-up operation Russia initiated and Assad approves of will be made to fail; terrorism will increase and spread into Europe; and mass immigration from Syria and that area to Europe will continue; and acts of terrorism on European soil will magically justify endless war, internal lock-down, wholesale surveillance, detention without trial, and troops on the street.
And this – in the absence of hard evidence based in action to the contrary – I can only see as the actual plan.
Do you remember voting for that?
No, nor do I.
Sam Gerrans is an English writer, translator, support counselor and activist. He also has professional backgrounds in media, strategic communications and technology. He is driven by commitment to ultimate meaning, and focused on authentic approaches to revelation and realpolitik. He is the founder of Quranite.com – where the Qur'an is explored on the basis of reason rather than tradition – and offers both individual language training and personal support and counseling online at SkypeTalking.com.
What is presently unfolding in Syria is the
continuation of an ages old struggle, according
to Kerth Barker who is a survivor from "within."
The Saker offers analysis of NATO's recent actions (http://thesaker.is/week-nine-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-the-empire-strikes-back/)
regarding Turkey/Russia/Syria and how the PLAN
for confrontation/war with Russia is advancing.
Comments following the analysis are particularly
illuminating.
It is becoming quite clear now how Damascus is
part of the equation and how its near future destruction
might be accomplished. The West is getting desperately
frantic as it continually rattles its sabers.
Funny ol' Kerth Barker left out Freemasons and Zionists.
And by 2030 the nuclear radiation being expelled from Fukushima
will leave this planet as a dead rock. They can amass all the power
and gold they want, it won't do them any good. The Samson
Option has been played; all the rest is just Hollywood.
As been said, I'll see you all on the other side...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.05, 16:07:05
I have not yet come across anyone who is in agreement with you Room3327, execpt those that wish to obfuscate the truth, like this man:
Blair welcomes Syria airstrikes, says ISIS ideology stretches 'deep into Muslim society'
https://www.rt.com/uk/324729-blair-syria-airstrikes-isis/
Published time: 4 Dec, 2015 11:15
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has praised the British government's decision to extend airstrikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) from Iraq into Syria, calling it an "important" decision to confront threats "within our home."
Speaking to an audience at the Library of Congress in Washington, Blair insisted that defeating the terror group on the ground is only the first step in tackling extremism, claiming the ideology itself must be eradicated.
On Wednesday evening British MPs voted overwhelmingly in favor of launching airstrikes against IS targets in Syria.
Mere hours after the vote, RAF Tornado jets carried out bombing raids on oilfields in the east of the country.
However, Blair cautioned that airstrikes are "only a necessary beginning."
"For Europe, there is a huge calculation to be made. This security threat is at our door. It is actually within our home," he said.
"We have a paramount interest in defeating it, which is why last night's vote in the British House of Commons was so important.
"Europe has to create, within its nation states, the armed force capability to allow us not just to play our part, but to lead."
Blair, who led the UK into the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said extremist ideology must be tackled in order to defeat IS. He claimed key aspects of IS ideology stretch "deep into parts of Muslim society."
"A belief in innate hostility between Islam and the West is not the preserve of the few.
"Of course a large majority of Muslims completely reject Daesh (IS)-like jihadism and the terrorism which comes with it.
"However, in many Muslim countries large numbers also believe that the CIA or Jews were behind 9/11. Clerics who proclaim that non-believers and apostates must be killed or call for jihad against Jews have Twitter followings running into millions ... The ideology has deep roots. We have to reach right the way down and uproot it."
He said IS and its allied groups must be defeated in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and parts of Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa.
"Defeating Daesh is only a necessary beginning. Force alone will not prevail. The challenge goes far wider and deeper than the atrocities of the jihadist fanatics. The Islamist ideology has also to be confronted.
"Today it can be, in alliance with the modernizing and sensible voices within Islam determined to take the name and reputation of the faith of Islam back from the extremists. A continued failure to recognize the scale of the challenge and to construct the means necessary to meet it, will result in terrorist attacks potentially worse than those in Paris, producing a backlash which then stigmatizes the majority of decent, law-abiding Muslims and puts the very alliance so necessary at risk, creating a further cycle of chaos and violence."
A piece of advice Matt, when you go handing out apologies to online anonymous personalities because you have simply heard someone else say the same thing, you damage your credibility. Room 3327 has no credibility on this forum, absolutely none. A thinking man requires opinions to be backed up with facts, sources and checkable references, Room offers none of this, and never has done, during his hysterical shrieking that it is all as simple as blaming Islam.
Now, factor in that "Islam" has been logistically placed by the West in the heart of our communities and we have a perfect recipe for open ended perpetual war and a state of terrorist tension. The only thing that can save us is overt acknowledgement that the rule of international law is to be enforced, the criminals who have broken it will be investigated and hunted down in order to stand fair trial on the known unobfuscated facts. If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, the oppressed will just decide "Fuck it" and then we have a real problem. Those that have seen war spend the rest of their lives trying to prevent it or reveal themselves to be the monsters that their previous actions suggested.
EA,
I have heard it all, doesn't bother me anymore call me what you like and I have probably never had any credibility on this forum any way so doesn't much matter, I'd like to see you blow me some more bubbles in the bathtub.
Anyway for anyone who cares about our future, here is a video that very nicely sums me up, this man is my mental doppleganger, if you want to know me and where I am at please watch this to the end. And if it offends anyone too bad the truth hurts sometimes get over it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsDu8Os3PlA
Room3327
By the way EA you say nobody agrees with me except one man, and that one man you quote turns out to be non other then Tony Blair, well if you don't believe me, you just might consider believing him?
Room3327,
The Glazov video is interesting and quite
revealing. It reinforces the notion that
Radical Islam is strikingly similar to
Radical Judah-ism. While they seem to
present themselves as being polar opposites,
their methods and goals are nearly identical.
Radical Islam is, in fact, a creation of Radical
Judah-ism, otherwise known as Zionism. As
we proceed into the Apocalypse, where all
secrets will be revealed and all darkness will
be exposed to the light, this "joined-at-the-hip"
relationship will become obvious.
Henry Makow - The Culling of the Goyim (http://henrymakow.com/2015/12/the-culling-of-the-goyim.html)
John Kaminski - The Chicken Bone in America's Throat (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=125739)
Why the U.S., France and Britain are Destroying Syria (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=125751)
The Syrian Holocaust - A Preplanned Genocide and Forced Exodus (http://www.zengardner.com/the-syrian-holocaust-a-preplanned-genocide-and-forced-exodus/)
Jamie's core message is a good one--we must stand with those that stand alone under persecution. The problem is, each one of our lives is like a bullet--we get to fire it once and only once, so it must hit the target, the best target.
This seems like a likely scenario. I quoted just the last point to see all go to the article.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=125696
Small Quote from article. Which outlines an eye witness report of three shooters tall athletic and White.
Quote3. What About Those Three Tall Athletic White Guys the Witness Saw Shooting People? (H/T dougross) – CBS News did an interview with a witness, Sally Abdelmageed, via the phone right after the attack. What she described was:
"three men, dressed in all black, military attire with vests on holding assault rifles and one of them opened up the door to building three... and he... opens up the door to building three and ... he... starts to spray, shoot all over into the room... I couldn't see a face, he had a black hat on (mask) and uh, from my view all I could see was a black hat (mask) and long sleeve shirt... black cargo pants with zippers on the sides, big puffy pockets, he had a huge assault rifle and extra ammo... I just saw three dressed exactly the same.... their skin tone looked white. They looked like they were athletic build. They appeared to be tall" Sally Abdelmageed
If you go to the CBS "News" website to view the interview, you may be out of luck. The video doesn't appear to be working anymore. What a shock.
However, I found it on Youtube. You might want to download a copy of it since it seems destined for the memory hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwTYja7GXcY (video not available in Australia on you tube)
Some might try to claim the "fog of war" effected Sally's memory of the events. But she seems very specific in her description of the events and her story matches the official version in many ways.
We know a third individual was arrested after "fleeing" the scene. And we also know initial reports told us it was three assailants who attacked the center.
Her description of the "very large rifle" also fits the narrative.
The official story says the assailants wore black tactical gear and masks, what she describes as "hats" that kept her from seeing their faces.
However, aside from the fact that we are told it was two shooters and not three, what also doesn't fit is this:
A psy-ops theory might go like this - The suspects were watched for some time, and some time after the suspect (now dead) guy left the party, three men did the deed, two well paid and well trained operatives and one back up lackey (just in case he is needed) the two trained guys probably did all the shooting and then left the lackey behind when they left the scene. The lackey then takes off on his own to a safe house and is kept in the dark about the operation (possibly hypnotized). Then the deed is blamed on the suspects (now dead), they find out from whatever means (news) so they try to flee and get killed. Would be easy enough to pull off. in my opinion. If anything goes wrong the lackey gets the blame as a homegrown shooter. Remember all were wearing masks so a positive id of the shooters at the scene is almost impossible without some footage of them or something.
Where is the security footage ?
There is a similar strangeness to this event as was with Sandy Hook and the Colorado theater shooting ect..
Lots of people in the U.S. have the very same type of "military style AR15's", I seen one on the Gator Boys TV show just yesterday. A guy was making to shoot an aligator with an AR15 with double vertical grips and accessories. He was hyped up and ready to shred the alligator with his legal AR15. That is what they are for, self protection, in that mode it is a
tool and not a weapon. Just like a pencil can be just a pencil or it can be used to stab someone in the eye, then it is a weapon. Very simple. I do understand that the generic design of the AR15 is for a weapon of war, but with no full auto they are already restricted and more of a tool like a self loading center fire hunting rifle.
........
If I were hunting pigs in Australia and shooting them I would rather have a semi auto (self loading) SKK - AK or an AR15 than a bolt action .303 or .222 . In order of preference. Pigs charge you if you get too close and piss them off.
I don't like the front vertical hand grip though, maybe if it were horizontal, but still just more to get in the way and snag on stuff.
..
Terrorism: Sayed Ali Khamenei's Letter to the Youth of the West (http://thesaker.is/terrorism-sayed-ali-khameneis-letter-to-the-youth-in-western-countries/)
Why The West has chosen to utilize terrorism
to further its ends is difficult for people of good
will to comprehend. Those who live by the sword
are destined to die by the sword...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.05, 16:07:05
I have not yet come across anyone who is in agreement with you Room3327, execpt those that wish to obfuscate the truth, like this man:
That is what I said.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.06, 21:12:19
By the way EA you say nobody agrees with me except one man, and that one man you quote turns out to be non other then Tony Blair, well if you don't believe me, you just might consider believing him?
That is what I did not say.
We all must die of something !
But those who do not live by the sword are being slaughtered by the millions now,
including the Iraq and Afgan Wars the number of "innocent un armed civilians"
have been killed in horrendous ways, by bombs (people are suffering shell shock afterwards
if not killed, and PTS), by helicopter 20 and 30 mm cannon fire (which basically explodes people),
and by all other so called "uncivilized ways" all do the same thing !
Cause severe shock to the living and some die long, slow and painful deaths.
The relatives of these people usually number more than is killed so they all want
revenge which is normal and should be expected. All part of the Plan. I guess.
I think a great many people are becoming aware of the real causes behind the problems,
maybe some are just beginning to get it and it is confusing, but I think in general people smell a rat,
and it is in the house, unfortunately, I still see a bad ending to all this, for everyone.
.
Britain wants its guns back
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back
by The Commentator on 29 May 2013 00:45
A Daily Telegraph online poll has revealed that over 80 percent of Brits would rather a repeal on the hand gun ban over various other "new law" choices
Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.
Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.
The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.
But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.
While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.
But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, "where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."
British versus American statistics perhaps displays nothing more than one country investing more in the government response to criminality, while the other maintains a citizen-based response.
Two other options were presented in the Telegraph poll, which were the closing of the child maintenance loophole and a banning of spitting in public.
So how far do you think things will really go...?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/06/russia-ready-for-nuclear-war-with-invisible-doomsday-plane-in-the-next-2-weeks/
Who knows. But, there can't be too many good outcomes compared to bad outcomes, is my logic.
Let's just hope that sanity prevails.
Yeah can't agree with you Room. I've known plenty of Muslims that are wonderful people. When I was in PK I had several conversations with locals who said that quote "Good Muslims are good Christians" referring to the similarities in the two. Jesus etc. The inquisition was a bit shit for a lot of ppl but you cant blame the religion. Its always the people. Now if only the west would stop funding them...
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.12.07, 08:47:56
Yeah can't agree with you Room. I've known plenty of Muslims that are wonderful people. When I was in PK I had several conversations with locals who said that quote "Good Muslims are good Christians" referring to the similarities in the two. Jesus etc. The inquisition was a bit shit for a lot of ppl but you cant blame the religion. Its always the people. Now if only the west would stop funding them...
Yeah I can't agree with you JB you, obviously to those that have studied islam, do not know much of anything about islam. Those same wonderful people you know, will not hesitate to cut your throat when islam says it is time. In islam if you do not do as instructed you are considered an apostate and you are killed. Their Jesus or Isa as they know him is a completely different person and story, according to islam Jesus did not die on the cross but some other person was killed in his place, he never rose from the dead and according to them when he comes back he will KILL all the Christians and Jews that refuse to become muslim. There is so much more everyone should know about islam that I think I had better start posting koran details because most of you have no idea of whats taught to muslims. I have implored the people here to do their own studying of islam but most have the same attitude as you and again I have heard it all and I stand my ground. There is almost no similarity between Christianity and islam. Do they teach Christians to murder people of all other faiths, is the murder condoned and blessed by our Christian God, Have Christians been tasked with the job of killing anyone who won't convert to Christianity to make the whole world Christian, there is so much you don't know about islam I don't understand how you can disagree with me you don't have enough knowledge to do so. I hope you also know that muslims are taught to smile at you while hating you in their heart, their taught to lie to you and taught what to say to you to lessen your Kufar fears, an extremly derogatory term for the rest of us on the planet. I will have to start posting the truth as long as you people think I can't back up everything I say, I was hoping you would all find the truth on your own but after 10 years of banging on it I can see it's not going to happen. Yes you can blame religion's for any atrocities that people commit in the name of their religion and we the people of the US are not funding them because we want to, it is our muslim POTUS that is doing all this, I didn't vote for him and totally disagree with all of his policies.
Cheers
Room
NATO's absurd denials amid acts of war in Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/324992-nato-attacks-syria-war/
Published time: 7 Dec, 2015 15:27
In two weeks we have seen two apparent acts of war by the US-led NATO military alliance in Syria. First, the Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane inside Syrian airspace; now this week the Syrian army is hit in a deadly airstrike.
Despite absurd denials, the grim conclusion is that NATO is at war in Syria.
The Syrian government is unequivocal about the latest incident. Damascus issued a condemnation to the UN Security Council on Monday over what it says is "a flagrant act of aggression" by the US military coalition. Early reports say three Syrian soldiers were killed and over a dozen others seriously wounded when an army base was blasted in the Deir Ezzor eastern province. Four US-led coalition warplanes were apparently involved in the attack, firing nine missiles at the base.
However, Colonel Steve Warren, spokesman for the US coalition, was quoted by various media outlets denying that NATO aircraft carried out the raid. Warren claimed that coalition fighter jets had conducted airstrikes at a location 55 kilometers from the Syrian army camp, which is located near the village of Ayyash. He said the airstrikes were against oil-smuggling operations run by the Islamic State (IS) terror group and there were "no humans" in the vicinity.
So who did carry out the deadly attack on the Syrian army? The US, Britain and France have been flying warplanes in the eastern province where the IS group has its strongholds around Deir Ezzor.
Washington and its NATO allies have negligible credibility. The US-led alliance has been operating an absurdist policy while bombing Syria for the past 15 months. Allegedly targeting the IS network, the terror group has only expanded its territory since Washington began (illegally) bombing Syria back in September 2014.
More recently, NATO has flatly denied Turkey's provocative shoot-down of a Russian warplane even though Russia's flight data shows that its Su-24 bomber was hit by a Turk F-16 jet that breached Syria's border before firing its air-to-air missile.
Washington has also denied extensive aerial evidence of oil smuggling by the Islamic State terror group wending its way across the border to Turkish industrial centers. Russian defense ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov has mocked the American "see no evil" statements on the industrial-scale oil smuggling into Turkey as a "theater of absurd".
When does theater of the absurd stop peddling double think and just become plain, factual war theater?
American political analyst Randy Martin at crookedbough.com says that recent events are proof that Washington and its NATO allies are indeed at war in Syria. Not against the IS jihadists, as officially claimed, but against the Syrian state. By extension that means NATO has also moved to a war footing against Russia, as an ally of the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
"It's quite clear that the US and the other NATO powers have stepped up their military operations in Syria precisely because their covert war for regime change against Assad is being smashed up by Russia's intervention," Martin told me. "The whole notion of the West backing so-called moderate rebels while being opposed to the Islamic State brigades is just a preposterous charade furnished in part by the Western media. All these groups are working as mercenary proxy armies for the Western objective of regime change."
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has dealt a decisive blow to the US-led covert campaign of deploying various proxy terror groups to overthrow the Syrian state. It's like Putin has smashed a hornet's nest hanging from a tree and now all hell is breaking out," says the analyst.
Since Russia ordered its warplanes and cruise missiles into Syria on September 30, the intervention has decimated hundreds of jihadi bases and, crucially, the oil-for-weapons racket that fuels the Western-backed covert war.
Martin reckons that this strategic reversal for US-led objectives in Syria is what is motivating the sharp upturn in NATO military operations in the country. Last week, the British and German parliaments voted for their air forces to join the US and French airstrikes. Britain's RAF has already carried out strikes, the first one coming within hours of London's parliamentary approval.
The analyst says that the NATO military gear-change is "all about salvaging a situation in which Western powers are losing their covert war and their proxy means to prosecute that war."
Russia has exposed a "giant, sordid criminal enterprise" whereby Western governments are being seen to be in league with regional despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. More damningly, Western governments are also shown to be colluding with some of the most barbaric terror groups known in modern times.
Putin's principled military intervention to defend Syrian state sovereignty has flushed out the criminal parties and their joint enterprise to overthrow an elected government.
This is why Washington and its NATO allies have reacted with such manic militarism. It is entirely plausible that Turkey was given the green light by its NATO superiors to shoot down the Russian warplane on November 24.
The contradictions in NATO's stated policies, as uncovered by Russia in Syria, are becoming unbearable.
US President Barack Obama at the weekend made yet another solemn nationwide speech telling the American people that as Commander-in-Chief he was committed to "hunting down" terror groups in Syria and Iraq. Obama also declared that his government would order regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to clamp down on funding for terrorists.
But virtually everything in reality shows that Washington and its Western allies are telling lies. Their military operations in Syria and Iraq have only made the terror networks expand and their Turk ally – a NATO member – is up to its eyes in financing jihadists through a massive oil-smuggling racket.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has even backed Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's calls for the Turkish border to be closed down to prevent the flow of illicit oil, weapons and fighters. Yet, Washington on the other hand patently denies that Turkey is involved in this terror trade.
Russia and the Syrian army are the two forces that have made decisive advances against the terror brigades. In the past week, the Syrian army with Russian air support has retaken major areas of Aleppo in the north, Homs in the centre and Qalamoun to the west. The Syrian-Russian alliance is also moving to push back jihadists in the oil-rich eastern provinces – the last stronghold of these mercenaries.
The Syrian army base hit this week near Deir Ezzor was an important spearhead against IS in the east.
It is therefore hard not to conclude, according to Martin, that the US and its NATO allies are caught in a dilemma. "Their backs are against the wall because Russia is destroying their criminal enterprise in Syria," he says.
And, disturbingly, it looks like Washington is prepared to start a world war in order to save its criminal enterprise – while acting as the air force for jihadist terrorists.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.07, 03:21:47
So how far do you think things will really go...?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.07, 18:26:18
The analyst says that the NATO military gear-change is "all about salvaging a situation in which Western powers are losing their covert war and their proxy means to prosecute that war."
The problem for the people who orchestrated this whole mess is that they did not just attack foreign sovereign countries with their proxy terrorist army (no navy or air force); they attacked their own people at home with the same proxy terrorist army. The elite have declared war on everyone and are determined to destroy the foundations of our civilisation. Industry is ramping up preparing for total global war and the tyrants are tightening their grips at home ready to crush any rebellion with extreme prejudice.
From time to time a new piece is added to the chessboard and changes the game, hhop gen 3 and 4 will give us all fuel and electricity from the gravitational field. An alternative choice to all out oil war may be available but to the criminals in power WW3 is a very acceptable option considering they have Cheyenne Mountain to hide in.
EMP Nuclear Attack Fears Have US Reopen Cheyenne Mountainhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193883#.VmXXEr_VBv0
First Publish: 4/11/2015, 9:03 PM
Days after Iran deal, Pentagon acts fearing nuclear missile attack that would burn out America's electronic-based defenses.
In an even more startling admission, Admiral Gortney revealed that his "primary concern" was whether the Pentagon was "going to have the space inside the [Cheyenne] mountain for everybody who wants to move in there, and I'm not at liberty to discuss who's moving in there."
The Cheyenne mountain bunker is a half-acre cavern that was carved into a mountain in the 1960s that was originally designed to withstand a Soviet nuclear attack. During the Cold War, the United States feared a Soviet nuclear attack scenario that would feature an opening Soviet "EMP decapitation" nuclear attack.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.07, 18:48:59
In an even more startling admission, Admiral Gortney revealed that his "primary concern" was whether the Pentagon was "going to have the space inside the [Cheyenne] mountain for everybody who wants to move in there, and I'm not at liberty to discuss who's moving in there."
The place is only a few minutes away from my house and I can tell you, I wouldn't move in there with the freaks if they paid me handsomely to do it. I've been on a submarine for a few weeks and it isn't any fun; that's with guys you trust with your life. Imaging being sealed in a mountain full of fruitcakes...
Whatever happens, I'm keeping my fingers crossed justice will be served.
'Time of looking away over': Germany warns Saudi Arabia to stop funding radical Islamists
https://www.rt.com/news/324936-germany-criticizes-saudi-arabia/
Published time: 7 Dec, 2015 01:58
Germany has publicly warned Saudi Arabia against further financing religious radicals globally. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel's demand to cut money flowing to the Wahhabis comes as some lawmakers are growing weary of Saudi-funded radical mosques.
Gabriel stressed that the Saudi regime has been funding mosques known for radicalizing the Muslim population, including in various communities in Europe.
"We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over," Mr Gabriel, Merkel's deputy and the head of the Social Democrats (SPD), told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. "Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities in Germany."
Wahhabism is a strict version of Sunni Islam that is the official religion of the ultra-conservative state of Saudi Arabia. It is also said to be behind Islamic State's (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Qaeda's extremist ideologies. The Saudis have historically always supported the building of Wahhabi mosques around the world to help the sect gain popularity.
In response, the Saudi Arabian embassy in Berlin said in a statement that the nation wants to fight the radicalization of youths. "Like Germany, we are part of the anti-Islamic State coalition and fighting side by side against terror," it said.
The allegations against Saudi Arabia have been around for some time, but it is rare for a Western politician to speak out against it, as the Gulf State remains a key western ally.
The German media has heavily criticized Saudi King Salman for proposing that 200 mosques be built for the Syrian refugees coming to Germany. This issue gained more traction as Saudi Arabia has refused to accept any refugees from Syria.
The surprisingly open disapproval of Saudi policies comes after a German foreign intelligence agency (BND) report claiming that Riyadh's foreign relations could be a major destabilizing force in the Arab world.
Immediately after the report was released, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government attempted to create some distance between the BND analysis and official foreign policy line.
However, Gabriel's comments reveal that the government is taking the report's findings seriously.
"Of course we need Saudi Arabia to solve the conflicts in the region," Gabriel said. "We cannot and must not ignore the country. And it does not help to put it in the pillory every day, because that won't increase its readiness for serious negotiations over Syria."
Gabriel is known for being outspoken. When visiting Riyadh earlier this year, he gave a speech in support of Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam. Moreover, Gabriel was responsible for blocking an agreement to build a German arms factory in Saudi Arabia.
German foreign minister's surprise Iraq visit
Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier arrived to Baghdad early Monday to a meeting with the Iraqi government, DPA agency reported. The visit had not been announced because of "security concerns."
Steinmeier said that Germany is standing by Iraq "in truly difficult and stormy times." It is expected that the official is going to pledge support to Iraq in the fight against Islamic State.
"The stabilization of Iraq is just as important as the search for a political solution in Syria," the minister said upon arriving.
The visit comes days after Germany's Bundestag approved joining the military campaign against IS. Berlin is to send reconnaissance jets, refueling aircraft, a frigate to help protect the French aircraft carrier, and up to 1,200 military personnel to Syria.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.07, 19:45:02
Whatever happens, I'm keeping my fingers crossed justice will be served.
Depends on your definition of justice!
Things get much worse than they already are and threats like this on Lawmakers, may become a reality:
http://news.sky.com/story/1599503/death-threat-labour-mp-receives-email-apology
Scotland Yard has confirmed it is investigating a number of online threats made on social media against MPs following the controversial Commons vote.
http://www.history.com/news/the-guillotines-first-cut
Executions by the guillotine may have been less tortuous, but they could now be carried out with the efficiency of a slaughterhouse assembly line. With the executioner now reduced to more button-pusher than craftsman, Sanson could guillotine a dozen victims in just 13 minutes. When the French Revolution morphed horrifically into the "Reign of Terror" just months after Pelletier's execution, thousands—often without trial and with little cause—were beheaded by guillotine blades. At the height of this bloody phase, Sanson decapitated 300 men and women in just three days, and the former royal executioner even guillotined King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793. (The use of the guillotine for French executions continued until 1977. France abolished capital punishment in 1981.)
Guillotin became deeply distressed at how the device that he intended to be an example of the democratic nature and forward thinking of the French Revolution instead became a symbol of carnage and terror. Worst of all, the fatal machine will forever be attached to his name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between two rival political factions, the Girondins and the The Mountain, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution". The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris),[2] and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.[3]
QuoteIn an even more startling admission, Admiral Gortney revealed that his "primary concern" was whether the Pentagon was "going to have the space inside the [Cheyenne] mountain for everybody who wants to move in there, and I'm not at liberty to discuss who's moving in there."
I can picture it now, heaps of people and supplies going in through a big set of "blast" doors to enter the cavern, the doors all close (takes about 3 or 4 minutes), then inside the cavern someone is counting and ends the count with the declaration "There's one too many in here !", a bit of kerfuffle then the doors begin to open again and as soon as there is enough room Obama is tossed out the door and kept at bay with a stick while the door closes. hahahahahaa
User Artoj, (maybe on other forums) could draw a really good caricature of that scene in no time. He's very talented.
..
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.07, 21:13:53
Depends on your definition of justice!
I should restate that to make it more clear. It will be nice for a change when the parasites on this planet have nothing left but to eat each other.
The U.S. and The West are clearly up to something
nefarious in the Middle East and The Ukraine.
Attached is one analyst's conjecture on what might
be in the works.
Joe Biden dutifully carrying out his
hit piece with Poroshenko in Kiev.
What Biden has been indoctrinated to
call an "invasion" was in reality a
"rescue mission." Without the brave
determination of the People of Crimea
to rejoin Russia it would have become a
true disaster area.
The lies which emanate from The District of
Criminals are tall ones for a certainty!
Satire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
A feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"[2]—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration,[3] juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.
Satire is nowadays found in many artistic forms of expression, including literature, plays, commentary, television shows, and media such as lyrics.
'I'm a terrorist sympathiser' - Jonathan Pie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQ5GNnO8k8
;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL357BrwK7c
:D
Is Islamic State now equipped with a NATO air force?
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/325087-islamic-state-nato-us/
Published time: 8 Dec, 2015 12:03
Within the past two weeks Turkish F-16s have shot down a Russian SU-24 bomber and a US-led coalition airstrike has hit a military base controlled by the Syrian Arab Army. It begs the question: are these people actually insane?
ISIS could not have had a better two weeks than these past two if it had its own air force. But with the US and Turkey among its 'enemies' it appears they don't need one, for those countries have been doing its job for them.
How else are we to explain the strikes carried out by both countries, not against ISIS but against Russia and Syria, who are fighting ISIS?
Never in the annals of military conflict has such a dangerous and absurd scenario been played out as the one being played out in Syria today. Two entirely separate multi-nation coalitions are engaged in combat operations against one enemy, thus dictating they coordinate and combine their efforts. Yet such is the lack of leadership and statesmanship within one of those coalitions – led by Washington – that the prospect remains a distant dream even after a recent spate of atrocities resulted in the mass murder of citizens and civilians belonging to both.
This at least is one narrative, which holds that incompetence, stupidity and hubris is the root of the problem, impairing the judgment and clarity of the West when it comes to Syria and the wider region, responsible for allowing a terrorist menace in the shape of ISIS and other extremist groups to grow and enjoy the kind of success they should never have enjoyed.
There is a second narrative to be explored, however, one far more insidious. It is that these attacks are evidence of the real objective of the West and its allies when it comes to Syria, despite the rise of ISIS, which remains regime change in Damascus.
Turkey's president, Recip Erdogan, has long harbored this objective. In fact, more than harbor the man has been utterly obsessed with it. He has taken every opportunity to rail against Syria's president, attributing the entire blame for the Syrian crisis and conflict to him, even though the majority of Syrians support their president and have done so throughout.
"Never in the annals of military conflict has such a dangerous and absurd scenario been played out as the one being played out in Syria today."
With Russian airstrikes bearing down on the illicit oil trade between ISIS and Turkey, the strong suspicion is that Turkey's desperate action in shooting down the Russian bomber was directly related to it being unmasked as a key actor in facilitating the terrorist group, rather than an ally in the struggle against it.
This has now been followed by Turkey's military incursion into northern Iraq, where its troops have occupied territory around Mosul, slap bang in the middle of the oil smuggling route from the oilfields located there up into Turkey.
The Turks claim they are there to train Kurdish Peshmerga forces they are supporting, at the request of the Kurdistan Regional Government, led by Massoud Barzani, which administers a de facto independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq in defiance of central government authority in Baghdad. The equally independent oil trade controlled by he Barzani administration has come under attack from the PKK over the past few months, which has managed to destroy pipelines transporting oil from the Mosul region to Turkey.
By now the penny should be starting to drop.
Erdogan is a man who many consider to be engaged in a neo Ottoman policy of re-establishing Turkey's hegemonic influence in the region, exploiting the chaos and turmoil across its southern border in both Iraq and Syria to establish Turkey as a regional power broker and architect of a Sunni state comprising eastern Syria across into northern Iraq.
The collapse of US leadership in the region, measured in the rise of ISIS, has left a vacuum that its regional allies – Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel – are exploiting with an aggressive pursuit of their own national and sectarian agendas. Those agendas are contrary to the interests of stability and security, and unless reined in can only lead to more chaos and conflict rather than less.
The point is that the aforementioned states are leading the wider Western strategy towards the region at this point, the primary aim of which, as mentioned, is the toppling of the Assad government in Syria and the weakening of Iranian influence in Iraq and Lebanon.
The US airstrike, despite Washington's denial of responsibility for it, should be seen with the aforementioned in mind. It also helps explain the recent entry of British airstrikes into the Syrian conflict.
Less than the official justification of helping to crush ISIS, Britain is intent on establishing an overt military presence in Syria with its eyes not on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa but on Damascus in advance of the upcoming peace talks in Vienna. We know this because no sooner had the British Government received the vote required to press ahead with airstrikes from the House of Commons than British foreign secretary Phillip Hammond was talking up the need for a transitional government in Damascus, making it clear that President Assad cannot remain in power.
Overall it is becoming increasingly apparent that for the West and its regional allies, such as Turkey, ISIS is but a sideshow and that the real priority is the removal of the Assad government. They want a pliant alternative in its place, one willing to be their place man in a region that has long been the focus of their geopolitical, strategic, and economic priorities.
In the process they are willing to court the risk of a major conflagration, evidence of their failure to learn the lessons of history and playing with fire as a consequence.
The First World War was the last major conflict into which the major powers sleepwalked. It resulted in a level of carnage that undermined the very foundations of civilization and led inexorably to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The response to the Western powers of the collapse of the latter in the Middle East, in moving in to carve up the spoils between them regardless of the wishes and interests of the people living there, has brought us a century of turmoil and conflict from then to now.
In a very real sense, the world of today is paying the price of the crimes of the past. As a consequence, committing more crimes is more than folly it is tantamount to dragging us back in time to a hell of our own creation.
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. He wrote a memoir of the five years he spent in Hollywood, where he worked in the movie industry prior to becoming a full time and activist and organizer with the US antiwar movement post-9/11. The book is titled Dreams That Die and is published by Zero Books. John is currently working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1
Quote from: The Article
Within the past two weeks Turkish F-16s have shot down a Russian SU-24 bomber and a US-led coalition airstrike has hit a military base controlled by the Syrian Arab Army. It begs the question: are these people actually insane?
Quite so. But it goes beyond insane. They're intoxicated
by visions of World Power and Control as they arrogantly
go about their Lying Business.
Perpetual War and the rise of the IS fulfills their PLAN of
reducing the population of planet Earth by 50% or more.
Things are destined to get much, much worse for all...
Quote from: Paul Craig Roberts
One lesson from military history is that once mobilization for war begins, it takes on a momentum of its own and is uncontrollable.
This might be what is occuring unrecognized before our eyes.
In his September 28 speech at the 70th Anniversity of the United Nations, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later at the invitation of the Syrian government Russia began war against ISIS.
Russia was quickly successful in destroying ISIS arms depots and helping the Syrian army to roll back ISIS gains. Russia also destroyed thousands of oil tankers, the contents of which were financing ISIS by transporting stolen Syrian oil to Turkey where it is sold to the family of the current gangster who rules Turkey.
Washington was caught off guard by Russia's decisiveness. Fearful that the quick success of such decisive action by Russia would discourage Washington's NATO vassals from continuing to support Washington's war against Assad and Washington's use of its puppet government in Kiev to pressure Russia, Washington arranged for Turkey to shoot down a Russian fighter-bomber despite the agreement between Russia and NATO that there would be no air-to-air encounters in Russia's area of air operation in Syria.
Although denying all responsibility, Washington used Russia's low key response to the attack, for which Turkey did not apologize, to reassure Europe that Russia is a paper tiger. The Western presstitutes trumpeted: "Russia A Paper Tiger."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-shoots-down-a-paper-tiger-1448406008
The Russian government's low key response to the provocation was used by Washington to reassure Europe that there is no risk in continuing to pressure Russia in the Middle East, Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and elsewhere. Washington's attack on Assad's military is being used to reinforce the belief that is being inculcated in European governments that Russia's responsible behavior to avoid war is a sign of fear and weakness.
It is unclear to what extent the Russian and Chinese governments understand that their independent policies, reaffirmed by the Russian and Chinese presidents On September 28, are regarded by Washington as "existential threats" to US hegemony.
The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington's unilateral action. The ability of Russia and China to do this makes them both a target.
Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Terrorism is a weapon that Washington intends to use to destabilize Russia and China by exporting it to the Muslim populations in Russia and China.
Washington is using Syria, as it used Ukraine, to demonstrate Russia's impotence to Europe— and to China, as an impotent Russia is less attractive to China as an ally.
For Russia, responsible response to provocation has become a liability, because it encourages more provocation.
In other words, Washington and the gullibility of its European vassals have put humanity in a very dangerous situation, as the only choices left to Russia and China are to accept American vassalage or to prepare for war.
Putin must be respected for putting more value on human life than do Washington and its European vassals and avoiding military responses to provocations. However, Russia must do something to make the NATO countries aware that there are serious costs of their accommodation of Washington's aggression against Russia. For example, the Russian government could decide that it makes no sense to sell energy to European countries that are in a de facto state of war against Russia. With winter upon us, the Russian government could announce that Russia does not sell energy to NATO member countries. Russia would lose the money, but that is cheaper than losing one's sovereignty or a war.
To end the conflict in Ukraine, or to escalate it to a level beyond Europe's willingness to participate, Russia could accept the requests of the breakaway provinces to be reunited with Russia. For Kiev to continue the conflict, Ukraine would have to attack Russia herself.
The Russian government has relied on responsible, non-provocative responses. Russia has taken the diplomatic approach, relying on European governments coming to their senses, realizing that their national interests diverge from Washington's, and ceasing to enable Washington's hegemonic policy. Russia's policy has failed. To repeat, Russia's low key, responsible responses have been used by Washington to paint Russia as a paper tiger that no one needs to fear.
We are left with the paradox that Russia's determination to avoid war is leading directly to war.
Whether or not the Russian media, Russian people, and the entirety of the Russian government understand this, it must be obvious to the Russian military. All that Russian military leaders need to do is to look at the composition of the forces sent by NATO to "combat ISIS." As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.
There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler. Washington's bought-and-paid-for-puppets in Germany, France, and UK are either stupid, unconcerned, or powerless to escape from Washington's grip. Unless Russia can wake up Europe, war is inevitable.
Have the totally evil, dumbshit neocon warmongers who control the US government taught Putin that war is inevitable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QxWYIAtCMU#action=share
Source
MI6 Chief Reveals S. Arabia's Doomsday Plot against Shiites
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940918000286
Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:56
TEHRAN (FNA)- Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of the Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.
Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shiite'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."
According to Times of India newspaper, the fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shiites, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shiite jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on 10 June, Shiite women and children have been killed in villages South of Kirkuk, and Shiite air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.
In Mosul, Shiite shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shiite Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by ISIL fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be identified as Shiite or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.
There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al Qaeda-type Jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasized the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".
He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the ISIL surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Persian Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with ISIL without their consent.
Dearlove's explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shiite by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6's view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the ISIL-led Sunni terrorism, has attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove's speech focused instead on his main theme that the threat from ISIL to the West is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden's al Qaeda, it is absorbed in a new conflict that "is essentially Muslim on Muslim". Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by ISIL are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al Qaeda and ISIL is that the latter is much better organized; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.
The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100 million Shiites in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shiites that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them.
Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and Jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's ISIL. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.
The difference between al Qaeda and ISIL can be overstated: when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogizing him, and ISIL pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death.
But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al Qaeda type Jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar's approach and seeing Jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.
He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence "literally shouting at me across his office: '9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.'" In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the Jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shiite influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.
Saudi sympathy for anti-Shiite "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups."
Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
12:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia's gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. "We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think," said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. "Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets," he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin's dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.
"We understand Russia's great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area," he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.
The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.
The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia's naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia's Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us," he allegedly said.
Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. "These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria's political future."
President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the `Moscow Declaration' last to month "defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure". This would entail beefing up the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), a talking shop.
Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LGN). "The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders," he said.
Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget.
But it would be a dangerous strategy for the Saudis if it pushed prices to levels that endangered the world's fragile economic recovery. Crude oil stocks in the US have already fallen sharply this year. Goldman Sachs said the "surplus cushion" in global stocks built up since 2008 has been completely eliminated.
Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. "Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007," he said.
The Putin-Bandar meeting was stormy, replete with warnings of a "dramatic turn" in Syria. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer, though western pressure has escalated since then. "Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters," he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.
Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be "no escape from the military option" if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.09, 20:54:00
The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. "We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think," said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
I don't know what you are talking about, oil hit $37 a barrel today, it has not seen $112 a barrel for quite some time is this an old article?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/oil-stock-markets-slide-iea-194418378.html
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.09, 21:52:50
I don't know what you are talking about is this an old article?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.09, 20:54:00
12:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg53433#msg53433
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.09, 22:46:49
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg53433#msg53433
Thanks that clears things up, I missed the date thinking it was recent not 3 years old.
Seymour Hersh's Blockbuster: Obama On The Red Line And On The Rat Line: Part 1
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-13/obama-red-line-and-rat-line
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/13/2014 18:22 -0400
Read Seymour Hersh's devastating account of Obama's Red Lines and Rat Lines and weep for the Republic. It is no more.
For the first time in a half-century American voters actually elected the "peace candidate" in 2008 and sent Obama to the White House to end the interventionist foreign policy that had lead to disaster in Iraq, and, implicitly, to wind down the vast war machine that had been left over from the Cold War. The latter had been converted by the Bush's and Clintons into an armada of invasion and occupation that had rained death and destruction from Bosnia to Baghdad to Kandahar for no reasonable or justifiable purpose of national security. These aggressions were simply what a war machine does, making up rationalizations as it goes along.
But the Warfare State was not about to let peace happen. Soon Obama learned the Washington pivot, rehired the core of Bush's War Cabinet and became enmeshed in the "national security" plots and schemes which were in the pipeline when he arrived at 1600 Pennsylvanian Avenue— much like JFK inherited the disastrous Bay Of Pigs invasion. Like the despicable Alan Dulles, he inherited ambitious scoundrels like so-called General David Petraeus, who soon had him convinced that the non-sensical and bloody "surge" in Anbar Province had been a roaring success, and that it should be exported to the quagmire in Afghanistan.
Indeed, after the Afghan surge was launched in 2009 there was no turning back. The peace candidate had already become co-opted—emerging as a pliant tool of America's rogue Warfare State that functions almost entirely outside of the Constitution and often beyond statutory law, as well. Ironically, the former editor of the Harvard Law Journal and self-proclaimed constitutional expert apparently had no qualms whatsoever about any of this. The spy agencies were nourished with massive new resources and widened mandates; Rumsfeld's disgraceful and illegal detention operation at Guantanamo Bay was not closed as he had promised; Bush's cowardly and counter-productive drone wars were drastically escalated; and the defense budget grew by more than $100 billion from the already bloated levels he had inherited from the "decider".
And this gets us to Hersh's expose. By 2011 Obama had donned the full regalia of the imperial presidency. With not so much as even a casual nod to the War Powers Act—-the first piece of legislation I worked on 43 years ago as a young aide on Capitol Hill outraged by Johnson's and Nixon's immoral, illegal and genocidal war on Vietnam—-the peace candidate conducted an air war and subversion campaign in Libya because he could.
Upon the bloody end of the Gadhafi regime, Obama than turned to making war on the Assad regime in Syria—without a sliver of logic as to why intervention in an age old sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Alawites would make the citizens of Nebraska one wit safer. This time he did it through the establishment of a CIA annex in Benghazi to gather and accumulate the former Libyans dictator's lethal arsenals for transfer to the Syrian rebels—many of whom where jihadists and terrorists of the type we were allegedly trying to erase from the earth.
Moreover, as Seymour Hersh explains, the Benghazi weapons were then transited by means of an illegal CIA "rat line" through Turkey to the rebels. And the rat line was absolutely illegal because all CIA covert operations since the 1970s have been required as a matter of law to be disclosed to the Congressional leadership—-for whatever that has become worth in the post Frank Church era where shaking down the military-industrial complex for campaign money, rather than thwarting its propensity for rogue operations, has become a bipartisan pursuit of choice.
But our constitutional scholar-in-chief apparently had no problem splitting hairs. The "rat line" was deemed a "liaison" operation with England's MI6 and thereby exempt from reporting requirements. So when the rat line operation blew up in Benghazi during the middle of the Presidential campaign in September 2012 in the incident that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, the Obama White House just lied. No, the consulate where the deadly attack occurred was not a CIA annex and weapons depot; and, no, we never supplied any weapons to any rebels in Syria. All a pack of lies.
But when you are knee deep in intrigue and covert operations and enmeshed in plots to overthrow governments with thugs like Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, one calamity soon leads to another. As Hersh explains, Barrack Obama in his usual manner had authorized an outright aggression, but than wimped out after the Benghazi fiasco and abruptly shutdown the rat line.
Needless to say, this left Prime Minister Erdogan and his chief of clandestine operations high and dry. By the fall of 2012, the latter were deeply committed to the overthrow of Assad and the establishment of a client regime in Damascus. But the tide of war had already turned—the squabbling gangs of rebels were in retreat, notwithstanding the substantial aid and support they had received from Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Turkey and the West. And from there emerges the main theme of Hersh's expose.
Obama had foolishly drawn a "red line" on Syrian use of chemical weapons in a civil war which was already engulfed in bloody savagery from both sides. So the Turks decided to call his bluff, and enable their main rebel ally, the jihadist al-Nusra Front, to stage a false flag attack with what was known to be the signature weapon in Assad's Soviet supplied chemical weapons arsenal– the deadly sarin gas.
Seymour Hersh explains in chapter and verse, based on a DIA secret report among other high level sources, how this abomination unfolded, and became the horrific gas attack in Ghouta on August 21, 2013. But the gravamen of the piece is his description of how the Obama White House came within two days of launching a Bush style war on Syria after it had already been warned that the proof of Assad's complicity was lacking; and that a weapons testing lab in England had already concluded that a sarin sample obtained on the scene was of a homemade variety and not of the military grade known to be in the Assad arsenal.
Despite all this, the White House apparatus pushed an increasingly resistant Joint Chiefs of Staff through more than 35 iterations of an attack plan that had nothing to do with spanking Assad for his alleged barbarity or surgically disabling his chemical weapons capacity. The attack was to involve an armada of British, French and American air strikes along with sea-based barrage of Tomahawk missiles to take out Assad's entire military capacity.
In short, a power-drunk amateur in the White House came within two days of launching a massive military campaign to bring about regime change in Syria—-an action of stupendous folly which would have ignited a cauldron of fire throughout the Middle East like never before:
In the aftermath of the 21 August attack Obama ordered the Pentagon to draw up targets for bombing. Early in the process, the former intelligence official said, 'the White House rejected 35 target sets provided by the joint chiefs of staff as being insufficiently "painful" to the Assad regime.' The original targets included only military sites and nothing by way of civilian infrastructure. Under White House pressure, the US attack plan evolved into 'a monster strike': two wings of B-52 bombers were shifted to airbases close to Syria, and navy submarines and ships equipped with Tomahawk missiles were deployed. 'Every day the target list was getting longer,' the former intelligence official told me. 'The Pentagon planners said we can't use only Tomahawks to strike at Syria's missile sites because their warheads are buried too far below ground, so the two B-52 air wings with two-thousand pound bombs were assigned to the mission. Then we'll need standby search-and-rescue teams to recover downed pilots and drones for target selection. It became huge.' The new target list was meant to 'completely eradicate any military capabilities Assad had', the former intelligence official said. The core targets included electric power grids, oil and gas depots, all known logistic and weapons depots, all known command and control facilities, and all known military and intelligence buildings.
Britain and France were both to play a part. On 29 August, the day Parliament voted against Cameron's bid to join the intervention, the Guardian reported that he had already ordered six RAF Typhoon fighter jets to be deployed to Cyprus, and had volunteered a submarine capable of launching Tomahawk missiles. The French air force – a crucial player in the 2011 strikes on Libya – was deeply committed, according to an account in Le Nouvel Observateur; François Hollande had ordered several Rafale fighter-bombers to join the American assault. Their targets were reported to be in western Syria.
By the last days of August the president had given the Joint Chiefs a fixed deadline for the launch. 'H hour was to begin no later than Monday morning [2 September], a massive assault to neutralise Assad,' the former intelligence official said.
At the eleventh hour Obama backed down when General Dempsey said flat out no—and then lied that he had changed his mind after a walk around the White House with his clueless chief of staff. The foolish incumbent in the White House and his clownish Secretary of State, the man with the big head of hair and self-evidently not much underneath, then had to suffer the indignity of being rescued from their disastrous schemes and misadventures by Vladimir Putin.
Does that not explain their subsequent insensible campaign to destabilize the Ukraine and then to provoke the current insane showdown with Russia that has resulted from the putsch against a legitimately elected government in Kiev? Does not Obama's incredible follies and abuses of power here described provide a palpable warning that it is time to dismantle the Warfare State? That is, before still another election turns out to be a mere ratification of an American Imperium being conducted by a permanent rogue regime buried deep within the Warfare State that our national security no longer requires?
As I said, read Seymour Hersh's devastating expose and think about it.
Seymour Hersh's Blockbuster: Obama On The Red Line And On The Rat Line: Part 2
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-13/obama-red-line-and-rat-line
Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdogan and the Syrian rebels
In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the 'red line' he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons. Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad's offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.
Obama's change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn't match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army's chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn't hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria's infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.
For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria's neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdo?an was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good
The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration's public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons. On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page 'talking points' briefing for the DIA's deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was 'the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida's pre-9/11 effort'. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.) The DIA paper went on: 'Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW ... Al-Nusrah Front's relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group's CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.' The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: 'Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,' it said, 'were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.' (Asked about the DIA paper, a spokesperson for the director of national intelligence said: 'No such paper was ever requested or produced by intelligence community analysts.')
Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin. Five of those arrested were freed after a brief detention. The others, including the ringleader, Haytham Qassab, for whom the prosecutor requested a prison sentence of 25 years, were released pending trial. In the meantime the Turkish press has been rife with speculation that the Erdo?an administration has been covering up the extent of its involvement with the rebels. In a news conference last summer, Aydin Sezgin, Turkey's ambassador to Moscow, dismissed the arrests and claimed to reporters that the recovered 'sarin' was merely 'anti-freeze'.
The DIA paper took the arrests as evidence that al-Nusra was expanding its access to chemical weapons. It said Qassab had 'self-identified' as a member of al-Nusra, and that he was directly connected to Abd-al-Ghani, the 'ANF emir for military manufacturing'. Qassab and his associate Khalid Ousta worked with Halit Unalkaya, an employee of a Turkish firm called Zirve Export, who provided 'price quotes for bulk quantities of sarin precursors'. Abd-al-Ghani's plan was for two associates to 'perfect a process for making sarin, then go to Syria to train others to begin large scale production at an unidentified lab in Syria'. The DIA paper said that one of his operatives had purchased a precursor on the 'Baghdad chemical market', which 'has supported at least seven CW efforts since 2004'.
A series of chemical weapon attacks in March and April 2013 was investigated over the next few months by a special UN mission to Syria. A person with close knowledge of the UN's activity in Syria told me that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack, on 19 March in Khan Al-Assal, a village near Aleppo. In its final report in December, the mission said that at least 19 civilians and one Syrian soldier were among the fatalities, along with scores of injured. It had no mandate to assign responsibility for the attack, but the person with knowledge of the UN's activities said: 'Investigators interviewed the people who were there, including the doctors who treated the victims. It was clear that the rebels used the gas
In the months before the attacks began, a former senior Defense Department official told me, the DIA was circulating a daily classified report known as SYRUP on all intelligence related to the Syrian conflict, including material on chemical weapons. But in the spring, distribution of the part of the report concerning chemical weapons was severely curtailed on the orders of Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff. 'Something was in there that triggered a shit fit by McDonough,' the former Defense Department official said. 'One day it was a huge deal, and then, after the March and April sarin attacks' – he snapped his fingers – 'it's no longer there.' The decision to restrict distribution was made as the joint chiefs ordered intensive contingency planning for a possible ground invasion of Syria whose primary objective would be the elimination of chemical weapons.
The former intelligence official said that many in the US national security establishment had long been troubled by the president's red line: 'The joint chiefs asked the White House, "What does red line mean? How does that translate into military orders? Troops on the ground? Massive strike? Limited strike?" They tasked military intelligence to study how we could carry out the threat. They learned nothing more about the president's reasoning.'
In the aftermath of the 21 August attack Obama ordered the Pentagon to draw up targets for bombing. Early in the process, the former intelligence official said, 'the White House rejected 35 target sets provided by the joint chiefs of staff as being insufficiently "painful" to the Assad regime.' The original targets included only military sites and nothing by way of civilian infrastructure. Under White House pressure, the US attack plan evolved into 'a monster strike': two wings of B-52 bombers were shifted to airbases close to Syria, and navy submarines and ships equipped with Tomahawk missiles were deployed. 'Every day the target list was getting longer,' the former intelligence official told me. 'The Pentagon planners said we can't use only Tomahawks to strike at Syria's missile sites because their warheads are buried too far below ground, so the two B-52 air wings with two-thousand pound bombs were assigned to the mission. Then we'll need standby search-and-rescue teams to recover downed pilots and drones for target selection. It became huge.' The new target list was meant to 'completely eradicate any military capabilities Assad had', the former intelligence official said. The core targets included electric power grids, oil and gas depots, all known logistic and weapons depots, all known command and control facilities, and all known military and intelligence buildings.
Britain and France were both to play a part. On 29 August, the day Parliament voted against Cameron's bid to join the intervention, the Guardian reported that he had already ordered six RAF Typhoon fighter jets to be deployed to Cyprus, and had volunteered a submarine capable of launching Tomahawk missiles. The French air force – a crucial player in the 2011 strikes on Libya – was deeply committed, according to an account in Le Nouvel Observateur; François Hollande had ordered several Rafale fighter-bombers to join the American assault. Their targets were reported to be in western Syria.
By the last days of August the president had given the Joint Chiefs a fixed deadline for the launch. 'H hour was to begin no later than Monday morning [2 September], a massive assault to neutralise Assad,' the former intelligence official said. So it was a surprise to many when during a speech in the White House Rose Garden on 31 August Obama said that the attack would be put on hold, and he would turn to Congress and put it to a vote.
At this stage, Obama's premise – that only the Syrian army was capable of deploying sarin – was unravelling. Within a few days of the 21 August attack, the former intelligence official told me, Russian military intelligence operatives had recovered samples of the chemical agent from Ghouta. They analysed it and passed it on to British military intelligence; this was the material sent to Porton Down. (A spokesperson for Porton Down said: 'Many of the samples analysed in the UK tested positive for the nerve agent sarin.' MI6 said that it doesn't comment on intelligence matters.)
The former intelligence official said the Russian who delivered the sample to the UK was 'a good source – someone with access, knowledge and a record of being trustworthy'. After the first reported uses of chemical weapons in Syria last year, American and allied intelligence agencies 'made an effort to find the answer as to what if anything, was used – and its source', the former intelligence official said. 'We use data exchanged as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The DIA's baseline consisted of knowing the composition of each batch of Soviet-manufactured chemical weapons. But we didn't know which batches the Assad government currently had in its arsenal. Within days of the Damascus incident we asked a source in the Syrian government to give us a list of the batches the government currently had. This is why we could confirm the difference so quickly.'
The process hadn't worked as smoothly in the spring, the former intelligence official said, because the studies done by Western intelligence 'were inconclusive as to the type of gas it was. The word "sarin" didn't come up. There was a great deal of discussion about this, but since no one could conclude what gas it was, you could not say that Assad had crossed the president's red line.' By 21 August, the former intelligence official went on, 'the Syrian opposition clearly had learned from this and announced that "sarin" from the Syrian army had been used, before any analysis could be made, and the press and White House jumped at it. Since it now was sarin, "It had to be Assad."'
The UK defence staff who relayed the Porton Down findings to the joint chiefs were sending the Americans a message, the former intelligence official said: 'We're being set up here.' (This account made sense of a terse message a senior official in the CIA sent in late August: 'It was not the result of the current regime. UK & US know this.') By then the attack was a few days away and American, British and French planes, ships and submarines were at the ready.
The officer ultimately responsible for the planning and execution of the attack was General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs. From the beginning of the crisis, the former intelligence official said, the joint chiefs had been sceptical of the administration's argument that it had the facts to back up its belief in Assad's guilt. They pressed the DIA and other agencies for more substantial evidence. 'There was no way they thought Syria would use nerve gas at that stage, because Assad was winning the war,' the former intelligence official said. Dempsey had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria. Last April, after an optimistic assessment of rebel progress by the secretary of state, John Kerry, in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 'there's a risk that this conflict has become stalemated.'
Dempsey's initial view after 21 August was that a US strike on Syria – under the assumption that the Assad government was responsible for the sarin attack – would be a military blunder, the former intelligence official said. The Porton Down report caused the joint chiefs to go to the president with a more serious worry: that the attack sought by the White House would be an unjustified act of aggression. It was the joint chiefs who led Obama to change course. The official White House explanation for the turnabout – the story the press corps told – was that the president, during a walk in the Rose Garden with Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, suddenly decided to seek approval for the strike from a bitterly divided Congress with which he'd been in conflict for years. The former Defense Department official told me that the White House provided a different explanation to members of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon: the bombing had been called off because there was intelligence 'that the Middle East would go up in smoke' if it was carried out.
The president's decision to go to Congress was initially seen by senior aides in the White House, the former intelligence official said, as a replay of George W. Bush's gambit in the autumn of 2002 before the invasion of Iraq: 'When it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, Congress, which had endorsed the Iraqi war, and the White House both shared the blame and repeatedly cited faulty intelligence. If the current Congress were to vote to endorse the strike, the White House could again have it both ways – wallop Syria with a massive attack and validate the president's red line commitment, while also being able to share the blame with Congress if it came out that the Syrian military wasn't behind the attack.' The turnabout came as a surprise even to the Democratic leadership in Congress. In September the Wall Street Journal reported that three days before his Rose Garden speech Obama had telephoned Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, 'to talk through the options'. She later told colleagues, according to the Journal, that she hadn't asked the president to put the bombing to a congressional vote.
Obama's move for congressional approval quickly became a dead end. 'Congress was not going to let this go by,' the former intelligence official said. 'Congress made it known that, unlike the authorisation for the Iraq war, there would be substantive hearings.' At this point, there was a sense of desperation in the White House, the former intelligence official said. 'And so out comes Plan B. Call off the bombing strike and Assad would agree to unilaterally sign the chemical warfare treaty and agree to the destruction of all of chemical weapons under UN supervision.' At a press conference in London on 9 September, Kerry was still talking about intervention: 'The risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting.' But when a reporter asked if there was anything Assad could do to stop the bombing, Kerry said: 'Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week ... But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously.' As the New York Times reported the next day, the Russian-brokered deal that emerged shortly afterwards had first been discussed by Obama and Putin in the summer of 2012. Although the strike plans were shelved, the administration didn't change its public assessment of the justification for going to war. 'There is zero tolerance at that level for the existence of error,' the former intelligence official said of the senior officials in the White House. 'They could not afford to say: "We were wrong."' (The DNI spokesperson said: 'The Assad regime, and only the Assad regime, could have been responsible for the chemical weapons attack that took place on 21 August.')
*
The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a 'rat line', a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: 'The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.')
In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report's criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdo?an administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a 'finding', submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.
The annex didn't tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. 'The consulate's only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,' the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. 'It had no real political role.'
Washington abruptly ended the CIA's role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going. 'The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,' the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels. On 28 November 2012, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reported that the previous day rebels near Aleppo had used what was almost certainly a manpad to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter. 'The Obama administration,' Warrick wrote, 'has steadfastly opposed arming Syrian opposition forces with such missiles, warning that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and be used to shoot down commercial aircraft.' Two Middle Eastern intelligence officials fingered Qatar as the source, and a former US intelligence analyst speculated that the manpads could have been obtained from Syrian military outposts overrun by the rebels. There was no indication that the rebels' possession of manpads was likely the unintended consequence of a covert US programme that was no longer under US control.
By the end of 2012, it was believed throughout the American intelligence community that the rebels were losing the war. 'Erdo?an was pissed,' the former intelligence official said, 'and felt he was left hanging on the vine. It was his money and the cut-off was seen as a betrayal.' In spring 2013 US intelligence learned that the Turkish government – through elements of the MIT, its national intelligence agency, and the Gendarmerie, a militarised law-enforcement organisation – was working directly with al-Nusra and its allies to develop a chemical warfare capability. 'The MIT was running the political liaison with the rebels, and the Gendarmerie handled military logistics, on-the-scene advice and training – including training in chemical warfare,' the former intelligence official said. 'Stepping up Turkey's role in spring 2013 was seen as the key to its problems there. Erdo?an knew that if he stopped his support of the jihadists it would be all over. The Saudis could not support the war because of logistics – the distances involved and the difficulty of moving weapons and supplies. Erdo?an's hope was to instigate an event that would force the US to cross the red line. But Obama didn't respond in March and April.'
There was no public sign of discord when Erdo?an and Obama met on 16 May 2013 at the White House. At a later press conference Obama said that they had agreed that Assad 'needs to go'. Asked whether he thought Syria had crossed the red line, Obama acknowledged that there was evidence such weapons had been used, but added, 'it is important for us to make sure that we're able to get more specific information about what exactly is happening there.' The red line was still intact.
An American foreign policy expert who speaks regularly with officials in Washington and Ankara told me about a working dinner Obama held for Erdo?an during his May visit. The meal was dominated by the Turks' insistence that Syria had crossed the red line and their complaints that Obama was reluctant to do anything about it. Obama was accompanied by John Kerry and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser who would soon leave the job. Erdo?an was joined by Ahmet Davuto?lu, Turkey's foreign minister, and Hakan Fidan, the head of the MIT. Fidan is known to be fiercely loyal to Erdo?an, and has been seen as a consistent backer of the radical rebel opposition in Syria.
The foreign policy expert told me that the account he heard originated with Donilon. (It was later corroborated by a former US official, who learned of it from a senior Turkish diplomat.) According to the expert, Erdo?an had sought the meeting to demonstrate to Obama that the red line had been crossed, and had brought Fidan along to state the case. When Erdo?an tried to draw Fidan into the conversation, and Fidan began speaking, Obama cut him off and said: 'We know.' Erdo?an tried to bring Fidan in a second time, and Obama again cut him off and said: 'We know.' At that point, an exasperated Erdo?an said, 'But your red line has been crossed!' and, the expert told me, 'Donilon said Erdo?an "fucking waved his finger at the president inside the White House".' Obama then pointed at Fidan and said: 'We know what you're doing with the radicals in Syria.' (Donilon, who joined the Council on Foreign Relations last July, didn't respond to questions about this story. The Turkish Foreign Ministry didn't respond to questions about the dinner. A spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the dinner took place and provided a photograph showing Obama, Kerry, Donilon, Erdo?an, Fidan and Davuto?lu sitting at a table. 'Beyond that,' she said, 'I'm not going to read out the details of their discussions.')
But Erdo?an did not leave empty handed. Obama was still permitting Turkey to continue to exploit a loophole in a presidential executive order prohibiting the export of gold to Iran, part of the US sanctions regime against the country. In March 2012, responding to sanctions of Iranian banks by the EU, the SWIFT electronic payment system, which facilitates cross-border payments, expelled dozens of Iranian financial institutions, severely restricting the country's ability to conduct international trade. The US followed with the executive order in July, but left what came to be known as a 'golden loophole': gold shipments to private Iranian entities could continue. Turkey is a major purchaser of Iranian oil and gas, and it took advantage of the loophole by depositing its energy payments in Turkish lira in an Iranian account in Turkey; these funds were then used to purchase Turkish gold for export to confederates in Iran. Gold to the value of $13 billion reportedly entered Iran in this way between March 2012 and July 2013.
The programme quickly became a cash cow for corrupt politicians and traders in Turkey, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. 'The middlemen did what they always do,' the former intelligence official said. 'Take 15 per cent. The CIA had estimated that there was as much as two billion dollars in skim. Gold and Turkish lira were sticking to fingers.' The illicit skimming flared into a public 'gas for gold' scandal in Turkey in December, and resulted in charges against two dozen people, including prominent businessmen and relatives of government officials, as well as the resignations of three ministers, one of whom called for Erdo?an to resign. The chief executive of a Turkish state-controlled bank that was in the middle of the scandal insisted that more than $4.5 million in cash found by police in shoeboxes during a search of his home was for charitable donations.
Late last year Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz reported in Foreign Policy that the Obama administration closed the golden loophole in January 2013, but 'lobbied to make sure the legislation ... did not take effect for six months'. They speculated that the administration wanted to use the delay as an incentive to bring Iran to the bargaining table over its nuclear programme, or to placate its Turkish ally in the Syrian civil war. The delay permitted Iran to 'accrue billions of dollars more in gold, further undermining the sanctions regime'.
*
The American decision to end CIA support of the weapons shipments into Syria left Erdo?an exposed politically and militarily. 'One of the issues at that May summit was the fact that Turkey is the only avenue to supply the rebels in Syria,' the former intelligence official said. 'It can't come through Jordan because the terrain in the south is wide open and the Syrians are all over it. And it can't come through the valleys and hills of Lebanon – you can't be sure who you'd meet on the other side.' Without US military support for the rebels, the former intelligence official said, 'Erdo?an's dream of having a client state in Syria is evaporating and he thinks we're the reason why. When Syria wins the war, he knows the rebels are just as likely to turn on him – where else can they go? So now he will have thousands of radicals in his backyard.'
A US intelligence consultant told me that a few weeks before 21 August he saw a highly classified briefing prepared for Dempsey and the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, which described 'the acute anxiety' of the Erdo?an administration about the rebels' dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed 'the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response'. By late summer, the Syrian army still had the advantage over the rebels, the former intelligence official said, and only American air power could turn the tide. In the autumn, the former intelligence official went on, the US intelligence analysts who kept working on the events of 21 August 'sensed that Syria had not done the gas attack. But the 500 pound gorilla was, how did it happen? The immediate suspect was the Turks, because they had all the pieces to make it happen.'
As intercepts and other data related to the 21 August attacks were gathered, the intelligence community saw evidence to support its suspicions. 'We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdo?an's people to push Obama over the red line,' the former intelligence official said. 'They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors' – who arrived in Damascus on 18 August to investigate the earlier use of gas – 'were there. The deal was to do something spectacular. Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it.' Much of the support for that assessment came from the Turks themselves, via intercepted conversations in the immediate aftermath of the attack. 'Principal evidence came from the Turkish post-attack joy and back-slapping in numerous intercepts. Operations are always so super-secret in the planning but that all flies out the window when it comes to crowing afterwards. There is no greater vulnerability than in the perpetrators claiming credit for success.' Erdo?an's problems in Syria would soon be over: 'Off goes the gas and Obama will say red line and America is going to attack Syria, or at least that was the idea. But it did not work out that way.'
The post-attack intelligence on Turkey did not make its way to the White House. 'Nobody wants to talk about all this,' the former intelligence official told me. 'There is great reluctance to contradict the president, although no all-source intelligence community analysis supported his leap to convict. There has not been one single piece of additional evidence of Syrian involvement in the sarin attack produced by the White House since the bombing raid was called off. My government can't say anything because we have acted so irresponsibly. And since we blamed Assad, we can't go back and blame Erdo?an.'
Turkey's willingness to manipulate events in Syria to its own purposes seemed to be demonstrated late last month, a few days before a round of local elections, when a recording, allegedly of a government national security meeting, was posted to YouTube. It included discussion of a false-flag operation that would justify an incursion by the Turkish military in Syria. The operation centred on the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the revered Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire, which is near Aleppo and was ceded to Turkey in 1921, when Syria was under French rule. One of the Islamist rebel factions was threatening to destroy the tomb as a site of idolatry, and the Erdo?an administration was publicly threatening retaliation if harm came to it. According to a Reuters report of the leaked conversation, a voice alleged to be Fidan's spoke of creating a provocation: 'Now look, my commander, if there is to be justification, the justification is I send four men to the other side. I get them to fire eight missiles into empty land [in the vicinity of the tomb]. That's not a problem. Justification can be created.' The Turkish government acknowledged that there had been a national security meeting about threats emanating from Syria, but said the recording had been manipulated. The government subsequently blocked public access to YouTube.
Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey's meddling in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. 'I asked my colleagues if there was any way to stop Erdo?an's continued support for the rebels, especially now that it's going so wrong,' the former intelligence official told me. 'The answer was: "We're screwed." We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdo?an, but Turkey is a special case. They're a Nato ally. The Turks don't trust the West. They can't live with us if we take any active role against Turkish interests. If we went public with what we know about Erdo?an's role with the gas, it'd be disastrous. The Turks would say: "We hate you for telling us what we can and can't do."'
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Middle East morass: WWI diaries reveal true horror of Britain's failed Iraq campaign 100 yrs ago
https://www.rt.com/uk/324316-iraq-war-diaries-ottoman/
Published time: 2 Dec, 2015 15:36
As parliament votes on its latest Middle East war, the diaries of a young army officer detailing the disastrous Mesopotamia campaign against the Ottoman Empire in the First World War are going on display in London.
The young subaltern, named Lieutenant Henry Curtis Gallup, was one of thousands of troops sent to the region to fight the German-allied Ottoman Empire in the hope that the subjugated Arabs would rise up against their masters.
Branded a war in defense of British oil interests, and to liberate the region which is now modern-day Iraq from its rulers, the campaign ended in one of the most disastrous defeats of the conflict.
The diaries are now on display at the National Army Museum in London for the first time.
Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1?cat=politics&type=article
Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan
Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.
The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan's defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.
Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.
Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."
The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.
For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as "a most formidable report". Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".
Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.
Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev's orbit after the previous year's disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.
By 1957, despite America's opposition to the Suez move, President Eisenhower felt he could no longer ignore the danger of Syria becoming a centre for Moscow to spread communism throughout the Middle East. He and Mr Macmillan feared Syria would destabilise pro-western neighbours by exporting terrorism and encouraging internal dissent. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.
The "preferred plan"adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.
"The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities... Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."
Sabotage
The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension." That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" to be blamed on Damascus.
The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.
The planners envisaged replacing the Ba'ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and "would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power".
The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria's Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. The following year, the Ba'athists moved against their Communist former allies and took Syria into a federation with Gen Nasser's Egypt, which lasted until 1963.
57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple Syrian Government
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/57-years-ago-u-s-britain-approved-use-islamic-extremists-topple-syrian-government.html
Posted on July 7, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Have the U.S. and Its Allies Intentionally Balkanized Syria Into Smaller Regions?
BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government:
Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country... by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 [former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.
***
Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.
***
Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".
***
Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt.
Kermit Roosevelt had a proven track record in this sort of thing. According to the New York Times, he was the leader of the CIA's coup in Iran in 1953, which – as subsequently admitted by the CIA – used false flag terror to topple the democratically elected leader or Iran.
BBC continues:
More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.
***
The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension."
***
The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee" [hmmm ... sounds vaguely familiar], and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.
Is it purely coincidence that the U.S. has heavily armed Al Qaeda Muslim extremists in Syria (and see this), and trained the jihadis who later became ISIS?
Regime change in Syria was not a once-off plan. Neoconservatives also planned regime change in Syria more than 20 years ago ... in 1991.
The West Has Been Arbitrarily Breaking Up Middle Eastern Countries for 100 Years
The Western powers agreed 100 years ago to arbitrarily divvy up the Middle East, without regard for historical boundries.
Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion.
The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation. (The same goal has long applied to Iraq and other Arab states as well.)
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrote a book expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units ....
Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
In any event, it is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated:
Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria ....
Michel Chossudovsky pointed out last month:
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
And the following map prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters (retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy) in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006 shows a balkanized Syria and Middle East:
In summary, we don't have conclusive proof that the U.S., Israeli or their allies have intentionally broken up Syria.
But in light of such claims – and the 57-year old American-British plan to stir up Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremists in Syria – maps showing the Islamic jihadi group ISIS' carving up of Syria (and Iraq) into "the Islamic State" are interesting, indeed:
Britain drew up plans to build 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10947773/Britain-drew-up-plans-to-build-100000-strong-Syrian-rebel-army.html
By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent
9:00PM BST 04 Jul 2014
General Sir David Richards prepared plan as chief of defence staff but army was later ordered to abandon them, amid confusion over military policy on Syria
*
Cameron's 'deceitful' strategy to get UK Syrian involvement
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323561-david-cameron-isis-strategy/
Published time: 26 Nov, 2015 14:52
RT: Will the UK Prime Minister David Cameron manage to convince Parliament that Britain should join the aerial campaign against Islamic State forces in Syria?
Peter Ford: His case was very unconvincing. He put forward, I would call, a deceitful sort of strategy – a strategy trompe l'oeil - designed to deceive the eye. This is what that strategy is. For example, he claimed that the Syrian opposition forces could put 70,000 men in the field against IS and he gave the impression the most of these were under the command of the so-called Free Syrian Army. This is straight-forward deceit. I choose my words carefully – the FSA is a laughable front organization for jihadists. It can only itself put about 5,000 men in the field. The idea that this would be the cornerstone of a 'boots on the ground' force to drive out IS and accompanying airstrikes is laughable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMs0Ivs7FTI
The video you've linked is food for thought Room.
All that has occurred on Planet Earth within the past 100 years,
particularly in the Middle East, has been in accordance with the
PLAN devised by Babylon the Great. (http://henrymakow.com/2015/12/greater-israel-and-exodus-of-syrians%20.html)
Radical Extremism, Terrorism, staged events utilizing horrendous
brutality; it is all being managed by those who seek to
fulfill their dream of the New Order of the World.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.11, 20:28:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMs0Ivs7FTI
Sounds to me like the whole doctrine of Islam is so completely screwed up it takes acts of congress to actually support it. If left on its own, normal thinking people would bury this disgusting ideology in a very short time.
Funny he mentions Workplace Violence in the same discourse. I knew it the moment I smelled it at work being pushed down our throats this was part of a much larger agenda.
Greater Israel and the Exodus of Syrians
http://henrymakow.com/2015/12/greater-israel-and-exodus-of-syrians%20.html
December 10, 2015
Syrian writer suggests ISIS atrocities are designed to clear the land of all unwanted Syrian citizens, sects and communities which might stand in the way of Illuminati Jewish designs for a Greater Israel. This is why their puppet politicians in the West accept them. I wonder if we'll see a wave of antisemitism in the West, including false flag attacks, designed to make Jews fill this vacuum.
Syrian Free Press (Excerpt by henrymakow.com)
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/syrian-planned-genocide/
The Greater Israel Project lies at the very heart of the [Illuminati Jewish] geopolitical triangulation strategy throughout the Middle East. The United States, the United Kingdom and the Modern State of Israel have collaborated quite closely for well over a century to implement this final phase of destruction of several Mideast nations. Because their once clandestine agenda has now become transparent to the many concerned countries, these 3 nations have become known as the true Axis of Evil in the world today.
Just as Israel was born out of terrorism, the outright theft of Palestinian land has occurred by way of incessant false flag terror operations. These and many other highly deceptive and destructive tactics have been used... just as they are now being utilized in Syria. The very essence of their 'Relocation Plan' is the employment of every form of terror. Just like the Armenian Holocaust was implemented by the same Zionist cabal to scare them away from their communities, which it did, the ISIS and Al Nusra terrorist groups have been set up and enabled to do the very same.
The purposeful and slow-motion Zionist genocide of the Palestinian people has likewise furthered the cabal's Greater Israel agenda. Systematically getting rid of those indigenous peoples throughout much of the Middle East is a central component of that agenda. In this particular regard the globalists seek not only to remove the Palestinians, but the Syrians from their lands as well. Witness what is perhaps the largest mass migration in modern history of Syrian people to Europe. Irrespective of the fact that the forefathers of Syrians and Palestinians alike have lived in the Mideast for centuries and in Israel over millennia, the Zionist cabal is intent on their removal.
That the USA funded, equipped and armed ISIS is now a generally accepted fact of life in the Middle East. Even President Barack Obama has yet to deny such a self-evident truth.
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES WORK FOR CENTRAL BANKERS
All of the intelligence agencies and secret services, to include first and foremost the aforementioned "nexus of the CIA, MI6, DGSE and MOSSAD", have a common home in Switzerland. Switzerland is not only the most protected banking capital in the world as demonstrated by its unique neutrality status during WWII, as well as home to the highly secretive BIS (Bank for International Settlements), it is also the true home of the headquarters of the CIA (aka The Company).
It ought to be obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills that the appearance of ISIS and Al Nusra on the Mideast set -- coming practically out of nowhere as they did -- could only have happened with the enormous support of a well established network the size of The Company. Bearing in mind that the CIA is intimately connected to every Fortune 500 company, as well as to a whole slew of super-secret, privately held corporations across the planet.
Clearly, the rapid emergence of ISIS and Al Nusra was both state and corporate-sponsored in a major way. Given this reality, there are very few state sponsors (with well connected intelligence agencies) that would qualify, and, therefore, which must also be working in concert in order to pull off this con of the millennium. Hence, the CIA, MI6, DGSE and MOSSAD must necessarily all be working closely together to maintain the Islamic State. It has even been proven that ISIS-controlled oil wells and transportation routes have been carefully protected by the very same CIA-coordinated network, just as their oil revenues have been safeguarded in their ultra-secret Swiss bank accounts.
Who could possibly refute the effects that so many highly publicized beheadings and crucifixions would have on Syrian communities across the Levant? Just like the Armenian Holocaust, the many spiritual communities which dot the Syrian countryside rightly assessed the danger associated with the Fric & Frac of terrorism--ISIS & Al Nusra. They had seen this all before when the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, who also happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time, were genocided by the Young Turks and their crypto-Jewish masters.
What better way for the Zionist cabal to clear the land of all unwanted Syrian citizens, sects and communities which might stand in the way of their designs for a Greater Israel?
Not only did their scare tactics work, as they did when they crucified the Armenian girls pictured above, and below, they have now overrun Europe with an unparalleled refugee crisis. Because the same Zionist cabal effectively controls all the major leaders of the European Union, it has been quite easy for them to ensure an EU-wide open border policy. In spite of an unprecedented backlash to the ongoing exodus ending up in both Germany and France, both Chancellor Angela Merkel and President François Hollande have obeyed their masters remarkably well.
Very few realize that the unending incidence of beheadings by ISIS and mass shootings by ISIL were carefully scripted to scare the living daylights out of every Middle Easterner. Incidentally, whether these grotesque acts of violence were actually faked is inconsequential at this point. All that the cabal wanted was to sufficiently terrorize the Mideast masses so that they could be corralled into any pen of their making. By instilling the fear of wanton and barbaric terror into so many, the desired mass migration would take place of its own accord. And so it did ... and right on time in 2015!
War Is a Racket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit (including war profiteering) from warfare.
After his retirement from the Marine Corps, Butler made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech "War is a Racket". The speech was so well received that he wrote a longer version as a small book with the same title that was published in 1935 by Round Table Press, Inc., of New York. The booklet was also condensed in Reader's Digest as a book supplement which helped popularize his message. In an introduction to the Reader's Digest version, Lowell Thomas, the "as told to" author of Butler's oral autobiographical adventures, praised Butler's "moral as well as physical courage".
Book
In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.
The work is divided into five chapters:
War is a racket
Who makes the profits?
Who pays the bills?
How to smash this racket!
To hell with war!
It contains this key summary:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
The book has significance historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese.
"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
Butler explains that the common rationale for the buildup of the US fleet and the war games is fear that "the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people."
Recommendations
In the booklet's penultimate chapter, Butler argues that three steps are necessary to disrupt the war racket:
Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before other citizens are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. ... Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get."
Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it. He also suggests a limited referendum to determine if the war is to be fought. Eligible to vote would be those who risk death on the front lines.
Limitation of militaries to self-defense. For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.12, 08:24:30
Limitation of militaries to self-defense. For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.
This last point by Butler is itself limited by the technological era he was living in. (WW1)
The delivery system range (V2 rocket) and devastating power of nuclear weapons was not a piece on his chessboard. (first nuclear weapons appeared end of WW2, approx 1945)
The necessity for the Navy carrying nuclear ICBM's on board to operate globally as a permanent nuclear deterrant strategy is a central pillar of MAD doctrine.
Mutual assured destructionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Mutual assured destruction or MAD, is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see Pre-emptive nuclear strike and Second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.11, 23:16:02
Sounds to me like the whole doctrine of Islam is so completely screwed up it takes acts of congress to actually support it. If left on its own, normal thinking people would bury this disgusting ideology in a very short time.
Funny he mentions Workplace Violence in the same discourse. I knew it the moment I smelled it at work being pushed down our throats this was part of a much larger agenda.
Hi Matt,
Yes the ideology is so disgusting no one sane would follow or believe it for very long. Yes your right at this point it is taking legislation to try and keep islam looking sane and normal which it is not. Dar al harb and dar al islam, the two divisions of the world that islam has made it's doctrine, the world of war and the world of islam, if you are not part of dar al islam then they are at war with you, they leave no other choice for you, it is their doctrine.
A wise thing to do is study what ex-muslims say about islam, people like Noni Darwish, Waffa Sultan, Ayan Hirsi Ali and the man who was a terrorist and then turned Christian Walid Shobat I may have the spelling of some of their names wrong but you get the idea.
Here is a statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the U.K. explaining the reasons why they have left islam:
"One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammed's life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur'an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Mohammed was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way.
Mohammed was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved then that of a 6 year old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sort of crimes and his evil deeds are justified."
These people risk their lives to speak out so please listen to them.
Why is it with islam we must always consider all other possibilities before looking at the obvious. Must be work place violence!
Room, It's impossible to deny truthful history, and the way you describe Mohammed, is the description of an intelligent psychopath. It is what it is. No argument here.
However the real problem is the U.S. and co.'s meddling and arming of these nutjobs. Without western support of either direct funding or just ignoring and denying the illegal aid and weapons supplied by the U.S.'s Arab Allies then the weapons would be very limited to them and so would the money from the stolen and smuggled oil ect..
The U.S. and it's partners have nurtured this ISIS group and still do, but out of the other side of their mouth they say they are trying to kill them, but the are helping them.
Does that make the U.S. government criminals, I say yes.
I see no reason to remove Assad as Syria was one country that did have Muslims Christians and other religions all living in peace. He kept the peace.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia and Israel and Turkey would all benefit from Assad being removed and a U.S. puppet government installed.
Personally I see no reason to be religious at all, as long as I live a good and honest life and help others in need then if there is a heaven and a hell I will go to heaven anyway. if not then "God" is wrong and unjust if he exists. I do not believe in Gods though i have no real problem with religion except that I feel that if people need religion to live a good and just life they must have real problems.
I even see people who believe in any God without reservation as having some kind of mental affliction, be it insidious or benign is not my call.
I believe that all public worship of non physical entities or imagined entities should be illegal, there is no need for it. If people want to pray to Jesus or God or Budda or whatever they ought to do it in private, a persons relationship with their God should be personal and private.
I am skeptical that 80 to 90 % of people who claim to be Christians are in actual fact not really Christians, this is evidenced by their actions. Similar goes for some other religions as well. Millions of people use Christianity to further their own goals while not actually being Christians.
I see the entire religious movement as suspicious, that means all religions.
Religion is a form of mind control. I actually think that true atheists should be the only ones allowed in positions of power in Government, otherwise their decisions may be influenced by their religious teachings or beliefs.
It might be controversial to say it but I think sane people are atheists. Many may claim to be Christians just to make themselves more acceptable.
..
If this U.S. air strike on an ISIS artillery piece is not scripted and the ISIS fighters not warned then I am not sitting here, they vacated the weapon because they were warned via leaflet drop or even direct or relayed comms. No ISIS fighters killed, it looks to be done for show, but ISIS films it and things become more clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SDrRRg23G4
They vacated the weapon so a precision strike could destroy a single artillery piece for the bomb camera's to show on the news as the U.S. bombing ISIS. It's sickening that the U.S. is sponsoring these animals and warning them before many airstrikes. The U.S. admits air drops of leaflets to warn the oil smuggling truck drivers of an air strike 45 minutes in advance. They probably even write the exact time of the day and what will be hit. There is evidence of weapons drops as well.
..
The fact is that even without any Muslims the U.S. would find or create another "boogy man" or movement to hijack and use to further their evil Agenda's given them by the banking Cartel.
..
Quote from: FarmHand
I see no reason to remove Assad as Syria was one country that did have Muslims Christians and other religions all living in peace. He kept the peace.
Precisely! Which is also precisely why those who have created the State
of Israel and who continue to enable its expansion must first destroy Syria
as they've already done to Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt. Jordan will be
destroyed as well at a future time in their PLAN.
Prophecy tells us that Damascus will be utterly destroyed as if by nuclear
weapon. It is beginning to look more and more like Israel will be the source
of that event. Russia's success at eliminating the de-stabilizers and destroyers
of Syria makes it a huge obstacle to the fruition of Greater Israel.
Or it could be the work of NATO as they too seem very determined to destroy
Syria in order to facilitate the rise of Greater Israel.
We should know fairly soon how this will come to pass...
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.12, 22:38:05
Room, It's impossible to deny truthful history, and the way you describe Mohammed, is the description of an intelligent psychopath. It is what it is. No argument here.
However the real problem is the U.S. and co.'s meddling and arming of these nutjobs. Without western support of either direct funding or just ignoring and denying the illegal aid and weapons supplied by the U.S.'s Arab Allies then the weapons would be very limited to them and so would the money from the stolen and smuggled oil ect..
The U.S. and it's partners have nurtured this ISIS group and still do, but out of the other side of their mouth they say they are trying to kill them, but the are helping them.
Does that make the U.S. government criminals, I say yes.
I see no reason to remove Assad as Syria was one country that did have Muslims Christians and other religions all living in peace. He kept the peace.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia and Israel and Turkey would all benefit from Assad being removed and a U.S. puppet government installed.
Personally I see no reason to be religious at all, as long as I live a good and honest life and help others in need then if there is a heaven and a hell I will go to heaven anyway. if not then "God" is wrong and unjust if he exists. I do not believe in Gods though i have no real problem with religion except that I feel that if people need religion to live a good and just life they must have real problems.
I even see people who believe in any God without reservation as having some kind of mental affliction, be it insidious or benign is not my call.
I believe that all public worship of non physical entities or imagined entities should be illegal, there is no need for it. If people want to pray to Jesus or God or Budda or whatever they ought to do it in private, a persons relationship with their God should be personal and private.
I am skeptical that 80 to 90 % of people who claim to be Christians are in actual fact not really Christians, this is evidenced by their actions. Similar goes for some other religions as well. Millions of people use Christianity to further their own goals while not actually being Christians.
I see the entire religious movement as suspicious, that means all religions.
Religion is a form of mind control. I actually think that true atheists should be the only ones allowed in positions of power in Government, otherwise their decisions may be influenced by their religious teachings or beliefs.
It might be controversial to say it but I think sane people are atheists. Many may claim to be Christians just to make themselves more acceptable.
..
If this U.S. air strike on an ISIS artillery piece is not scripted and the ISIS fighters not warned then I am not sitting here, they vacated the weapon because they were warned via leaflet drop or even direct or relayed comms. No ISIS fighters killed, it looks to be done for show, but ISIS films it and things become more clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SDrRRg23G4
They vacated the weapon so a precision strike could destroy a single artillery piece for the bomb camera's to show on the news as the U.S. bombing ISIS. It's sickening that the U.S. is sponsoring these animals and warning them before many airstrikes. The U.S. admits air drops of leaflets to warn the oil smuggling truck drivers of an air strike 45 minutes in advance. They probably even write the exact time of the day and what will be hit. There is evidence of weapons drops as well.
..
The fact is that even without any Muslims the U.S. would find or create another "boogy man" or movement to hijack and use to further their evil Agenda's given them by the banking Cartel.
..
FarmHand I don't see much here that I disagree with, I'm not going to get into an argument with you over atheism or belief in the boogyman, you can believe anything you want to as far as I am concerned. Although when you tell me that what you do believe in, calls for my death at your hands, or my enslavement by you or many other things that directly affect my life and how I live it, now I am concerned! I don't care who you are or what you believe but don't force it upon me and this is what islam is doing, it's their way of life or none, 'Jihad' and islam give you 3 choices, become muslim, pay an exorbatent tax and be a second class citizen or death. Our muslim pres won't even let us talk about it, we can no longer say words like islamic, jihad, and many other words , you all know this. How can we hope to combat the ideology of our enemy if we cannot even discuss that very same ideology heck we don't even acknowledge that we are at war or name the enemy or talk about it. Sounds to me like we have had our hands tied behind our backs and are close to being led out to the firing squad. The world is in sad shape right now and it is islam that is most of the problem, not all I know, but most.
Cheers
What if I told you that you can't see through the deception unless you embrace that this reality is a voice controlled echo chamber.
Any argument is an addiction to a flavor of that deception making what you believe to be real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9icUvrTkFiQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9icUvrTkFiQ)
And the longer version that includes current events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urubuSnXWvY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urubuSnXWvY)
EXCLUSIVE: Sarin materials brought via Turkey & mixed in Syrian ISIS camps – Turkish MP to RT
https://www.rt.com/news/325825-sarin-gas-syria-turkey/
Published time: 14 Dec, 2015 05:03
Islamic State terrorists in Syria received all necessary materials to produce deadly sarin gas via Turkey, Turkish MP Eren Erdem has told RT, insisting there are grounds to believe a cover up has taken place.
"There is data in this indictment. Chemical weapon materials are being brought to Turkey and being put together in Syria in camps of ISIS which was known as Iraqi Al Qaeda during that time," Erdem told RT.
Furthermore, Erdem argues that the West purposely blamed the regime of Bashar Assad for the August 2013 attacks and used it as part of the pretext to make US military intervention in Syria possible. The MP said that evidence in Adana's case, according to his judgment, proves that IS was responsible.
Sarin gas is a military-grade chemical that was used in a notorious attack on Ghouta and several other neighborhoods near the Syrian capital of Damascus in 2013. The attacks were pinned on the Syrian leadership, who in turn agreed to get rid of all chemical weapons stockpiles under a UN-brokered deal amid an imminent threat of US intervention.
Reports of massive chemical attack near Damascus as UN observers arrive in Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-un-775/
Published time: 21 Aug, 2013 06:27
In July, Russia submitted to the UN its analysis of samples taken west of Aleppo. Russia's findings indicated that it was rebels behind the Khan al-Assal incident, in which more than 30 people died.
The US contradicted the Russian findings, stressing they had their own data which proved that the government forces were behind the attack. However, Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN commission's inquiry into rights violations in Syria, said the evidence provided by the US did not meet required standards.
The Obama administration repeatedly called the use of chemical weapons in Syria "a red line."
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
30 August 2013
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".
France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.
The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.
The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.
Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.
Turkey Shuts Off YouTube after 'Syria Invasion Plan' Leak
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38085.htm
Access to YouTube has been cut off in Turkey after an explosive leak of audiotapes that appeared to show ministers talking about provoking military intervention in Syria.
By RT
https://www.rt.com/news/turkey-block-youtube-twitter-649/
Published time: 27 Mar, 2014 15:00
March 27, 2014 "Information Clearing House - "RT"- Access to YouTube has been cut off in Turkey after an explosive leak of audiotapes that appeared to show ministers talking about provoking military intervention in Syria. Other social media have already been blocked ahead of tumultuous local elections.
The latest leaked audio recording, which reportedly led to the ban, appears to show top government officials discussing a potential attack on the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.
March 27, 2014 "Information Clearing House - "Zero Hedge"- As we noted here, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan had blocked Twitter access to his nation ahead of what was rumored to be a "spectacular" leak before this weekend's elections. Then this morning, amid a mad scramble, he reportedly (despite the nation's court ruling the bans illegal) blocked YouTube access. However, by the magic of the interwebs, we have the 'leaked' clip and it is clear why he wanted it blocked/banned. As the rough translation explains, it purports to be a conversation between key Turkish military and political leaders discussing what appears to be a false flag attack to launch war with Syria.
ISIS Is Closing In On A Turkish Enclave Inside Of Syria — And Ankara Is Facing A Huge Dilemma
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fight-for-the-tomb-of-suelyman-shah-2014-10?op=1&IR=T
Oct. 1, 2014
Turkey has been calling for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to leave office since early in the country's conflict and had one of its fighter planes shot down inside Syria in June of 2012. Turkey's called for a no-fly zone in northern Syria, while barely cracking down on anti-Assad jihadists operating on its territory. It's plotted its policy around NATO or US interventions that never transpired, gambled on Assad's eventual downfall, and perhaps even aided the rise of the some of the militants that the US-led coalition is now bombing in Syria.
Again, none of this ties in with the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, at least not directly. Turkish policy in Syria is hamstrung by all sorts of other factors. But as Stein explained to Business Insider, many domestic critics inside Turkey believe that the Islamist government of President Reccip Tayyip Erdogan supports ISIS outright, while some in the international community are skeptical of what they see as Turkey's half-hearted approach to the fight against the group.
"Most of what's going on is a direct rebuttal to growing, severe domestic polarization in Turkey," he says. So the tomb is a convenient justification for Turkey's equivocal policy in Syria — even if it's one small aspect of a larger and more complicated mess.
Ancient Tomb Helps Push Turkey to Authorize Force Against Islamic State
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141003-suleyman-tomb-ottoman-osman-turkey-syria-isis/
Threat to Suleyman Shah's tomb helps trigger Turkey's response to the jihadist group.
By Roff Smith, for National Geographic
PUBLISHED Sat Oct 04 06:04:00 EDT 2014
Had it not been for Syria's brutal civil war, the tomb of Suleyman Shah would have likely remained a geographical footnote. But this week the 700-year-old tomb became a flashpoint that helped prod Turkey into entering the battle against the Islamic State (IS; also called ISIS or ISIL).
For centuries the tomb has stood beside the banks of the Euphrates, the river where Suleyman is presumed to have drowned in 1236 while on campaign in what is now Syria.
As the grandfather of Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire, his tomb and its accompanying shrine are revered historical sites for the Turks.
One of the clauses in the 1921 Treaty of Ankara, which shaped the boundaries of modern Syria, stipulated that the former Ottoman tomb would remain a Turkish exclave within the new Syria, flying the Turkish flag and protected by an honor guard of Turkish soldiers.
And so it has remained. Even when the tomb itself was physically shifted 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) upstream in 1973 to accommodate flooding from the Assad Dam, its essential Turkishness was never in doubt. Legally, spiritually, emotionally, it remained as Turkish in Turkish eyes as the Golden Horn—even though it lay 20 miles (32 kilometers) inside Syria.
In recent days bitter fighting between extremists from the Islamic State and Syrian Kurdish militias in the area has sent thousands of refugees streaming across the Turkish border. As IS fighters advanced on the town of Ayn al Arab (Kobane), near the tomb, Turkish leaders faced the question of what to do if Suleyman Shah's tomb is captured, let alone destroyed, as IS fighters have been known to destroy tombs and mosques elsewhere in Syria.
On Thursday Turkey's parliament voted 298 to 98 to authorize military action against Islamic State forces. It's unclear to what degree the tomb factored into the decision, but Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly said that his country would defend the tomb, which it regards as sovereign territory.
Earlier this year the 30 or so young conscripts who usually guard the sleepy outpost were replaced by 60 Special Forces troops. And this week the nation's senior ranking general, Necdet Özel, issued a statement saying that the Turkish army was prepared to come to the aid of the soldiers guarding the tomb.
Footage shows Paris attack scenes
13 November 2015 Last updated at 23:55 GMT
Scores of people have been killed in multiple shootings in the French capital, Paris, and explosions near the Stade de France.
French media say at least 15 people have been killed near the Bataclan arts centre, where up to 60 people are reportedly being held hostage.
Hugh Schofield reports for BBC World News.
France Pounds IS Stronghold With 20 Bombs
http://news.sky.com/story/1588256/france-pounds-is-stronghold-with-20-bombs
Monday 16 November 2015
France says it has the "legitimacy" to strike back at IS after the Paris massacre and bombs a jihadi training camp and arms depot.
Britain launches airstrikes hours after Parliament backs ISIS bombings
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/europe/isis-britain-germany-vote-iraq-syria/index.html
December 3, 2015
(CNN)British fighter jets have taken part in their first airstrikes in Syria, hours after UK lawmakers voted in favor of bombing ISIS strongholds there.
"RAF Tornadoes have just returned from their first offensive operation over Syria and have conducted strikes," a spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defense (MOD) said early Thursday.
The four jets took off from Akrotiri air base in Cyprus, targeting an oil field in Eastern Syria, the MOD told CNN.
More details on the operation are expected from the ministry later today.
Lawmakers voted 397 in favor of action and 223 against, following a 10-hour debate.
After the November 13 terror attacks in Paris, France asked the U.S.-led coalition to bump up the military offensive against ISIS.
Now that Britain has decided to expand airstrikes that it previously conducted only in Iraq, the spotlight is on the German Parliament, which also is expected to approve greater military commitment against the terror group.
The German plan would activate 1,200 troops in anti-ISIS efforts, but in a support role -- not direct combat.
U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed the British move and said the coalition would work "to integrate them into our coalition air tasking orders as quickly as possible."
Crippled in Syria, Turkey goes for a 'Sunnistan' in Iraq
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/325218-syria-turkey-iraq-war/
Pepe Escobar
Published time: 9 Dec, 2015 13:01
Turkey's "incursion" into Iraq is a cold, calculated move. And once again, the name of the game is – what else? – Divide and Rule.
Turkey sent to Iraqi Kurdistan – which is part of the state of Iraq - no less than a 400-strong battalion supported by 25 M-60A3 tanks. Now the Turkish boots on the ground at Bashiqa camp, northeast of Mosul, have reportedly reached a total of around 600.
The short breakdown: this is not a "training camp"- as Ankara is spinning. It's a full-blown, perhaps permanent, military base.
The dodgy deal was struck between the ultra-corrupt Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu in Erbil last month.
Torrents of Turkish spin swear this is only about "training" Peshmergas to fight ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Absolute nonsense. The crucial fact is that Ankara is terrified of the "4+1" alliance fighting Islamic State, which unites Iran, Iraqi Shiites and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as well as Hezbollah, with Russia.
In Syria, Ankara is virtually paralyzed, after the "stab in the back" downing of the Su-24; the Russian revelations of complicity between Turkey's first family and stolen Syrian oil (Bilal Erdogan, a.k.a. Erdogan 'Mini Me', denies everything); and the Russian Air Force relentless pounding of Turkey's fifth column Turkmen. Not to mention the deployment of S-400s and even a third-generation submarine complete with Kalibr cruise missiles.
So Ankara now switches the attention to Iraq with a "counter-alliance", made up of Turkey; the KRG (which – illegally – sells oil to Turkey); and Sunnis in northern Iraq under the supposed leadership of the sprawling Nuceyfi tribe in Mosul.
This is textbook neo-Ottomanism in action. We should never forget that for the AKP in power in Ankara, northern Syria and northern Iraq are nothing but former Ottoman Empire provinces, an eastward extension of Turkey's Hatay province. 'Sultan' Erdogan's (unstated) wet dream is to annex the whole lot.
Meanwhile, Daesh still controls Mosul. But Iraqi Sunnis – as well as the Iraqi Army - are slowly setting up an offensive.
So what Ankara wants with this military base close to Mosul is to be part of the game, coupled with two "invisible" agendas; protect their fifth-column Turkmen, wherever they are, and having more boots on the ground to fight – what else – PKK Kurds taking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan.
'Sultan' Erdogan's whole rationale is that Baghdad does not rule northern Iraq anymore (he's got a point). But the problem, for Ankara, is that the real powers in the region may turn out to be Shiites and the PKK (that's far-fetched; but that's Erdogan thinking.)
'Sultan' Erdogan has extremely close business deals with the KRG's 'Mobster-in-Chief', Massoud Barzani – as in the oil exporting deal which, illegally, bypasses Baghdad. Barzani, predictably, has no problems with Turkish military designs; after all "his" oil is paid for by the Turks.
As for the clincher, follow geopolitical ace Mick Jagger: it's a gas, gas, gas.
Ankara's move plays straight into the ultimate 'Pipelineistan' war; the clash between two competing gas pipelines, Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Syria-Turkey, or Iran-Iraq-Syria, at the heart of the Syrian tragedy.
Erdogan's paranoia that Russia may cut off gas supplies to Turkey after the downing of the Su-24 – something that Gazprom simply won't do – has led Ankara, in desperation, to force Baghdad, mob-style, to "accept" a Qatar gas pipeline crossing Iraqi, not Syrian territory.
Needless to add this far-fetched scheme is an absolute no-go for Baghdad, which is part of the "4+1" alliance. Moreover, expect Iran – and Russia – to go no holds barred exploiting divisions among the notoriously divisive Kurds to bomb Erdogan's elaborate plans.
Erdogan's bottom line is quite something; he is aiming for no less than an Iraqi 'Sunnistan' – jointly managed by the ultra-corrupt KRG and assorted Sunnis, but under Turkish security arrangements. As if Washington and Tel-Aviv would let him get away with that.
The fact is that at least for the moment, while his game in Syria may be going down the drain, Erdogan has decided to change the subject and turbo-charge his strategy for breaking up Iraq.
The gift
And that brings up the question, once again, of how Daesh was able last year to conquer Mosul – the second city in Iraq - without a fight. And this after their notorious convoy of gleaming white Toyotas crossing the desert from Syria to Iraq managed to evade detection by the most sophisticated satellite surveillance system in the history of the Universe.
Regarding the mystery, persistent intel rumblings across the Middle East and among the "4+1" coalition are bound to turn into a volcano.
According to the rumblings, the official - Pentagon - narrative that the Iraqi Army supposed to fight Islamic State in Mosul last year got scared and simply ran away is a myth.
As we know, the Iraqi Army, trained by the Pentagon, left behind a wealth of tanks and heavy weapons duly captured by IS. And IS couldn't be luckier in collecting this almighty 'gift'.
The new narrative rules that the Pentagon deliberately "instructed" the Iraqi Army to run away, as a sort of tactical retreat, leaving behind all that fabulous hardware.
So what we have here is the Pentagon fully protected by plausible deniability.
And Islamic State duly weaponized as a proxy/regime change army in Syria. A perfect chaos-provoking tool aligned with the strategic objective of the 'Empire of Chaos' in Syria. Which, by the way, does include, in the absence of full regime change, the formation of a 'Sunnistan' in Syria as well.
Oh, but the Pentagon would never engage in such practices, would they?
In a sense it is gratifying to see all of this "dirt" about the
U.S. and the way it conducts its "business." TRUTH is
indeed often very ugly and painful.
One can only hope that enough people of good-will are
paying attention. The U.S. and The West have been
infiltrated and taken over by some very bad people.
The Good People aren't being listened to enough:
Quote from: Vaclav Klaus interview
Originally Appeared in the December print issue of COMPACT-Magazine. Translated from the German by Werner Schrimpf
Vaclav Klaus was interviewed by Juri Kotner for COMPACT-Magazine during the Valdai Forum in October, 2015. Vaclav Klaus had a prominent role in European politics for decades. He was Minister President of Czech Republik from 1992 to 1998 and Head of Parliament from 1998 to 2002. Finally from 2003 to 2013, Vaclav Klaus was President of the Czech Republic.
Longstanding former Czech President Vaclav Klaus keeps on fighting. He envisions the threat of a self- destructing Europe brought on by the politics of Berlin and Brussels, which is characterized by a confrontation with Russia, the catastrophic EURO currency, and particularly by the uncontrolled influx of refugees.
What is your opinion about the concept of a pan-European economic union reaching from Lisbon to Vladivostok?
Vaclav Klaus: Look, I am a realist and a pragmatic politician. In my eyes this concept is, for the time being, not the issue we need solve right now and should solve right now. I would go for a complete liberalization of economic borders and the free market. A common "European House" has always been the basic idea from Mikhail Gorbachev, but this is not the prevailing issue of today. Right now we have to solve "smaller" but nevertheless more important problems. Anything else would be pure idealism and naivety. First and foremost, we have to suspend the disastrous sanctions against Russia.
What other major problems would you see for Europe?
Vaclav Klaus: Europe must survive! This is the most overwhelming and most important issue of them all! The concept of Europe has been sabotaged. First we see the catastrophic common currency of the EURO. Second, we are facing the Ukraine crisis. And finally, the worst issue is the migration crisis. All these problems are tragic failures brought on by European politicians lead by Mrs. Angela Merkel. Europe must not be destroyed, but I am afraid that we are heading to a point of no return.
When looking at the current mass integration do you think this poses a threat to the European tradition of Christianity?
Vaclav Klaus: Absolutely! I would agree 100 percent. And I cannot understand how Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Gauck can be so totally ignorant. They are completely naïve!
Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Gauck – whose interests do they represent? European interests...?
Vaclav Klaus: This is definitely not the case! To that I have to add something. Often you hear from the politicians that "the Europeans" want this and "the Europeans" want that. But there is no "one type of European citizen". This is a false identity and I hope I never used this term. Instead of the one type of European we see various types of people in Europe. I myself am living in Europe, I am a citizen of Prague, a citizen of the Czech Republic, a citizen of Middle Europe – that is primarily important. The identity with Europe is secondary. I would be 100 percent for a Europe of strong nation states. I disapprove any form of "political correctness" and this is true since my time as President of the Republic and as Minister President.
Whose goal is it to have a centralized European Super State?
Vaclav Klaus: First of all, naive European politicians have this in mind, and further, less naïve political commissioners. On the other hand, I am sure that the U.S. has a hand in this game. Henry Kissinger asked 45 years ago, "Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?" For the U.S., it would be complicated to deal with 30 single nations individually. That's why it's much more convenient for them to address its demands and wishes to one supranational European institution and channel Europe in a certain direction.
Do you think that the Russian military engagement in Syria has a stabilizing effect on the flow of Syrian refugees?
Vaclav Klaus: At the beginning of the so-called Syrian civil war, there were millions of refugees who stayed in Middle East and Turkey. What's "different" from that right now? The massive flow of refugees coming to Europe. This statement may sound trivial, but I am convinced that this flood of refugees is not by accident and I am convinced there is a master plan behind it. Why is this happening right now and not years before? Who has invited these people? Who has forced and motivated these people to move towards Europe right now? These disturbing events have nothing to do with the Russian engagement in Syria.
But if this is true – who is to blame for the flood of refugees?
Vaclav Klaus: Why don't you pose this question to Ms Merkel or Mr Gauck...?
Erdogan's Strikes in the Dark and Russia's Thousand Stings
http://www.globalresearch.ca/erdogans-strikes-in-the-dark-and-russias-thousand-stings/5495678
Russia knows well why Turkey shot down one of its warplanes in hot pursuit. Like Saudi Arabia, the emirate minions and Israel, Turkey of course has been losing its most prized pieces inside Syria–an assortment of the most violent jihadi and ultranationalist elements. The process may be systematic and limited for now, but the losses for the Wahhabi terrorists are truly mind-boggling. Their scale testifies to the vast infrastructure of terror, murder and theft built up with billions of petrodollars.
Until now, the Syro-Russian-Iranian strategy seems to be to secure government-held areas, seal off the borders with Turkey, Jordan and Israel, now that the border with Lebanon is mostly impassable for the terrorists. Sealed in, all the foreign and foreign-controlled terrorist outfits will be more effectively pulled out by their roots.
Russia knows that Turkey simply wanted to complicate its unenviable task in Syria by introducing new, unexpected risks in the sky. But this has not really complicated Russia's declared first strategic mission to crush Turkey's pieces and the rest of the foreign Wahhabi presence in Syria. The difference now is that Russia is more determined than ever.
The second goal, in that order, is to ensure proper negotiations take place between the Syrian government and whatever Syrian opposition exists, leaving out the foreign or foreign-controlled outfits around which the West has been dancing. Hence the maneuvering at the Ryadh "opposition" conference to rehabilitate those same Wahhabi terrorists by any means, and the continued demand for the overthrow of the Syrian government, despite the fact that the terrorists are being erased on the battlefield.
The cooperation of some elements of the so-called Free Syria Army with Russia has already begun to produce good results in the fight to dislodge the Wahhabis. This cooperation has extended to coordination on the ground with the Syrian government army itself. In other words, Russia is already wrenching away pieces that the United States to this day pretends are its "allies" and which Britain insists are the fictitious "70,000 troops" ready to assist it against ISIL.
At any rate, Putin has been keen to raise the ante with Turkey with the painful economic sanctions he has so far slapped, a temporary tit-for-tat to make sure nobody fantasizes about the smell of Russian blood and be tempted to repeat Turkey's "stab in the back." But hurt Turkey he absolutely will–one step at a time. For starters, he will do it by enabling the Syrian army and the region's republican forces to crush the Wahhabi terrorist plague in Syria. Further measures will depend on Turkey's future actions and policy, which apparently are now going off the rails even inside NATO. The Turkish troop-incursion fiasco in Iraq this week is a clear example of desperation.
Then there is the case of Saudi Arabia. It is presently in dire straights in Yemen. Just this week it lost the eighth "Coalition" ship off the coast to Yemeni forces allied to Ansarullah Party led by the Houthis. It is financially exhausted because of this misadventure and diplomatically so isolated that pressure has mounted fast right up to the United Nations Security Council, as we hear today regarding an upcoming discussion of the Yemen. The United States itself has been privately expressing grave concern about the course of its operations.
In hindsight, Saudi Arabia has been planning for decades with Israel to topple every secular republican government and movement, from Syria to Tunisia, in fulfillment of an original plan dreamed up by Britain and France before World War II. For decades, the Saudi monarchy has been on board with that plan to balkanize the Middle East into religio-ethnic enclaves in order to guarantee the survival of the Zionist race colony and to finish with that "troublesome business" of Palestine.
Clearly, Israel is the centerpiece in this unfolding regional drama.
Continuing to trample this wild dream to dust, one that's more fit for the wild animals, is thus the most effective response that Russia could undertake. This is the same addle-brained balkanization scheme that Bush and his Neocon gang (re: Israel lobby) revived on the pretext of 9-11. But if the United States persists in it, thinking it can redesign the Middle East in its own image, it will go down the tubes even faster than it presently is.
Nothing is going well for either the US or its retrograde allies.
Prof. Anthony F. Shaker, Visiting Scholar, Institute of Islamic Studies
McGill University
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.14, 20:33:37
Then there is the case of Saudi Arabia. It is presently in dire straights in Yemen. Just this week it lost the eighth "Coalition" ship off the coast to Yemeni forces allied to Ansarullah Party led by the Houthis. It is financially exhausted because of this misadventure and diplomatically so isolated that pressure has mounted fast right up to the United Nations Security Council, as we hear today regarding an upcoming discussion of the Yemen. The United States itself has been privately expressing grave concern about the course of its operations.
Make that 10 warships sunk followed by a swift retreat of remaining forces:
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940923001367
TEHRAN (FNA)- Yemen's army and popular forces targeted and destroyed two Saudi warships in the waters near Bab al-Mandab Strait on Monday, bringing the number of the Saudi vessels sent down in the waters offshore Yemen to 10.
Other Saudi battleships that were approaching Yemen's coasts retreated fast following the attack.
The Criminalization of Parliamentary Democracy
Full article at link, well done Prof Michel Chossudovsky!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-criminalization-of-parliamentary-democracy/5495210
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 11, 2015
Syria is being bombed as part of a "counter-terrorism campaign" allegedly against the Islamic State, an elusive "outside enemy" based in Raqqa, Northern Syria.
While the ISIL is said to be "threatening the Western World", the evidence confirms that the Islamic State is supported and financed by the Western military alliance, together with Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Amply documented, Al Qaeda and its various affiliates including the Islamic State Caliphate Project are creations of Western intelligence.
Moreover, whatever the justification, the bombing of a sovereign country is an illegal and criminal act under international law. It constitutes a war of aggression, namely a crime against the peace under Nuremberg (Principle VI):
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.05, 16:09:24
The fact is, as Russia's Defense Ministry spokesman Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy said; the US has done little to nothing to halt the terror oil trade out of Syria. Russia, by contrast, has destroyed dozens of oil processing facilities and over 1,000 trucks since it began its military intervention less than two months ago – wholesale damage that has cut terror smuggling revenues by 50 percent, according to the Russian military.
Now that Russia has presented a damning picture of how Islamic State and other jihadist terror groups have been financing their terror campaign in Syria a ball of questions is in the US court.
Turkey is a member of the US-led NATO military alliance, the organization supposedly responsible for maintaining security and defense in Europe. Turkey must surely be kicked out of NATO for its role in sponsoring terrorism.
How can France, in particular, remain in the same military alliance with a country that is financing terror groups that were involved in a mass killing on the streets of Paris only three weeks ago?
But Washington and its allies have much more to answer for. Oil convoys heading north into Turkey is just one half of a giant racket, with the other half involving convoys of weapons and jihadists fighters heading south into Syria. US and British military intelligence are implicated in this terror transmission, according to American journalist Seymour Hersh.
The weapons supply from Turkey to terror groups in Syria, with the collusion of Turkish state intelligence, is coming to light with the arrest last week of Turkish journalists who have dared to uncover the state-sponsored oil-for-weapons racket.
Russia's latest evidence presents a stark choice. The world can now see who is fueling conflict and terrorism in Syria and beyond. Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism. And other NATO members are also implicated. If legal sanctions do not follow, then we will know, chillingly, that the world has descended into gangsterism and barbarism.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg53355#msg53355
Qatar Unplugged - How Qatar is aiding The West and
Israel as the game goes on:
Quote from: Analysis
Qatar Unplugged
by Ghassan Kadi
When Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, its population was a meagre 100,000. Fifty years or so later, its population has ballooned to nearly 2.2 million, but only 275,000 are actual Qataris. The rest are not migrants, they are not going to be integrated in the population as fully fledged citizens, they are simply hired expats on contracts, performing different tasks, and when they finish their work, they return to their homes.
In the few centuries leading up to its independence, successive Qatari emirs have engaged in fierce battles with rulers of Bahrain and the Wahhabis of Najd (to become later on Saudi Arabia). The Al-Thani family took the throne by the mid nineteenth century, and they continue to do so today.
The peninsula that was marred by regional and tribal conflict was otherwise a quaint pearling centre until oil was discovered in the 1930's.
When the British declared Qatar as a protectorate, a reciprocal deal was struck between the Qatari rulers and the British, in which Britain wanted to secure safe trade routes whilst the Qataris needed protection from their neighbours and rivals.
The new-found oil wealth might have reduced the need of those warring tribes to continue fighting over limited resources, but their rivalries and hatred towards each other did not go away. As a matter of fact, Qatar refused to join the United Arab Emirates and chose independence instead.
The seemingly united Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in reality a consortium of ancient enemies who were brought together by common fear over their wealth from would-be invaders. Certainly, over and above their fear of each other, they also fear Iran and this fear goes back to the days of the Shah and beyond, and it is much deeper than a sheer sectarian Sunni-Shiite hatred.
Security has always been a Qatari obsession, and it doesn't take much research effort to read about the many military conflicts that the Qataris have had with their neighbours. It's a long story of deception, treachery, distrust, invasions and pillaging. And what is interesting is to note that historically speaking, the Qatari rulers had no qualms seeking protection from friends afar against their local neighbours.
But why would a country, which has never been a true state in its own right till very recently, a so-called nation that has a population that is no bigger than that of a single district of Damascus, Aleppo or Baghdad, why would such a tiny insignificant entity want to be a regional leader? And why would it be so adamant about using Islamist Jihadists to destroy much older and bigger states like Iraq, Libya and Syria?
The more one looks into what Qatar is doing, the question of why it is doing so become less significant. The question changes from why is Qatar doing what it is doing to the question of what Qatar really is.
Qatar is not a nation. It does not have the foundations of a nation. Qatar is not even a state when it has the population of a municipality, and it is definitely not a regional leader.
Qatar ought to be seen for what it is. Qatar is simply a very big and rich company. It is not any different from Shell Oil or BP, with the single difference that it has a UN-given mandate that gives it a seat as a UN member and the legitimacy that comes with it, something that private corporations do not have.
This is on the political scene. On the military scene, Qatar is a much more sinister "company". In this respect, it is not a Western partner, a colony, a vassal state, an agent state or an ally in strategic military alliance.
Qatar is simply an outpost, a precinct, but not for America as first comes to one's mind.
The rise of Blackwater Security Company to prominence, a couple of decades ago, raised some eyebrows about the nature of future reliance of rich states on hired security. Qatar most certainly depends on the USA for its defence, just like historically it has depended on Britain. Strategically, it has reciprocated favours with the American "Big Brother" when it offered its soil as a base to launch the attacks on Saddam.
Geopolitically, Qatar has played a big role serving the interests of the same "Big Brother" in Syria. It spent billions on munitions to supply Al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations within Syria. Speaking of Syria, one should not forget the huge role that Qatar played in Libya against Gaddafi.
In both Libya and Syria, the role of Qatar was not restricted to financing revolts, but Qatar has also contributed significantly to the propaganda campaign, using its elaborate Al-Jazeera network to ramp up public anger against both Gaddafi and Assad.
Al-Jazeera has gone to the extent of staging events in Hollywood style productions, creating backgrounds that are similar to iconic places in major Syrian towns and filming scenes of actors dressed up in Syrian Army uniforms performing massacres against civilians.
So once again, how and why would such a small "nation" be so adamant on destroying Syria?
And here's another big question. America has a major ally in the Arabian Peninsula, and this ally is Saudi Arabia, so why does America need another major ally in the same region? Convenience can be an answer to some situations. For example, when the US needed a base on the ground to attack Iraq, it couldn't have used Saudi soil (being Muslim holy ground) without angering the Muslim street to an extreme, so Qatar was a handy religiously-neutral ground. By why does the US need Qatar in the fight against Syria? And why would America continue to intimidate its Saudi friends by appeasing their Qatari rivals?
A closer analysis clearly shows that Saudi and Qatari policies in Syria have had many congruencies, but some stark differences as well. In Egypt, The Qataris supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi and the Saudis did not. In as much that they both sponsored all terrorist organizations, Saudi Arabia primarily backed the "Free Syria Army" (FSA), The Army of Islam and other minor organizations, whilst Qatar was the main backer of Al-Nusra Front and what later became ISIS.
The polarization of Qatar with Turkey forming an MB-based front against Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi-Salafist front became more obvious when Qatar absconded and refused to attend GCC meetings. Needless to say that the major leadership rival for Saudi Arabia is the Sunni Turkey, not the Shiite Iran.
What is least obvious behind the Turkish-backed support of Qatar is the silent partner; Israel. Now, after the downing of the Su-24, Erdogan wants to build a military base in Qatar. How odd indeed? Why does Turkey need a base in Qatar? And how would America allow having a non-American base in Qatar?
Perhaps the question becomes easier to answer if we ask it in a different manner; if we ask who is it that really needs a military base in Qatar? Again, the only non-Qatari party that would love to have a base in Qatar is none but Israel.
It is easy to allow imagination to fly and go astray, but given the American-Iranian nuclear deal, any Israeli attack on Iran needs a launch pad that is close enough to Tehran, and you cannot get much closer than Qatar. Is the proposed Turkish base in Qatar going to be a disguised Israeli base? This is not a far-fetched speculation.
The relationship between Qatar and Israel is weird, unique, and perhaps the first of its kind. Qatar is not hiring Israel for a fee per se. Israel is protecting the "company" of Qatar and using its UN state membership status to legitimize actions that can only be sanctioned by states; a new type of warfare that not even Blackwater is capable of doing.
Qatar is neither a nation nor a state. It is a major corporation like Haliburton. It has a UN-given guise of a state, but it is a corporation that seeks survival and in doing so, it has contracted its security to Israel. Strategically and geopolitically, Qatar is an extension of Israel in the Gulf, an Israeli outpost and precinct. Its aspirations for regional leadership are just a façade created to hide its actual substance and to mislead observers from what it really is.
A clan with 200,000 subjects who need 2 million foreign expats to look after them, ten expats for each national, in order to make sure that water and hospitals are running, there is food on the supermarket shelves, and teachers are there to teach their children, is not by any measure a regional leader, a self-respecting nation, let alone a nation. A tribe is perhaps a good description of Qatar, but the word "company" hits the nail on the head.
The Al-Thani clan, the owners of the "company" aka Qatar, have gone the full circle. They are back on the track of their treacherous predecessors who were prepared to sign off to the devil in order to guarantee their security. This is exactly what the current Qatari royals are doing with Israel, and the best protection Qatar can get from Israel is by covertly striking a deal with Israel in which Qatar is rendered a military Israeli outpost.
Every other action Qatar does that is not directly related to its security, is simply a cover up and a diversion.
This will make it easier for those who are interested in actually finding out the truth about islam but don't have a koran handy.
www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Quote from: muDped on 2015.12.15, 06:56:33
Qatar Unplugged - How Qatar is aiding The West and
Israel as the game goes on:
Eric has created a new ripple here, the concept of private sovereign countries masking a powerful occupying army of conquest, is not being discussed publicly.
It might also be a good idea to examine the TRUTH
about the State of Israel.
Remember Palestine? (http://www.zengardner.com/56106-2/)
Quote from: Article
...
Brutal occupation, land confiscations, the carnage in Gaza, phosphorous bombs, blockades, generations of refugees, the settlers' binge killing sprees of Palestinians... evidently we're okay with it all; none of what happens in Palestine offends our slumbering conscience and human sensibilities which seem to awaken with fervent urgency the minute terrorism hits a Western capital, for in moments of "blowback", terrorism and counter-terrorism; everything is relegated to triviality and irrelevance, and no one even dares mention the Israeli occupation of Palestine; that other decades-old brand of terrorism which manages to cloak itself as a mere "territorial dispute" between the Israelis and the decrepit Palestinian Authority.
...
Nobody wants the people of Palestine to revolt, protest or even disturb the Israeli occupation with a mere stone's throw at its unrelenting apparatus of death, torture and destruction; everyone wants (and expects of) the Palestinians to hopelessly cower behind the bullet-ridden walls of their overcrowded, half-demolished homes, heads down to their bellies and surrender themselves to a bleak reality of living as sub-humans, stripped off their most basic rights, under an apartheid regime where arbitrary arrests and summary executions are the orders of the day, unless, of course, they're torched alive along with their loved ones in the safety of their own bedrooms by state-sponsored, swarming gangs of Zionist settlers.
...
Quote from: muDped on 2015.12.15, 19:39:33
It might also be a good idea to examine the TRUTH
about the State of Israel. Remember Palestine? (http://www.zengardner.com/56106-2/)
Hyperlink failure message server is down no cached copy stored.
Mesopotamian campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_campaign
The Mesopotamian campaign was a campaign in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I fought between the Allies represented by the British Empire, mostly troops from the Indian Empire and Australia, and the Central Powers, mostly of the Ottoman Empire.
Background
The Ottoman Empire had conquered the region in the early 16th century, but never fully gained complete control over the area. Regional pockets of Ottoman control through local proxy rulers maintained the Ottoman's reach throughout Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). With the turn of the 19th century came reforms. Work began on a Baghdad Railway in 1888; by 1915 it had only four gaps, and travel time from Istanbul to Baghdad had fallen to 21 days.
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company had obtained exclusive rights to petroleum deposits throughout the Persian Empire, except in the provinces of Azerbaijan, Ghilan, Mazendaran, Asdrabad, and Khorasan.[4] In 1914, before the war, the British government had contracted with the company for oil for the navy.[4] Kuwait was another strategic factor for the British.
The operational area of the Mesopotamian campaign was limited to the lands watered by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The main challenge was moving the supplies and troops through the swamps and deserts which surrounded the area of conflict.
Shortly after the European war started, the British sent a military force to protect Abadan, the site of one of the world's earliest oil refineries. British operational planning included landing troops in the Shatt-al-Arab. The reinforced 6th (Poona) Division from the British Indian Army was assigned, designated as Indian Expeditionary Force D (IEFD).
Another reason for British effort in Mesopotamia, especially in the minds of politicians like Austen Chamberlain (Secretary of State for India) and former Viceroy Lord Curzon, was to maintain British prestige with Indian Muslim opinion, and at first it was run by the India Office and Indian Army with little input from the War Office.[5]
The Ottoman Fourth Army was located in the region. The army was composed of two corps, the XII Corps with 35th and 36th Divisions at Mosul and XIII Corps with the 37th and 38th Divisions at Baghdad.
On 29 October 1914, after the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau, Breslau bombarded the Black Sea port of Theodosia. On 30 October the High Command in Istanbul changed the force distribution. On 2 November Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha expressed regret to the Allies for the operations of the navy. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Sazonov said it was too late and Russia considered this raid as an act of war. The Cabinet tried to explain that hostilities were begun without its sanction by German officers serving in the navy. The Allies insisted on reparations to Russia, the dismissal of German officers from the Goeben and Breslau, and the internment of the German ships until the end of the war. But before the Ottoman government responded Great Britain and France declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November. The Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress's official Declaration of War came on 14 November.[6]
When the Caucasus Campaign became a reality with the Bergmann Offensive, Enver Pasha sent the 37th Division and the XIII Corps Headquarters to the Caucasus in support of the Third Army. The entire XII Corps was deployed to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. The Fourth Army Headquarters was sent to Syria, to replace the Second Army Headquarters which went to Istanbul. In place of the Fourth Army was "Iraq Area Command" with only the 38th Division under its command.[7]
Mesopotamia was a low priority area for the Ottomans, and they did not expect any major action in this region. Regiments of the XII and XIII Corps were maintained at low levels in peacetime. Lieutenant Colonel Süleyman Askerî Bey became the commander. He redeployed portions of the 38th Division at the mouth of Shatt-al-Arab. The rest of the defensive force was stationed in Basra. The Ottoman General Staff did not even possess a proper map of Mesopotamia. They tried to draw a map with the help of some people who used to work in Iraq before the war, although this attempt failed. Enver Pasha bought two German maps scaled 1/1,500,000.
For those who may have difficulty finding the page:
Quote from: Remember Palestine
Op-Ed By Ahmad Barqawi
Maybe we've just grown tired of the Palestinian cause; maybe Palestine has lost its "revolutionary" luster after the hellish season that was the "Arab Spring", in favor of "nobler" and more urgent matters in the Arab World, like chasing the Houthis out of the Yemeni capital for instance or liberating Syria from the "Alawite" occupation, according to GGC-media that is.
Maybe it's the fact that the Palestinian issue cannot be maneuvered into yet another frontline for the Sunni-vs-Shia conflict, or maybe we've just become so brand oriented and media-hyped that we constantly need a glittery tagline to identify every little event that occurs in the region, otherwise it's forgotten or cast as an insignificance not worthy of our already short-tempered attention; maybe it's the fact that we've become so antipathetic towards anything that no longer has a face, a name or at least a catch phrase when we're still wrapped up in a pointless debate on whether what is currently happening in Palestine qualifies a Third Intifada or not (and if you're watching Western- or GCC-funded media: it's no more than rising "tension" in the West Bank).
Brutal occupation, land confiscations, the carnage in Gaza, phosphorous bombs, blockades, generations of refugees, the settlers' binge killing sprees of Palestinians... evidently we're okay with it all; none of what happens in Palestine offends our slumbering conscience and human sensibilities which seem to awaken with fervent urgency the minute terrorism hits a Western capital, for in moments of "blowback", terrorism and counter-terrorism; everything is relegated to triviality and irrelevance, and no one even dares mention the Israeli occupation of Palestine; that other decades-old brand of terrorism which manages to cloak itself as a mere "territorial dispute" between the Israelis and the decrepit Palestinian Authority.
In fact, if the Arab world has spoken, the message is loud, clear and unequivocal: Palestine can wait. And the Palestinians, whether living in the squalid rubble of what used to be their homes in Gaza on a strict, Israeli preset calorie allowance or those disappeared into the black hole of indefinite detention and torture that is the Israeli prison system, will have to stick it out in a wretched, terror-ridden existence till they get their own mainstream media headlines, 24-hour live coverage, hashtags or "safety checks" (as if the concept of safety is strictly reserved to and monopolized for the benefit of white European victims).
Nobody wants the people of Palestine to revolt, protest or even disturb the Israeli occupation with a mere stone's throw at its unrelenting apparatus of death, torture and destruction; everyone wants (and expects of) the Palestinians to hopelessly cower behind the bullet-ridden walls of their overcrowded, half-demolished homes, heads down to their bellies and surrender themselves to a bleak reality of living as sub-humans, stripped off their most basic rights, under an apartheid regime where arbitrary arrests and summary executions are the orders of the day, unless, of course, they're torched alive along with their loved ones in the safety of their own bedrooms by state-sponsored, swarming gangs of Zionist settlers.
Every time the hope-deprived Palestinians attempt to rise against the occupation, it is much to the bitter chagrin of the GCC club and its allies; for fear it might steal the "thunder" away from their unholy crusade against the people of Yemen and Syria, and manage to yet again expose the depths of their own hypocrisy and hyperbolic macho rhetoric that passes for foreign policy when it comes to Iran and the "Shiite threat".
But the Palestinians are not ones to cower in submission, they rose up against their occupiers again just like they've done countless of times before... only this time armed with knives and screwdrivers of all things, which only speaks volumes about our own complicity and chronic state of apathy towards the Palestinians and their ongoing plight; the fact that the Palestinians had to resort to kitchen utensils to defend themselves against the disproportionate military might of Israel while only a few kilometers away all manners of sophisticated weapons and multi-million dollar bombs are being recklessly dropped by the "Arabs" themselves on the poorest civilian Arab population in Yemen is both a profound indictment and a glaring testament to the rotten state of affairs that the Arab world has sunk itself into.
Evidently the Arab World is just too busy with its own frivolous sectarian wars and internal bloodletting to bother with the "annoyance" that Palestine has become to some of its Arab brethren, the Arab World is too preoccupied with its own self-inflected cleansing of religious and ethnic minorities to even notice the decades-old, ongoing-still (albeit at an accelerating pace) ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own homeland, and we've become too enamored with the notion of (re)partitioning the Arab world along sectarian frontlines to worry about the wholesale land annexation and systematic bantustanization of Palestine. I guess Mark Sykes and François Picot weren't cynical (or in their case; optimistic) enough when they reworked the map of the region in 1916 into vying, hopelessly disconnected western spheres of influence.
For Arab Governments; the Israeli Occupation of Palestine was never a priority, and the sorry lot of Arab leaders and ruling politicians right from the years of Egypt's Anwar Al Sadat onwards were never serious about challenging the Zionist colonial project, nonetheless paying a lip service to the Palestinian cause at least used to be a mainstay within Arab political discourse, if anything but to get a tinge of legitimacy and pacify an emotionally charged Arab public that was still attached to the central issue that was Palestine at the time.
Alas, nowadays; Palestine is totally forgotten and deliberately sidelined, especially (and most lamentably) on a public level, for it doesn't fit the strict sectarian brackets through which almost everything seems to be seen, dissected and understood in the region, it no longer fits our current post-Arab spring reality of chronic sub-divisions and religious fanaticism. Our priorities have been drastically reshuffled, altered beyond recognition and reconfigured to best suit the west's parasitic agenda in our region, and Palestine was thus swiftly pushed down right to the very bottom of that list.
The word "Occupation" is no longer associated with Israel, today it is solely (and excessively) used in the misleading context of the so-called "Iranian influence in the Arab World", which, for all intents and purposes, is but a direct reference to the centuries' old presence of indigenous Shiite populations in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.
Every little war and military misadventure in the Arab World is a "Holy War", especially if it's one that is (generously) funded by the GCC club; except for Palestine... it's a peace process there, and an endless one at that; never mind the daily massacres, home demolitions and mass arrests which have all become fixed components of every Palestinian's life, or the fact that Gaza has become one giant killing field and a testing ground for the latest in Israel's arsenal of internationally banned weapons and chemical munitions, when it comes to Palestine; we're all proponents of peaceful resolutions, passivity and none-violence.
Billions of dollars are being recklessly spent on the futile "Operation: Assad Must Go!" enterprise in Syria by the GCC; a fraction of which is more than capable of (literally) buying Palestinian lands' way to freedom from the clutches of the Zionist settler colonial project; not to mention, god forbid, supporting the Palestinians in their struggle against the occupation instead of splurging on throat-slitting terrorist groups and organizations. Yet not a penny for Palestine.
The Zionist usurpation of Jerusalem Al Quds somehow does not even so much as tickle "Sunni" sentiments among Arabs and Muslims, and the now routine ransacking of Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam's third holiest shrine, no longer triggers explosive "Sunni" hypersensitivities, let alone militancy, which seem to rage on only at the mere mention of Iran or the Shia sect.
The repeated invasions of refugee camps in the West Bank, the night raids into homes and the kidnapping of Palestinians from their beds and in their sleep, defacing mosques, the desecration of cemeteries, the illegal (albeit lucrative) trafficking of Palestinians' organs... apparently none of that warrants so-called "Sunni solidarity", while daily scenes of death, assault and point blank street executions of Palestinian schoolgirls and minors does nothing to shake our newfound "Sunni" moral high ground and obligation.
Only Syrian President Bashar Al Assad (and his entire religious sect) is deserving of our blind hatred and antagonism, along with the Houthis in Yemen, and way before them the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, while Israel's Benyamin Netanyahu is viewed as the "lesser of the region's many evils" if not an outright dependable ally; for now the conversion is complete and out in the open; the Zionist Israeli entity is not the enemy of the Arab World; it is Iran, or the Shiite threat, or a bizarre combination thereof... with Russian President Vladimir Putin being the latest arbitrary addition to the convoluted "Shiite crescent" against which we, as Arabs and Muslims, can (or are encouraged to) unleash our innermost militant hostility, unmitigated hatred and religious fervor with a Jihadi abandon to our hearts' content, even if it meant blowing up a civilian airliner carrying tourists for the sole reason of them being Russians, or targeting a poor neighborhood whose residents just so happen to be of the "wrong" religious sect.
And now that the GCC-controlled Arabsat, the main satellite operator in the Arab World, has suspended the only news channels with half-decent coverage of the Palestinian issue from its broadcast, namely Al Mayadeen and Al Manar TV channels; you are forced to dig deep in the wretched morass of Arabic news websites and media outlets, and carefully wade through a cobweb of anti-Iran/anti-Shia sectarian screed and gutter entertainment journalism to find news even remotely related to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and once you do; it's just pale and watered down versions of the devastating horrors inflected upon the Palestinians day in and day out by their Israeli captors, reported with a thinly veiled bias for the benefit of the Israeli narrative under the convenient pretext of "journalistic objectivity" at a time when Gulf-funded media coverage of events in Syria, Iraq and Yemen is nothing but sectarian, heavily skewed and laden with lies and fabrications to best suit their political agendas in these countries. If this is not normalization with Israel, I don't know what is.
Who said that you have to have open embassies and ambassadors to have normalized relations? The Arab world at the moment is at the height of its normalization with Israel, be it politically, culturally, athletically and yes even militarily; the Zionist regime is, for all intents and purposes, fully recognized in the Arab world while work is afoot to delegitimize every single regime (Syria, Iran) and organization (Hizbollah) that opposes Israel.
After zealously stampeding all over Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, always leaving a scorched path of failed states and societies on the verge of sectarian fracture in its devastating wake; the GCC club's newfound (albeit disingenuous and overtly sectarian) drive for so-called democracy and (Sunni) human rights stops dead right at the Israeli Occupation's (illegally usurped) doorstep; while a handful of Arab countries are swiftly given the full "Operation: Regime Change" treatment in all its gory splendor courtesy of the GCC club and it's western patrons, for Israel; it is decidedly "regime unchanged"... sustained, and unabashedly allied with.
Evidently Palestine can wait... until the Arab World is done with its endless wars, infighting and purification of minorities and "infidels". Palestine, with all its martyrs, its displaced population (in and out of Israeli torture chambers), its malnourished people in Gaza, its burnt olive groves and its torched toddlers, its cities and towns, those razed and those on the verge of extinction courtesy of Israeli bulldozers, its vanishing historical landscape and disappearing heritage, can wait until the Arab world settles a 1,400 year-old religious score that has already turned the clock back on the entire region way past and beyond that point in our history.
The Palestinians are alone in this, as they have always been. Their current revolution (of kitchen knives) has so far been disavowed and misreported in a media that seems to only revere and lionize sectarian, head-chopping backward movements on GCC-funded, bought and paid for suicide missions to further dismantle the Arab World into feuding mini statelets only for the benefit of the imperial West and of course Israel.
You won't hear any of those fiery Fatwas, religious sermons and "Calls to Jihadi-Arms" when it comes to Palestine. Evidently these Fatwas, essentially nothing more than an insidious recruitment ploy and an open casting call for aspiring terrorists to join in the fight against any "infidel" government that the chronically delusional GCC club deems "threatening", are reserved solely to counter the imaginary "Shiite threat" ... and now Russia as well.
You won't see hordes of trigger-happy volunteer fighters, clad in black, flocking en masse, from all four corners of the earth over to Palestine to fight alongside a beleaguered population against an occupying power.
God forbid we see convoys of brand new Toyota matching trucks stretching as far as the eye can see, juggernauting their way through Israeli checkpoints, liberating Palestinian lands from (infidel?) illegal settlers whose only sport of choice is torching Palestinians, young and old, alive. Only endless convoys of bare-chested martyrs and shackled prisoners and underage detainees with defiant smiles on their faces in Palestine.
Left to their own primitive devices, the Palestinians won't be showered with hundreds of millions of petro-dollars, weapons, munitions, rampant military aid and unbridled diplomatic support of the kind that has been thrown into the Al-Qaeda-run regime change enterprise in Syria. They, instead, are forced to rummage through their own kitchens, houses and streets for a rusty old knife, screwdriver or a block of rock to defend themselves at the likely risk- nay, the certainty- of being summarily executed, lynched and quartered amid manic chants of "Death to Arabs"; a gruesome fate which is not much different in any way shape or form from what awaits the entire Palestinian population living daily under Israeli occupation, where for the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces, including settlers), it's not even a policy "shoot first ask questions later", it is "empty your shotgun's magazine into the chests of Palestinian civilians first, curse, insult, stampede on and kick their blood-soaked motionless bodies to the curb later".
In a way, the Palestinians are returning the countless of knives they've been backstabbed, front-stabbed and gutted with, time and again, by the so-called International community, Western governments and (especially) Arab governments over the course of more than 67 years, right into the hearts of their own occupiers (assuming of course that the colonial, illegal settler entity that is Israel does indeed have a heart).
It is true that, for the Arab World, Palestine can always wait; but Palestine is no longer waiting for the Arabs to lend a helping hand.
Ahmad Barqawi is a freelance columnist and writer
A Special Relationship: U.S. is teaming up with Al Qaeda again.
The Game in the Middle East has been going on for a long, long
time.
With the exception of the author's report on 9/11 and on the
death of Usama bin Laden, the intelligence is reasonably good.
Quote from: Article
A Special Relationship: The US Is Teaming up With Al Qaeda, Again
Marko Marjanovich 13 hours ago
[Old habits die hard]
Originally appeared at Harper's Magazine
One morning early in 1988, Ed McWilliams, a foreign-service officer posted to the American Embassy in Kabul, heard the thump of a massive explosion from somewhere on the other side of the city. It was more than eight years after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and the embassy was a tiny enclave with only a handful of diplomats. McWilliams, a former Army intelligence operative, had made it his business to venture as much as possible into the Soviet-occupied capital. Now he set out to see what had happened.
It was obviously something big: although the explosion had taken place on the other side of Sher Darwaza, a mountain in the center of Kabul, McWilliams had heard it clearly. After negotiating a maze of narrow streets on the south side of the city, he found the site. A massive car bomb, designed to kill as many civilians as possible, had been detonated in a neighborhood full of Hazaras, a much-persecuted minority.
McWilliams took pictures of the devastation, headed back to the embassy, and sent a report to Washington. It was very badly received — not because someone had launched a terrorist attack against Afghan civilians, but because McWilliams had reported it. The bomb, it turned out, had been the work of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the mujahedeen commander who received more CIA money and support than any other leader of the Afghan rebellion. The attack, the first of many, was part of a CIA-blessed scheme to "put pressure" on the Soviet presence in Kabul. Informing the Washington bureaucracy that Hekmatyar's explosives were being deployed to kill civilians was therefore entirely unwelcome.
"Those were Gulbuddin's bombs," McWilliams, a Rhode Islander with a gift for laconic understatement, told me recently. "He was supposed to get the credit for this." In the meantime, the former diplomat recalled, the CIA pressured him to "report a little less specifically about the humanitarian consequences of those vehicle bombs."
I tracked down McWilliams, now retired to the remote mountains of southern New Mexico, because the extremist Islamist groups currently operating in Syria and Iraq called to mind the extremist Islamist groups whom we lavishly supported in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Hekmatyar, with his documented fondness for throwing acid in women's faces, would have had nothing to learn from Al Qaeda. When a courageous ABC News team led by my wife, Leslie Cockburn, interviewed him in 1993, he had beheaded half a dozen people earlier that day. Later, he killed their translator.
In the wake of 9/11, the story of U.S. support for militant Islamists against the Soviets became something of a touchy subject. Former CIA and intelligence officials like to suggest that the agency simply played the roles of financier and quartermaster. In this version of events, the dirty work — the actual management of the campaign and the dealings with rebel groups — was left to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). It was Pakistan's fault that at least 70 percent of total U.S. aid went to the fundamentalists, even if the CIA demanded audited accounts on a regular basis.
The beneficiaries, however, have not always been content to play along with the official story. Asked by the ABC News team whether he remembered Charlie Wilson, the Texas congressman later immortalized in print and onscreen as the patron saint of the mujahedeen, Hekmatyar fondly recalled that "he was a good friend. He was all the time supporting our jihad." Others expressed the same point in a different way. Abdul Haq, a mujahedeen commander who might today be described as a "moderate rebel," complained loudly during and after the Soviet war in Afghanistan about American policy. The CIA "would come with a big load of ammunition and money and supplies to these [fundamentalist] groups. We would tell them, 'What the hell is going on? You are creating a monster in this country.' "
American veterans of the operation, at the time the largest in CIA history, have mostly stuck to the mantra that it was a Pakistani show. Only occasionally have officials let slip that the support for fundamentalists was a matter of cold-blooded calculation. Robert Oakley, a leading player in the Afghan effort as ambassador to Pakistan from 1988 to 1991, later remarked, "If you mix Islam with politics, you have a much more potent explosive brew, and that was quite successful in getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan."
In fact, the CIA had been backing Afghan Islamists well before the Russians invaded the country in December 1979. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national-security adviser, later boasted to Le Nouvel Observateur that the president had "signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul" six monthsprior to the invasion. "And that very day," Brzezinski recalled, "I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." The war that inevitably followed killed a million Afghans.
Other presumptions proved to be less accurate, including a misplaced faith in the martial prowess of our fundamentalist clients. As it turned out, the Islamists were really not the ferocious anti-Soviet warriors their backers claimed them to be. McWilliams, who left Kabul in 1988 to become special envoy to the Afghan rebels, recalled that Hekmatyar was more interested in using his U.S.-supplied arsenal on rival warlords. (On occasion, he tortured them as well — another fact the envoy was "discouraged" from reporting.) "Hekmatyar was a great fighter," McWilliams remembered, "but not necessarily with the Soviets."
Even after the Russians left, in February 1989, the agency's favorite Afghan showed himself incapable of toppling the Soviet-supported regime of Mohammad Najibullah. Hekmatyar's attack on the key city of Jalalabad, for example, was an embarrassing failure. "Oakley bragged in the weeks leading up to this offensive [that] it was going to be a great success," said McWilliams, who had passed on warnings from Abdul Haq and others that the plan was foolhardy, only to be told, "We got this locked up." To his disgust, the Pakistani and American intelligence officials overseeing the operation swelled its ranks with youthful cannon fodder. "What they wound up doing was emptying the refugee camps," McWilliams told me. "It was a last-ditch effort to throw these sixteen-year-old boys into the fight in order to keep this thing going. It did not work." Thousands died.
Anxious as they might have been to obscure the true nature of their relationship with unappealing Afghans like Hekmatyar, U.S. officials were even more careful when it came to the Arab fundamentalists who flocked to the war in Afghanistan and later embarked on global jihad as Al Qaeda. No one could deny that they had been there, but their possible connection to the CIA became an increasingly delicate subject as Al Qaeda made its presence felt in the 1990s. The official line — that the United States had kept its distance from the Arab mujahedeen — was best expressed by Robert Gates, who became director of the CIA in 1991. When the agency first learned of the jihadi recruits pouring into Afghanistan from across the Arab world, he later wrote, "We examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of 'international brigade,' but nothing came of it."
The reality was otherwise. The United States was intimately involved in the enlistment of these volunteers — indeed, many of them were signed up through a network of recruiting offices in this country. The guiding light in this effort was a charismatic Palestinian cleric, Abdullah Azzam, who founded Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as the Afghan Services Bureau, in 1984, to raise money and recruits for jihad. He was assisted by a wealthy young Saudi, Osama bin Laden. The headquarters for the U.S. arm of the operation was in Brooklyn, at the Al-Kifah Refugee Center on Atlantic Avenue, which Azzam invariably visited when touring mosques and universities across the country.
"You have to put it in context," argued Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and counterterrorism expert who has done much to expose the CIA's post-9/11 torture program. "Throughout most of the 1980s, the jihad in Afghanistan was something supported by this country. The recruitment among Muslims here in America was in the open. Azzam officially visited the United States, and he went from mosque to mosque — they recruited many people to fight in Afghanistan under that banner."
American involvement with Azzam's organization went well beyond laissez-faire indulgence. "We encouraged the recruitment of not only Saudis but Palestinians and Lebanese and a great variety of combatants, who would basically go to Afghanistan to perform jihad," McWilliams insisted. "This was part of the CIA plan. This was part of the game."
The Saudis, of course, had been an integral part of the anti-Soviet campaign from the beginning. According to one former CIA official closely involved in the Afghanistan operation, Saudi Arabia supplied 40 percent of the budget for the rebels. The official said that William Casey, who ran the CIA under Ronald Reagan, "would fly to Riyadh every year for what he called his 'annual hajj' to ask for the money. Eventually, after a lot of talk, the king would say okay, but then we would have to sit and listen politely to all their incredibly stupid ideas about how to fight the war."
Despite such comments, it would seem that the U.S. and Saudi strategies did not differ all that much, especially when it came to routing money to the most extreme fundamentalist factions. Fighting the Soviets was only part of the ultimate goal. The Egyptian preacher Abu Hamza, now serving a life sentence on terrorism charges, visited Saudi Arabia in 1986, and later recalled the constant public injunctions to join the jihad: "You have to go, you have to join, leave your schools, leave your family." The whole Afghanistan enterprise, he explained, "was meant to actually divert people from the problems in their own country." It was "like a pressure-cooker vent. If you keep [the cooker] all sealed up, it will blow up in your face, so you have to design a vent, and this Afghan jihad was the vent."
Soufan agreed with this analysis. "I think it's not fair to only blame the CIA," he told me. "Egypt was happy to get rid of a lot of these guys and have them go to Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia was very happy to do that, too." As he pointed out, Islamic fundamentalists were already striking these regimes at home: in November 1979, for example, Wahhabi extremists had stormed the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The subsequent siege left hundreds dead.
Within a few short years, however, the sponsoring governments began to recognize a flaw in the scheme: the vent was two-way. I heard this point most vividly expressed in 1994, at a dinner party on a yacht cruising down the Nile. The wealthy host had deemed it safer to be waterborne owing to a vigorous terror campaign by Egyptian jihadists. At the party, this defensive tactic elicited a vehement comment from Osama El-Baz, a senior security adviser to Hosni Mubarak. "It's all the fault of those stupid bastards at the CIA," he said, as the lights of Cairo drifted by. "They trained these people, kept them in being after the Russians left, and now we get this."
According to El-Baz, MAK had been maintained after the Afghan conflict for future deployment against Iran. Its funding, he insisted, came from the Saudis and the CIA. A portion of that money had been parked at the Al-Kifah office in Brooklyn, under the supervision of one of Azzam's acolytes — until the custodian was himself murdered, possibly by adherents of a rival jihadi. (Soufan confirmed the murder story, stating that the sum in question was about $100,000.)
A year before my conversation with El-Baz, in fact, the United States had already been confronted with the two-way vent. In 1993, a bomb in the basement of one of the World Trade Center towers killed six people. (The bombers had hoped to bring down both structures and kill many thousands.) A leading member of the plot was Mahmud Abouhalima, an Afghanistan veteran who had worked for years at the recruiting center in Brooklyn. Another of Azzam's disciples, however, proved to be a much bigger problem: Osama bin Laden, who now commanded the loyalty of the Arab mujahedeen recruited by his mentor.
In 1996, the CIA set up a special unit to track down bin Laden, led by the counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer. Now settled in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda chief had at least theoretically fallen out with the Saudi regime that once supported him and other anti-Soviet jihadis. Nevertheless, bin Laden seemed to have maintained links with his homeland — and some in the CIA were sensitive to that fact. When I interviewed Scheuer in 2014 for my book Kill Chain, he told me that one of his first requests to the Saudis was for routine information about his quarry: birth certificate, financial records, and so forth. There was no response. Repeated requests produced nothing. Ultimately, a message arrived from the CIA station chief in Riyadh, John Brennan, who ordered the requests to stop — they were "upsetting the Saudis."
Five years later, Al Qaeda, employing a largely Saudi suicide squad, destroyed the World Trade Center. In a sane world, this disaster might have permanently ended Washington's long-standing taste for mixing Islam with politics. But old habits die hard.
In the spring and summer of last year, a coalition of Syrian rebel groups calling itself Jaish al-Fatah — the Army of Conquest — swept through the northwestern province of Idlib, posing a serious threat to the Assad regime. Leading the charge was Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, known locally as Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front). The other major component of the coalition was Ahrar al-Sham, a group that had formed early in the anti-Assad uprising and looked for inspiration to none other than Abdullah Azzam. Following the victory, Nusra massacred twenty members of the Druze faith, considered heretical by fundamentalists, and forced the remaining Druze to convert to Sunni Islam. (The Christian population of the area had wisely fled.) Ahrar al-Sham meanwhile posted videos of the public floggings it administered to those caught skipping Friday prayers.
This potent alliance of jihadi militias had been formed under the auspices of the rebellion's major backers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar. But it also enjoyed the endorsement of two other major players. At the beginning of the year, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had ordered his followers to cooperate with other groups. In March, according to several sources, a U.S.-Turkish-Saudi "coordination room" in southern Turkey had also ordered the rebel groups it was supplying to cooperate with Jaish al-Fatah. The groups, in other words, would be embedded within the Al Qaeda coalition.
A few months before the Idlib offensive, a member of one CIA-backed group had explained the true nature of its relationship to the Al Qaeda franchise. Nusra, he told the New York Times, allowed militias vetted by the United States to appear independent, so that they would continue to receive American supplies. When I asked a former White House official involved in Syria policy if this was not a de facto alliance, he put it this way: "I would not say that Al Qaeda is our ally, but a turnover of weapons is probably unavoidable. I'm fatalistic about that. It's going to happen."
Earlier in the Syrian war, U.S. officials had at least maintained the pretense that weapons were being funneled only to so-called moderate opposition groups. But in 2014, in a speech at Harvard, Vice President Joe Biden confirmed that we were arming extremists once again, although he was careful to pin the blame on America's allies in the region, whom he denounced as "our largest problem in Syria." In response to a student's question, he volunteered that our allies were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.
Biden's explanation was entirely reminiscent of official excuses for the arming of fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the 1980s, which maintained that the Pakistanis had total control of the distribution of U.S.-supplied weapons and that the CIA was incapable of intervening when most of those weapons ended up with the likes of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Asked why the United States of America was supposedly powerless to stop nations like Qatar, population 2.19 million, from pouring arms into the arsenals of Nusra and similar groups, a former adviser to one of the Gulf States replied softly: "They didn't want to."
he Syrian war, which has to date killed upwards of 200,000 people, grew out of peaceful protests in March 2011, a time when similar movements were sweeping other Arab countries. For the Obama Administration, the tumultuous upsurge was welcome. It appeared to represent the final defeat of Al Qaeda and radical jihadism, a view duly reflected in a New York Times headline from that February: as regimes fall in arab world, al qaeda sees history fly by. The president viewed the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 as his crowning victory. Peter Bergen, CNN's terrorism pundit, concurred, certifying the Arab Spring and the death of bin Laden as the "final bookends" of the global war on terror.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, had a different interpretation of the Arab Spring, hailing it as entirely positive for the jihadist cause. Far from obsessing about his own safety, as Obama had suggested, Zawahiri was brimful of optimism. The "tyrants" supported by the United States, he crowed from his unknown headquarters, were seeing their thrones crumble at the same time as "their master" was being defeated. "The Islamic project," declared Hamid bin Abdullah al-Ali, a Kuwait-based Al Qaeda fund-raiser, would be "the greatest beneficiary from the environment of freedom."
While the revolutions were ongoing, the Obama Administration settled on "moderate Islam" as the most suitable political option for the emerging Arab democracies — and concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood fitted the bill. This venerable Islamist organization had originally been fostered by the British as a means of countering leftist and nationalist movements in the empire. As British power waned, others, including the CIA and the Saudis, were happy to sponsor the group for the same purpose, unmindful of its long-term agenda. (The Saudis, however, always took care to prevent it from operating within their kingdom.)
The Brotherhood was in fact the ideological ancestor of the most violent Islamist movements of the modern era. Sayyid Qutb, the organization's moving spirit until he was hanged in Egypt in 1966, served as an inspiration to the young Zawahiri as he embarked on his career in terrorism. Extremists have followed Qutb's lead in calling for a resurrected caliphate across the Muslim world, along with a return to the premodern customs prescribed by the Prophet.
None of which stopped the Obama Administration from viewing the Brotherhood as a relatively benign purveyor of moderate Islam, not so different from the type on display in Turkey, where the Brotherhood-linked AKP party had presided over what seemed to be a flourishing democracy and a buoyant economy, even if the country's secular tradition was being rolled back. As Mubarak's autocracy crumbled in Egypt, American officials actively promoted the local Brotherhood; the U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson, reportedly held regular meetings with the group's leadership. "The administration was motivated to show that the U.S. would deal with Islamists," the former White House official told me, "even though the downside of the Brotherhood was pretty well understood."
At the same time that it was being cautiously courted by the United States, the Brotherhood enjoyed a firm bond with the stupendously rich ruling clique in Qatar. The tiny country was ever eager to assert its independence in a neighborhood dominated by Saudi Arabia and Iran. While hosting the American military at the vast Al Udeid Air Base outside Doha, the Qataris put decisive financial weight behind what they viewed as the coming force in Arab politics. They were certain, the former White House official told me, "that the future really lay in the hands of the Islamists," and saw themselves "on the right side of history."
The Syrian opposition seemed like an ideal candidate for such assistance, especially since Assad had been in the U.S. crosshairs for some time. (The country's first and only democratically elected government was overthrown by a CIA-instigated coup in 1949 at the behest of American oil interests irked at Syria's request for better terms on a pipeline deal.) In December 2006, William Roebuck, the political counselor at the American Embassy in Damascus, sent a classified cable to Washington, later released by WikiLeaks, proposing "actions, statements, and signals" that could help destabilize Assad's regime. Among other recommended initiatives was a campaign, coordinated with the Egyptian and Saudi governments, to pump up existing alarm among Syrian Sunnis about Iranian influence in the country.
Roebuck could count on a receptive audience. A month earlier, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, testified on Capitol Hill that there was a "new strategic alignment" in the Middle East, separating "extremists" (Iran and Syria) and "reformers" (Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states). Undergirding these diplomatic euphemisms was something more fundamental. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who returned to Riyadh in 2005 after many years as Saudi ambassador in Washington, had put it bluntly in an earlier conversation with Richard Dearlove, the longtime head of Britain's MI6. "The time is not far off in the Middle East," Bandar said, "when it will be literally God help the Shia. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough." The implications were clear. Bandar was talking about destroying the Shiite states of Iran and Iraq, as well as the Alawite (which is to say, Shia-derived) leadership in Syria.
Yet the Saudi rulers were acutely aware of their exposure to reverse-vent syndrome. Their corruption and other irreligious practices repelled the jihadis, who had more than once declared their eagerness to clean house back home. Such fears were obvious to Dearlove when he visited Riyadh with Tony Blair soon after 9/11. As he later recalled, the head of Saudi intelligence shouted at him that the recent attacks in Manhattan and Washington were a "mere pinprick" compared with the havoc the extremists planned to unleash in their own region: "What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and to remake the Middle East!"
From these statements, Dearlove discerned two powerful (and complementary) impulses in the thinking of the Saudi leadership. First, there could be "no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam's holiest shrines." (Their record on head-chopping and the oppression of women was, after all, second to none.) In addition, they were "deeply attracted toward any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom." Responding to both impulses, Saudi Arabia would reopen the vent. This time, however, the jihad would no longer be against godless Communists but against fellow Muslims, in Syria.
By the beginning of 2012, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States were all heavily involved in supporting the armed rebellion against Assad. In theory, American support for the Free Syrian Army was limited to "nonlethal supplies" from both the State Department and the CIA. Qatar, which had successfully packed the opposition Syrian National Council with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, operated under no such restrictions. A stream of loaded Qatari transport planes took off from Al Udeid and headed to Turkey, whence their lethal cargo was moved into Syria.
"The Qataris were not at all discriminating in who they gave arms to," the former White House official told me. "They were just dumping stuff to lucky recipients." Chief among the lucky ones were Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, both of which had benefited from a rebranding strategy instituted by Osama bin Laden. The year before he was killed, bin Laden had complained about the damage that offshoots such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, with its taste for beheadings and similar atrocities, had done to his organization's image. He directed his media staff to prepare a new strategy that would avoid "everything that would have a negative impact on the perception" of Al Qaeda. Among the rebranding proposals discussed at his Abbottabad compound was the simple expedient of changing the organization's name. This strategy was gradually implemented for the group's newer offshoots, allowing Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham to present themselves to the credulous as kinder, gentler Islamists.
The rebranding program was paradoxically assisted by the rise of the Islamic State, a group that had split off from the Al Qaeda organization partly in disagreement over the image-softening exercise enjoined by Zawahiri. Although the Islamic State attracted many defectors and gained territory at the expense of its former Nusra partners, its assiduously cultivated reputation for extreme cruelty made the other groups look humane by comparison. (According to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, many Nusra members suspect that the Islamic State was created by the Americans "to discredit jihad.")
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, driven principally by its virulent enmity toward Iran, Assad's main supporter, was eager to throw its weight behind the anti-Assad crusade. By December 2012, the CIA was arranging for large quantities of weapons, paid for by the Saudis, to move from Croatia to Jordan to Syria.
"The Saudis preferred to work through us," explained the former White House official. "They didn't have an autonomous capability to find weapons. We were the intermediaries, with some control over the distribution. There was an implicit illusion on the part of the U.S. that Saudi weapons were going to groups with some potential for a pro-Western attitude." This was a curious illusion to entertain, given Saudi Arabia's grim culture of Wahhabi austerity as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's flat declaration, in a classified cable from 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."
Some in intelligence circles suspect that such funding is ongoing. "How much Saudi and Qatari money — and I'm not suggesting direct government funding, but I am suggesting maybe a blind eye being turned — is being channeled towards ISIS and reaching it?" Dearlove asked in July 2014. "For ISIS to be able to surge into the Sunni areas of Iraq in the way that it's done recently has to be the consequence of substantial and sustained funding. Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." Those on the receiving end of Islamic State attacks tend to agree. Asked what could be done to help Iraq following the group's lightning assaults in the summer of 2014, an Iraqi diplomat replied: "Bomb Saudi Arabia."
However the money was flowing, the Saudis certainly ended up crafting their own Islamist coalition. "The Saudis never armed al-Nusra," recalled the Gulf State adviser. "They made the calculation that there's going to be an appetite for Islamist-leaning militias. So they formed a rival umbrella army called Jaish al-Islam. That was the Saudi alternative — still Islamist, but not Muslim Brotherhood."
Given that Jaish al-Islam ultimately answered to Prince Bandar, who became the head of Saudi intelligence in 2012, there did not appear to be a lot of room for Western values in the group's agenda. Its leader, Zahran Alloush, was the son of a Syrian religious scholar. He talked dutifully about the merits of tolerance to Western reporters, but would revert to such politically incorrect themes as the mass expulsion of Alawites from Damascus when addressing his fellow jihadis. At the same time, Saudi youths have poured into Syria, ready to fight for any extremist group that would have them, even when those groups started fighting among themselves. Noting the huge numbers of young Saudis on the battle lines in Syria, a Saudi talk-show host lamented that "our children are fighting on both sides" — meaning Nusra and the Islamic State. "The Saudis," he exclaimed, "are killing one another!"
The determination of Turkey (a NATO ally) and Qatar (the host of the biggest American base in the Middle East) to support extreme jihadi groups became starkly evident in late 2013. On December 6, armed fighters from Ahrar al-Sham and other militias raided warehouses at Bab al-Hawa, on the Turkish border, and seized supplies belonging to the Free Syrian Army. As it happened, a meeting of an international coordination group on Syria, the so-called London Eleven, was scheduled for the following week. Delegates from the United States, Europe, and the Middle East were bent on issuing a stern condemnation of the offending jihadi group.
The Turks and Qataris, however, adamantly refused to sign on. As one of the participants told me later, "All the countries in the room [understood] that Turkey's opposition to listing Ahrar al-Sham was because they were providing support to them." The Qatari representative insisted that it was counterproductive to condemn such groups as terrorist. If the other countries did so, he made clear, Qatar would stop cooperating on Syria. "Basically, they were saying that if you name terrorists, we're going to pick up our ball and go home," the source told me. The U.S. delegate said that the Islamic Front, an umbrella organization, would be welcome at the negotiating table — but Ahrar al-Sham, which happened to be its leading member, would not. The diplomats mulled over their communiqué, traded concessions, adjusted language. The final version contained no condemnation, or even mention, of Ahrar al-Sham.
Two years later, Washington's capacity for denial in the face of inconvenient facts remains undiminished. Addressing the dominance of extremists in the Syrian opposition, Leon Panetta, a former CIA director, has blamed our earlier failure to arm those elusive moderates. The catastrophic consequences of this very approach in Libya are seldom mentioned. "If we had intervened more swiftly in Syria," Gartenstein-Ross says, "the best-case scenario probably would have been another Libya. Meaning that we would still be dealing with a collapsed state and spillover into other Middle Eastern states and Europe."
Even as we have continued our desultory bombing campaign against the Islamic State, Ahrar al-Sham and Nusra are creeping closer and closer to international respectability. A month after the London Eleven meeting, a group of scholars from the Brookings Institution published an op-ed making the case for Ahrar al-Sham: "Designating [the] group as a terrorist organization might backfire by pushing it completely into Al Qaeda's camp." (The think tank's recent receipt of a multiyear, $15 million grant from Qatar was doubtless coincidental.)
Over the past year, other distinguished figures have voiced support for a closer relationship with Al Qaeda's rebranded extensions. David Petraeus, another former head of the CIA, has argued for arming at least the "more moderate" parts of Nusra. Robert Ford, a former ambassador to Syria and a vociferous supporter of the rebel cause, called on America to "open channels for dialogue" with Ahrar al-Sham, even if its members had on occasion slaughtered some Alawites and desecrated Christian sites. Even Foreign Affairs, an Establishment sounding board, has echoed these notions, suggesting that it was time for the United States to "rethink its policy toward al-Qaeda, particularly its targeting of Zawahiri."
"Let's be fair to the CIA," said Benazir Bhutto, the once and future prime minister of Pakistan, back in 1993, when the consequences of fostering jihad were already becoming painfully clear to its sponsors. "They never knew that these people that they were training to fight Soviets in Afghanistan were one day going to bite the hand that fed them."
Things are clearer on the ground. Not long ago, far away from the think tanks and briefing rooms where policies are formulated and spun, a small boy in the heart of Nusra territory was telling a filmmaker for Vice News about Osama bin Laden. "He terrified and fought the Americans," he said reverently. Beside him, his brother, an even smaller child, described his future: "To become a suicide fighter for the sake of God." A busload of older boys was asked which group they belonged to. "Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda," they responded cheerfully.
Source URL (retrieved on 12/15/2015 - 22:36): http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/special-relationship-us-teaming-al-qaeda-again/ri11838
This one caught my eye:
http://www.russelltexasbentley.com/
This guy has decided to go help, knowing full-well he could never return home to the United States.
That's guts. If I was in better physical condition, I'd probably go myself.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.16, 08:11:25
This one caught my eye:
http://www.russelltexasbentley.com/
This guy has decided to go help, knowing full-well he could never return home to the United States.
That's guts. If I was in better physical condition, I'd probably go myself.
The majority of us are engaged in a tyrannical perpetual war for our minds, the most sacred of places, against our will.
The physical war you yearn to join is a manifestation of many minds miscomprehending what the actual battle space is.
Until that changes the blood of innocents will continue to be spilled, people will be terrified within a prison of their own mind, and misguided souls will perpetuate the physical violence.
You don't have to go anywhere.. the physical war you want is coming to you, the war for your mind has been ever present your entire life. Social cohesion loss.
Black Friday breaks record with 185K gun background checkshttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/black-friday-breaks-record-185k-gun-background-checks/76624604/
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.15, 18:26:59
This will make it easier for those who are interested in actually finding out the truth about islam but don't have a koran handy.
www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Evolvingape and mudped, you can bury my posts as deep as you like with all your long winded BS posts, I doubt many people read them anymore. The truth will win out you should know that. I will just keep reposting this after every time you try to bury me.
www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Cheers
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.16, 08:11:25
This one caught my eye:
http://www.russelltexasbentley.com/
This guy has decided to go help, knowing full-well he could never return home to the United States.
That's guts. If I was in better physical condition, I'd probably go myself.
Hi Matt,
So Whats for Lunch?
It's one of the best reads I've had for awhile! O0
Room
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.16, 18:17:57
Evolvingape and mudped, you can bury my posts as deep as you like with all your long winded BS posts, I doubt many people read them anymore.
Mudped and I are simply performing a service, whose format we have established publicly over a period of time, and has changed due to geopolitical shifts in reality. Please try to keep up.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.16, 18:17:57
The truth will win out you should know that.
We do know that which is why we root ourselves in the pursuit of truth and adopt a sound 'rally call':
"When an honest man realizes that he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." –Anonymous
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.16, 18:17:57
I will just keep reposting this after every time you try to bury me.
www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Cheers
Your expressed intent to spam this thread with a repetitive jihad message is unacceptable and will be referred to the moderators for their consideration.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.16, 19:05:04
Your expressed intent to spam this thread with a repetitive jihad message is unacceptable and will be referred to the moderators for their consideration.
Oh! and the stuff you post is not repetitive? I am so tired of your posts I am surprised you haven't been booted along with mudped for burning up gigabytes of storage here, talk about wasted space, blow me some more bubbles.
Cheers
The moderators have been notified and asked to monitor this thread.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.16, 19:21:37
The moderators have been notified and asked to monitor this thread.
Whooo, scary stuff, I better watch my step around here, know my place and tow the line. Thanks for straightening me out!
Military occupation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[1][2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]
Military government may be broadly characterized as the administration or supervision of occupied territory, or as the governmental form of such an administration. Military government is distinguished from martial law, which is the temporary rule by domestic armed forces over disturbed areas.
The rules of military government are delineated in various international agreements, primarily the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as established state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, coordination of relief efforts, issuance of travel documents, property rights of the populace, handling of cultural and art objects, management of refugees, and other concerns which are very important both before and after the cessation of hostilities. A country that establishes a military government and violates internationally agreed upon norms runs the risk of censure, criticism, or condemnation. In the current era, the practices of military government have largely become a part of customary international law, and form a part of the laws of war.
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare specify that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government." Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of "invasion." The terminology of "occupation" is used exclusively.
Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Ottoman Empire
In 1516, the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire; it remained under Turkish rule until the end of the First World War, when Britain defeated the Ottoman forces and set up a military administration across the former Ottoman Syria. In 1920 the territory was divided between Britain and France under the mandate system, and the British-administered area which included modern day Israel was named Mandatory Palestine.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.12.16, 17:42:48
The physical war you yearn to join is a manifestation of many minds miscomprehending what the actual battle space is.
You don't have to go anywhere.. the physical war you want is coming to you, ...
Rob, I don't think you understand me at all, so I will attempt to enlighten you a bit.
I don't want a war or even occasional combat. What I know is this: It is far better to die for something than live for nothing.
And dying is not a fear I have; in fact, I welcome it. I'm not real thrilled with the pain and being disabled, but I know how to fight my way through that if or when needed.
The point of that link was so show a demonstration of a person willing to act, not jawbone, not write a book or spew out an entire hard disk full of data. Russell knows right from wrong and he also knows very well which category sitting on your ass goes in.
Some bigger picture thoughts to consider...
It is very likely humans or human like creatures have lived on this planet long before us. They are not here anymore. It's easy to ask why and find an answer. Because humans have a serious flaw and that flaw will lead to our destruction once again. Like the Indian Yugas, it is a cycle we will repeat for many millennia until we either get it right or destroy the seeds of the next iteration. I see life on this planet as an experiment, either of our own doing or by some higher life form using us as a lab apparatus to help them solve a problem they face too. It's been said one out of every ten humans are or have psychopathic traits. My belief is this is the flaw. I don't know how it came to be--maybe the devil's curse as some put it. But until we are able to eliminate it, the cycle will repeat.
Which brings me back to Russell. Here's a guy that will likely lower that count by a few points. He won't win the war, but every little bit helps, provided there is a goal to actually win the war and bring humanity back to some stable state before we again self destruct. Will it matter in the bigger scheme of things? Probably not. Fukushima alone has most likely already hammered the last nail in our coffin for this go-around. Nevertheless, I can at least point to one individual trying to make a positive difference.
And yes Room, "What's for lunch?" Exactly!
I have no idea what either side here (if there are sides) is saying, or what the debate is about.
What's the problem guys?
Tooright Matt, Another "flaw" with humans is that they can Pretend/Act/Deceive, all three same thing. We learn it at a very young age playing games and stuff, but when you combine good acting/deceiving with Psychopathic tendencies and there is a usually trouble. In another weird twist Psychopaths can pretend to be kind and gentle while normal people with empathy can pretend to be psychopathic for various reasons, as well combine high intelligence with psychopathic tendencies and good Acting/Deceiving and there is the possibility for anything to eventuate.
Good luck all. There is one of the last category in every town maybe more. >:-) I feel as though I am surrounded by good honest people here next door all round, but rough neighborhood, but at least stuff happens. I have a yappy dog and the neighbors like it because they can know when people are around as well. My windows have bars on them. hahahha But a 12 year old could kick the front door open. it's hilarious.
@poynt99
hahahahaha Just some guys blowing off some steam.
@all
Call me when the Cabal is dead and/or has fled the planet. hahahaha
Anything else is their own devised meaningless war games that will never end until we find OU.
Long live the good guys who's job it is to clean up the store. Know that we, the people of this world, endow our fullest grace and strength to your accomplishment in a just and perfect manner.
wattsup
Yes lets lighten things up around here a bit with some comedy ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAshX9asoVI
Syrian Girl explains why the NeoCon/Zionist New World Order
crowd is intent on destroying Syria. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cD8uYOsBo)
Sadly, according to prophecy, they will no doubt
succeed. At least, temporarily. Their coming day of
reckoning will finally demolish their ability to destroy the
planet as they pursue their Ultimate PLAN. Contrary to
what they want all to believe; The Protocols are certainly
not fake or phony. In fact, The Protocols define how the
PLAN will unfold as we approach the Time of the End.
Their power is great but in The End the Forces of Good
will prevail...
Guitar man in battle. The U.S. and Co. should be supplying them with band instruments then we would all be safe.
Another Warrior who is risking much to bring TRUTH into the
light of day is Jon Snow. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oGTDt9L4g0)
His reports on and from Gaza are breath-taking.
The ongoing Crimes of the Illegitimate State of Israel
reach up into the heavens. Their doom is sealed.
Today here in Spain a Syrian refugee was told to return to Syria to collect a paper he was short of so as he could stay in Spain :D this would be a bad joke, but it is not a joke.
Here in Spain I'm sorry to say, only around 5% have a reasonable intelligence, my wife and I have been for several months sorting papers over my mother in laws estate, now that is a joke, the rest I will post on the rants thread.
regards
Mike 8)
Mike I think around 5 % here is about right as well. I read your other post as well and it is just madness that you or the refugee would have to go through all that. Spain sounds a bit like Australia, and I have Spanish heritage, my mothers parents emigrated from Spain to here, mum is 80 and she is the youngest of 5 so maybe 100 years ago, they must have married and emigrated almost immediately, interesting kind of. What was going on in Spain about 100 years ago ? I should research it myself a bit. No use asking mum she would just tell me some story most likely.
P.S. Oh wow they may have fled the 1936 civil war/revolution. People just don't seem to want to pass on their own family history to their own children. Grandad may have fled the civil war then joined the Army here and fought on the Kokoda track in Papua New Guinea, he suffered from illness due to the hardship the rest of his life and died young, but he did survive the war. I want to go and walk the track one day soon before I am too old, but the cost prevents me.
..
We want the truth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHLcrfhwPtc
Sadly Trump is probably being used to ensure Hag Clinton's election to president. But just maybe the public will wake up and elect him, then he will be assassinated. What's the bet if he does get elected he will get offed unless he tows the bankers line. Just like Kennedy did.
Reading the WIKI about the Spanish Civil war and revolution I think many of us could learn some things from it and George Orwell's writings about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
Quote
"In the midst of the civil war the Anarchists have proved themselves to be political organisers of the first rank. They kindled in everyone the required sense of responsibility, and knew how, by eloquent appeals, to keep alive the spirit of sacrifice for the general welfare of the people. "As a Social Democrat I speak here with inner joy and sincere admiration of my experiences in Catalonia. The anti-capitalist transformation took place here without their having to resort to a dictatorship. The members of the syndicates are their own masters and carry on the production and the distribution of the products of labour under their own management, with the advice of technical experts in whom they have confidence. The enthusiasm of the workers is so great that they scorn any personal advantage and are concerned only for the welfare of all."
..
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.18, 22:37:49
Sadly Trump is probably being used to ensure Hag Clinton's election to president. But just maybe the public will wake up and elect him, then he will be assassinated. What's the bet if he does he will get offed unless he tows the bankers line. Just like Kennedy did.
Could be, I figure the republican party won't go with Trump when the time comes so Trump will run independently splitting the vote 3 ways insuring Hillary will win, she shouldn't be running for president she should be in prison. Yes indeed he should watch his back, Islam alone will be trying to off him from here on in, I hope he has good security guards!
Oh yes I didn't figure the three way split that would do it most likely. Modern politics is so F'd up almost everywhere, it is a ridiculous state of affairs to be sure.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.18, 22:50:01
Oh yes I didn't figure the three way split that would do it most likely. Modern politics is so F'd up almost everywhere, it is a ridiculous state of affairs to be sure.
I guess you must not have read the 'So what's for lunch' article posted by Matt a little ways back, about eating the sh_t sandwich they are always feeding us. It is a good read about voting in the US and short, won't take much of your time.
Here's the link again, so you don't have to dig for it.
http://www.russelltexasbentley.com/
Oh yes I did read that, I also did some research into JFK's assassination and a guy by the name of I think James Files or similar has admitted to doing the shooting from the grassy knoll. It's obvious he was shot from in front right slightly. Anyone who has shot things with high powered rifles could see that. the back of his head was not blown out by a shot from behind. A hyper velocity round from the front right (JFK's right) would do that, grassy knoll for sure. I think Mr Files claimed that they tried to then kill him several times.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.18, 23:25:41
Oh yes I did read that, I also did some research into JFK's assassination and a guy by the name of I think James Files or similar has admitted to doing the shooting from the grassy knoll. It's obvious he was shot from in front right slightly. Anyone who has shot things with high powered rifles could see that. the back of his head was not blown out by a shot from behind. A hyper velocity round from the front right (JFK's right) would do that, grassy knoll for sure. I think Mr Files claimed that they tried to then kill him several times.
A Green beret friend of mine told me back in the 70's that it was a standard 3 point ambush and knew it immediately from his training, I still believe he is right. I agree with you I have studied the assassination and I think the bullet that took out the back of his head had to come from the front and side I don't see any other way.
Yes the energy from the kill shot even threw his head back, A .223 with any ammo would do it but with "special ammo" and a marksman it would have been a easy hit from the knoll. The car almost stopped so he could get a "sure shot", they should be trained to accelerate not stop. Very sus. That's what a banker assassination looks like I guess. I would almost bet they filmed it themselves and show the unique footage from an angle not seen by the minions eyes to new presidents so as to let them know what is in store if they do not comply. The unique footage would be proof they did it and a good deterrent.
Ballistic Chart, "custom ammo" could do over 4000 fps.
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ammo_charts/Federal_Ammunition_Ballistic_Chart.pdf
Rifle below, a bolt action rifle retains a slightly higher muzzle velocity than a semi auto generally, it depends on the auto loading mechanism how much it affects the ballistics I think.
I also think a "take down" version would have been employed in that situation.
ISIS is almost finished ! The Russians have cut off the finance and shamed the U.S. and Co. into cutting ties with ISIS, now the U.S. is pulling it's fighter jets out of turkey and no longer want Assad to go, the U.S. would seem to be giving the game up with a cut and pull out tactic. I wonder if they will actually stop sponsoring Terrorism or not.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/game-over-u-s-agrees-to-let-assad-stay-in-power_122015
EDIT: Changed link due to Virus concerns. Pays to play it safe.
Here is an article on James Files and the Firearm he claims to have used, a "Remington Fireball", a .222 Caliber buttless rifle or long pistol, I'm not convinced that would have been the actual form of the firearm, I would guess it would be fitted with a removable stock/butt, Scope and possibly most of the pistol grip or at least modified to take an add on butt to the stock of the thing.
Anyway the story sounds plausible.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/filestruth.htm
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.19, 10:51:02
ISIS is almost finished ! The Russians have cut off the finance and shamed the U.S. and Co. into cutting ties with ISIS, now the U.S. is pulling it's fighter jets out of turkey and no longer want Assad to go, the U.S. would seem to be giving the game up with a cut and pull out tactic. I wonder if they will actually stop sponsoring Terrorism or not.
http://wearechange.org/game-over-u-s-agrees-to-let-assad-stay-in-power/
FH and all
The site above is not safe, my AV is going crazy with it and going back to the forum a lot of writing is deleated for me.
regards
Mike 8)
PS could just be here in Spain
Here's another link to a different site. I'll put this one above, article is the same words I think.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/game-over-u-s-agrees-to-let-assad-stay-in-power_122015
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.19, 10:51:02
ISIS is almost finished ! The Russians have cut off the finance and shamed the U.S. and Co. into cutting ties with ISIS, now the U.S. is pulling it's fighter jets out of turkey and no longer want Assad to go, the U.S. would seem to be giving the game up with a cut and pull out tactic. I wonder if they will actually stop sponsoring Terrorism or not.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/game-over-u-s-agrees-to-let-assad-stay-in-power_122015
EDIT: Changed link due to Virus concerns. Pays to play it safe.
It's the first smart thing Obama has done, I'm glad Putin put the pressure on him. Obama's government will never stop sponsoring terror, he basically is a terrorist, I tried to tell people in 2007 that he was/is a muslim and no one believed me, take a poll now. If we can ever get rid of the democraps and the new democratic party, the Republicants, and get someone who is not beholden to any party or anyone's money we will lose this fight. At the moment I feel the US is on the wrong side of the fight, I have more respect for Putin by far then Obama but then all you have to do is study something about islam to know why he has done the things he has it's not rocket science.
Obama (aka Obongo or Obomber) was groomed for and installed into
the position of president by those who in reality control the United
States of America. The Federal Reserve Banking System, a franchise
of the Rothschild Banking syndicate, in conjunction with other "arms"
of Rothschild Banking, is in full control of The West.
Obama, for the same reasons as those who preceded him as president,
was put into the position in order to further the PLAN and the AGENDA
of Rothschild Banking. In the United States of America, the People have
effectively been nullified as any sort of voice within the power structure.
The Dark Side is temporarily in charge of the political, economic, banking,
monetary, industrial, religious and corporate elements of Planet Earth.
The Good News, however, is that they will not realize their ultimate goal.
Until the Forces of Good prevail upon them in the coming conflict we
must endure their rulership without compromising our integrity, our
ethics, or our faith in the Way of Truth. Our part in the ongoing struggle
is small but none-the-less very important.
Merry Christmas!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnvw7VvZ8Ek
Cheers
Room
Merry Christmas to you as well!
Thanks for the Link to the testimonial by
Ms Anni Cyrus on "Sharia Law." There are
additional links on the page to other videos
with similar themes.
Islam has suffered corruption in the same manner
that Christianity and Judahism have. Ideologies
and brutal practices have been adopted in certain
regions which override the quest for goodness
in relations with all peoples while striving to promote
peace and harmony. Sects and divisions.
We are nearing the Time of the End where the
corrupt practices and endless warfare will intensify
to a level not yet seen in the history of Planet Earth.
Sadly, much of the corruption and radicalization which
we are seeing today is hegemonic foreign policy as
practiced by The West.
Here this is for those who still don't get it, this woman has more balls then most of the men out there, it would be worth your time to listen to what she has to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA
Happy Holidays
Room
Dan Sanchez on how
"War is Realizing the Israelizing of the World." (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43789.htm)
Quote from: Article
...
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its "neighbors."
...
As menacing as jihadi terrorists are to civilians, and as horrific as civil war is for those directly afflicted, the Israeli regime would rather be surrounded by both than to be neighbored by even a single stable Muslim or Arab state not subject to Washington's and Tel Aviv's will.
This is partly due to simple imperialism, made especially aggressive by Israel's Zionist ideology. Israel wants lebensraum, which includes both additional territory for itself and coerced access to resources and markets in foreign territories in the region. Non-client Muslim and Arab states are simply standing in the way of that. Every state lusts for lebensraum. What makes Israel's lust particularly dangerous is its blank-check backing by the American superpower.
But there is also the more particular issue of maintaining a particular bit of already-conquered lebensraum: the Israeli occupation of Palestine. No matter how weak (like Saddam) and meek (like Assad) Arab rulers are on the subject, the very notion of Arab nationalism is a standing threat to the Israelis as permanent occupiers and systematic dispossessors of Arabs. Israel hates Baathism for the same reason it hated the PLO before the latter was tamed. A nationally-conscious Arab world will never fully accept the Occupation.
Israel is prejudiced against regional stability, because a stable, coherent Arab state is more likely to have both the motivation and the wherewithal to resist Israeli designs on its country, and possibly even to stand up for the Palestinians.
One might wonder how jihadis and civil war are any better in these regards. It's not like the natural resources under Assad's barrel bombs or ISIS's sneakers are any more readily available to Israel. And, setting aside Mossad-related theories about ISIS and Al Qaeda, it's not like Islamist extremists are necessarily much more forgiving of the Occupation than Arab nationalists.
But the jihadis are preferred by Israel, not as permanent neighbors, but as catalysts for military escalation. By overthrowing moderates to the benefit of extremists, the Israeli-occupied US foreign policy is accelerating further war by polarizing the world. It is making the Israeli/Arab and Western/Muslim divides more severely black and white by eliminating the "gray zones" of co-existence. This is ISIS's own strategy as well.
Israeli hawks prefer ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hamas to Saddam, Assad, and Arafat, because the people of the West are less likely to be willing to co-exist with the former than the latter. Especially as terrorist attacks and refugee crises mount in the West, the rise and reign of the terrorists may finally overcome public opposition to troop commitment, and necessitate the Western invasion and permanent occupation of the Greater Middle East, followed, of course, by its perpetual exploitation by, among other Washington favorites, Israel and Israeli corporations.
The West may become a Global Israel, forever occupying, forever dispossessing, forever bombing, and forever insecure. And the Middle East may become a Global Palestine, forever occupied, forever dispossessed, forever bombed, and forever desperately violent. That is how war is realizing the Israelizing of the world.
QuoteThe West may become a Global Israel, forever occupying, forever dispossessing, forever bombing, and forever insecure. And the Middle East may become a Global Palestine, forever occupied, forever dispossessed, forever bombed, and forever desperately violent. That is how war is realizing the Israelizing of the world.
I have to wonder how a backwater country of mostly goat herder's in a non-productive desert region smaller than the province I live in Canada would Israelize the world?. Maybe they plan on selling fanatic religious beliefs or maybe barren wasteland devoid of water?. In any case they cannot even manage their own problems at home let alone world domination. My guess is they like to make a lot of noise and toot their own horn but at the end of the day both groups are simply religious fanatics fighting for a bigger piece of barren wasteland. It's not a threat, more so it's kind of ridiculous but apparently they have nothing better to do with their time... maybe they need a hobby or something?.
AC
Quote from: AllCanadian
I have to wonder how a backwater country of mostly goat herder's in a non-productive desert region smaller than the province I live in Canada would Israelize the world?. Maybe they plan on selling fanatic religious beliefs or maybe barren wasteland devoid of water?. In any case they cannot even manage their own problems at home let alone world domination. My guess is they like to make a lot of noise and toot their own horn but at the end of the day both groups are simply religious fanatics fighting for a bigger piece of barren wasteland. It's not a threat, more so it's kind of ridiculous but apparently they have nothing better to do with their time... maybe they need a hobby or something?.
I'm wondering the name of the "backwater country" you
speak of AC. Goat herders? Are you thinking of FantasyLand?
I think he is trying to Describe Israel itself as a bunch of goat herders. Couldn't be further from the truth, and I wonder how anyone could imagine that to be the case. Israel is a very technologically advanced country, even during WW2 many Jews performed very specialized jobs by force for the Nazi's, some of Hitlers scientists were Jews. And back to present times the Jewish State has a nuclear arsenal, as well as a patriot missile shield courtesy of their slave state the U.S.. Israel has a lucrative tech industry of it's own though, and on top of all that a lot of congress and such in the U.S. is run by dual Israeli-U.S. citizens I believe, then there is the Jewish lobbying of the U.S. politicians and the applause the Israeli leader gets in congress is greater than for the U.S. president, which shows actually where the allegiance of the U.S. lawmakers actually goes. And it is that situation that makes Israel so dangerous.
Describing Israel as a bunch of goat herders is like describing Canada as a state full of troglodytes. Quite misinformed.
There is ample evidence of Israeli and U.S. aid direct to ISIS on a continuing basis. Israeli and U.S. military officers have been giving direction and intel. to ISIS, as well as operating in country in Iraq alongside ISIS brigades. The recent bombing of Iraqi troops by the U.S. was likely to try to kill the Iraqi commanders showing evidence of U.S. air drops of weapons and food/water to ISIS fighters likely with U.S. or Israelis officers embedded in them.
It's one thing to not be so interested in the goings on there and the Ukraine, but it is an exercise in ignorance to believe anything reported in the main stream media. Almost all of our main media outlets get news stories handed to them by the respective Spy agencies and told to report that or else. Anyone keeping count of the murdered Journalists ? There are a few that seem to be obvious enough for the average Joe to even see it plain as daylight. Mass delusion/confusion, mass ignorance and mass cognitive dissonance is exactly what allows these events to unfold as they do in the first place.
No point providing links to evidence for AC. apparently.
US to ISIS supply drops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zMNtu3L88A
The Iraqi military leaders know the U.S. is helping ISIS and they want the U.S. out. Iraq is now allying with Iran and Russia. Even those reporting on this issue seem to be a bit confused.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6-mXuOSDik
More.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us1zugbskrs
More.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X9ayFw_kFk
CIA and Mossad are deep inside ISIS.
..
Quick explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NND2kacY2TY
More.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5IVgBwiJyM
Regardless of what people believe, the reality of the situation will continue.
The sheer number of U.S. made Artillery pieces Humvees and T.O.W. anti tank missiles that ISIS is using should be a clue as to why ISIS continues.
A slew of relevant links show in the link below.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Israel+helping+ISIS
..
Now to the media control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzySk8qfvxk
Aye, you've said it very, very well indeed FarmHand!!
When one tries to make sense of how our Planet
has gotten to be in such a horrific mess, incrementally,
a small step at a time over the period of several hundred
years, one could easily succumb to establishment propaganda
which would lead us to believe that it all just happened
spontaneously. Or, with a little digging, one can discover
that it has been a PLAN, devised by a rather small group
of men, and that we are presently nearing the conclusion
of the PLAN.
In the final analysis it may not be too important which way
we swing on the issue; in due time we shall all be made to
know the TRUTH. I tend to think that once we reach that
point in our development that our "living" will really begin.
@Farmhand
QuoteI think he is trying to Describe Israel itself as a bunch of goat herders. Couldn't be further from the truth, and I wonder how anyone could imagine that to be the case. Israel is a very technologically advanced country, even during WW2 many Jews performed very specialized jobs by force for the Nazi's, some of Hitlers scientists were Jews. And back to present times the Jewish State has a nuclear arsenal, as well as a patriot missile shield courtesy of their slave state the U.S.. Israel has a lucrative tech industry of it's own though, and on top of all that a lot of congress and such in the U.S. is run by dual Israeli-U.S. citizens I believe, then there is the Jewish lobbying of the U.S. politicians and the applause the Israeli leader gets in congress is greater than for the U.S. president, which shows actually where the allegiance of the U.S. lawmakers actually goes. And it is that situation that makes Israel so dangerous.
Oh good grief... do I always have to spell everything out.
They are not literally goat herders but metaphorically they are in a sense. If I gave a child a photon cannon are they any more or less a child?, well no and technology cannot always change a person's beliefs. So while Israel may have advanced technology and nuclear weapons this does not change the fact the premise of their disagreements with others relates to extreme religious beliefs. That is the majority strongly believe in the supposed words of an imaginary bearded man in a white dress who created the universe in six days. There is no getting around this and you can spin this any way you want but at the end of the day their tangible actions are guided by the imaginary words of an imaginary God. Psychologically religion empowers the believer with a sense of superiority and purpose because of their beliefs and renders all others as somehow misguided or inferior which is a recipe for disaster as we can obviously see.
So if your looking for logic and reason behind many of the world events we see then your barking up the wrong tree my friend because fundamentally there is none in it.
AC
Quote from: AllCanadian
... the premise of their disagreements with others relates to extreme religious beliefs. That is the majority strongly believe in the supposed words of an imaginary bearded man in a white dress who created the universe in six days. There is no getting around this and you can spin this any way you want but at the end of the day their tangible actions are guided by the imaginary words of an imaginary God.
There may be some TRUTH in your observation AC.
We shall soon see whether what guides the Synagogue
of Satan is imaginary or real. And of course, which
"god" they've chosen to follow.
Most of "The West" is being guided by this same "god."
We might even say that most of Planet Earth is under
the influence of this "god."
The Book tells us that he
is the "god of this world." The father of the lie...
@muDped
QuoteThere may be some TRUTH in your observation AC.
We shall soon see whether what guides the Synagogue
of Satan is imaginary or real. And of course, which
"god" they've chosen to follow.
I'm not anti-religion and I guess what I'm trying to say is we need to start treating other people like real people regardless of what they believe. We can't keep pigeon-holing other people as inferior to ourselves simply because we see them as different. Different does not mean lesser nor does it mean inferior it simply means they are different.
The real problem was explained by Gustav Le Bon and most individuals are tolerant of other individuals. However when many like minded individuals form groups they become intolerant, indifferent and start to judge anyone outside the group as somehow inferior. The group mentality degrades the human condition to the extent others becomes sub-human.
As such I refuse to participate in such nonsense and reject the group mentality. Gustav Le Bon got it right, the group is capable of justifying any act no matter how vile, no matter how cruel because they believe they are no longer responsible for their actions as individuals. We see this in governments, police services, military and religious organizations. Thus it is important to understand the psychology here and hold individuals accountable for their individual actions outside the context of the group. We also see the group protecting their own to justify their own existence at which point they are capable of almost anything.
In any case, the group will not change until the individuals within it recognize what they have become and embrace real change for the better. Judging the group never has worked because the group becomes an entity in itself and real change always starts with the individual.
Merry Christmas and a better new year
AC
Wise Man
Umm who's Judging who here ?
Quote from: AllCanadian
@muDped
I'm not anti-religion and I guess what I'm trying to say is we need to start treating other people like real people regardless of what they believe. We can't keep pigeon-holing other people as inferior to ourselves simply because we see them as different. Different does not mean lesser nor does it mean inferior it simply means they are different.
Aye, that is a truism. Since we're all very diverse children
of a common family we should indeed have love and respect
for all of our "neighbors." The difference that concerns men
of good will is whether there are others who devote themselves
to doing what is bad.
Quote from: AllCanadian
The real problem was explained by Gustav Le Bon and most individuals are tolerant of other individuals. However when many like minded individuals form groups they become intolerant, indifferent and start to judge anyone outside the group as somehow inferior. The group mentality degrades the human condition to the extent others becomes sub-human.
Aye, such is the case with those who support the State of
Israel. If you've not read any of their writings you may
find this difficult to believe.
Quote from: AllCanadian
As such I refuse to participate in such nonsense and reject the group mentality. Gustav Le Bon got it right, the group is capable of justifying any act no matter how vile, no matter how cruel because they believe they are no longer responsible for their actions as individuals. We see this in governments, police services, military and religious organizations. Thus it is important to understand the psychology here and hold individuals accountable for their individual actions outside the context of the group. We also see the group protecting their own to justify their own existence at which point they are capable of almost anything.
Groups have the capability to exist as forces of good or,
conversely, as forces of bad. A very sad truth is that the
process of converting (trance-forming) a group which delights
in doing good into one which pursues badness is quite easy.
Quote from: AllCanadian
In any case, the group will not change until the individuals within it recognize what they have become and embrace real change for the better. Judging the group never has worked because the group becomes an entity in itself and real change always starts with the individual.
Merry Christmas and a better new year
That pretty well summarizes the "problem" we now face on our
planet. Many peoples (groups) have been trance-formed and
corrupted by means of nefarious leadership into groups who
wish to inflict destruction and death onto those they've been
led to believe are their "enemies." Mind Control has been
put to use on a grand scale to accomplish this state of affairs
in order to enable advancement of the PLAN. Perpetual warfare,
high tech destruction and death have become the [modus] mode
du jour.
TRUTH will make known those who are bad and those who wish to
pursue good as it deconstructs the propaganda that Bad is Good
while Good is Bad.
All nations of The West are supporters of the State of Israel.
Well I just began a new hobby, which could be called "prepping" in a way. I went to the local pistol club for an introductory shoot and it was good to revise basic fire arm safety as well as have a few shots, we were only meant to fire 20 rounds but I managed to somehow get an extra 5 off by the looks of the target. The gentlemen at the club were very accommodating and informative. A few more shoots and I'll try to begin the licencing process.
Here's my target. First five hits were covered by the black dots before the rest were fired in 5 round lots. I think I blitzed it for the beginners, we all used Ruger 22-45 type with long barrels of course. I chose the one with a rubber grip expander thingy which made the thing better to hold in a fairly big hand.
Looks as if you've got a good eye and a good steady trigger
hand! Well placed groups on the target.
Here's an interesting report (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1975.htm) which may shed some light on
the origins of the elusive "Free Energy" or "Overunity" quest.
And perhaps on why some are more "successful" than others.
That's an Interesting article muDped. Something interesting to read in the links as well. Thanks !
Yes I was very satisfied for my first time shooting a "real" pistol (not home made), we all had one on one "tuition" of a very basic kind, most of the other beginners used two hands in a front on stance, but my tutor convinced me to shoot one handed with a slightly angled stance so that the front sight lined up with my eye and the target kind of naturally as I raised my arm. Maximum rate of accurate fire one handed would be about 1 or 2 per second. I agreed it was better to learn to shoot with one hand first, and I might try shooting with my other hand next time for half the rounds, one never knows when an arm or hand may be injured, so I should be able to use both fairly accurately. That Target was only at 10 meters- 30 feet or so I guess, fairly close, at 25 meters 75 feet things will be quite different I think. Some guy there was shooting a black powder "hand cannon", which was as loud as a shot gun, hilarious but seemed a bit dangerous. It was raining last night so no small bore rifle shoot in the rain. This time of year the rain is quite unpredictable.
On a side note I see way more planes spraying here than I did up the mountain. Some days the sky is obviously full of expanded streams of stuff that resemble clouds but are obviously created by the planes. Most people I have pointed it out to look at me like my nose is a banana. hahaa
The Buck and ball double tap serves Everyman, beyond 200 yards is extreme hunting range and could be considered aggressive.
Buck and ball
Buck and ball was a common load for muzzle-loading muskets, and was frequently used in the American Revolutionary War and into the early days of the American Civil War. The load usually consisted of a .50 to .70 caliber round lead musket ball (.69 caliber for the "Brown Bess" musket) that was combined with three to six buckshot pellets.
Purpose
The intent of the buck and ball load was to combine the devastating impact of the full-size (normally .50 to. 70 caliber, depending on the specific gun) ball with the spreading pattern of a shotgun, and served to greatly improve the hit probability of the smoothbore musket used in combat, especially at closer ranges, where the buckshot would retain significant energy, and against closely packed troops where the spread of the buckshot would be advantageous.
Claud E. Fuller, in his book The Rifled Musket, shows tests of a rifled musket firing Minie balls, and a smoothbore musket firing round ball and buck rounds at various ranges against a 10' x 10' target. The firers consisted of several men in line shooting in volley. At ranges of 200 yards (180 m) and under, the buck and ball from the smoothbore musket, while less accurate than the rifled musket, actually produces a greater number of hits due to the greater number of projectiles. At 200 yards, 37 of 50 Minie balls strike the target, vs. 18 of 50 smoothbore balls and 31 of 150 buckshot, for a total of 49 hits in 50 shots. At 100 yards, 50 shots by smoothbore buck and ball against the 10 x 10 target result in 79 buckshot hits and 37 ball strikes, as opposed to 48 minie ball hits in 50 shots. Beyond this range, the buckshot will have lost too much energy to be effective due to its lower ballistic coefficient.
Double tap
A double tap is a shooting technique where two shots are fired in rapid succession at the same target with the same sight picture (different from the controlled pair, where a second sight picture is acquired for the second shot).[1][2][3] Instruction and practice of the double-tap improves overall accuracy as shooters often do not have the gun fully extended on the first shot meaning the second of a double-tap is usually the better.[4] The term hammer is sometimes used to describe a double tap in which the firearm's sights are not reacquired by the shooter between shots.
Burst fire on modern Assault type rifles takes the double tap one round further to a three round burst, very effective fire mode in some situations I imagine. Double taps are used in the I.P.S.C. shoots though.
This is the guy to beat in Australia. He's a pretty slick shooter, no doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIowLTHCjPs
Burst fire conserves ammunition from undisciplined operators, but does not deliver an accurate second shot. The point of the double tap is that the first shot normally suffers from tension bias.
The second shot which follows immediately after training has the benefit of muscle memory without preset bias and the potential for target leading and re-acquisition, should the target move. This is all achieved subconsciously, the conscious mind only registers the hit, or does not and corrects for the 2nd shot. The second tap is normally the more accurate shot due to system under extension on the first shot and the benefit of active feedback between mass delivery.
The combination of the Buck and Ball cartridge and the double tap technique maximises hit potential at a range less than 200 yards, beyond 200 yards Everyman could be perceived as the aggressor.
I live in the UK and am forcibly disarmed, enforced by the diktat of the societal government that occupies this island.
:o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXtBZPONSCc
God bless Sammy! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BplxfrVZosc
Ken Okeefe tells us in language that we can understand
how our World is being destroyed. (http://www.zengardner.com/ken-okeefe-become-a-world-citizen-and-starve-the-state/)
Those who are of the belief that "radical Islam" is the
greatest problem endangering the survival of humankind
may be greatly surprised.
Battlespace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlespace
Battlespace is a term used to signify a unified military strategy to integrate and combine armed forces for the military theatre of operations, including air, information, land, sea, and space to achieve military goals. It includes the environment, factors, and conditions that must be understood to successfully apply combat power, protect the force, or complete the mission. This includes enemy and friendly armed forces, infrastructure, weather, terrain, and the electromagnetic spectrum within the operational areas and areas of interest.[1][2]
Concept
From 'Battlefield' to 'Battlespace'
Over the last 25 years, the understanding of the military operational environment has transformed from primarily a time & space driven linear understanding (a battlefield), to a multi-dimensional system of systems understanding (a battlespace). This system of systems understanding implies that managing the battlespace has become more complex, primarily because of the increased importance of the cognitive domain, a direct result of the information age. Today, militaries are expected to understand the effects of their actions on the operational environment as a whole, and not just in the military domain of their operational environment.
Battlespace agility
Battlespace agility refers to the speed at which the warfighting organization develops and transforms knowledge into actions for desired effects in the battlespace. Essentially it argues that you must be better than the opposition at doing the right actions at the right time and place. Inbuilt into this understanding is that battlespace agility is not just about speed, but it is also about executing the most effective action (ways) in the most efficient manner (means) relative to achieving the desired impact on the system (ends). At all times battlespace agility is dependent on the quality of situational awareness and holistic understanding of the battlespace to determine the best actions, a logic that has become a driving force behind a renaissance of interest in the quality of military intelligence. It has been heavily linked to the ability of intelligence analysts and operational planners to understand their battlespace, and their targets, as networks in order to facilitate a faster, and more accurate shared situational understanding. This in turn increases targeting efficacy and helps retain the overall initiative. Battlespace agility has its roots solidly in the more generic Command & Control (C2) research field on C2 agility conducted by NATO,[3] but works specifically with an agility concept within the context of warfighting only.[4] Hence it is framed by effects based thinking, system of systems analysis, and competing Observation Orient Decide Act (OODA) loops.[5]
Battlespace awareness
Battlespace awareness (BA) is a practice of military philosophy that is used as a valuable asset by joint component and force commanders, to predict courses of action before employing troops into a prescribed area of operation (AO). It utilizes the intelligence preparation asset to assist the commander in being 'aware' of recent, current, and near term events in his battlespace.[6]
It is based around its knowledge and understanding obtained by the an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) system. It is another methodical concept used to gain information about the operational area—the environment, factors, and conditions, including the status of friendly and adversary forces, neutrals and noncombatants, weather and terrain—that enables timely, relevant, comprehensive and accurate assessments. It has become an effective concept for conventional and unconventional operations in successfully projecting, or protecting, a military force, and/or completing its mission.[7]
Battlespace digitization
Battlespace digitization is designed to improve military operational effectiveness by integrating weapons platforms, sensor networks, ubiquitous command and control (UC2), intelligence, and network-centric warfare. This military doctrine reflects that in the future, military operations will be merged into joint operations rather than take place in separate battlespaces under the domain of individual armed services.
Battlespace intelligence preparation
Intelligence preparation of the battlespace (IPB) is an analytical methodology employed to reduce uncertainties concerning the enemy, environment, and terrain for all types of operations. Intelligence preparation of the battlespace builds an extensive database for each potential area in which a unit may be required to operate.
The database is then analyzed in detail to determine the impact of the enemy, environment and terrain on operations and presents it in graphic form. Intelligence preparation of the battlespace is a continuing process.
Joint intelligence preparation
Joint intelligence preparation of the battlespace (JIPB) is the analytical process used by joint intelligence organizations to produce intelligence assessments, estimates and other intelligence products in support of the joint force commander's decision making process. It is a continuous process that includes defining the total battlespace environment; describing the battlespace's effects; evaluating the adversary; and determining and describing adversary potential courses of action.
The process is used to analyze the aerial, terrestrial, maritime/littoral, spatial, electromagnetic, cyberspace, and human dimensions of the environment and to determine an opponent's capabilities to operate in each. JPIB products are used by the joint force and component command staffs in preparing their estimates and are also applied during the analysis and selection of friendly courses of action.
Battlespace measures
Manoeuvre control measures are the basic preliminary step in effective clearance of fire support (e.g. artillery, Naval gunfire, and close air support), marked by imaginary boundary lines used by commanders to designate the geographical area for which a particular unit is tactically responsible. It is usually established on identifiable terrain to help aid in hasty referencing for better lateral advantage in the science of fire support, normally orchestrated by a higher echelon of the general staff, mainly the operations staff sections.
They are normally designated along terrain features easily recognizable on the ground. An important point on maneuver control graphics: staffs must be knowledgeable regarding the different maneuver control measures and their impact on clearance of fires. For instance, boundaries are both restrictive and permissive; corridors are restrictive, while routes, axis, and directions of attack are neither.
It should be reminded of the effect on clearance of fires if subordinate maneuver units are not given zones or sectors (i.e. no boundaries established). Since boundaries serve as both permissive and restrictive measures, the decision not to employ them has profound effects upon timely clearance of fires at the lowest possible level.
The higher echelon may coordinate all clearance of fires short of the Coordinated Fire Line (CFL), a very time-intensive process. It allows the unit to maneuver successfully and to swiftly and efficiently engage targets. It requires coordination and clearance only within that organization.
They affect fire support in two ways:[8]
Restrictive—Restrictive control that is established in conjunction with a host nation to preclude damage or destruction to a national asset, population center, or religious structure. Its key role are for protection of an element of tactical importance, such as a fuel storage area.
Restrictive fire area (RFA) is an area with specific restrictions and in which fires that exceed those restrictions will not be delivered without coordination with the establishing headquarters, or higher echelon; occasionally, it may be established to operate independently.
No-fire area (NFA) is a designated area which no fire support may be delivered for fires or effects. When the establishing headquarters allows fires on a mission-by-mission basis. When a friendly force is engaged by an enemy located within the NFA and the commander returns fire to defend his forces. The amount of return fire should not exceed that sufficient to protect the force and continue the mission.
Permissive—Permissive control that gives the maneuver commander the liberty to announce and engage fire support at his will, unless it otherwise is restricted by a higher echelon. Most cases, a commander will deny the use of Fire Support Coordinating Measures (FSCM).
There are free-fire areas (FFA) which fire support can commence without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. Normally, it is established on identifiable terrain by division or higher headquarters.
Battlespace shaping
Further information: Area of responsibility
Battlespace shaping is a concept involved in the practice of maneuver warfare that are used for shaping a situation on the battlefield, gaining the military advantage for the commander. It forecasts the elimination of the enemy's capability by fighting in a coherent manner before deploying determine-sized forces.[9]
EINSTEIN – FRAUD PLAGIARIST (DOCUMENTED): The Einstein Fraud – Thief, Liar, Borderline Retardation, (Judaic) Media Created Celebrity Hero!
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/03/einstein-fraud-plagiarist-documented-the-einstein-fraud-thief-liar-borderline-retardation-judaic-media-created-celebrity-hero/
THE JEWISH MEDIA CENSORED TRUTH ABOUT EINSTEIN
Either all the American teachers were wrong and the Media is telling the truth, or the Media is lying, and the American teachers were telling the truth. All the information is here for you to decide for yourself.
Or you can be like Homer Simpson...and think the TV is God and believe whatever it tells you.
– T.D.P. ADMIN
You can fool all of the people, some of the time.
You can fool some of the people, all of the time.
But you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.
***
He was three years old before he started speaking, and it took him several more years before he was fluent.
He did not read until he was seven, and his poor performance in elementary school caused many people to suspect he was mentally retarded.
When called upon, the boy would take forever before answering, often silently mouthing the words to himself before slowly uttering the words aloud. Most believe that it would be highly unlikely that Albert Einstein would ever succeed at anything.
When he tried to get into the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, he failed the entrance exam and was required to take it again. His doctoral dissertation was rejected by the university as "irrelevant and fanciful." After graduation, Einstein landed a position as a clerk in a patent office. He liked the job because it allowed him to enough free time to research some of his scientific theories.
Again, it seemed he might not achieve much more than this position since he was known for being incredibly absent-minded. For example, he would often forget to put on his socks and even misplaced a $1500 check after he used it as a bookmark.
It was not until after the first of Einstein's theories was published, the Special Theory of Relativity, that he was truly recognized by the scientific community. However...what if it was all...Plagiarized Information.
What if the only thing he was good at, was stealing other peoples ideas. In some cases, even years after they were published?
What if his 'Theory of Relativity' really belonged to his best friend, who sent him a copy of it before he had it published?
Why if someone had published 'The Theory of Relativity' weeks before Einstein, were they ignored by the Media, and gave all credit to Einstein, even when proved it belonged to someone else?
***
ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie= Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius. THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept & moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary — he stole the ideas of others, and the Jxxxx-controlled media made him a 'hero.'
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education.
HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein's worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:
1) The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2) The equivalence of energy and mass;
3) The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4) The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915).
This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two premises:
1) in the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and
2) since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place. This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time would pass faster. This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally Einstein's. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN'S AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.
James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer.
Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper. This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity. They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1880, the irish physicist george fitz gerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the michelson-morley experiment could be explained if, "...the length of material bodies changes, according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light."
THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN'S PAPER!
FURTHER... IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, "Lorentz transformations," the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They> describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in "Einstein's paper" regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published. The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper: "...we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible." Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of Relativity.' EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent> office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments. In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles and that he was writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough. Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy light energy. But the principles and equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's work as his own more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit. In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.
BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN – HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication that he, "completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliantmathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.
However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.
What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along, because there were friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.
Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first. Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics. That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory of relativity." However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the Jew Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jxxxx-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert. On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science – New theory of the Universe – Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be today.
As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names were 'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved. The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved either. This German's grandfather and great-grandfather had been important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could. The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry.
NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD GO ON TO HEAD THE GERMAN ATOMIC BOMB PROJECT AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH. No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work. Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says, "But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energyto drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instancethen, according to Einstein, you are wrong"
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
The only two reasons Albert Einstein has been portrayed as the poster child for Physics, Genius, and High Intelligence is because he was Jewish and most of the mass media (TV stations, news companies, newspapers, radio stations, magazines, book publishing companies, etc.) have been owned by Jews. The gentile Niels Bohr formulated quantum mechanics, but no one would recognize that name except for Physics majors. So, the only reason Einstein has developed such a big name for himself is extreme nepotism:
Was Albert Einstein a hoax?
Articles have been appearing all over the Internet asserting that Albert Einstein was a hoax. I have always been troubled by the thought that any one man, regardless of how brilliant or exceptional, could be head and shoulders above all of the other men of his time. Since I have long doubted that Albert Einstein could possibly be the greatest genius that he is made out to be, I find the theory interesting. I have also been wondering why Einstein became so famous, whereas other great scientists remained virtually unknown.
The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It is commonly reported that Einstein had an IQ of 160, but even though Tesla was supposedly never tested he is estimated to have had an IQ of over 200. I did a quick online test not long ago and scored 160 myself, though I don't put much stock into that.
Einstein I have been led to believe had a wife who was well educated and it is said she helped him to do whatever he did, be it plagiarize or other.
I'm not sure I agree with the bending or warping of space time thing, it just seems so "made up" and pangs of (not of reality).
I read a question asked online - Who was the smarter man Einstein or Tesla ? and everyone that answered, answered Tesla. The people that messed with Tesla did mankind a great disservice.
My IQ test result (I doubt it is accurate but I did the test and that is the result)
http://healthcare1s.com/test-iq/share.php?rsu=Andrew+Michael+has+an+IQ+of+160%2C+You+are+very+intelligent%2C+few+people+have+an+IQ+like+you.&ad=122.150.57.93
..
This is the Wiki's opinion on intelligence. "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways" and an IQ test proves you can score that particular score on that particular test at the time you take the test.
If you practice the IQ test over and over and improve your score over time do you get more intelligent ?
Intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment.
Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in non-human animals and in plants. Artificial intelligence is intelligence in machines. (i.e., software)
Within the discipline of psychology, various approaches to human intelligence have been adopted. The psychometric approach is especially familiar to the general public, as well as being the most researched and by far the most widely used in practical settings.[1]
Invasion of Europe: The ship is going down
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/329961-invasion-europe-migrants-brussels/
It is sobering to realize that the supposed captains on the ship your forebears built over millennia are willfully detonating the bulkheads and drilling large holes in the hull whilst claiming there is nothing anyone could possibly have done.
The Kübler-Ross model of trauma describes the emotional pathway for any European with an interest in protecting the continent his forebears created from the perfidy of national leaders whose actions will breed him and his children out of existence.
First there was denial: surely Angela Merkel couldn't be so stupid as to sink the European ship?
Next came anger as news of the organized attacks by so-called asylum-seekers on European white women seeped through the checkpoints embedded in the mainstream media machine.
Then came the stage known as bargaining as people thought they would settle for some restrictions on numbers so long as the tidal wave was stopped.
And now we are at enforced acceptance: the tidal wave will not stop – so get used to it – with Jeremy Corbyn, for example, calling for the UK to take similar numbers as Germany.
If you feel like you didn't vote for any of this, that's because you didn't. Your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's people like George Soros who are making these decisions. Your job is to shut up, pay taxes, and learn to get on board with this new round of social engineering and ethnic cleansing.
But now that it is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that – hand-wringing apart – the fix is in, it is interesting to observe how career politicians are talking now that the dust is settling on the new reality.
Because talk is all that they will do. We are at the tipping point. And once we get over that, the ship is going down, make no mistake.
Political positioning
The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for example, has managed – albeit belatedly – to get an intellectual handle on what's going on: the refugee crisis is destabilizing Europe.
Now, he does not mean what you and I mean by Europe: our countries, nations, languages and histories. He's a Bilderberger so he has at least a mid-level understanding of the actual plan and doesn't care about any of the things the people who vote for him care about. He means the Union of European Soviet Socialist Republics; the Brussels oligarchy in other words.
The Guardian writes: 'He said a message to refugees that said "Come, you will be welcome" provoked major shifts in population.'
His grasp of the obvious now it is too late to do anything about it is impressive.
The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, said Europe was close to breaking point: "We need to get a grip on this issue in the next six to eight weeks." But, he went on: "No one wants to kill Schengen, but if it is only a fair-weather system then it cannot survive."
Geert Wilders is described by the liberal press as a 'far-right' Dutch politician. This means he has stayed roughly where our grandparents were while everyone else was processed by Cultural Marxism. Wilders has called for the invading, marauding males to be locked up in asylum centers and for the safety of Dutch women and girls to be put first. What a novel idea.
This isn't 'far-right'. It is just right. But, we already know, it will never happen.
RT interviewed Hansjoerg Mueller of the Alternative for Germany party. Mueller said: 'Germany now is somewhere at the edge of anarchy and sliding towards civil war, or to become a "banana republic without any government."
He went on: 'Bavaria is the first region because we are affected the most – we are living on the border to Austria where the influx of refugees stems from. But the second regions of Germany where this happens are Saxony and Thuringia. First of all, they have also borders to the Czech Republic, that's the first reason. And the second reason is that in former Eastern Germany people are still aware of what it is living in a dictatorship. They are feeling quite well that our so-called democracy is sliding more and more towards a totalitarian state.''
Interesting and objectively correct words. But then Mueller does not hold any real power.
Donald Tusk, on the other hand – as chief apparatchik in the European Soviet machine – does have power. He now warns that we have only two months to get things under control. This means, of course, when after two months the invasion is only worse, we will be expected to accept the situation as fait accompli.
Tusk also has a holy reverence for the nonsense known as the Schengen Agreement and warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work "we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen," the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
How complicated is it?
There is nothing holy about the Schengen Agreement – the UK is not party to it, for example. But European leaders talk about it as though it were somehow problematic to revoke it.
It's not.
The Schengen is an idea. The invasion of Europe and the destruction of the ancient cultures within it, however, is very real.
If these were not 'refugees' but infantrymen (even ones without guns) arriving from – let's say – North Korea, this problem would not have got to first base.
This is an invasion. But because it is dressed up in the garb Europeans fall for every time – the language of compassion – we are now in a state where European women cannot walk unmolested in their own streets or use public pools without being subjected to degradation.
Given the political will, this problem can be fixed in a five-minute conversation. It's a group Skype call at best. The fact that this doesn't happen belies the reality: the fix is in, and politicians like Valls and apparatchiks like Tusk are trying to distance themselves from the inevitable fallout. This is why they are saying things they think people will want to hear: not because they are going to step up and do what is necessary, but because they don't want the coming chaos attached to their names.
The solution is obvious: stop 'saving' all the ships arriving in Europe; put officers with real powers on borders, and have anyone without a passport or other valid ID immediately ejected from the EU space. And border guards both at the peripheries of individual countries and the EU itself should be told in clear and uncertain terms what their job is: to protect what's behind them from what's in front of them.
If EU border guards' pay was inversely indexed to the number of persons shown to have entered the EU illegally – and if internal police had equivalent motivations – this problem would be solved in a month.
If there is a genuine case for asylum – based on the existing legal framework – the place for that discussion is on the border of the EU, not within it.
Pretending to address the problem
Germany has followed Switzerland in confiscating the assets of 'refugees' over a certain value – shown to be four-figure sums on average. This will do nothing other than ensure that the next wave comes with nothing, or has it sent over in parcels later.
The real causes for invasion lie with neo-colonialism and the banking cartel which drives it – 'philanthropists' such as Soros – and NATO's genocide against Libya and the murder of Gaddafi – who was holding back the population floodgates for us.
NATO has no compunction about killing people in very large numbers when it suits the bankers' agenda. The fact that Europe's military is pussy-footing around now that we actually need soldiers to do their only legitimate job – defend our borders – suddenly everyone is Albert Schweitzer. The case is so plain, even 16 year-old German girls with no previous interest in 'politics' are getting it.
Anyone who suggests taking effective action is labelled 'far-right' by the liberal media which panders to those whose intellects are bypassed by means of emotional trigger-words such as 'compassion'.
But the motif of the ship is a fair one. When a ship goes down there are never enough lifeboats. Sailors are trained to beat off with violence those still in the sea once the lifeboat is full. If they do not – everyone dies. This is real compassion.
If there is a silver lining in this tale of corruption and perfidy it is this: the liberal's catch-all justification for his crimes against his own people – that of pleading 'compassion' – is no longer beyond criticism. People have had enough. Wanting your family and your culture to survive does not make you evil.
This is not a game; it is deadly serious. And if the helm cannot be wrest from those bent on taking the ship down, it's time for those with the wit and the means to make a quiet move for the exits.
Turkey's Relations with NATO
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/nato.en.mfa
Ever since our NATO membership in 1952, the North Atlantic Alliance has played a central role in Turkey's security and contributed to its integration with the Euro-Atlantic community. Turkey, in return, has successfully assumed its responsibilities in defending the common values of the Alliance.
Turkey attaches the utmost importance to NATO's role in maintaining security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and in providing a forum for political-military consultations on topics of interest to its members. Indivisibility of Alliance security, solidarity among Allies and a fair risk and burden sharing as well as the consensus rule, are NATO's guiding principles and should remain as such. Adherence to these principles as well as NATO's ability to adapt to the changing security environment, have made NATO the most successful military alliance in history.
The success of current and future missions and operations will play a crucial role in shaping NATO's future. Turkey will continue to provide appropriate support to these operations.
Turkey also supports NATO's transformation efforts, which are crucial for NATO's success. It is therefore making substantial contributions to the NATO Response Force. A Force Command at high readiness level is established in Istanbul. Within the new NATO command structure, the air command in Izmir will be replaced by a land command.
The "Partnership for Peace Training Center" was created in 1998 within the Turkish General Staff in an effort to contribute to the training and interoperability efforts of NATO's partner nations. The Center provides strategic and tactical level training to military and civilian personnel from partner countries.
Turkey welcomes the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU in accordance with the agreed framework between the two organizations. This partnership should be based on mutual support, complementarity and transparency and will contribute to addressing more efficiently existing risks and threats. Turkey's approach to NATO-EU cooperation is a natural result of its NATO membership and EU membership perspective.
Turkey also strongly supports NATO's partnerships. Turkey also believes that a constructive relationship based on mutual understanding, transparency and cooperation between NATO and Russia is important for Euro-Atlantic peace and stability and that the NATO-Russia Council provides the necessary forum for such a relationship.
Turkey believes that the integration of all Western Balkan countries in Euro-Atlantic structures is the key to lasting peace and stability in the region. Turkey therefore supports the membership of interested countries, in particular Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in NATO, the irreversible strengthening of security in Kosovo and the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo.
With the understanding that European security cannot be dissociated from Mediterranean security, Turkey shares the belief that the Mediterranean Dialogue should be strengthened in areas where NATO can bring an added value. Turkey also supports further enhancing the relations with Gulf countries through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
Israeli defense minister says ISIS funded with 'Turkish money'
https://www.rt.com/news/330204-israel-turkey-isis-oil/
Israel's defense minister has alleged that the Islamic State terror group has long been funded with "Turkish money."
"As you know, Daesh (Islamic State, previously ISIS/ISIL) enjoyed Turkish money for oil for a very, very long period of time. I hope that it will be ended," Moshe Yaalon told reporters in Athens on Tuesday after meeting his Greek counterpart, Panos Kammenos, Reuters reports.
Turkey has been thrown under the bus, NATO is complicit in funding ISIS, the people must now examine how ISIS has been used by their own leaders as an ideological weapon to terrorise them.
Exactly, however blind Freddy could see that coming. We ought to have been asking how ISIS has been used by our own leaders as a proxy army of death and fear long ago. Turkey has been doing what the U.S. and Co. have been condoning since the beginning. Funny that Israel made the announcement, hilarious in a sick kind of way.
The Mandarin Reveals He Is an Actor!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYWKjY1eRA
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
CHAPTER ONE
War Is A Racket
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.
CHAPTER TWO
Who Makes The Profits?
The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket -- and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people -- didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump -- or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.
A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.
For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
International Nickel Company -- and you can't have a war without nickel -- showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public -- even before a Senate investigatory body.
But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought -- and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it -- so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches -- one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 -- count them if you live long enough -- was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them -- a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers -- all got theirs.
Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment -- knapsacks and the things that go to fill them -- crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them -- and they will do it all over again the next time.
There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up -- and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee -- with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator -- to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses -- that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.
CHAPTER THREE
Who Pays The Bills?
Who provides the profits -- these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them -- in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us -- the people -- got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par -- and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement -- the young boys couldn't stand it.
That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead -- they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded -- they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too -- they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam -- on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain -- with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
But don't forget -- the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share -- at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.
Napoleon once said,
"All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them."
So by developing the Napoleonic system -- the medal business -- the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.
And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."
Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.
But wait!
Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance -- something the employer pays for in an enlightened state -- and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
Then, the most crowning insolence of all -- he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back -- when they came back from the war and couldn't find work -- at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly -- his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too -- as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.
CHAPTER FOUR
How To Smash This Racket!
WELL, it's a racket, all right.
A few profit -- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation -- it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted -- to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages -- all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers -- yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders -- everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn't they?
They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket -- that and nothing else.
Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people -- those who do the suffering and still pay the price -- make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.
Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant -- all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war -- voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms -- to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide -- and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.
CHAPTER FIVE
To Hell With War!
I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
Money.
An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won't.
So . . . "
Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."
Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.
So...I say,
TO HELL WITH WAR!
This ship is sinking
http://freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/1616-this-ship-is-sinking
Published on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 09:28
Not one of your pinko, leftist, anti-war folk but a U.S. Army Colonel, Lawrence Wilkerson, former national security advisor to the Reagan administration who spent years as an assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell during both Bush administrations, paints a gloomy picture of the US empire which he says is coming to an ignominious end.
He explains how the military-industrial bureaucratic complex is now unstoppable in its drive for perpetual war. As an example, he explains the recent massive US bombing onslaught in Syria has depleted "ordinance" (ie. missiles and bombs) and that Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al are salivating over the renewed momentum for war refilling their order books. He confirms Critical Thinking's contention, that winning is not important; the objective is perpetual war.
Evidence emerges daily of US (and others') culpability in creating, arming and supporting ISIS; a situation which becomes increasingly hard to hide. Even mainstream media are flirting with the idea in terms of specific detail but nowhere, in political discourse, is the obvious being stated: that ISIS is a NATO/Israel asset deliberately fostered to justify perpetual war and the totalitarian state.
Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6] Fascists view World War I as having made liberal democracy obsolete, and regard total mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader — such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party — to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11]
Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12] Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.[13]
West's lack of morals & disregard for law caused current political crisis – Duma speaker
https://www.rt.com/politics/330860-duma-speaker-blames-west-for/
Published time: 1 Feb, 2016 13:13
The increasing crisis in international relations is rooted in Western nations' lack of morals and their reluctance to observe basic norms of international law, State Duma chairman Sergey Naryshkin has said.
"The tensions in the international situation have seriously increased over the past few years and this happens primarily because a group of Western nations, first of all, the United States of America, are neglecting the major principles of international law or interpret them freely," Interfax quoted the Russian parliamentary leader as saying at a meeting with law students on Monday.
"I would be more direct – it happens due to the lack of morals," Naryshkin added. He emphasized that the argument of "American exceptionalism" often used by many US politicians was against not only the legal principle of equality of all nations and peoples, but also contradicted basic human morality.
The Duma speaker also said that at the moment he considered Russia as the key protector of the basic foundations of international law. He noted that as one of the victor nations in World War II, Russia played a decisive role in introducing international law and that it had paid a great price for this achievement.
In May 2015, Naryshkin published an article in the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily in which he urged European politicians to stop heeding advice from the United States and to start working on common Eurasian economic interests with Russia. If this doesn't happen, Washington will eventually destroy the EU's economic sovereignty by skillful manipulation of WTO mechanisms, Naryshkin wrote.
Naryshkin has also backed the idea of a future merger between the Russian Federation and the European Union, and in April 2015 he suggested immediately starting consultations. The idea of the possibility of such a merger originally came from Czech President Milos Zeman, who confessed to having a dream that one day Russia would join the EU.
War Crimes: Were the Nuremberg Tribunals Only Victors' Justice?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/were-the-nuremberg-tribunals-only-victors-justice/5405078
By Elliott Adams
Global Research, September 29, 2014
On the surface, The Nuremberg Tribunals were a court assembled by the victors which prosecuted the losers. It is also true Axis war criminals were tried though Allied war criminals were not. But there was a greater concern at the time about stopping wars of aggression than prosecuting individual war criminals, since no one thought the world could survive one more world war. The intent was not retribution but to find a new way forward. The Tribunal in its Judgment said "Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."
Nuremberg was starkly different from the typical case of victor's justice of the time. With Nuremberg the victors turned away from the accepted vindictive punishment of the vanquished. The motivation to punish those who started a war which killed seventy two million, including sixty one million on the victor's side, was immense. Justice Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice and the main architect of the Nuremberg Tribunals, said in the opening statement of the Tribunals "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated." Stalin proposed a suitable deterrent would be executing the top 50,000 living German leaders. Given the wanton killing on the Eastern Front experienced by the Russians, it is easy to understand how he considered this to be appropriate. Churchill countered that executing the top 5,000 would be enough blood to assure it would not happen again.
The victorious powers instead set a new path, one of criminal trials, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals. Justice Jackson declared "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."
Acknowledged as imperfect, Nuremberg was an effort to establish the rule of law to deal with sociopathic and despotic leaders and their followers who would start wars of aggression. "This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of seventeen more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times – aggressive war." said Jackson. The experiment provided that each defendant be indicted, have the right to a defense before a court, similar to a civilian court. And there seems to have been some level of justice since some were found completely innocent, some were only found guilty of some charges and most were not executed. Whether this was just a victor's court dressed up in fancy trappings of justice or the first faulting steps of a new way forward would depend on what happened in the years after, even what happens now. Some of what is accepted as normal today comes to us from Nuremberg like the terms war crimes, crimes against humanity.
Jackson said "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." They knew they were only writing the first part of the story of Nuremberg and that others would write the ending. We can answer this question about victor's justice by looking just at 1946. Or we can take a broader perspective and answer it in terms of today and of the future, in terms of the long term results from Nuremberg.
Whether it was justice only for the benefit of the victors is our challenge. Will we let international law be a tool only for the powerful? Or will we use Nuremberg as a tool for "Reason over Power"? If we let the Nuremberg Principles be used only against the enemies of the powerful it will have been victor's justice and we will be "putting the poisoned chalice to our own lips." If instead we, we the people, work, demand and, succeed in holding our own high criminals and government up to these same laws it will not have been a victor's court. Justice Jackson's words are an important guide today, "The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils."
Going back to the original question – Were the Nuremberg Tribunals only victor's justice? – that depends on us – that depends on you. Will we prosecute our own high war criminals? Will we respect and use the obligations of Nuremberg to oppose our government's crimes against humanity and crimes against peace?
Elliott Adams was a soldier, a politician, a businessman; now he works for peace. His interest in international law grew out of his experience in war, in places of conflict like Gaza, and being on trial for peace activism.
Russian jets + American boots = Neocon madness in Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/331047-russia-us-syria-neocons/
Is it just coincidence that shortly after Russia begins a successful bombing campaign against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) positions in Syria, US think-tanks suddenly called for American boots on the ground in the Arab Republic?
The US military has some of the world's most advanced surveillance technology, capable of identifying suspected terrorists and eliminating them with state-of-the-art unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). So why do US neocons insist that the only way to beat Islamic State forces in Syria is to put boots on the ground?
Certainly not because the strategy has worked so effectively in the past. One possible explanation is that putting boots on the ground in Syria is an incredibly dangerous backdoor maneuver to foil Russia's air campaign against Islamic State.
Neocons on the warpath
Robert Kagan, senior analyst at the Brookings Institution and co-founder of the now-defunct Project for the New American Century, is now calling for boots on the ground in Syria, despite warnings from a veritable army of military brass, like retired four-star General David Petraeus, that such a plan is "not sustainable."
But the warnings of Petraeus and others will be predictably ignored. After all, US officials never miss an opportunity of proving Winston Churchill's adage that "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing... after they have exhausted all other possibilities." So Kagan's unfathomably insane idea is now being endorsed by several hawkish Republicans, like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio.
But considering some of the highly disturbing comments uttered of late by Hillary Clinton, a Democrat with a very real chance of becoming the next US president, it is clear one does not have to be a Republican to uphold nutty neocon doctrine.
Hillary Clinton "We Came, We Saw, He Died" (Gaddafi)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
Any guesses what country the young men and women will come from who will fill those boots and spill their blood? Yes, of course, the United States of America, which, thanks to 'analysts' like Kagan, is quickly moving from being the world's "exceptional nation" to the world's "expendable nation."
In a recent essay, the analyst laid out his master disaster plan for both Syria and the United States.
"America will have to take the lead, provide the troops, supply the bulk of the air power and pull together those willing and able to join the effort..." crowed Kagan, who went on to emphasize the operation would require not only US air power "but ground troops numbering up to 30,000."
Further on, he proposes "a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops — or 40,000 to 50,000 in total — to uproot [ISIS] from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq."
Amazing how easy it is to manipulate the lives of young men and women the greater their numbers become.
In another article ('America's Dangerous Aversion to Conflict, Sept. 5, 2014), Kagan actually expressed disappointment that a majority of the American people "seem to have come close to concluding not only that war is horrible but also that it is ineffective in our modern, globalized world."
Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, had no small part in exerting pressure – mostly through the lobbying efforts of PNAC - in advocating for the military invasion of Iraq (he got his wish in March 2003).
Disregarding the realities of the present, in which US allies are abandoning their foreign outposts at the edge of Empire, Kagan wants his audience to believe that NATO forces will happily fill the violent void after US troops create a mythical "safe zone" against Islamic State in Syria. Such a plan is guaranteed to be no more successful than the "safe zone" created against the Taliban in Afghanistan has been.
"Once the safe zone was established," Kagan enthuses, "many of those [American] troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states." Similarly, many of the troops that had uprooted ISIS could be "replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by [ISIS's] rule."
Kagan has chosen a very interesting group of actors who would fill the smoking void left by America's footprint in Syria: "Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states." But wait, weren't those the very same countries mentioned in a declassified US military document that showed they actually supported the rise of Islamic State?
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime..."
In other words, those governments supporting the Syrian opposition – Gulf States, Turkey and the West – were desirous to see a band of thugs like Islamic State rise up and challenge Syrian President Bashar Assad. Now, Kagan somehow thinks it is sound strategy to let the same countries that desired an Islamic Caliphate in Syria in the first place to do battle against them.
If recent history is any reliable guide, Kagan's chosen countries – all of which are suspected of funneling money and supplies to ISIS - will most likely work to protect Islamic State forces on the ground in Syria. In fact, the very same complaint has been leveled against the US military regarding their operations in Iraq.
Ordinary Iraqis, as well as high-ranking officials have reached the conclusion that "the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting US control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil," The Washington Post reported.
Such widespread suspicions amongst Iraqis of American double-dealing were reinforced last month when the Iraqi military said US fighter jets hit its forces as they were fighting Islamic State militants near the strategic city of Fallujah, just 40 miles outside of Baghdad. The Iraqis, after calling for US aerial support as they engaged the enemy, found themselves under heavy bombardment by the US jets instead.
Iraqi soldiers said 25 soldiers were killed in the incident and up to 40 wounded.
Meanwhile, it did not escape Kagan's attention that "the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia's position," which is really the crux of Kagan's essay.
What follows is a misrepresentation of Russia's actions packed into one telling sentence: "Although Europeans generally share Washington's discomfort with Moscow's support for Mr. Assad and Russia's bombing of moderate Syrian rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State seems worth enlisting."
As has already been well established by the above-mentioned declassified military document, the idea of "Syrian moderate rebels" is a myth foisted upon the public in an effort to unseat yet another regional leader, while Kagan's proposal for working alongside Russia in the fight against Islamic State has already been soundly rejected by practically everyone in Washington – for reasons that make absolutely no military sense whatsoever.
Indeed, only those beyond the iron grip of the neocons – for example, billionaire Republican frontrunner Donald Trump – can actually express admiration for Putin's actions in Syria without fear of having his campaign war funds halted.
Now please imagine the following Syrian scenario: Washington decides to take the neocon approach (and despite the painful lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) and puts boots on the ground in Syria, ostensibly to fight against the very terrorist forces the Pentagon had previously designated as an effective and desirable tool to "isolate the Syrian regime."
At the same time, Russian air strikes are continuing to pound Islamic State positions, proving - much to the apparent chagrin of Western leaders - the absolute futility of risking boots on the ground in the Arab Republic.
Unless neocons like Kagan want US troops to serve as some sort of human shields for ISIS fighters, there is no good reason to risk boots on the ground in Syria when the technology is available to get the job done.
It doesn't take much imagination to foresee how Kagan's warped strategy, which is winning over Republican converts in the Beltway, could quickly spiral out of control, turning what was once a regional civil war into a global conflagration.
Before the Syrian conflict really gets out of control (and before somebody with heavy debts to pay back to the military industrial complex enters the White House), Washington policy makers should realize the advantages of cooperating with Russia in the skies above Syria, instead of risking everything on the ground, exactly where the Russian bombs are falling.
Robert Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, released in 2013.
Peace Talks "Paused" After Putin's Triumph in Aleppo
February 5, 2016 by Mike Whitney
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/peace-talks-paused-after-putins-triumph-in-aleppo/
"This is the beginning of the end of jihadi presence in Aleppo. After 4 years of war and terror, people can finally see the end in sight."
— Edward Dark, Twitter, Moon of Alabama
A last ditch effort to stop a Russian-led military offensive in northern Syria ended in failure on Wednesday when the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) backed by the National Defense Forces (NDF) and heavy Russian air cover broke a 40-month siege on the villages of Nubl and al-Zahra in northwestern Aleppo province. The Obama administration had hoped that it could forestall the onslaught by cobbling together an eleventh-hour ceasefire agreement at the Geneva peace talks. But when the news that Syrian armored units had crashed through al Nusra's defenses and forced the jihadists to retreat, UN envoy Staffan de Mistura suspended the negotiations tacitly acknowledging that the mission had failed.
"I have indicated from the first day that I won't talk for the sake of talking," the envoy told reporters, saying he needed immediate help from international backers led by the United States and Russia, which are supporting opposite sides of a war that has also drawn in regional powers." (Reuters) De Mistura then announced a "temporary pause" in the stillborn negotiations which had only formally begun just hours earlier. Developments on the battlefield had convinced the Italian-Swedish diplomat that it was pointless to continue while government forces were effecting a solution through military means.
After months of grinding away at enemy positions across the country, the Russian strategy has begun to bear fruit. Loyalist ground forces have made great strides on the battlefield rolling back the war-weary insurgents on virtually all fronts. A broad swathe of the Turkish border is now under SAA control while the ubiquitous Russian bombers continue to inflict heavy losses on demoralized anti-regime militants. Wednesday's lightening attack on the strategic towns of Nubl and Zahraa was just the icing on the cake. The bold maneuver severed critical supply-lines to Turkey while tightening the military noose around the country's largest city leaving hundreds of terrorists stranded in a battered cauldron with no way out.
For the last two weeks, the Obama team has been following developments on the ground with growing concern. This is why Secretary of State John Kerry hurriedly assembled a diplomatic mission to convene emergency peace talks in Geneva despite the fact that the various participants had not even agreed to attend. A sense of urgency bordering on panic was palpable from the onset. The goal was never to achieve a negotiated settlement or an honorable peace, but (as Foreign Policy magazine noted) to implement "a broad 'freeze' over the whole province of Aleppo, which would then be replicated in other regions later." This was the real objective, to stop the bleeding any way possible and prevent the inevitable encirclement of Aleppo.
The recapturing of Nubl and Zahraa leaves the jihadists with just one route for transporting weapons, food and fuel to their urban stronghold. When loyalist forces break the blockade at Bab al Hawa to the northeast, the loop will be closed, the perimeter will tighten, the cauldron will be split into smaller enclaves within the city, and the terrorists will either surrender or face certain annihilation. Wednesday's triumph by the Russian-led coalition is a sign that that day may be approaching sooner than anyone had anticipated.
It's worth noting, that a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon– whose plan to "deconstruct Syria" by using "moderate elements" to "produce autonomous zones"–advised Obama and Kerry "not to pursue the failed logic of the current Syria peace talks but to explore a confederal model and seek buy-in from as many key players and allies as possible." In other words, the main architect of the US plan to break up Syria into smaller areas, (controlled by local militias, warlords and jihadists) thought the peace talks were "doomed" from the very beginning.
According to O'Hanlon the US needs to commit "20,000 combat troops" with "the right political model for maintaining occupation". The Brookings analyst says that "Any ceasefire that Kerry could negotiate...would be built on a foundation of sand" for the mere fact that the "moderate" forces it would support would be much weaker than either the SAA or ISIS. That means there would be no way to enforce the final settlement and no army strong enough to establish the authority of the new "unity" government.
O'Hanlon's comments suggest western elites are deeply divided over Syria. The hawks are still pushing for more intervention, greater US, EU, and NATO involvement, and American and allied "boots on the ground" to occupy the country for an undetermined amount of time. In contrast, the Obama administration wants to minimize its commitment while trying desperately to placate its critics.
That means Syria's troubles could resurface again in the future when Obama steps down and a new president pursues a more muscular strategy. A number of powerful people in the ruling establishment are as determined-as-ever to partition Syria and install a US puppet in Damascus. That's not going to change. The Russian-led coalition has a small window for concluding its operations, eliminating the terrorists, and reestablishing security across the country. Ending the war as soon as possible, while creating a safe environment for Syrian refugees to return home, is the best way to reduce the threat of escalation and discourage future US adventurism. But Putin will have to move fast for the plan to work.
Excerpts from: "Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America's most hopeless war", Michael O' Hanlon, Brookings Institute.
Syria: NATO's Last Desperate Options in Lost Proxy War
http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/06/syria-natos-last-desperate-options-in-lost-proxy-war/
06.02.2016 Author: Tony Cartalucci
As Syrian forces and their allies complete the encirclement of Syria's largest city, Aleppo, the United States and its regional allies have signaled a sudden increased interest in ground operations in Syria, including US airpower backing Turkish-Saudi ground forces.
While it is obvious the US and its allies are responding directly to the collapse of their proxy forces across the country, their most recent threats to further escalate the conflict in Syria are tenuously predicated on "fighting ISIS."
The Guardian in its article, "Saudi Arabia offers to send ground troops to Syria to fight Isis," would report:
Saudi Arabia has offered for the first time to send ground troops to Syria to fight Islamic State, its defence ministry said on Thursday.
"The kingdom is ready to participate in any ground operations that the coalition (against Isis) may agree to carry out in Syria," said military spokesman Brigadier General Ahmed al-Asiri during an interview with al-Arabiya TV news.
Saudi sources told the Guardian that thousands of special forces could be deployed, probably in coordination with Turkey.
In reality, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have played a central role in both the intentional creation of ISIS and the logistical and financial perpetuation of its activities within Syria and Iraq. This is not according only to enemies of Ankara and Riyadh, but according to their central most ally, the United States.
As early as 2012, a Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) document (.pdf) admitted in regards to the Syrian conflict and the rise of ISIS that:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
Mention of this "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) in 2012 is clearly when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates – then called "rebels" – officially into ISIS. To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were supporting its creation, the DIA report explains (emphasis added):
The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.
It is clear then, that this sudden interest in escalation has nothing to do with ISIS and more to do with rescuing the West's proxy terrorists before they are entirely eradicated and/or expelled from the country. Russia, who has played a pivotal role in reversing the tides against Al Qaeda and ISIS militants in Syria, has even gone as far as accusing Turkey of what appears to be an imminent military incursion into the country's northern region.
Reuters would report in its article, "Russia and Turkey trade accusations over Syria," that:
Russia said on Thursday it suspected Turkey was preparing a military incursion into Syria, as a Syrian army source said Aleppo would soon be encircled by government forces with Russian air support.
ISIS, as it has always been designed to be, serves merely as a pretext for justifying any prospective operation by the US and its regional allies – an operation that will be in all reality aimed at challenging and rolling back Syrian and Russian gains on the battlefield – or at the very least, providing an unassailable sanctuary within Syrian territory for the West's defeated proxies to retreat to.
The Buffer Zone (Again)
The idea of carving out a buffer zone from Syrian territory also goes back as far as 2012 when it became apparent that Libya-style regime change would be difficult if not impossible to achieve quickly. The idea would be to switch from the fast paced, overwhelming proxy war the US and its allies had hoped to panic Damascus out from power with, to a more paced proxy war launched from NATO-occupied "safe havens" in Syria.
With NATO aircover, terrorists could safely launch operations deeper into Syrian territory, slowly expanding both the buffer zone and NATO's defacto no-fly zone.
Eventually, it was planned, the buffer zones would lead directly to the collapse of the government in Damascus.
Again, far from a conspiracy theory, this plan was openly discussed within policy circles in Washington.
The Brookings Institution – a corporate-funded policy think-tank whose policymakers have helped craft upper-level strategy for the Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, and now Syrian conflicts as well as plans laid for future confrontations with Iran and beyond – has been explicit regarding the true nature of these "buffer zones." In a recent paper titled, "Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America's most hopeless war," it states:
...the idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces.
The paper goes on by explaining (emphasis added) :
The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.
In many ways, this has been attempted already to one degree or another in terrorist-occupied territory in Syria. As Syrian forces with Russian aircover moved into northern Aleppo, reports across the Western media complained that infrastructure underwritten by Western governments was being destroyed. This infrastructure, including bakeries literally run by Al Qaeda using flour supplied by the US government, was part of Brookings' plan to "make these zones governable."
The presence of Russian military forces in Syria has apparently prevented the West from making these zones more "defensible" through the use of direct military force aimed at Syrian troops.
How this plan will manifest itself now remains to be seen. What is most likely is a limited incursion into northern Syria into the shrinking Afrin-Jarabulus corridor before Syrian, Russian, and Kurdish forces completely fill the void. With Turkish and Saudi forces holding even a small percentage of the corridor, attempts to incrementally expand it as envisioned by Brookings may be made in the near to intermediate future.
Brookings had also envisioned coordinating Turkish operations in the north with an Israeli attack in the south – another option that is likely still being considered.
There is also the possibility of the West attempting to enter and seize a sizable piece of Syrian territory Syria's eastern most region- linking it up with territory in Iraq that appears likely to be stripped from the central government in Baghdad through similar tactics.
Best Case Scenario is Still Defeat + Costly Long-Term Standoff
The most likely result, however, would be a Golan Heights-style stand-off that could last years, if not decades.
Syria would still be able to restore peace and order across the vast majority of its territory, liquidate the West's proxies within their borders, and perhaps operate proxies of their own within seized territory – creating a costly conflict politically, financially, and militarily for Turkey.
For Saudi Arabia, the further stretching of its military forces would strain operational preparedness within the Kingdom, and further diminish its fighting capacity amid its war of aggression against neighboring Yemen. It is also another opportunity to expose inherent weaknesses in its military capabilities, further emboldening the growing arc of opposition challenging its influence throughout the Middle East.
Worst Case Scenario Threatens US Hegemony
The worst case scenario includes a NATO incursion into northern Syria being met by overwhelming resistance, blunting both its air and ground forces. With the majority of Turkish and Saudi military equipment originating in the US and Europe, it would in turn further weaken the illusion of Western military superiority upon the global stage. This could have significant impact on the integrity of both the European Union and the NATO alliance, as well as on prospective members seeking to join either or both in the near to intermediate future.
With the endgame approaching fast in Syria, Damascus and its allies may seek to invest heavily in making this second, worst case scenario the most likely outcome of any US-Turkish-Saudi incursion into northern Syria. By doing so, they may deter such a move from even being made in the first place, or the consequences unimaginable for the West should they try despite the obvious risks.
Since the prospect of a buffer zone being carved out of Syrian territory in the event of a failed regime change operation against Damascus has been literally years in the making – it is sincerely hoped that significant measures have been planned by Syria and its allies to counter it for just as long.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine"New Eastern Outlook".
Saudi invasion of Syria: The bluff that could ignite World War III
Published time: 7 Feb, 2016 14:33
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/331648-saudi-invasion-syria-bluff/
The Saudi plan to send ground troops into Syria appears to be just a ruse. But this is precisely the kind of reckless saber-rattling that could ignite an all-out war, one that could embroil the United States and Russia.
Saudi rulers have reportedly amassed a 150,000-strong army to invade Syria on the alleged pretext "to fight against terrorism" and to defeat the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIS/ISIL). Saudi officials told CNN that in addition to Saudi troops there are ground forces from Egypt, Turkey, Sudan, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem gave a categorical response, saying the move would be seen as an act of aggression and that any invasion force regardless of its stated reasons for entering Syria will be sent back in "wooden coffins".
Nevertheless, US President Barack Obama has welcomed the Saudi plan to intervene in Syria.
Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is this week due to meet in Brussels with counterparts from the US-led so-called "anti-terror" coalition to make a decision on the whether to activate the Saudi plan. A Saudi military spokesman has already said that if the US-led coalition gives its consent then his country will proceed with the intervention.
In recent weeks, Carter and other senior US officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have been calling for increased regional Arab military action against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Carter and Biden have also said the US is prepared to send in its own ground troops en masse if the Geneva peace talks collapse.
Now, those talks appear to be floundering. So, does that mean that a large-scale invasion of US-led foreign armies in Syria is on the way?
Let's step back a moment and assess what is really going on. The Saudi warning – or more accurately "threat" – of military intervention in Syria is not the first time that this has been adverted to. Back in mid-December, when Riyadh announced the formation of a 34-Islamic nation alliance to "fight terrorism", the Saudis said that the military alliance reserved the right to invade any country where there was deemed to be a terror threat – including Syria.
Another factor is that the House of Saud is not pleased with US-led diplomatic efforts on Syria. US Secretary of State John Kerry's bustling to organize the Geneva negotiations – supposedly to find a peace settlement to the five-year conflict – is seen by the Saudis as giving too many concessions to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad and his foreign allies, Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
The Geneva talks – which came unstuck last week – can be arguably assessed as not a genuine internal Syria process to resolve the war – but rather they are a cynical political attempt by Washington and its allies to undermine the Syrian government for their long-held objective of regime change. The inclusion among the political opposition at Geneva of Al Qaeda-linked militants, Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, with Western backing, illustrates the ulterior purpose.
The Washington Post gave the game away when it reported at the weekend: "The Obama administration has found itself increasingly backed into a corner by Russian bombing in Syria that its diplomacy has so far appeared powerless to stop."
In other words, the Geneva diplomacy, mounted in large part by Kerry, was really aimed at halting the blistering Russian aerial campaign. The four-month intervention ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin has turned the tide of the entire Syrian war, allowing the Syrian Arab Army to win back strategically important terrain.
That the Russian military operations have not stopped, indeed have stepped up, has caused much consternation in Washington and its allies.
Russia and Syria can reasonably argue that the UN resolutions passed in November and December give them the prerogative to continue their campaign to defeat ISIS and all other Al Qaeda-linked terror groups. But it seems clear now that Kerry was counting on the Geneva talks as a way of stalling the Russian-Syrian assaults on the regime-change mercenaries.
Kerry told reporters over the weekend that he is making a last-gasp attempt to persuade Russia to call a ceasefire in Syria. Indicating the fraught nature of his discussions with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, Kerry said: "The modalities of a ceasefire itself are also being discussed... But if it's just talks for the sake of talks in order to continue the bombing, nobody is going to accept that, and we will know that in the course of the next days."
Moscow last week was adamant that it would not stop its bombing operations until "all terrorists" in Syria have been defeated. Syria's Foreign Minister al-Muallem reiterated this weekend that there would be no ceasefire while all illegally armed groups remain in Syria.
What we can surmise is that because the US-led covert military means for regime change in Syria is being thwarted and at the same time the alternative political means for regime change are also not gaining any traction – due to Russia and Syria's astuteness on the ulterior agenda – the Washington axis is now reacting out of frustration.
Part of this frustrated reaction are the threats from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other regional regimes – with US tacit approval – to go-ahead with a direct military intervention.
In short, it's a bluff aimed at pressuring Syria and Russia to accommodate the ceasefire demands, which in reality are to serve as a breathing space for the foreign-backed terrorist proxies.
From a military point of view, the Saudi troop invasion cannot be taken remotely serious as an effective deployment. We only have to look at how the Saudi regime has been battered in Yemen over the past 10 months – in the Arab region's poorest country – to appreciate that the Saudis have not the capability of carrying out a campaign in Syria.
As American professor Colin Cavell noted to this author: "Saudi intervention in Syria will have as much success as its intervention in Yemen. History has clearly shown that mercenary forces will never fight external wars with any success or elan, and no Saudi soldier in his right mind truly supports the Saudi monarchy. Everyone in Saudi Arabia knows that the House of Saud has no legitimacy, is based solely on force and manipulation, propped up by the US and the UK, and – if it did not have so much money – is a joke, run by fools."
Thus, while a military gambit is decidedly unrealistic, the real danger is that the Saudi rulers and their American patrons have become so unhinged from reality that they could miscalculate and go into Syria. That would be like a spark in a powder keg. It will be seen as an act of war on Syria and its allies, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The US would inevitably be drawn fully into the spiral of a world war.
History has illustrated that wars are often the result not of a single, willful decision – but instead as the result of an ever-quickening process of folly.
Syria is just one potential cataclysm.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.02.07, 19:06:56
Thus, while a military gambit is decidedly unrealistic, the real danger is that the Saudi rulers and their American patrons have become so unhinged from reality that they could miscalculate and go into Syria. That would be like a spark in a powder keg. It will be seen as an act of war on Syria and its allies, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The US would inevitably be drawn fully into the spiral of a world war.
If you have a significant military on a credit card and your only way out of criminal responsibility for a destroyed global economy and massive crimes against humanity, is total global war, would you go for it ?
The X-Files Season 10 Episode 1: My Struggle
http://www.tv.com/shows/the-xfiles/my-struggle-3309943/
In the Season 10 opener, agents Mulder and Scully return after 13 years to investigate a government conspiracy at the behest of a popular web-TV-show host, who introduces them to a woman who claims she's an alien abductee and shares startling news with them.
The first minute of the show depicts 911 as a warm-up to WW3.. :o
Assad says sees risk of Turkey, Saudi Arabia invading Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/332308-assad-syria-turkey-saudi/
Syrian President Bashar Assad admits Turkey and Saudi Arabia could soon send troops into the country, but remains confident that he can retake the war-torn nation. The statement comes as Riyadh has reiterated its goal of ousting the leader from office.
In an exclusive interview with AFP, Assad said he saw a risk that Turkey and Saudi Arabia – key backers of the opposition – could send their soldiers into the fray in Syria.
Riyadh has indeed expressed a desire to send ground troops to the country, should the US-led coalition agree to the move. On Friday, the country's foreign minister said that Saudi Arabia's goal was to remove Assad, confidently stating "we will achieve it."
Speaking at a security conference in Munich, FM Adel al-Jubeir called Assad the "single most effective magnet for extremists and terrorists in the region," asserting that he must be removed from office if stability is to be restored. "That's our objective and we will achieve it," he said. "Unless and until there is a change in Syria, Daesh will not be defeated in Syria, period."
However, Assad is equally confident that he can retake control of the whole of Syria, large swathes of which are currently under the control of opposition forces and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
"Regardless of whether we can do that or not, this is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation," he said, adding that it "makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part."
Assad said he believes it is possible to "put an end to this problem in less than a year" if opposition supply routes from Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq are blocked.
If such routes remain open, however, "the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price," he added.
"The main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey, for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists," Assad said.
He noted that the Russian-backed government offensive in Aleppo is aimed at cutting off that supply route. The Syrian government has been receiving air support from Moscow, its key ally.
Assad went on to say that he supports peace talks, but stressed that the Syrian government will not "stop fighting terrorism."
He blamed Europe for "giving cover to terrorists in the beginning" and for the sanctions imposed on Syria, stating that the EU has been the "direct cause for the emigration" of Syrians.
The interview, conducted at Assad's Damascus office on Thursday and published on Friday, is the first the leader has given since the collapse of a new round of peace talks in Geneva earlier this month. Talks have officially been put on hold until February 25. On Friday, 17 nations taking part in talks in Munich agreed to an ambitious plan that would end hostilities in Syria with verifiable results within a week, revive the Geneva-3 peace talks, and immediately begin delivering humanitarian aid to civilians.
Syria has been the scene of a gruesome civil war since 2011, which has led to the deaths of more than 250,000 people and displaced more than 12 million, according to UN figures.
Saudis Say Assad Must Go, Deploy Jets to Turkey: Joint Turkish-Saudi Assault on Syria Now Imminent
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/saudi-jets-deploy-turkey-joint-turkish-saudi-assault-syria-now-imminent/ri12828
Peace is off the table in Syria. The US is escalating the conflict via its client states
There will be no peace in Syria.
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced yesterday that for The Kingdom, the removal of Assad is "crucial," adding without any sense of shame that the Syrian leader is the "single most effective magnet for extremists and terrorists in the region".
This is not a rogue statement made by a renegade government: It's a policy that has been approved, and most likely dictated, by the United States. And now the Saudis have parked their F-15s at a Turkish airbase used by the US military to strike targets within Syria.
Turkey has openly acknowledged that it is working with the Saudis on a joint attack plan.Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has already made this clear:
"If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation," he added, fueling concerns that a foreign troop invasion may soon further complicate the already turbulent situation in the war-torn country.
Earlier, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE voiced their readiness to contribute troops for a ground operation in Syria on the condition that the US would lead the intervention. Damascus and its key regional ally, Iran, warned that such a foreign force would face strong resistance.
Of course, both Turkey and Saudi Arabia insist that their strikes will be aimed at ISIS -- perhaps one of the most cynical, laughable claims made since the start of the Syrian conflict. As Slavoj Žižek argues, "The so-called 'war on terror' has become a clash within each civilisation, in which every side pretends to fight Isis in order to hit its true enemy."
The US will likely avoid direct involvement, but Washington is already hard at work behind the scenes: Even with many supply lines cut, the CIA is working overtime to resupply the "moderate" rebels with weapons.
With each passing day, the possibility of a direct military confrontation between Russia and the US (or at least its allies) seems more and more likely. The first F-15 to be shot down by a Syrian or Russian jet (or anti-air system such as the S-400), could mark the beginning of all-out war. Which is exactly what Washington appears to want.
Turkey's Second Army Prepares to Invade Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkeys-second-army-prepares-to-invade-syria/5507520
Amid Turkish preparations for a military intervention in Syria, mainstream media and think tanks prefer to provide political speculations and local rumors instead of facts and analysis. SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence stands on another ground and provides an exclusive paper studying the Turkish military grouping which will be likely used in this operation.
We also recommend that you view an exclusive video 'Foreign Policy Diary – Turkey's military intervention to Syria', which covers the possible results of this act of aggression.
Recent public comments by the Turkish government have hinted at a possible invasion into Syrian territory to "stabilize" the situation and secure Turkey's national security. Significant clashes between Turkish army and security forces with elements of the YPG and PKK, which have exacted a costly toll on the Kurdish civilian population have been raging in southern Turkey and northern Syria in recent months. Russian satellite surveillance and human intelligence employed by both Russian and Syria in the region have confirmed the build-up of troops and material on the border.
It is reasonable to believe that Turkey is preparing to salvage its failed policy of supporting Islamic fundamentalist mercenaries and terrorist groups in Syria by invading and establishing a safe area for these groups along its southern border with Syria, while at the same time dealing a crushing blow to the Kurdish forces that have been successful in fighting them. Turkey is not only trying to topple the Assad government in Syrian, but is also trying to liquidate the Kurdish movement both in Iraq and Syria, as well as within its own borders.
Turkey's membership in NATO complicates its plans of invasion. Unless Turkey is itself attacked, the NATO alliance is not obligated to defend it. Turkey will have to engineer a provocation that frames it as the target of an aggression either by Kurdish forces from beyond its borders or by Syrian or Russian forces combating its terrorist allies in Syria. Such a false flag provocation is not outside of the realm of possibility.
When a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24, claims that the bomber had strayed into Turkish airspace for a number of minutes and ignored radio warnings from the Turkish aircraft were proven to be patently false. A year earlier in 2014, an audio recording of Turkish officials, including the head of the Security Service (MIT), Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Foreign Minister and the Undersecretary to the Foreign Minister discussing staging an attack on the Tomb of Suleiman Shah (a sovereign piece of Turkish territory) in Syria and using it as a pretext to intervene in Syria were leaked anonymously on YouTube. The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan responded by banning YouTube in Turkey, in affect giving support to the recordings authenticity. Now that the Syrian government has the upper hand militarily, gaining back territory and destroying, surrounding or pushing back various Turkish-backed terrorist forces, Turkey may be ready to engineer a new excuse to invade.
Possible Invasion Task Force
It is most likely that elements of the Turkish Second Army are positioned along the southern border with Syria, and will form the nucleus of any invasion force. The 2nd Army is responsible for defending Southwestern Turkey. Its headquarters is based in Malatya, with approximately 100,000 troops under its command. The army is comprised of three corps, the 4th, 6th and 7th which are composed of the following units:
3rd Tactical Infantry Division
28th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
58th Artillery Brigade
1st Commando Brigade
2nd Commando Brigade
5th Armored Brigade
39th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
106th Artillery Regiment
34th Border Brigade
16th Mechanized Brigade (Diyarbakır)
20th Armored Brigade
70th Mechanized Infantry Brigade
172nd Armored Brigade
2nd Motorized Infantry Brigade
6th Motorized Infantry Brigade
3rd Commando Brigade
107th Artillery Regiment
It is not known how many elements of the 2nd Army have been committed to the build-up of forces on the border, nor how many elements of other Armies of the Turkish Armed Forces have been temporarily attached to this possible invasion force. Additional commando or mechanized units could be pooled from other military districts and added to the core of mechanized infantry, armor and artillery forces of the 2nd Army. It is surmised that most of the 2nd Army has been committed to a possible invasion or a limited offensive operation against the forces of the YPG all along the border. The map below shows the position of these units:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkeys-second-army-prepares-to-invade-syria/5507520
Military Equipment
Photographic evidence shows that the mechanized and armored forces being used in the internal operations against the Kurds within Turkey and Syria and also the incursion into northern Iraq, are composed of relatively modern tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). Reports have recently been made public that over 1,000 pieces of military equipment, likely consisting of MBTs, IFVs, self-propelled and towed artillery and their prime movers, as well as trucks and light vehicles have been massing in staging areas just north of the border. Turkish military spokesmen have stressed that they have positioned approximately 30 percent of the Turkish land forces along the border with Syria.
The troops belonging to these units are highly trained and motivated. They have been engaged in fighting in the border regions for many years and know the territory well. They have also been engaged in fighting the irregular forces of the PKK in urban areas for decades. The forces assembled are equipped with modern, effective combat arms and equipment that has been proven in battle.
Possible Strategic Aims of a Turkish Invasion
The most obvious strategic aim of a Turkish invasion into Syrian territory would be to secure a sizable "safe zone" for Turkish-backed insurgents and terrorist forces in northern Syria. Not only would this salvage the Turkish proxies for future use, possibly in guerilla style attacks and acts of terrorism against Syria, but would more importantly drive a wedge between the Kurdish YPG forces in Northwestern Syria (north of Idlib Province) and those located in the Northeastern Syria (east of Jarabulus).
The Turkish government is determined to make sure that the YPG does not gain control of the Kurdish dominated regions in an unbroken area all along the border. The YPG has recently been successful in attacks against Turkish-backed terrorists in small offensives in this "wedge" between YPG areas of control. These offensives have been backed by Russian air operations and with airdrops of weapons and ammunition in recent weeks. It is most likely the prospect of greater territorial gains by the Kurds that the Turkish Army will be deployed to prevent. How the Turkish military command plans to carry out such an operation successfully, and how the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Russia will respond will determine the course of the conflict and undoubtedly the odds of a wider war.
Possible Tactical Employment of Forces
An initial observation of the forward deployment of Turkish Army units along the border with Syria gives hints as to their tactical employment in a possible invasion. Two armored brigades and two mechanized brigades are positioned just north of the border, adjacent to the area that is currently controlled by various terrorist groups and militias under the umbrella of support of the Turkish regime, and that lies in between the YPG dominated areas. Their axis of advance would cover, approximately the area between Azaz and Jarabulus, and would probably not extend beyond the depth of 20 to 25 miles (30 to 40 km).
Two armored and two mechanized brigades, representing approximately 15,000 to 20,000 men would be able to mount a fast assault. These units are highly mobile, flexible, and self-sufficient and pack a great deal of offensive power. They would most likely be aided by elements of at least one commando brigade. They could cover the 20-25 mile distance quickly and consolidate the area rapidly, and would be maintaining short lines of communication and supply. Fixed wing and rotary wing attack aircraft would be assigned to provide air cover to the ground operation. The initial assault would most certainly be followed up by the advance of infantry and border patrol units to establish and provide internal security for the long haul.
The unknown variable for the Turkish military planners is the reaction of the Russian forces deployed within Syria, at the request of the only legitimate government of that country. Will the Russian air forces deployed in Syria react to thwart the incursion of a hostile force that aims to directly undermine the sovereignty of Syria? Will Russian air defense forces based at Khmeimim airbase or naval vessels positioned offshore fire upon Turkish aircraft that violate the sovereign airspace of Syria engaged in providing air cover for Turkish ground forces, and that could possibly threaten the Russian position in Latakia? There are a number of unknown variables that present immense uncertainties in the Turkish strategic calculus when planning such an undertaking.
The recent Russian snap drills by forces in the Southern Military District, which included the participation of airborne and air transport units, was a clear message to Turkey that Russia was prepared to defend her borders and her national interests in Syria. This is only the latest in a series of clear messages by the Russian leadership that it will not tolerate a Turkish sabotage of its campaign in Syria to restore order and to stabilize the situation in the country. The question remains, does the Erdogan regime believe that the potential benefits of setting up a de-facto safe haven for its proxies in Syria outweigh the potential of direct military conflict with Russia?
Conclusions
The determination of the Erdogan regime to undermine the sovereignty of Syria by supporting, both logistically, materially and monetarily various factions of Islamic fundamentalist mercenaries and terrorist groups, has only harmed the security of Turkey and strengthened the position of their long time enemy the Kurds. The past five years have enriched the bank accounts of the Erdogan family and their cronies through the illegal oil trade, human trafficking of refuges, and the smuggling of arms; however, the Turkish people have suffered from a bloody crack-down on the Kurdish minority in the south of the country, terrorist bombings, an assault on civil rights, press censorship and the erosion of Turkish-Russian relations to a level not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War.
This policy of intervention in the affairs of both Syria and Iraq, the support of a multitude of Islamic terrorist groups, and the undermining of neighboring countries to the benefit of a ruling elite in Turkey has been disastrous. It may turn out in the end that Turkey itself has been the most negatively affected by Erdogan's misguided policies. NATO and Europe as a whole have been undermined, and it remains to be seen how much longer even they will tolerate the situation. Is NATO ready to be dragged into a war with Russia as a result of Turkey's aggressive and misguided foreign policy? A pretext for invasion that casts Turkey as the victim will have to be engineered by the Erdogan regime prior to any incursion south in order to maintain NATO support.
By bringing to light, in embarrassing detail, the Erdogan regime's illegal activities in direct support of internationally recognized terrorist groups and the illegal plunder of the oil resources of Syria and Iraq and the establishment and operation of the logistics network that facilitates the sale of the oil at great profit to the Erdogan family itself, Russia has laid the truth bear to the world. In so doing, they have also allowed Erdogan a way to back off the stage, so to speak, and abandon his misguided aspirations in Syria. Continued support by NATO and the United States in light of the ugly realities of Turkey's actions in the conflict, will only undermine both parties' legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.
Turkey most definitely has the military power in place to successfully carry out a limited invasion to establish a terrorist safe zone and to prohibit the consolidation of the entire northern border under the control of the Kurds; however the costs if this invasion is contested by Russia and Syria nullify any potential benefits. In short, further efforts to salvage a disastrous foreign policy on the part of the Erdogan regime through force of arms will only hasten their political isolation and destruction. The Turkish people deserve better, and as political opposition continues to grow in the government and on the street, a disastrous invasion just may push the current regime out of power. This would be a positive development; however, the very real possibility of a Turkish incursion developing into a wider war would prove disastrous to the entire world.
Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront: Analysis & Intelligence. Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.
NATO REVIEW magazine
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/Topics/EN/NATO.htm
NATO and its members countries
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or NATO, is a military alliance formed of twenty-eight member states. It is also known as OTAN, from Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord, or as the North Atlantic Alliance. Its function is to provide a collaborative system of mutual defence in the event of an attack on a member state by a third party. The organisation's headquarters is situated in Brussels.
NATO members
The majority of NATO members are European or North American countries. The most recent additions to the NATO nations were Albania and Croatia, both of which joined in April 2009. As well as these countries, the organisation works with a large number of other states in running or cooperating with a range of formal and informal partnerships worldwide. Twenty-two countries take part in the Partnership for Peace initiative, and fifteen more are enrolled in institutionalised talks.
NATO originated with the North Atlantic Treaty, signed on April 4th, 1949, in Washington DC. At this time there were twelve members, five of which had signed the Treaty of Brussels in 1948.
These NATO members formally agreed that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on them all, and an appropriate response delivered.
NATO nations
It would be over fifty years before Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked. This is the article which states that an attack on one member of the treaty organisation constitutes an attack on all members. Following the attacks on the USA in September 2011, NATO members mobilised to contain the threat. Forces under ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, were dispatched to Afghanistan, and the organisation remains closely involved. Amongst other duties, NATO nations assist with training in Iraq and maintain the no-fly zone over Libya. They are also committed to counter-piracy operations.
The underlying purpose of NATO is to ensure safety and freedom for its member countries by deploying political and military measures as is deemed necessary. It is a unique forum for defence and international cooperation, as well as a powerful military force: over 70% of worldwide expenditure on defence is by NATO nations.
The Neoconservatives Are Brewing A Wider War In Syria — Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/14/the-neoconservatives-are-brewing-a-wider-war-in-syria-paul-craig-roberts/
While you are enjoying your Sunday, the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world.
Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria.
I will provide a brief summary and then send you to two detailed accounts.
The neoconservative Obama regime set-up the Syrian government headed by Assad for overthrow. A long propaganda campaign conducted in Washington's behalf by the Western media portrayed the democratically-elected Assad as a "brutal dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people." Washington organized and supported a front group posing as democrats and involved them in conflict with the Syrian military.
With conflict underway, Washington began predicting that something had to be done to overthrow Assad before he used "chemical weapons against his own people." Obama turned these predictions into a "red line." When Assad used chemical weapons against Washington's puppets, the US would invade Syria.
With the "red line" drawn, a false flag chemical weapons attack was staged, or an accident occurred, that Washington used to say that Assad, despite the US warning, had crossed the "red line."
Preparations for an invasion began, but hit two roadblocks. David Cameron, Washington's puppet prime minister of Great Britain was unable to deliver British support for the invasion as the Parliament voted it down. This left Washington uncovered and vulnerable to the charge of naked aggression, a war crime.
Russian diplomacy threw up the other road block by securing the removal of all chemical weapons from Syria.
Their invasion plan frustrated, the neoconservatives sent the jihadists they had used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya to overthrow Assad. Initially known as ISIS, then ISIL, then the Islamist State, and now Daesh, a term that can be interpreted as an insult. Perhaps the intention of the name changes is to keep the Western public thoroughly confused about who is who and what is what.
Washington now pretends that it is fighting the Islamist State, but Washington is doing its best to frustrate the success of the Russian/Syrian alliance that is defeating the Islamist State..
Washington's support of the Islamist State is the cause of the war in Syria. General Michael Flynn, the recently retired head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has stated publicly that it was a "willful decision" of the Obama regime to support ISIS.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html
See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iraq-war-isis-michael-flynn_us_565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c
The neoconservative insistence that "Assad must go" comprises a threat to the security of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese force that has twice defeated Israel's attempt to annex southern Lebanon for its water resources. Hezbollah is dependent on Syrian and Iranian support for its arms and financing. Israel wants rid of Hezbollah.
The Islamic State that Washington is trying to create in Syria would provide Washington with a means of destabilizing Iran and Russia by exporting jihadism into those countries. The Russian Federation has Muslim populations as do former provinces of the Soviet Union that now cooperate with Russia. By bogging down Russia in internal conflicts, Washington can move Russia out of the way of Washington's exercise of hegemony. Similarly, non-Persian populations in Iran could be radicalized by jihadism and used to destabilize Iran.
In order to protect themselves, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah have come to the support of Syria.
The Russians are there legally at the invitation of the Syrian government. The US is there illegally.
Russian air power in support of the Syrian Army has turned the tide against the Islamist State.
The invaders are being driven out. The neoconservatives cannot accept this defeat.
Washington is preparing a Syrian invasion by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to split Syria in half with Washington controlling the eastern part with the oil fields.
Possibly this is a bluff to get Russia to accept a Syrian settlement less favorable to Russian, Iranian, and Syrian interests. However, the Russian government cannot risk that it is only a bluff. If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered.
The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down.
Here is a description of the race to Raqqa: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/the-race-to-raqqa-is-on-to-keep-its-unity-syria-must-win-.html
Here is The Saker's take on the seriousness of the situation: http://thesaker.is/week-eighteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-a-dramatic-escalation-appears-imminent/
Ten Saudi Major Generals Decry Riyadh's Syria Deployment Plan
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941129000604
TEHRAN (FNA)- The military top brass in Saudi Arabia wrote a letter to the crown prince and interior minister, Mohammed bin Nayef, to warn him against dispatching troops to Syria, saying the plan entails dire repercussions for the Kingdom.
Ten Saudi Major Generals and marshals have signed the letter which foresees definite defeat and failure for Riyadh if the Arab monarchy sends forces to Syria following its failure in the nearly-one-year-long war on Yemen, the NTHNEWS news website reported on Thursday.
According to the report, the text of the letter has been released in different Yemeni media and gone viral on the social media.
The idea of Riyadh's possible ground invasion of Syria was first raised on February 4 by Ahmed Asiri, a spokesman for the Saudi Defense Ministry.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are both part of an effort to create an alleged "Islam Army," ostensibly aimed at combating terrorism in the region and consisting of 34 Sunni Islam nations.
Almost the entire range of extremist and terrorist groups are supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, with their key commanders and leaders being Saudi nationals. ISIL, Al-Nusra and other extremist groups pursue the same line of ideology exercised and promoted by Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism. Hundreds of Saudi clerics are among the ranks of ISIL and Al-Nusra to mentor the militants.
Wahhabism is now the only source of the textbooks taught at schools in the self-declared capital of the ISIL terrorist group, Raqqa, in Northeastern Syria resembling the texts and lessons taught to schoolgoers in Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi ideology, an extremist version of Sunni Islam that is promoted almost only in Saudi Arabia, sees all other faiths - from other interpretations of Sunni Islam to Shiism, Christianity and Judaism - as blasphemy, meaning that their followers should be decapitated as nonbelievers.
Early in February, the Saudi Defense Ministry said it stood ready to deploy ground troops to Syria to allegedly aid the US-led anti-ISIL, also known as Daesh, coalition.
Riyadh has been a member of the US-led coalition that has been launching airstrikes against Daesh in Syria since September 2014, without the permission of Damascus or the United Nations. In December 2015, Saudi Arabia started its own Muslim 34-nation coalition to allegedly fight Islamic extremism.
Daesh or ISIL/ISIS is a Wahhabi group mentored by Saudi Arabia and has been blacklisted as a terrorist group everywhere in the world, including the United States and Russia, but Saudi Arabia.
Damascus, Tehran and Moscow have issued stern warnings to Riyadh, stressing that the Saudi intruders, who in fact intend to rescue the terrorists that are sustaining heavy defeats these days, will be crushed in Syria.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem warned that any ground operation in Syria without Damascus' approval is an "act of aggression", warning that the Saudi aggressors "would go back home in coffins".
In Tehran, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said Saudi Arabia doesn't have the guts to send its armed forces to Syria.
"They claim they will send troops (to Syria) but I don't think they will dare do so. They have a classic army and history tells us such armies stand no chance in fighting irregular resistance forces," Jafari said.
"This will be like a coup de grâce for them. Apparently, they see no other way but this, and if this is the case, then their fate is sealed," he added.
Jafari, said this is just cheap talks, but Iran welcomes the Saudi decision if they decide to walk on this path.
US 'concerned' about Syrian Army & Kurdish Syria gains, urges stopping actions upsetting Turks
https://www.rt.com/news/333066-obama-support-erdogan-kurds/
Published time: 20 Feb, 2016 07:12
The US president has sided with Turkey and warned the Syrian Kurdish militia not to seize more territory in Syria to avoid upsetting Ankara or the so-called "moderate" opposition. Obama voiced support for Erdogan against the Kurdistan Workers' Party.
In a long phone conversation that lasted an hour and twenty minutes, Obama told his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan that the US has an "unwavering commitment" to Turkey's national security.
Obama said he is "concerned" about the Syrian Army's and Kurdish fighters' gains in northern Syria as he "urgently called for a halt to actions that heighten tensions with Turkey and with moderate opposition forces in northern Syria," according to a statement from the White House.
The US president stressed that the ongoing advance of Syrian armed forces and Kurdish militia, with support from the Russian Air Force, could "undermine our collective efforts in northern Syria to degrade and defeat ISIL."
While advising Erdogan to show "reciprocal restraint" and avoid shelling northern Syria where Ankara is engaging Kurds, Obama stressed that "YPG forces should not seek to exploit circumstances in this area to seize additional territory."
At the same time both leaders called on Moscow and Damascus to halt airstrikes against what they call "moderate opposition forces." Russia has on numerous occasions denied striking civilian targets, and has repeatedly offered its air support to opposition fighters. Russia's Foreign and Defense Ministries have also repeatedly asked Washington to provide a list of the groups it considers "moderate" enough. The US also ignored calls to share intelligence on Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) positions or to join a wider coalition of an anti-terrorist force.
While the Kurdish groups, supported by the United States in the fight against IS in northern Syria, are considered one of the most effective ground forces in fighting jihadists in the area, Ankara regards them as terrorists.
Vowing retaliation in both Syria and Iraq for the Ankara bombing earlier this week, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu promised to continue to bomb the Kurds, including PKK bases in northern Iraq and YPG positions in northern Syria. Ankara also made it clear that it expects cooperation from its NATO allies to assist Ankara in this fight. Following the bombing in Ankara, Erdogan promised to hunt the perpetrators "everywhere" possible.
Prior to speaking with Obama, Erdogan announced that American weapons were being used against civilians by the YPG. The State Department has refuted the claims, with spokesman Mark Toner saying: "We have also seen no evidence to substantiate the claim that the YPG is somehow smuggling US weapons to the PKK."
US-Russia talks on Syria peace 'serious, constructive' – Kerry
Earlier in the day, Washington rejected a Russian draft resolution at the UN Security Council condemning any plans for foreign military intervention in Syria. Ambassador Samantha Power even accused Moscow of trying to "distract the world" with its resolution.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said the discussions with Moscow on the ceasefire in Syria are "near-constant" and have been "serious and so far constructive."
"Everyone recognizes the complexity of this endeavor, and there is certainly a lot more work to do. These discussions have been serious and so far constructive, with a few tough issues still to resolve," Kerry said in London as quoted by Reuters.
He has been in contact with the US Syria team, which is in Geneva and said the negotiations have been ongoing for the past 36 hours.
"Working out modalities for a cessation of hostilities in a situation like Syria is a highly technical and detailed process; and that's why our teams are still at it. We want this process to be sustainable, and should all participants prove willing to really sit down and work this out, we can get to a cessation of hostilities."
Kerry briefly stopped in London en route to Jordan where he is to discuss Syria with King Abdullah over the weekend.
The proximity talks launched in Geneva in February have been delayed with an indefinite date of restart, according to UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura. On Friday, de Mistura's office said it would provide a new date for the meeting in Geneva "as soon as possible."
De Mistura told Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that the peace talks won't resume in Geneva on February 25 as he had hoped. He said he can't "realistically" get the parties in the Syrian conflict back to negotiations by that time. However, he added that he hopes the parties will gather "soon."
"We need real talks about peace, not just talks about talks. Now the Americans and Russians must sit down and agree on a concrete plan on the cessation of hostilities," he said in the interview on Thursday.
At the beginning of February, the United Nations temporarily suspended peace talks aimed at resolving Syria's five-year civil war. The UN said the process was to be resumed on February 25 and called on the sides involved to do more to achieve progress.
An ambitious plan to end hostilities in Syria with verifiable results within a week, revived the Geneva-3 peace talks, when Kerry and Lavrov unveiled the truce plan in Munich last Friday. While the humanitarian aid has begun flowing into besieged towns in Syria this week, the warring sides have yet to end hostilities.
Washington's Machiavellian Game in Syria
http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/17/washington-s-machiavellian-game-in-syria/
One of my often-cited sayings is around 2,500 years old. It's from the respected Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in his small masterpiece, The Art of War. For centuries it's been one of the most influential strategy writings not only in Asia, but also the Western world. It goes as follows:
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In geopolitical analysis, when I examine a major political or economic development, it's very important that I first look into myself, to feel if I'm blurring my analysis because of deep-felt personal wishes for a peaceful, more harmonious world, blurring the reality of a given nation or groups of nations. Similarly, if I take those malevolent patriarchs who dominate American and NATO policies today, I must be certain I know, not merely the surface of what an American President or Secretary of State might say on a given day. It can be a lie, a slick maneuver or it can be even honest. The work of any serious analyst is to sort out which it is, to go deeper, to "mine" the lode in order to see the real strategic implications.
Such is the case with finding out what is the real Washington policy—the economic and foreign policy today. For example, what is the real meaning and purpose behind the journey of the 92-year-old Henry Kissinger to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin and others recently? What's the real purpose of John Kerry when he appears to follow a policy more friendly towards Russia than, say, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland or Secretary of Defense Ash Carter? Is it the voice of a significant faction within the foreign policy establishment that genuinely seeks a shift in Washington policy with Moscow from confrontation and war towards detente, diplomacy and a policy of peace and economic cooperation? What's the real intent of the Roman Pope in wanting to come together with the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the first such meeting between those two churches–east and west–since the Great Schism of 1054? Is that a positive step towards world peace or is it something ominous?
Washington: confusion or deception?
It's a widespread notion, fostered by US and European mainstream and other media, even by media in Russia and China that Washington is in confused disarray, a Superpower or hegemon which has lost its bearings. Media analysts write of a policy clash or internal factional battle that renders any US action in destroying DAESH or ISIS in Syria and Iraq a ludicrous, bumbling joke.
From years of looking at US foreign policy, I've learned to bring a certain respect in to my assessment. The respect is not at all admiration but an appreciation that, after all, the world's most powerful Superpower did not come to that position of power without extraordinary skills, cunning, a remarkable ability to lie convincingly, to deceive, to very precisely manipulate the weaknesses of their opponents.
That deception has been the hallmark of American foreign policy for the entire post-1945 period, as towards the Soviet Union of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989, when Gorbachev trusted his American interlocutors who solemnly promised that the West would never advance NATO to the East. The deception is the hallmark of US economic policies since Bretton Woods in 1944 established the Dollar as supreme, and which destroyed any potential challenge to the domination of the US dollar as reserve currency—the most strategic of the American pillars of power aside from that of the US military.
Some years ago I was told by a former West Point officer that the cadets of West Point who go on to become America's future colonels, generals and military strategists, are steeped in Sun Tzu as well as in Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, which teaches "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct."
In international politics, it's unwise to believe your enemy is stupid. It can be fatal. Mistakes, of course, they continuously make, only to re-program and correct or push on another front in their obsession with world power and control.
More useful is to assume they have a well-thought-through strategy behind a veil of Machiavellian lies and deception, rather than to assume stupidity as our operating premise. So, amid a most incredible array of contradictory indications out of Washington, what's going on between the actors in the war against Syria and the entire Middle East today, in February 2016?
Using Russia in Syria
If we look at current US policies in the Middle East, especially in Syria and in Iraq, and assume it is a very well-thought-out strategy to reach a specific, well-defined goal, the situation looks very different.
My current conclusion is that under a smokescreen of apparent policy confusion and incompetence on the side of Washington, of the Pentagon, of the State Department and their backers on Wall Street, there is a carefully-planned strategy to ignite a war in the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East that will dramatically alter the political and geopolitical oil map of the world. Yes, another war about oil like so many of the wars of the last century, a Century of War as one of my books calls it.
The Washington-Wall Street think tanks behind the coming change are orchestrating the actions of state actors in the Middle East who, blinded by their own greed or desire for empire, Ottoman or Saudi, see not that they are falling into a fatal trap.
They apparently haven't studied Sun Tzu, much less, even a thought of such deep themes as knowing themselves and knowing their enemy. They are mostly driven by burning hate, as with Erdogan and his Turkey today–hate for the Syrians, for the Kurds, for the Europeans, even for the Saudis with whom Erdogan claims to be allied. In Erdogan's Kasbah, everyone has their daggers ready behind their backs.
Washington sets the trap
What can be the true strategy of Washington and their patrons in Wall Street in the present Middle East chaos called the "war to defeat DAESH" or IS?
It's useful to go back to the end of September, 2015 when Russia surprised not only Washington, but the entire world, with the swiftness and effectiveness of its requested military intervention against DAESH and other terror groups destroying Syria.
It's clear from the lack of an effective Washington response, and from subsequent Washington actions, that their policy strategists took time to recalculate their original regime change strategy for Syria. What emerges is the clear evidence that they decided to actually use that Russian military intervention to advance their original strategic plan for the region, much like classical martial arts teaches–use your opponent's force against them. It smacks of Churchill's strategy of luring Hitler into a Polish invasion in 1939 so Britain could declare war on Germany, but waiting until Germany invaded the Soviet Union before seriously acting, the period of so-called Phony War.
Washington has orchestrated events, including the apparent US-Russian accord around the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 of December 18, 2015 that led to Geneva III "peace" talks. The Geneva III talks were sabotaged from the outset by Washington's control of the UN "peace" mediators, including US diplomat, now UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffery D. Feltman, and his subordinate, Staffan de Mistura, the Machiavellian United Nations Envoy to Syria and the Arab League. Washington acceded to Saudi demands that the large Syrian Kurdish minority, who are in the firing lines of DAESH in Syria, be excluded, and that Syrian "opposition" be determined by the oil-hungry Saudis.
Now, following the Munich talks of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) on February 12, co-chaired by Kerry and Lavrov, Russia and the USA have on paper agreed that, "cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria." Further, "The members of the ISSG reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria."
Now there are two points that I find flashing red. The "cessation of hostilities" means that Russian highly-effective air support to the Syrian National Army and Hezbollah and other pro-Assad forces will stop or be significantly reduced at a critical point. Russian parliamentarians claim cessation will not apply to the areas around Aleppo controlled by DAESH or Al-Nusra Front, but that remains to be seen. In either case it is a trap.
That ceasefire will happen just as Syrian forces, backed by Russia are on the brink of a major victory in Aleppo, breaking the DAESH supply lines to Erdogan's Turkey, the oatron of DAESH along with the Saudi monarchy. Second, there is no demand that DAESH or Al-Nusra cease "hostilities." That means Russia has agreed to stop support of Assad but DAESH is no party to the deal, leaving it free to rearm with Turkish and Saudi support. Now the plot thickens and gets very dangerous.
Janus-faced Washington
Washington policy–the policy of the USA military-industrial complex and their Wall Street bankers– has in no way changed. That's clear. I find no convincing evidence to the contrary. They plan to destroy Syria as a functioning nation, to finish the destruction of Iraq begun in 1991, and to spread that destruction now to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, and across the entire oil and gas-rich Middle East. They are simply using other means to that end given the "game-changing" presence of Russia since September 30.
While State Secretary John Kerry was working the "soft cop" routine with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the run-up to the February 12 Munich talks, on February 10 a Pentagon spokesman falsely accused the Russian military of hitting two hospitals in Aleppo, even though, by prior agreement, it was US aircraft that operated over the city on that day. The US Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren, charged that Russian aircraft in Syria were using "dumb" bombs, "indiscriminately scattering those bombs across populated areas regardless of whether those populated areas have women and children, civilians or hospitals," charges denied by Moscow.
Two days later in Munich, Lavrov, on behalf of Moscow, apparently compromised on its offer to impose a ceasefire in three weeks and instead accepted one week, a potentially devastating setback for the near-victory of the Syrian National Army forces to retake Aleppo and seal the Turkey DAESH supply route. It's interesting that that decision came only nine days after Henry Kissinger met with Putin in Moscow. We may never know if there was a connection. Then on February 12, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the committee for international affairs at the Federation Council, told TASS that the areas still occupied by terrorists such as DAESH and Al-Nusra were not covered by the Munich ceasefire.
The Pentagon is also quietly putting "boots on the ground" in Iraq. War jargon in Washington has become so dehumanized in the era of drone warfare that we no longer speak of the soldiers, merely their "boots." They are preparing a major military move in Syria whether through Turkish and Saudi proxies or direct, or both, despite the nice sounding words about humanitarian aid and UN supervised Syrian elections in 18 months. At the same time, US military veterans are preparing the propaganda in the US for a ten-year siege before the US could drive the last DAESH terrorist out of the oil-rich Mosul, the heart of north Iraqi oil production.
On January 22 in an interview with CNBC Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the US intends to defeat Islamic State's greatest strongholds: the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the IS "capital" Raqqa, in Syria.
"We're looking for opportunities to do more and there will be boots on the ground, and I want to be clear about that. But it's a strategic question whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold rather than trying to substitute for them," Carter said. "We're prepared to do a great deal because we have the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. We can do a lot ourselves," Carter said.
The US says it has already sent 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to gather intelligence and maintain contacts with local forces. "It is a keyhole through which one gets a lot of insight, and thereby allows us more effectively to bring the huge weight of coalition military power to bear on the battlefield in an effective way," he stated. A leading Russian Duma parliamentarian, Vladimir Soloyvov, head of the Russian parliament's Foreign Relations Committee, dismisses Carter's statements as a Washington publicity move to "steal thunder in fighting terrorism in the Middle East," a sign that some at least in the Russian policy establishment do not really know their enemy.
A spreading world war
I'm going to make a prediction which you can verify as accurate or, hopefully, not. In about two months I estimate, around late March or April it will be clear. The US Machiavellians have lured not only Turkey's Erdogan and Saudi Arabia's Prince Salman, but now Moscow into their trap in the Middle East. The initial losers in this unfolding deadly game will be Saudi, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and likely Russia. The ultimate losers, eventually, will also be the American Patriarchs or oligarchs behind these incessant wars of destruction, but not immediately, short of a miracle.
Look carefully at the little-reported statements in recent days of two key Washington war actors–Joe Biden and John Kerry. On January 24, Vice President Joe Biden, the one who orchestrated the US coup d' etat in Kiev in February 2014, met with Turkish President and would-be Sultan of a neo-Ottoman imperium, Recep Erdogan. Biden told Erdogan and Prime Minister Davotoglu that Washington wanted Turkey and Iraq to "coordinate" on an emerging US military plan to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul from DAESH or the so-called Islamic State. An Obama Administration official described the Mosul attack as in "hard-core planning" stages, though not imminent.
The unnamed US "senior" official, most likely Biden, stated that the US is also selecting several hundred Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as some Turks, who Turkey says its government has identified as "potential fighters," to help the US close the roughly 60 miles of border with Syria that remains under Islamic State control. The source added that Washington is hoping to finalize a package in coming weeks of new technological assistance for Turkey to aid in securing that stretch of border.
Biden also strongly backed Turkey's fight against the Turkish Kurdish PKK and said that the US would strengthen its military campaign against ISIS if there is no agreement on a political solution in Syria. Joe Biden well knows that Erdogan and Turkish MIT intelligence head, Hakan Fidan fully back DAESH and fully are out to create ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in Turkey, and in Syria. He knows because the CIA worked with Fidan, a US educated Turkish military veteran, at secret Turkish bases over the past two years to train DAESH terrorists in the Washington war against Assad.
If you are beginning to smell a big skunk here, you have a healthy sense of smell.
So now we have Washington and Erdogan bringing undesired US and Turkish troops into Iraq's Mosul region to prepare a major military operation, with or without the agreement of Iraq's Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has repeatedly and impotently demanded the Turkish army leave Mosul.
Why Mosul?
You may fairly ask, why Mosul? To paraphrase Bill Clinton in his 1992 famous retort to George H.W. Bush, "It's the oil, stupid." The US failed operation dubbed Arab Spring, the failed CIA and Obama Administration backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across Middle East oil states, and now their operations with Turkey in Mosul and Syria are all about the oil.
This time, however it isn't about taking over the rich oilfields of Iraq and Syria. It's about destroying them. The US-engineered, French-executed destruction of Qaddafi's Libya is the model. Iraq, as Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Policy Task Force discovered, holds the world's third largest proven conventional oil reserves, on a par with Iran, with Saudi reserves the largest. The area around Mosul and the Kurd-controlled Kirkuk fields nearby are the current focus of the US military strategy. In Syria, DAESH terrorists control most all Syrian oilfields, where they illegally export with aid of Erdogan's family to world markets to finance their terror campaign against Assad's regime.
An ominous wire report sent a shiver down my spine when I read it. On January 28, US Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, said that the US military was on site at the Mosul Dam to assess "the potential" for the collapse. Were it to be blown up, it would send a flood of water down the heavily populated Tigris river valley. "The likelihood of the dam collapsing is something we are trying to determine right now... all we know is when it goes, it's going to go fast and that's bad," MacFarland told reporters in Baghdad. The US State Department estimates up to 500,000 people could be killed and over one million rendered homeless should Iraq's biggest dam collapse.
It would likely flood the large oilfields of Kirkuk on its path, rendering them inoperable. Whoever controls the Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, controls most of the country's water and power resource. The dam holds back over 12 billion cubic meters of water that is crucial for irrigation in the farming areas of Iraq's western Nineveh province. In a 2007 letter, US General David Petraeus, a key figure in the destruction of Iraq and in the creation of what became DAESH, warned Iraq's government that "A catastrophic failure of Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris River all the way to Baghdad."
Washington Proxy War Builds
Combine this statement by General MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria on that Mosul Dam, the Biden talks to get Turkey's military invasion accepted by Iraq "in the war against DAESH" and the encouragement by State Secretary John Kerry of Prince Salman's Saudi war against Yemen, as well as the recent Davos statements by Ash Carter. Add to that the fact that the Saudi and Turkish militaries just announced plans undertake joint military actions to "cooperate against common threats."
On February 13, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed a joint Turkish-Saudi joint attack plan for invading Syria, telling press, "If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation." xvi
Now add to that the fact that Turkish military began shelling a Syrian airbase and village recently retaken by Syrian Kurds, with the argument that the Kurds of Syria were "terrorists" like the Turkish PKK Kurds. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu confirmed the cross-border mortar shelling into Syria territory on February 13: "We will retaliate against every step (by the YPG)," he told state broadcaster TRT Haber. "The YPG will immediately withdraw from Azaz and the surrounding area and will not go close to it again."
Now add the fact that this week Washington repeated that it does not regard the Syrian Kurds as terrorists and that the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) have just opened its first foreign representative office in Moscow and we begin to see the outlines of Washington's strategy of steering heated-up and hated-up Turkey and Saudi Arabia to trigger Washington's surrogate war, a war where Turkey, a NATO member, Saudi and the Gulf Arab oil states, find themselves in a direct military confrontation with Russia in Aleppo province of Syria. The Turkish shelling at present is clearly a testing of the waters of a war with Russia to see how, in the wake of their ceasefire agreement, they will react. Will Russia retaliate by hitting Turkish military targets, in a NATO country?
Combine all that with the quiet but strategic Pentagon deployments inside Syria and Iraq with "boots on the ground," and we have the combination for an explosion across the oilfields of the entire Middle East that would rock the world. Truly, as the old Greek saying goes, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
I can imagine a disgusted world turning on those American Patriarchs and their proxy partners in war, telling them, to use the words of the great Freddy Mercury song, the one about rocking certain people.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Isis could obtain nuclear weapon from Pakistan, warns India
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-warns-isis-could-obtain-nuclear-weapon-from-pakistan-10287276.html
Sunday 31 May 2015
India's defence minister has voiced concern that the radical Islamist group Isis could obtain a nuclear weapon from "states like Pakistan".
Rao Inderjit Singh made the comments on the sidelines of the Shangri-La regional security conference in Singapore, Bloomberg has reported.
"With the rise of Isis in West Asia, one is afraid to an extent that perhaps they might get access to a nuclear arsenal from states like Pakistan," Bloomberg quoted him as saying.
Earlier in the month Isis suggested it could attempt to buy its first nuclear weapon within a year and that it might come from Pakistan.
An article in its propaganda magazine Dabiq said: "The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilāyah [official] in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region."
The article, supposedly authored by John Cantlie, the British journalist held hostage by Isis and regularly used by the group in its propaganda campaigns, admits the scenario is "far-fetched".
Political analysts also see the scenario as unlikey.
Don't stress - #ISIS can't buy a nuclear weapon New article by @MJ_Cruickshank http://t.co/ArSW64kMGb pic.twitter.com/jRfMqfR7p9
— Conflict News (@rConflictNews) May 23, 2015
Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme began in the 1970s in response to India's development and testing of its own nuclear device.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who helped develop Pakistan's nuclear bomb, confessed in 2004 that his network had sold nuclear know-how on the black market to states such as North Korea and Iran.
Putin says he 'hopes' nuclear warheads will never be needed against Isis... or anyone else
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-has-threatened-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-isis-but-hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html
Wednesday 9 December 2015
Vladimir Putin has said he hopes nuclear warheads will not be needed to deal with terrorists or anyone else, after Russia launched cruise missiles from its submarine at Syria.
During a meeting in the Kremlin, Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told the President that Kalibr cruise missiles had been fired by the submerged Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean Sea for the first time.
He said TU-22 bombers also took part in the latest raids and that "significant damage" had been done to a munitions depot, a factory manufacturing mortar rounds and oil facilities. Two major targets in Raqqa, the defacto capital of Isis, had been hit, said Mr Shoigu.
President Putin said the new cruise missiles could also be equipped with nuclear warheads - but that he hoped they would never need them.
He said: "With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads."
"Naturally, we do not need that in fighting terrorists, and I hope we will never need it. But overall, this speaks to our significant progress in terms of improving weaponry and equipment being supplied to the Russian army and navy."
Mr Shoigu said Israel and the US had been informed before the strikes were launched.
Russia's air campaign has been taking place since 30 September.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later sought to temper any suggestion the country would use nuclear weapons on terrorists.
"Of course not, and the president has stated this, that there is no need to use any nuclear weapons against terrorists, as they can be defeated through conventional means, and this is fully in line with our military doctrine," he said.
Saudi Arabia Admits it Has NUCLEAR BOMBS; Will Test Within Weeks!
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/916
Post by Newsroom
- Feb 19, 2016
In a shocking development, Saudi Arabia has now publicly admitted they possess NUCLEAR BOMBS. The bombs will protect the ground invasion of Syria by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. . . which puts the Russians in the unenviable position of having to use nuclear weapons to defend themselves and Syria.
Speaking in a television interview Dahham Al-'Anzi of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was discussing why many in the Arab world feel the need for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to be removed from power, and that a ground invasion was not only necessary, but is going to take place!
In the context of the pending invasion, Dahham Al-'Anzi outlined the missiles, planes and other war-fighting equipment the Kingdom has acquired and then revealed "We have a nuclear bomb" and asked the TV Interviewer, "Why do you think we have all these weapons?" He then answered his own question "to protect Arabs and Muslims."
Not content to have revealed this staggering information, Dahham Al-'Anzi went further and stated "We may test it within weeks."
The stunned TV Interviewer said "This is breaking news, I haven't heard this before" to which Dahham Al-'Anzi replied "This isn't breaking news, the super powers have known about this for awhile."
There is much more information coming in regards to this story, we are getting the info out as fast as we can given the intense need to verify and corroborate it before we report.
To watch the full 1m30s minute video yourself, click https://youtu.be/e-LMwVoQbS4
VIOLATION OF NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Arabian Peninsula countries included Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who ratified or acceded to the Treaty in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997.
The fact that Saudi Arabia now admits they took possession of nuclear bombs despite having signed the Treaty means something very simple: Saudi Arabia's "word" cannot be trusted. Even with something as serious and solemn as a Treaty, their "word" is no good. Even when their "King" signs a treaty, the word of their King is now proved to be no good. To put it in street terms, Saudis are "shifty."
RUSSIAN TROOPS IN SYRIA TO BE OVER-RUN
With Saudi Arabia presently hosting military "exercises" with some 300,000 troops in the northern part of its country, and Turkey massing tanks and troops in the southern part of their country, it is becoming clear that Syria will be over-run within hours once the Saudis (and their coalition) and the Turks, strike from both the north and the south.
Russia has a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons if they are faced with being over-run.
When the ground ivasion of Syria begins -- likely within days -- Russia will have to make one of two choices:
1. Strike with tactical nukes to defend themselves, OR;
2. Be totally humiliated by being over-run by a bunch of Arab camel jockeys with filthy rags on their heads.
If Russia strikes, then it is clear that Saudi Arabia will use full-sized nuke(s) against the Russian base at Latakia and perhaps even against the country of Russia itself! In either case, if someone nukes Russian troops, it is clear Russia will strike back.
The question is, who?
Does Russia strike Riyadh, Mecca and Medina - which would rid the world of much trouble from a religion with stone age values and barbarc rituals and practices? Or does Russia strike both Saudi Arabia AND Turkey since both are attacking?
And if Russia uses tactical nukes INSIDE SYRIA, and Saudi Arabia launches from outside Syria, what will the US and NATO do?
Neither the US nor NATO want a nuclear war with Russia. No sane person wants a nuclear war with anyone!
But what will the US do? The US is in an impossible predicament:
1) If the US strikes Russia, Russia will strike back - and millions of us in both countries, die.
2) If the US fails to strike back, then no US ally will ever believe our promise to defend them!
A SET-UP! ----- EDITORIAL COMMENTARY (OPINION) --------------
In either case, we here in the US, and our brethren in Russia, are being set up to destroy each other, by a group of Muslim fanatics. We should not fall into a trap where Christian USA and Christian Russia do battle over Muslim madmen in the Middle East.
Perhaps a better choice would be for the US, Russia and China to meet together and agree to jointly wipe out the entire Middle East in one, huge strike of intercontinental ballistic missiles. All three countries are sophisticated enough to achieve "Time-On-Target" arrival of our missiles, so all their cities detonate at precisely the same time. It would actually be merciful; they wouldn't know what hit them.
Once the radiation clears, we would go in jointly, re-establish the oil systems, and equally divide the spoils amongst ourselves.
This would wipe out a barbaric group of troublemakers who have done NOTHING but bring misery and death to the world for centuries. Remember, these people have been in that area for several thousand years yet in all that time, they never knew there was oil under them and never knew how to look for it. It wasn't until we in the west came and discovered the oil that they began to reap the benefits of the civilized world.
Our ingenuity and advanced societies enabled the Arabs to gain riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and allowed their people to become educated, live in homes instead of tents and drive cars instead of Camels. (Although there are still a few who choose to live in tents and drive Camels to this very day!)
But make no mistake, a tiger cannot change its stripes. On the surface, they dress well and speak well, but beneath the surface, their true nature and the culture it has spawned, remains the same. Greedy, shifty, corrupt, barbarians!
Want proof? How have they repaid the west for discovering the oil beneath their lands which made them rich? They engage in price-fixing to squeeze the most money out of us as they can. They recruit, train and equip barbarians to wage "Jihad" invade peaceful peoples and destroy sacred antiquities. They codify in their laws, hideous practices of beheadings, stoning, mutilation.
Let's be clear: Just because it is "law" doesn't raise it above barbarism. In that same light, just because they dress in expensive clothes, are educated in the finest schools, live in homes instead of tents, drive cars instead of Camels and enjoy all our high technology inventions, doesn't raise them from barbarism. True nature cannot be changed.
A coordinated strike by the US, Russia and China would cleanse the world of filthy, brutal, savagery. It would insure the peace for hundreds of years, and secure all of our energy needs for longer than that.
Perhaps this last item is the best option for the civilized world.
While this is not a choice that we here at a radio station can make, or carry out, we know what our choice would be if it were within our lawful power to do so. Since it is not within our lawful power, we will simply wait to see what actions are undertaken by those we vest with the lawful authority to act.
CIA Confirms: Saudi Arabia has Four to Seven Nuclear Bombs, Deliverable by Missile or Aircraft
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/918
Post by Newsroom
- Feb 20, 2016
Founding Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Counter-Terrorism Operations Center publicly confirms Saudi Arabia has deliverable nuclear bombs.
Last week, on "The Hal Turner Show" Mr. Turner told his audience that, based on his years of experience as a National Security Intelligence Asset with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, Saudi Arabia is in possession of nuclear weapons. He also made clear that a CIA asset had (earlier) made this revelation in public, on FOX NEWS CHANNEL, and this revelation was a staggering breach of Classified Information protocols.
Turner went on to say that "the only way a guy from the CIA would reveal such information is if Washington WANTED the information revealed; otherwise the person who exposed the classified material could be criminally prosecuted."
Given the fact this revelation comes at a time when Syrian and Russian forces, battling Rebels and Terrorists inside Syria, may soon face a massive invading ground force, backed by massive amounts of tanks, the Russians may have to use Tactical (Battlefield) Nuclear Weapons to defend themselves from being over-run. Thus, the release of this information by the CIA on FOX NEWS CHANNEL is actually a THREAT to Russia; don't use tactical nukes or the Saudis will nuke them back!
Above is a map showing the actual, proven range, of DongFeng Missiles, possessed by Saudi Arabia. These missiles are perfectly capable of carrying nuclear weapons within the range shown. Moreover, as you will see in the video below, the nuclear bombs which the Saudis have, can also be delivered to targets by Saudi F-15 fighter jets; meaning they can be dropped well beyond the range shown on the map above!
We have now obtained the video from FOX NEWS CHANNEL and present it here under the Fair Use Exemption of United States Copyright Law, for news purposes.
Here is Video of what the CIA told FOX NEWS: https://youtu.be/qt3trHKqdiM
If Saudi Arabia has nuke's, ISIS has access to nuke's.
ISIS is a proxy custom made terror threat created by NATO to generate a pretext for perpetual total hegemony at home and abroad.
The Saudi Arabia / Turkey / Israel / NATO logistical and ideological support structure of Al Qaeda / ISIS has been exposed and well documented.
The Neocons / Illuminati / etc.. call them what you will.. will now provoke nuclear war in the Middle East using proxies, as the new and much needed 9/11..
Russia will be engaged in nuclear conflict via the custom made terror proxy, Saudi Arabia.
Turkey may or may not have nuke's, however as ISIS has access to nuke's, and Turkey is a main part of ISIS..
ISIS is now flying combat missions from Incirlik in Turkey, they have a proxy air force (Saudi Arabia / Turkey) and they are nuclear armed heading for Latakia and Assad.. get it ?
Quote from: EvolvingApe
ISIS is now flying combat missions from Incirlik in Turkey, they have a proxy air force (Saudi Arabia / Turkey) and they are nuclear armed heading for Latakia and Assad.. get it ?
That may well be how Damascus is destroyed
according to prophecy. The pieces of the puzzle
are coming into their places...
We're getting nearer to the "end" of our presently
corrupted Worldly System.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.02.20, 13:47:46
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
'Obama must tell Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Israel enough is enough' – former CIA officer
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/333343-ceasefire-turkey-agreement-syria/
Vladimir Putin has much more influence over Syria's President Bashar Assad than the United States has over its allies in the region, and this could hinder the Syrian ceasefire, former CIA officer Ray McGovern told RT.
Russia and the US agreed the terms for a cessation of hostilities in Syria. The ceasefire will start on February 27 at midnight Damascus time. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and many other terrorist organizations are not part of the truce.
RT: How optimistic are you about the agreement?
Ray McGovern: The good news is that the US has decided to cooperate with Russia and use their considerable influence and their considerable power to force this thing to stop. There are still considerable obstacles namely Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. They are all allies of the US and the question is will Barack Obama be able to make good on his pledge for a ceasefire? Will he be able to rein in his allies? It is a little different on the Russian side. When we talk about Syria or Iraq and Iran and Hezbollah, I believe that Moscow has much more control over its allies than President Obama does. Will Turkey stop the infiltration of ISIS?
RT: What are the tools in Obama box, if you like, to make sure that people comply with the ceasefire?
RM: As we say in the United States, [Obama should] talk 'turkey' to them. In other words, to say – "enough is enough, we know what you've been doing, we can disclose even things that we have covered up for you, namely supporting the sarin attack outside of Damascus on August 21, 2013. We know that you've facilitated the sarin down to Syrian rebels. We've been covering up for you and now we will not do it anymore, unless you cooperate here and finally seal that border. If you decide to invade Syria, forget about NATO, forget about being part of NATO, because we want the Syrian conflict to stop and we know that you in large measure, together with the Saudis, are responsible for it continuing."
RT: Do you think conversation would've been that frank between them?
RM: Well it depends who's talking. If it's the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, I don't think it will be that frank. If it is John Kerry, if it is President Obama talking to Erdogan, I believe [the conversation] will be that frank because their patience has worn out here and deservedly so. This thing has to stop. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people here, hundreds of thousands of refugees. The NATO allies want the refugee stream to stop and more has to be done with respect to quieting down things in Syria and a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities, which will allow an exchange of locations of where the so-called 'white hats' - or the good guys – are so we don't bomb them. But, by elimination we are able to go after ISIS, which after all is doing all it can to prevent this – witness the carnage in Homs and Damascus just yesterday.
RT: Isn't it going to be very hard to uphold this ceasefire and disentangle everything on the ground?
RM: It will be difficult... Part of the problem is [locating] moderate rebels. Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov have asked several times: "please, just show us where your moderate rebels are and we won't bomb them." And the US has been slow to come up with those maps because in truth, as Obama himself admitted a year-and-a-half ago, moderate rebels in Syria is 'a fantasy' – his word. So al-Nusra, the people that we have been supporting, have pretty much folded in with them and given them their weapons.
It is going to be a little embarrassing for the US to admit that those moderate rebels are a fantasy. This time you have not only Lavrov and Kerry behind it, you have a telephone call announced by Mr. Putin where he says he and Obama have drawn on the experience of destroying all the chemical weapons in Syria, which was a big deal back in 2013. It remains to be seen whether the President of the US could exert enough influence on Turkey and on Saudi Arabia.
Why can't we influence Saudi Arabia? This is why: A hundred billion dollars' worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia accepted during the tenure of Obama. Only $50 billion have been approved – only $50 billion? When we talk about realities here, the US officials worry about offending the Saudis...
RT: How much people would trust the Assad government to abide by this? He has been making huge gains recently, hasn't he?
RM: His [Assad] incentive depends on his reliance, his dependence on Russia. If Russia hadn't intervened in September or October, he would not be where he is. In my view, Moscow has much more influence over Assad than Obama has over the Turks or Saudis, and they have, let's face it, the fly in the ointment...
When you talk about the carnage that took place in Homs or Damascus just yesterday it will put the nail in the coffin. I think Obama will make a good try, it just remains to be seen whether he can convince the neocons in our government and make sure that Turkey understands, "look, it's over, stop it!"
Out of the Lavrov-Kerry conversations came an agreement not only to de-conflict, in other words, make sure that our aircraft don't run into each other, but to cooperate. That is what is happening now – the exchange of maps, the exchange of territories that is identified with real terrorist groups. That is a major step forward. I expect a lot of bumps on this road, but the good news is that the US and Russia have agreed to put their top people – their presidents - behind this initiative. If [Erdogan] tries something now in Syria, I believe that not only Russia, but the US and the rest of NATO – which pretty much follows the United States' lead - will tell Erdogan to forget it, you're a loose cannon, we want this thing to end and we want the refugees to stop coming.
RT: For this to end right, doesn't everybody have to agree to what happens to Assad?
RM: Yes, eventually. I have heard a lot of things even today that Assad just couldn't survive if there were elections Well that's just Western propaganda. Assad still enjoys a huge majority of support amongst the people still left in Syria and that is an open secret amongst those who really know. And so if there are full and fair elections, say two years down the road, I don't see how any democracy-espousing country could say: "well we are going to have elections, but Assad, you can't run." That has to be worked out; that is for the future. But right now, we have to look very closely at how Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel, which also has an interest here, and this is often neglected.
Two years ago, when it looked like Assad was making advances in early 2013, prominent Israeli officials were interviewed and they were asked by the New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem "what is your preferred outcome in Syria?" They said something very shocking. They said something like "our preferred outcome, is no outcome. We see this as a play-off game where we do not want either side to win and we do not want either side to lose." Why did they want the United States in; why did they try to mousetrap the United States by setting up a red line and then claiming it was Assad that perpetrated those sarin attacks? Because Assad was winning and they had to stop that. The best way to do that was to get the United States in overtly and US stature involved. The Israelis – and many others - do not want either side to win and that is a major factor because the Israeli influence amongst the neocons, who are largely running these policies, is immense in Washington.
'Washington is telling Ankara: NATO will not rescue you in Syria'
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/333344-syria-ceasefire-agreement-truce/
Published time: 23 Feb, 2016 12:11
By adopting terms for a cessation of hostilities together with Russia, the US showed Turkey it is not going to support Ankara's efforts to send troops into Syria and NATO won't come to rescue them later, former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT.
RT: How confident can we be that this new agreement will hold?
Jim Jatras: I am not real confident, but it is the best thing we have got going right now. Look, nothing like this would be happening and there would not even be a chance of a viable ceasefire if it was not for the Russian air campaign in Syria and the advances made by the Syrian Army, with Russian support, which has essentially forced the various terrorist groups supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and - let's be honest about it - by the United States, into a very precarious position where they are essentially suing for peace.
Whether that will hold up, whether they can really agree on who is really a terrorist aside from Al-Nusra and ISIS, we'll have to see. There are many other pitfalls that could come up, for example, things like provocations that the Syrian Army is 'violating the ceasefire,' when instead it is being staged by one of the rebel groups. We have a long way to go here, but at least this is a possible path to a negotiated settlement.
RT: The US State Department said the cessation of hostilities is for all sides and that includes the Turkish shelling of Kurds inside Syria. What's your take on that? Will Turkey comply?
JJ: It is difficult. If you look at the text of the agreement, it does not specifically mention Turkey or Saudi Arabia, although I suppose you could infer them for mention of the 'US-led coalition,' which of course they are not really members [of]. Turkey is really concerned about the Kurds and they are supporting various other terrorist groups in Syria. I think one reason this agreement came about between the United States and Russia is because the Turks and the Saudis for the last few weeks have been making a lot of noise about their willingness to intervene on the ground in Syria to save – let's face it - their terrorist assets there, but only if the Americans led the way. We made it clear that the Americans are not going to lead the way and their bluff has essentially been called and that is one reason why we are at this juncture today.
RT: What action could be taken against Turkey if they violate the ceasefire?
JJ: Enforcing [the ceasefire] is going to be extremely difficult. However, if Turkey were to send its forces into Syria, this would be completely illegal; they would be subject to reprisals from the Syrian Army and Russian air support. Washington has made it clear to Ankara that "you guys are on your own and if you are stupid enough to send your forces into Syria and you get hit by the Russians, don't expect NATO to come to the rescue."
RT: The White House spokesperson has said there may be some setbacks in implementing the plan. What was he referring to? What possible hurdles might they be facing?
JJ: There are numerous things. Who are the terrorist groups? What provocations could take place? Where is the enforcement mechanism here? There is a long way to go here and even assuming the best of will - which in Syria is a pretty big assumption to make - there are a lot of things that could go wrong here. I think that is one reason why the military option from Damascus with Moscow's support needs to stay on the table.
RT: The Syrian Army has been making a lot of gains recently strengthening Assad's position in the country. What does this ceasefire mean for them?
JJ: If there are any genuine opposition groups, any groups that are genuinely Syrians - because you have to remember a lot of these fighters are foreigners who are willing to enter into a political process with Damascus. Meanwhile the Syrian Army is making gains against ISIS. There is now a reason to think that the Syrian Army could start advancing towards Raqqa. Nothing in this agreement is going to stop them from doing that and it seems to me that they will be able to put even more resources into the struggle against ISIS and Al-Nusra.
RT: How much sway do you think Russia might have over Syria here?
JJ: I think the Russians obviously do have some influence with the Syrians, but it is one of a genuine partnership. I do not consider the Syrian government to be just another faction on the ground; it's the legitimate government of Syria. That is why I tend to dismiss this kind of talk about: "Well, there is a transition and maybe Assad will go and so forth." It should be clear to everybody that Assad will stay and we will see some kind of perhaps restructuring of the Syrian state, maybe some kind of autonomy for the Kurds or other groups within Syria, but I don't think we can doubt that the government is going to stay in place and that Assad will stay there.
France waging secret war in Libya - report
https://www.rt.com/news/333506-france-secret-war-libya/
Published time: 24 Feb, 2016 16:06
France is using its special forces and commandos to wage covert military operations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) in Libya, the country's media say.
French President Francois Hollande ordered French elite armed forces and the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) to take part in clandestine military operations in Libya, the French newspaper Le Mondereports.
"The last thing to do would be to intervene in Libya. We must avoid any overt military engagement, but act discreetly," a senior military source told Le Monde.
The French secret war in Libya involves occasional targeted strikes against IS leaders preceded by discreet ground operations.
The US and British armed forces are also said to be involved in the secret operation aimed at weakening the jihadist group in war-torn Libya.
The French Defense Ministry refused to comment on the report but a source close to Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told Le Monde he had launched an inquiry of the "breaches of national defense secrecy" to reveal the source of the leak. If the sources are found and tried, they may face up to three years' imprisonment.
While secretive, the French operations are apparently nothing illegal under international law, Ricardo Baretzky from the European Centre for Information Policy and Security told RT.
"Any operation under the international treaty for combatting terrorism is a legal operation," he said.
French President Hollande said the country was at war against IS after the jihadist group claimed responsibility for the November terror attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.
Last month Defense Minister Le Drian said that the rise of IS in Libya posed a major risk to Europe.
"Daesh (Arabic acronym for IS) is installing itself," Le Drian told French TV, the Local reports. "I have been very worried about Libya since September 2014. They are there, nearly 300km from the coast, and they are spreading," he added.
The French Defense Ministry also confirmed that French air forces conducted reconnaissance flights over Libya and that France had set up a military base in northern Niger, near the border with Libya.
Libya has been in turmoil after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi's regime in 2011. Since the spring of 2014, two governing groups are in a war for power over the country. Islamic State took advantage of the situation and seized some territories in the center of the country – including the port of Sirte.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.02.24, 19:21:03
While secretive, the French operations are apparently nothing illegal under international law, Ricardo Baretzky from the European Centre for Information Policy and Security told RT.
"Any operation under the international treaty for combatting terrorism is a legal operation," he said.
The text of this alleged treaty must be examined for legitimacy via peer review.
The potential for state sponsored false flag terrorism events to be created as a pretext for an aggression, must be examined with full disclosure and clearly delineated within the text, for it to be binding on all parties.
Too Soon? New Tom Petty Parody "Free Fallin'" Starring Building 7 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-27FGbpBk4
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization representing 2,400 architects and engineers whose mission is to research and disseminate scientific information about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers with the ultimate goal of obtaining a truly independent investigation, have released their first ever music video.
It's a parody of Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'" starring building 7.
'NATO turned Libya into a destroyed state, not a failed state'
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/333611-libya-failed-destroyed-state/
Libya should be called a 'destroyed state' instead of a 'failed state' because it didn't fail on its own but was destroyed by US and NATO bombing, says Sara Flounders, Co-Director of the International Action Center.
RT: John Kerry has warned that Libya is on the way to becoming a failed state. What prompted him to say this now, do you think?
Sara Flounders: The very groups the US armed and financed the militias they've set up, these outrageous "rebel forces" of course not only can't govern Libya, they can't even reconcile and have relations with each other. The real failure in Libya was created by US bombs that systematically destroyed the entire infrastructure, especially the water, the irrigation, the electric grid, food services, everything in Libya that the population needed. And the only funds - the money - have been in weapons. So, this is a failed state created by US and NATO systematically, and the destruction of every single government agency which once provided the highest standard of living in Africa, and today - enormous misery. So, it is really not only hypocrisy, these are war criminals and they should be charged as such.
RT: Libya does not have a functioning government, control of its borders or basic public services; it's being torn apart by rival militant groups. By most people's definition, isn't it already a failed state?
SF: Yes, it is a failed state. It was failed ever since the overthrow - 'regime change' they called it – of Gaddafi and of his entire government, and it hasn't functioned in the last five years. Since the war that went on for seven months in 2011. More bombs dropped in Libya than in WWII in Europe. It is incredible what was done to Libya, how massive the destruction was. And there has been no functioning government and no social services since that time: I'm talking about schools, healthcare; the most basic things do not function in Libya today.
RT: Kerry said the US is trying to help the rival factions unite. How long could this process take and what moves do you expect from Washington?
SF: The US has claimed that since the beginning and it has been an utter failure just as all of their wars, each one of them has been an absolute failure. They've had no better success 15 years into Afghanistan; they had no success in Iraq and look at the enormous destruction they are creating right now in Syria where a third of the population is displaced. So, there is no way that they can bring the very rival factions that they created, they armed and they brought into power, there is no way they can get them to reconcile and further bombs, further drone attacks will not do it for sure.
RT: France is reportedly carrying out anti-ISIS raids in Libya working with the US and the UK...Is this escalating into another military quagmire?
SF: Yes, it is absolutely a free-for-all and it is completely true that France, Italy, Britain - they all wanted a piece of the action. They all wanted the enormous cash; gold reserves existed in Libya, the enormous amount of oil. And they thought they could just take it as pirates, it was free for the looting. And ever since then they had been unable to bring any kind of stability to Libya and they still have no plan today because as I said just dropping bombs - whether they are US or French bombs or they have a NATO label on them - is not stabilizing the situation for the people in Libya, nor is it intended too. They want to create a completely compliant puppet government - proxies - there. But they have no interest in providing stability and social services for the people.
RT: It's been five years since the intervention. Is the statement from Kerry an admission that the US they made a mistake?
SF: No, I don't think he would ever admit to the US making a mistake; US arrogance admits no mistakes. The people of the world really should demand all of these US officials and NATO and French and Italian and British officials be charged as war criminals. Because that's the only way you can characterize what was done to Libya. There was no reason, no purpose, except outright piracy. Libya had the highest standard of living and an enormous amount of stability. It had built up a vibrant infrastructure, it had modern cities. All of this has been completely and systematically destroyed. What was done to the water and the irrigation, the man-made river – all of this. It is unimaginable the crime and an accounting must be demanded, not further intervention. Because 'failed state' means this is 'something that just happened', it failed on its own. They should label it a 'destroyed state', a state destroyed by US and NATO bombing.
Going to War against Iraq, for Oil and for Israel: The Lies, Fabrications and Forgeries of the Bush-Cheney Administration
http://www.globalresearch.ca/going-to-war-against-iraq-for-oil-and-for-israel-the-lies-fabrications-and-forgeries-of-the-bush-cheney-administration/5509396
By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay
Global Research, February 21, 2016
thenewamericanempire.com
"We [the United States] spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. ... Obviously, it was a mistake... George W. Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East...
—They [President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney] lied... They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."
Donald Trump (1946- ), during a CBS News GOP presidential debate, on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016.
[George W. Bush] wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
—But the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.
Richard Dearlove (1945- ) Head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), (in 'Downing Street memo', July 23, 2002).
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
Dick Cheney (1941- ), comment made at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
Spinning the possible possession of WMDs as a threat to the United States in the way they did is, in my opinion, tantamount to intentionally deceiving the American people.
Gen. Hugh Shelton (1942- ), former Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, (in his memoirs 'Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior', 2010)
We [the USA] went to war [in Iraq] not just against the Iraqi forces and insurgent groups but also against a large part of the Arab world, scores and scores of millions...It is a strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq... [The Iraq war] is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.
Gen. William E. Odom (1932-2008), in a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 18, 2007
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has rendered a great service to the truth and to historians in stating publicly, on Saturday, February 13, 2016, what most people by now know, i.e. that the US-led war of aggression against Iraq, in March 2003, was not only illegal under international law, it was also an exercise in pure deceptive propaganda, and it was promoted thanks to well-documented lies, fabrications and forgeries.
I personally published a book in early 2003 detailing how the Bush-Cheney administration, with the help of pro-Israel neocons in the higher echelons of the U.S. government, built a case for war under false pretenses.
The publishing house 'Les Intouchables' in Montreal, initially published the book in Canada, in French, under the title of 'Pourquoi Bush veut la guerre'. It was then published in the U.S., by Infinity Publishing, in English, under the title 'The New American Empire'. The book was also published in Europe by l'Harmattan in Paris under the title 'Le Nouvel Empire Américain', and later on translated into Turkish by Nova Publishing in Ankara, under the title 'Yeni Amerikan Imparatorlu›u'.
The machinations and deceptions behind the disastrous war against Iraq, which have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and created millions of refugees, and which has completely destabilized the entire Middle East, constitute therefore a topic that I have been studying for many years.
It is no surprise that I was pleased to hear Mr. Trump forcefully conveying the truth to the American people, even though those who have engaged in war crimes under the Nuremberg Charter and the United Nations Charter have never been indicted for gross negligence and duplicity—if not outright treason—let alone prosecuted. Worse still, there has never been a serious public inquiry into this sordid episode at the beginning of the 21st Century and how the Bush-Cheney administration planned a pre-meditated military attack against Iraq in order to bring about a political "regime change" in that country.
Let us summarize the sad series of events that have led to what American General William Odom has dubbed "the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history". We may add that this has also led to a great disaster for the Middle East populations, and it could also prove to have been a disaster for Europe and the world as a whole, if the current mess in that part of the world were to lead to World War III.
1- DECEPTION: When George W. Bush took power in January 2001, his Treasury Secretary, Paul H. O'Neill (1935- ), the former CEO of Alcoa, recalls that the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was raised by Bush during the very first cabinet meeting of the new administration. In O'Neill's biography written by journalist Ron Suskind and titled The Price of Loyalty, it is stated that George W. Bush fully intended to invade Iraq and was desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein. As Mr. Suskind writes it, there was even a Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", which included a map of potential areas in Iraq for oil exploration. Such a detailed plan for a U.S.-led military take-over of Iraq had never been mentioned during the 2000 U.S. presidential election, let alone debated.
However, a pro-Israel neoconservative think-tank, The Project for the New American Century, had drafted a blueprint for regime change in Iraq as early as September 2000. The fundamental goal was to secure access to Iraq's oil reserves and remove a potential enemy to the state of Israel. This think-tank, founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, was mainly run by vice-president Dick Cheney; by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld; by Paul Wolfowitz, (Rumsfeld's deputy at the Defense Department); by George W. Bush's younger brother Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida; and by Lewis Libby, Cheney's deputy.
Their document about Iraq was entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". It stated clearly that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". It was this plan that the newly elected Bush-Cheney administration obviously intended to implement in secret, eight months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
It is also most relevant to mention that the document on Iraq mentioned above was mimicking a previous report written in 1996 for the Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli government and titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The latter outlined a strategy for the state of Israel in the Middle East in these terms:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq –an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right –as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
In 2001, the Bush-Cheney administration seemed to have made its own the proposed strategy.
2- POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE: To what extent was the Bush-Cheney administration negligent in not preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks? This is a legitimate question, considering that the George W. Bush White House received, on Monday August 6, 2001, 36 days before the terrorist attacks, a confidential report by the CIA entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Mr. Bush was then on a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and no special security steps seem to have been taken to alert various authorities of the threat.
3- A PARALLEL GOVERNMENT: Early on, the new Bush-Cheney administration established a special bureaucratic agency for intelligence gathering, propaganda and war preparations. This was the Pentagon's Office of Special Plan (OSP) placed under the supervision of Paul Wolfowitz (image right), the Deputy Secretary of Defense. It was designed, as reported by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh, to circumvent the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, and to serve as President Bush's main source of intelligence regarding Iraq's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and its possible connection with al-Qaeda. That is also where various fake arguments were invented to steer the United States into a war against Iraq. Douglas Feith, a defense undersecretary, ran the shadow agency with the assistance of William Luti, a former navy officer and an ex-aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Something that should have been investigated, but has not been, is how some Israeli generals had free access to the OSP, as reported by Karen Kwiatkowski who worked in that agency.
4- WAR PROPAGANDA: After 9/11, few Americans were blaming Iraq for the terrorist attacks, since none of the 19 terrorists involved had any connection with Iraq. In fact, the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks of 2001 were affiliated with the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda. Fifteen out of 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, and the other 2 came from Egypt and Lebanon. None were from Iraq. And their training camps had been in Afghanistan.
That is why in polls taken soon after Sept. 11, 2001, only 3 percent of Americans mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein as the dark forces behind the attacks. Obviously, such a perception had to be changed if the Bush-Cheney administration were to start a war with Iraq. That is when the fear of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the possible links of Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda were invented, with the active assistance of neocon media. By September 2003, the propaganda had worked so well that, according to a Washington Post poll, 69 percent of Americans had come to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda, even though there had been no proof of such a link between the two. Such is the force of government propaganda when the mass media collaborate in the exercise.
This propaganda was instrumental in building a case for a war with Iraq, without regard to factual evidence. History will reckon that the United States did not retaliate against Saudi Arabia, a country that had a lot to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but it did react viciously against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.
All these facts are well documented and corroborated. Future historians will have numerous sources to establish the historical truth.
Conclusion
The fact that presidential candidate Donald Trump has alerted the American people to the treachery used by the Bush-Cheney administration to go to war against Iraq is a welcome development. Undoubtedly, the Iraq War has unleashed untold destruction and misery in Iraq and in the entire Middle East. And the sequels to the initial disaster continue today, thirteen years after the 2003 U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq.
The only recent comparable historical event, when a powerful country invaded militarily another weaker country, was the decision by the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, thus plunging Europe into chaos for many years. Let us hope that the current turmoil in the Middle East, with so many countries conducting military operations in the devastated countries of Iraq and Syria, will not lead to even greater catastrophes.
Economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles",
Please visit the book site at: http://www.thecodeforglobalethics.com/
and his blog at:
http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.htm
To write to the author: rodrigue.tremblay1@gmail.com
The original source of this article is thenewamericanempire.com
Copyright © Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, thenewamericanempire.com, 2016
On freedom of speech!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wyuAJC4eSg
The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
http://framework.latimes.com/2010/08/10/the-assassination-of-robert-f-kennedy/
June 5, 1968: Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy lies on the floor at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles moments after he was shot in the head. He had just finished his victory speech upon winning the California primary.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.01, 19:03:49
On freedom of speech!
Is there something you want to say ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.02, 17:52:54
Is there something you want to say ?
Why? Is this your thread now! do I have to have permission?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.02, 20:44:19
Why? Is this your thread now! do I have to have permission?
It is obvious, is it not ?
I am curious as to why you feel your freedom of speech is being limited.
The appearance of Radical Islam upon the World Scene in
recent years has a fascinating history. It is rather like the
U.S. Government in that both organizations are controlled
by behind-the-scenes "handlers" who have massive
financial resources and an AGENDA to bring about the
coming New Order of the World. Radical Islam and the
terrorism that it represents is a useful tool to those "Elites"
who make things happen. Radical Islam is also a convenient
"cover" for the behind-the-scenes string-pullers who in fact
are the original "terrorists."
Those who are in the advanced stages of "Waking Up" will
comprehend. (http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/massive-zionist-fraud.html)
More here. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=129771)
Pat Condell one of my favorite people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIfMAP4Q1yk
@hhophead,
This is NOT your thread it is Physicsprof's thread I was here long before you and if you want to get into it again lets roll, otherwise you can KMA, and if you think you own this thread lets see if you can delete my post you wanker.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.03, 18:08:14
@hhophead,
This is NOT your thread it is Physicsprof's thread I was here long before you and if you want to get into it again lets roll, otherwise you can KMA, and if you think you own this thread lets see if you can delete my post you wanker.
hhophead ;D I kinda like that! O0
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18395#msg18395
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.26, 17:38:45
@PhysicsProf
Try watching these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related
instead of what your currently watching. And if your such a smart man why don't you know anything about Islam and don't tell me you do, it is quite obvious you do not! The real hard evidence is with Islam. Peer-reviewed by some of your hard left college buddies yea I'll believe whatever you and they say.
We all know how long you have been here, and we all have formed an opinion of you.
I am simply performing a voluntary service in this thread, a fact which a great many reading here are aware of.
I have never claimed to have any control at all over this thread, can you please explain why you think I do ? ???
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.03, 18:17:58
hhophead ;D I kinda like that! O0
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18395#msg18395
We all know how long you have been here, and we all have formed an opinion of you.
I am simply performing a voluntary service in this thread, a fact which a great many reading here are aware of.
I have never claimed to have any control at all over this thread, can you please explain why you think I do ? ???
@hhophead,
I stand by everything I have said in this thread, can anyone else say that! At the time Physics Professor did not know much about islam and I knew that full well, anyone who does know about islam, can tell when people are talking out their backsides about things they don't know, and the professor was at that time, I believe he now knows more about the subject then he did then, I do not mean any offense toward the professor then or now, it was just the heat of the argument for me.
I don't need your voluntary services here and I don't believe anyone else here is that weak minded that they need them either, so you just want us follow your lead and believe everything you say, your going to control the dialog, because why? who made you God? why is what you say better then what I say?
You are right, you, have no control in this thread and your comment above is why I said what I did, and everyone has also formed an opinion of you too.
So where does that leave us, are you going to continue to bombard this thread with miles of reading of your own drivel that I certainly don't read and I doubt many others do, keep burying important info with your copy and pastes, what makes you think everyone here agrees with you anyway, if it wasn't for me nobody would be talking to you so be nice.
A life as a hermit is my cross to bear, none of your business.
Cool.. so let's rock the Room then! >:-)
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18400#msg18400
Quote from: ION on 2011.11.26, 21:52:51
To a few that have recently posted some revealing points of view, which speak volumes of themselves.
Perhaps you never read the predictions of George Orwell in "1984". You would have learned that wars are not to be won, but to be continued. Remember "War is peace".
Wars are extremely profitable for those who wage them and those who collect the debt of the population forced to fight them, not so profitable for the boots on the ground who pay the price in blood and loss of life.
Reasons for war are always needed, when not available they are "created" Now we have the "faceless" boogey man of terrorism.
If you watch too much TV and listen to all the talking heads, you will believe all this nonsense. If so, I suggest you sign up now to go fight in foreign lands. The future gene pool wil not miss those with such a continued ignorance of history.
Don't speak for other people, they can speak for themselves.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.03, 19:57:29
Don't speak for other people, they can speak for themselves.
There are no comments from me in my last post, I posted the link to original source and quoted the original poster in full.. they are therefore speaking for themselves, are they not ?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18405#msg18405
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.11.26, 22:42:26
Well said, ION.. We're on the same page.
Not so with Room3327 obviously, but if you want a serious discussion on 9/11 -- start with the observed free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (which even NIST finally admitted to, when their original "constant velocity" nonsense was challenged by myself and physicist David Chandler).
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.26, 17:38:45
@PhysicsProf
hard left college buddies yea
Just so you know, my choice for President would be Ron Paul.
I stand by my words, do they still stand by theirs?, who knows, that's why I say let them speak for themselves if they wish to do so.
And your veiled threat did not escape me. :o
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.03, 21:00:31
And your veiled threat did not escape me. :o
If you make an allegation of a threat please provide supporting evidence.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18415#msg18415
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.26, 17:38:45
@PhysicsProf
Try watching these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related
instead of what your currently watching. And if your such a smart man why don't you know anything about Islam and don't tell me you do, it is quite obvious you do not! The real hard evidence is with Islam. Peer-reviewed by some of your hard left college buddies yea I'll believe whatever you and they say.
Quote from: muDped on 2011.11.27, 03:33:20
This sort of tough talk nearly always originates
from agents of the parties truly responsible for
"911" and associated mayhem.
"Things" are never as they seem in today's world
where deception and promotion of an AGENDA
are beamed towards the masses non-stop by
a compliant and complicit media.
Those who behind the scenes are making "things"
happen are soon to be revealed as the masses
further awaken with an intense desire to know
the full and complete truth; the shield of deception
has been broached.
In the end the "Good Guys" really do win!
Professor Jones has made a great contribution to
the cause for truth and justice.
HahahahahahahahLOL :D :-* :'(
You think I care one wit what muppethead thinks about me or anything else, your a hoot!
Hillary's Secret Letter (http://thesaker.is/hillarys-secret-letter-and-the-whole-matter-of-endless-war-and-the-almost-complete-corruption-of-americas-government/) explains much. Saker makes a brief intro
to the article by John Chuckman.
Hillary is probably more of a war-monger than the
other candidates; perhaps not. They all do
obeisance to the idol State of Israel and those
who support it.
If nothing else Room, you've got spunk! :o C.C ;)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.03, 21:00:31
I stand by my words, do they still stand by theirs?, who knows, that's why I say let them speak for themselves if they wish to do so.
And your veiled threat did not escape me. :o
You have 48 hours from the time of this post to clarify what threat you think I have made against you.
Failure to clarify the nature of the alleged threat with full supporting evidence, or the absence of a public retraction stating that no threat was made against you, will result in a complaint to the moderators.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.04, 13:02:39
You have 48 hours from the time of this post to clarify what threat you think I have made against you.
Failure to clarify the nature of the alleged threat with full supporting evidence, or the absence of a public retraction stating that no threat was made against you, will result in a complaint to the moderators.
@ hhophead,
Listen nucklehead, you don't give me time limits or ultimatums,
you have absolutely no authority over me, here or anywhere else! I'll respond how, when, and the way I want to, is that clear? Having said that, this is what I was talking about;
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.03, 19:52:40
Cool.. so let's rock the Room then! >:-)
It sounds like a veiled muslim threat to
me to stone and to agitate others to stone me to death, this is just the kind of thing muslims would say.
So now let me hear how you aren't a muslim and didn't really mean to call for my stoning to death, islam has honed lying to the absolutly highest peak it has ever been, how do you know when a muslim is lying--his mouth is moving. I know that's cliche but it fits, If you are not muslim and just merely kissing their arses because you don't know anything of truth about them, you sir are a
moron! If you do know about islam then you sir are a liar. So which is it, are you a muslim threatening me or are you a moron liar. There is no possible way to defend islam except by lying, when the truth is known islam shows itself for what it is, the only people destroying islam is muslims themselves in every conceivable way. Showing us on a daily basis what gargantuan butt heads they are. Our respect, if their ever was any, of this butt hole cult is shrinking every day by their own hands and as they keep it up thier destruction approachs ever closer.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Four minute long trailer: The Occupation of the American Mind:
Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (https://vimeo.com/138338995).
We really should see the other side of this story.
Room, your responses show that you are a true Christian... eeer not ! (in case you didn't get the sarcasm). Too many people pretending to be Christians who obviously are not. Pretend Christians are easy to spot, they claim to be Christians but do not follow Christian values, they either do not have the guts to admit they are non religious (atheists) or they just want to jump on the latest persecution bandwagon. Which is one of the reasons I am against all organized religion. Right and wrong does not need to have anything to do with religion.
Truth is that an awful lot of Muslims would be non religious as well, if it were not for the indoctrination of the young, same goes for any religion, get them young and twist their minds. But with the attacks on Muslim countries and the way it has played out, who could blame them for any future terrorist type attacks !
Here is my outlook, I do not like Muslims because they are too religious. But I do not like pretend Christians even more so. I detest war, but I can kill. I am not religious but I am a man of peace.
What I see is that when the west attacks several predominantly Muslim countries for no "real" valid reason and absolutely destroys them and creates a vast amount of orphans who any sane person knows will fight the west in any way possible due to the horrors they have had to endure, and on top of that they would likely become radicalised with little persuasion, due to an intense hate of those who would mindlessly follow the illegal orders of the corrupted and evil western leaders which kills entire families of people with nothing to do with any violence.
U.S. democracy is a joke, as it is in most western countries, just look at the prospects for the next president, there is Hag Clinton a truly evil individual who will happily commit genocide and order criminal acts of "war", then there is Trump, OMG. A bright future for sure.
The immense flood of "refugees" into Europe was engineered, as was all the Arab spring violence engineered and fuelled by the west. The situation is so convoluted that most cannot be bothered to understand it. That part of the plan is working a treat.
Russia and the U.S. brokered a cease fire, Russia is on the side of right the U.S. is on the side of Wrong.
The people in the U.S. cannot vote their way out of all this endless killing and funding of terrorists (beheaders), both parties will tow the line and be friendly with Saudi Arabia (beheaders) and Turkey "Insane war Mongers".
The U.S. has no right to facilitate and participate in overthrows of foreign governments in any situation. Same goes for my country and all the members of NATO as well. All pledge allegiance to the Central Banking System and its cohorts.
The entire situation makes me sick to the stomach. The only two ways to eventually end Muslim terrorism is to either kill all Muslims on the planet or to stop funding and backing terrorist states such as Saudi Arabia, ISIS and Israel ect. and stop meddling in other countries affairs, as well as stop killing civilians in numbers that the very worst terrorists could only dream of.
The death of all Muslims would only Stop Muslim Terrorism, the real terrorists would just find another patsy to use.
Should we count the bodies and see who kills the most civilians ?
..
Oh and Room, I don't think EA is defending Muslim terrorism, I think he is condemning the actions and the policies of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the majority of NATO countries. As do I and many others who see it for what it is. Religion is the back story and the tool is all.
..
Personally I think just the links would be all that is needed for EA to post about the articles or maybe an clipping as well. But it is not for me or you to tell EA what he can post, that is for the Mods.
..
Room, how do you explain the U.S. and Their allies aiding ISIS ? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all helping ISIS. Before the Russians began dealing with ISIS the U.S. were just pretending to bomb ISIS. Russia showed that to be true.
..
A very, very interesting conversation as Catherine Austin
Fitts interviews The Saker (http://thesaker.is/catherine-austin-fitts-interviews-the-saker-for-the-solari-report-russia-and-global-geopolitics-with-the-saker/).
Link to the audio mp3 file. (https://solari.com/audio/sr20160204_InterviewHQ.mp3)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.04, 17:55:50
@ hhophead,
Listen nucklehead, you don't give me time limits or ultimatums, you have absolutely no authority over me, here or anywhere else! I'll respond how, when, and the way I want to, is that clear?
I was not giving you a time limit.. I was reasonably informing you that I had placed a 48 hour time limit on myself before reporting you to the moderators for alleging that I had made a threat against you, without providing supporting evidence to back up the claim.
You have now chosen to clarify your position and I am happy with your response, therefore I will not report you to the moderators for this offence :)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.03, 18:08:14
if you want to get into it again lets roll, otherwise you can KMA, and if you think you own this thread lets see if you can delete my post you wanker.
I have highlighted in bold your comment, and my reply is below:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.03, 19:52:40
Cool.. so let's rock the Room then! >:-)
This is a colloquial English term, has nothing to do with inciting racist violence against you. If you don't understand something.. ask! do not presume and make all of your further decisions based on a misconception. If you had asked for clarification you would not have done this:
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.04, 17:55:50
It sounds like a veiled muslim threat to me to stone and to agitate others to stone me to death, this is just the kind of thing muslims would say.
So now let me hear how you aren't a muslim and didn't really mean to call for my stoning to death, islam has honed lying to the absolutly highest peak it has ever been, how do you know when a muslim is lying--his mouth is moving. I know that's cliche but it fits, If you are not muslim and just merely kissing their arses because you don't know anything of truth about them, you sir are a moron! If you do know about islam then you sir are a liar. So which is it, are you a muslim threatening me or are you a moron liar. There is no possible way to defend islam except by lying, when the truth is known islam shows itself for what it is, the only people destroying islam is muslims themselves in every conceivable way. Showing us on a daily basis what gargantuan butt heads they are. Our respect, if their ever was any, of this butt hole cult is shrinking every day by their own hands and as they keep it up thier destruction approachs ever closer.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Your language and your ideology repulse me, and you still have an open complaint against you for this:
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.12.17, 01:08:57
I have no idea what either side here (if there are sides) is saying, or what the debate is about.
What's the problem guys?
You have 48 hours to clarify your position before I report you to the moderators for hate speech. I will allow you to dodge that bullet if you would willingly subject yourself and your ideology for a vote of support or not, by the members of this forum. Let me know your decision if you want a front page poll setting up, I will request it to be done :)
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Oh and Room, I don't think EA is defending Muslim terrorism, I think he is condemning the actions and the policies of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the majority of NATO countries. As do I and many others who see it for what it is. Religion is the back story and the tool is all.
That is not a bad summary of my position on a superficial level. It does not however take into account the actions of a structural body, beyond the lifespan of it's members. All structures are illusionary bodies of people, the people change, but the policy does not. You would have to begin your studies around the time of the Napoleonic wars, and the founding of the first Rothschild bank to appreciate the insidious nature of the threat.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Personally I think just the links would be all that is needed for EA to post about the articles or maybe an clipping as well. But it is not for me or you to tell EA what he can post, that is for the Mods.
This forum has a print thread feature. Hardcopy of well researched material over a significant time frame is valuable and avoids memory hole loss, therefore the information deserves to be preserved for posterity in full, in the authors original words with time date stamp.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Room, how do you explain the U.S. and Their allies aiding ISIS ? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all helping ISIS. Before the Russians began dealing with ISIS the U.S. were just pretending to bomb ISIS. Russia showed that to be true.
A good question awaiting an answer from Room :)
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Room, your responses show that you are a true Christian... eeer not ! (in case you didn't get the sarcasm). Too many people pretending to be Christians who obviously are not. Pretend Christians are easy to spot, they claim to be Christians but do not follow Christian values, they either do not have the guts to admit they are non religious (atheists) or they just want to jump on the latest persecution bandwagon. Which is one of the reasons I am against all organized religion. Right and wrong does not need to have anything to do with religion.
Truth is that an awful lot of Muslims would be non religious as well, if it were not for the indoctrination of the young, same goes for any religion, get them young and twist their minds. But with the attacks on Muslim countries and the way it has played out, who could blame them for any future terrorist type attacks !
Here is my outlook, I do not like Muslims because they are too religious. But I do not like pretend Christians even more so. I detest war, but I can kill. I am not religious but I am a man of peace.
What I see is that when the west attacks several predominantly Muslim countries for no "real" valid reason and absolutely destroys them and creates a vast amount of orphans who any sane person knows will fight the west in any way possible due to the horrors they have had to endure, and on top of that they would likely become radicalised with little persuasion, due to an intense hate of those who would mindlessly follow the illegal orders of the corrupted and evil western leaders which kills entire families of people with nothing to do with any violence.
U.S. democracy is a joke, as it is in most western countries, just look at the prospects for the next president, there is Hag Clinton a truly evil individual who will happily commit genocide and order criminal acts of "war", then there is Trump, OMG. A bright future for sure.
The immense flood of "refugees" into Europe was engineered, as was all the Arab spring violence engineered and fuelled by the west. The situation is so convoluted that most cannot be bothered to understand it. That part of the plan is working a treat.
Russia and the U.S. brokered a cease fire, Russia is on the side of right the U.S. is on the side of Wrong.
The people in the U.S. cannot vote their way out of all this endless killing and funding of terrorists (beheaders), both parties will tow the line and be friendly with Saudi Arabia (beheaders) and Turkey "Insane war Mongers".
The U.S. has no right to facilitate and participate in overthrows of foreign governments in any situation. Same goes for my country and all the members of NATO as well. All pledge allegiance to the Central Banking System and its cohorts.
The entire situation makes me sick to the stomach. The only two ways to eventually end Muslim terrorism is to either kill all Muslims on the planet or to stop funding and backing terrorist states such as Saudi Arabia, ISIS and Israel ect. and stop meddling in other countries affairs, as well as stop killing civilians in numbers that the very worst terrorists could only dream of.
The death of all Muslims would only Stop Muslim Terrorism, the real terrorists would just find another patsy to use.
Should we count the bodies and see who kills the most civilians ?
..
Oh and Room, I don't think EA is defending Muslim terrorism, I think he is condemning the actions and the policies of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the majority of NATO countries. As do I and many others who see it for what it is. Religion is the back story and the tool is all.
..
Personally I think just the links would be all that is needed for EA to post about the articles or maybe an clipping as well. But it is not for me or you to tell EA what he can post, that is for the Mods.
..
Room, how do you explain the U.S. and Their allies aiding ISIS ? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all helping ISIS. Before the Russians began dealing with ISIS the U.S. were just pretending to bomb ISIS. Russia showed that to be true.
..
Farmhand,
I don't want to get into it with you, you've had enough problems, so cutting you some slack I will just say that your almost total lack of knowledge on islam shows through with brilliant clarity in a post like this one. Why do people who have so little knowledge on a subject think they can come in and talk rationally about something of which they know nothing. Please study up on islam then come back and talk with me other wise your just burning up my time for no good reason.
Please listen to her and learn something, if you think I am alone out here with my attitude you are sadly mistaken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2ZS231BAQ
Please check these out;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Nu6EabQD8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG1AHdF2f3c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPyS6bmECPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM0ldHbdPNI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgWakgplYQ0
Please wake up people.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.05, 12:35:30
I was not giving you a time limit.. I was reasonably informing you that I had placed a 48 hour time limit on myself before reporting you to the moderators for alleging that I had made a threat against you, without providing supporting evidence to back up the claim.
You have now chosen to clarify your position and I am happy with your response, therefore I will not report you to the moderators for this offence :)
I have highlighted in bold your comment, and my reply is below:
This is a colloquial English term, has nothing to do with inciting racist violence against you. If you don't understand something.. ask! do not presume and make all of your further decisions based on a misconception. If you had asked for clarification you would not have done this:
Your language and your ideology repulse me, and you still have an open complaint against you for this:
You have 48 hours to clarify your position before I report you to the moderators for hate speech. I will allow you to dodge that bullet if you would willingly subject yourself and your ideology for a vote of support or not, by the members of this forum. Let me know your decision if you want a front page poll setting up, I will request it to be done :)
Your ideology repulses me, I am offended by you and what you say, so OK I can't tell you what to post and you sure as heck can't tell me what to post!
You want to try and position yourself on what you think is the moral high ground well it's not working with me as you know. Go right ahead and report me to the moderators if your that petty and can't speak for yourself. I don't need to take a vote, it would only serve to 'out' other people that agree with me so they can be hounded and persecuted by morons like you, you may be educated in some science and know some things but you sorely lack in many other area's.
How can you possibly think you have the moral high ground when you stand up for the murderers, rapists and pedophiles. I stand with the GOOD people of Earth against the evil so whatever you think you have to do...
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Room, how do you explain the U.S. and Their allies aiding ISIS ? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all helping ISIS. Before the Russians began dealing with ISIS the U.S. were just pretending to bomb ISIS. Russia showed that to be true.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.05, 19:42:56
Farmhand,
I don't want to get into it with you, you've had enough problems, so cutting you some slack I will just say that your almost total lack of knowledge on islam shows through with brilliant clarity in a post like this one. Why do people who have so little knowledge on a subject think they can come in and talk rationally about something of which they know nothing. Please study up on islam then come back and talk with me other wise your just burning up my time for no good reason.
Looks to me like Room cannot answer your excellent question, and chooses instead to insult you. I thought your post was excellent Farmhand, very well articulated truth from your perspective O0
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.05, 20:12:57
How can you possibly think you have the moral high ground when you stand up for the murderers, rapists and pedophiles.
I have never claimed to have the moral high ground.
The statement that I stand up for murderers, rapists and pedophiles is simply ridiculous.
You will get your poll C.C
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Room, how do you explain the U.S. and Their allies aiding ISIS ? Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel are all helping ISIS. Before the Russians began dealing with ISIS the U.S. were just pretending to bomb ISIS. Russia showed that to be true.
..
I have already answered this question some time ago, my answer is Obama is a muslim, a terrorist, and is aiding and abetting ISIS I have never been wishy washy about this!
And just so you know Farmhand I don't disagree with every thing you said. Just don't have time to get into it now.
evolvingape,
Let me be clear, I don't care what you think!
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.05, 20:12:57
I don't need to take a vote, it would only serve to 'out' other people that agree with me so they can be hounded and persecuted by morons like you, you may be educated in some science and know some things but you sorely lack in many other area's.
I am sure the readership understand.. you came for me!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18436#msg18436
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.28, 17:37:16
Continuation of debate from Lee's bench thread.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18437#msg18437
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.11.28, 17:38:27
The new thread has been created in the miscellaneous discussion section. "9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!"
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18440#msg18440
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 17:49:30
First: I am sorry to the-big-M, for starting this in your bench, I will get out of here.
So I guess the question must be asked of Room.
Is the killing of many thousands of civilians by U.S./allied bombs ok but the killing of a few thousand by U.S. - C.I.A. backed Muslim terrorists not ok ?
In many peoples educated opinion Bin Laden was a C.I.A. asset and recent events show this to be very likely true. The Saudi connection is quite telling. When the U.S. spouts talk of democracy it is a joke they are friends with one of the most brutal regimes on the planet and the money involved in U.S. politics is disgusting, this is the same in Israel. Money is their god, but it isn't even real money they worship, it is debt money.
The invasion of Iraq after 911 was a crime against humanity. All of this is just an extension of that policy using proxies (terrorists) to do the work as U.S. citizens can tolerate the expense of borrowed money but they do not like the dead soldiers from fighting made up wars . It goes back further than Obama, he is just doing what he is told, as will Hag Clinton. I think most sane people realize that Clinton, Bush, Obama ect. all just do what they are told. There is no way the U.S. citizens can vote for other policy as no candidates that wish for a different path are allowed to be elected and even if they were the necessary reforms would never be passed.
And by the way I know enough about all religions, and I don't read fiction. In my opinion people who are fanatically religious have mental disorders likely induced by a life of indoctrination and contradiction backed up by some mind bending horror/terror in many cases.
No one is defending ISIS. I don't think any one is defending the U.S. government either. Very telling indeed.
..
Judge Jeanine,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGlyFyghRk
Room3327, if you stop the hate speech, and acknowledge that not all Muslim's are Islamic terrorist's (Muslim's are people who practice Islam).. You have freedom of speech in this thread.
I will champion your right to freedom of speech but you must accept that you are in somebody else's house (the small OUR community), and if they ask you to stop because your ideologic expression offends them.. well c'mon your a smart fella right.. You don't let a hate preacher into your front room to entertain your children after all.. you do that and No moderator complaint.. No poll.. you get to roll..
You are entitled to your right to flesh out your argument.. so go on then, convince me, and everyone else here.. the floor of the Room is yours! O0
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.28, 21:11:48
I guess I can't let this go without comment either.
I have never said all Muslims are bad, evil or any other thing, don't set up a straw man argument. I know that there are good muslims out there, I have always said that most of you need to learn about ISLAM. Islam is an ideology and once you get to know Islamic ideology you too will come to know how contrary to our beliefs it really is. Calling people like me, who are sounding the warning alarm, names does nothing for truth. So again I ask everyone who can, to at least read the Koran, I know it is boring but it has become a necessity if you want to understand what is going on in the world. Without the knowledge of Islam you cannot put it all together.
So now the truth is hate speech, at least according to you, and you are going to bar me under what authority, this is my house as well I have been here since the beginning of the site, have done my share of contributing to the site. So let's talk about ideological expression, I am supposed to stop telling the truth because it offends these poor souls, well their ideology not only offends me but enrages me that they can murder me but I can't even offend them in words. Ideology this is the very topic I have been waiting for, do you even know what islamic ideology is? rhetorical question, I know you do not, by your defending it I can only come to 1 conclusion you are either a muslim or you don't have the foggiest idea of islamic ideology. You want to talk about hate preachers have you ever listened to islamic preaching, there is a book called 'Preachers of Hate' which will enlighten you on islamic ideology.
Ideology that blesses and condones murder for many reasons, only one being, that you are not one of them. I have a lot to say on the topic of Ideology so I must say you now have me excited.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.06, 19:53:25
Room3327, if you stop the hate speech, and acknowledge that not all Muslim's are Islamic terrorist's (Muslim's are people who practice Islam).. You have freedom of speech in this thread.
I will champion your right to freedom of speech but you must accept that you are in somebody else's house (the small OUR community), and if they ask you to stop because your ideologic expression offends them.. well c'mon your a smart fella right.. You don't let a hate preacher into your front room to entertain your children after all.. you do that and No moderator complaint.. No poll.. you get to roll..
You are entitled to your right to flesh out your argument.. so go on then, convince me, and everyone else here.. the floor of the Room is yours! O0
Oh boy.. now I feel I have a worthy opponent! >:-)
Bring it Room.. everything you have got, your full focused resources.. This is your moment! I mean it dude, nail that sucker to the cross ^-^
Retirement is pretty boring, truth be known. Having given the people of Earth simple COP>1 technology powered by a fundamental force.. available to be tapped anywhere on the surface of this significant gravitational sphere fluid mass, floating in space.. we all call home..
Oh boy.. lets rock the Room! >:-)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33
So now the truth is hate speech, at least according to you,
I can document your hate speech if you wish.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33and you are going to bar me under what authority,
I am not going to bar you, I am going to report you to the moderators, who may then decide to expel you based upon a number of variables.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33this is my house as well
This is not your house, you are a guest in the host's house, just like me.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33I have been here since the beginning of the site,
Yes you have, and time served does not always equal competence, or in itself deserve an earned place at the table.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33have done my share of contributing to the site.
This is an overunity energy research site, to that end you have contributed fuck all.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33So let's talk about ideological expression, I am supposed to stop telling the truth because it offends these poor souls,
You simply present your position and claim it to be the truth, the majority of us have a point of view that I believe has more depth to it.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33well their ideology not only offends me but enrages me that they can murder me but I can't even offend them in words.
You have not been murdered, you are still here tapping away at your keyboard, are you not ?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33Ideology this is the very topic I have been waiting for, do you even know what islamic ideology is? rhetorical question, I know you do not, by your defending it I can only come to 1 conclusion you are either a muslim or you don't have the foggiest idea of islamic ideology. You want to talk about hate preachers have you ever listened to islamic preaching, there is a book called 'Preachers of Hate' which will enlighten you on islamic ideology.
Oh boy..
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 20:45:33
Ideology that blesses and condones murder for many reasons, only one being, that you are not one of them. I have a lot to say on the topic of Ideology so I must say you now have me excited.
You excited makes me scared :'(
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.06, 20:56:54
Oh boy.. now I feel I have a worthy opponent! >:-)
Bring it Room.. everything you have got, your full focused resources.. This is your moment! I mean it dude, nail that sucker to the cross ^-^
Retirement is pretty boring, truth be known. Having given the people of Earth simple COP>1 technology powered by a fundamental force.. available to be tapped anywhere on the surface of this significant gravitational sphere fluid mass, floating in space.. we all call home..
Oh boy.. lets rock the Room! >:-)
Now this comes as a shock to me, you have
overunity and have given it to the open source community? Do you have a working device, has it been submitted to second and third parties for verification, does point99 know about this can anyone prove your revelation, this is fantistic all the worlds problems have been solved by you, you should be given your own holiday, I would celebrate it, no greater achievement has ever been made by mankind. Please stand up and take a bow you deserve it. Just how far over cop 1 is it? can I get one for my home? Or are you pulling my leg?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 21:29:33
Now this comes as a shock to me, you have overunity and have given it to the open source community? Do you have a working device, has it been submitted to second and third parties for verification, does point99 know about this can anyone prove your revelation, this is fantistic all the worlds problems have been solved by you, you should be given your own holiday, I would celebrate it, no greater achievement has ever been made by mankind. Please stand up and take a bow you deserve it. Just how far over cop 1 is it? can I get one for my home? Or are you pulling my leg?
My dear fellow,
You clearly have not been paying attention..
In your position playing dumb and threatening to invoke .99 moderation is a stupid move..
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.06, 21:29:33
you should be given your own holiday
I will be content with a Nobel Prize and a Specific Gravity Field ;D
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.03.05, 00:37:19
Personally I think just the links would be all that is needed for EA to post about the articles or maybe an clipping as well.
You know what that is a good idea, I could do with a rest. One last copy and paste then we can get down to some serious analysis!
The Rothschild Gang: Shadow Conspiracy Or Rumor?http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rothschild-gang-shadow-conspiracy-or-rumor-2011-6?op=1&IR=T
Jun. 1, 2011
The Rothschilds are the most famous banking family in history. In the 19th century they lent money to Kings and governments and funded both sides in the Napoleonic wars. They once saved the Bank of England from collapse with their own money. But how did they come to be so fabulously wealthy? In this two-part feature we first look at their rise from the ghettoes of Frankfurt, and then in part two we ask why they have been accused of everything from deliberately starting wars, to assassinating presidents and controlling the entire global financial system.
Rothschild Bank Now Under Criminal Investigation After Baron David De Rothschild Indictmenthttp://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/rothschild-bank-now-under-criminal-investigation-after-baron-david-de-rothschild-indictment.html?utm_source=Activist+Post+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5f78a0b399-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b0c7fb76bd-5f78a0b399-387779689
March 6, 2016
Last year, Baron David de Rothschild was indicted by the French government after he was accused of fraud in a scheme that allegedly embezzled large sums of money from British pensioners.
It has taken many years to bring this case against Rothschild and his company the Rothschild Financial Services Group, which trapped hundreds of pensioners in a bogus loan scheme between the years of 2005 and 2008.
One by one the pensioners lost their money and pressed charges against the notorious banker, beginning a case that would take many years to get even an indictment.
In June, Paris-based liaison judge Javier Gómez Bermudez ruled that Rothschild must face a trial for his crimes, and ordered local police to seek him out in his various mansions that are spread throughout the country.
"It is a good step in the right direction. The courts are now in agreement with us that there is enough evidence to interrogate Baron Rothschild. The first thing they will have to do is find him. Once they have done that they can begin to question him. It is a real breakthrough moment for everyone involved," lawyer Antonio Flores of Lawbird told the Olive Press after the ruling.
"In short, independently of what happened to the investment, Rothschild advertised a loan aimed at reducing inheritance tax, which is a breach of tax law," he added.
While news of a single Rothschild being indicted is certainly noteworthy, a particularly important announcement was made this Friday.
The French government announced that it has launched an investigation into the entire Swiss branch of the Rothschild's banking empire.
According to Bloomberg,
The Swiss unit of Edmond de Rothschild said it's the subject of a French probe regarding a former business relationship managed by a former employee.
"Edmond de Rothschild (Suisse) SA is actively participating in the criminal investigation under way," the Geneva-based bank said in an e-mailed statement on Friday. "The bank denies all the allegations that have been made against it."
Edmond de Rothschild, a private banking and asset management firm established in Paris in 1953, oversees about 150 billion euros ($164 billion) and is led today by Baron Benjamin de Rothschild and his wife Ariane. The Swiss unit traces its roots to the acquisition of Banque Privee in Geneva in 1965.
The company has no further comment at this time, according to the statement. Officials in Geneva weren't immediately available to respond to a telephone call from Bloomberg News on Friday.
The Rothschild empire has been instrumental in helping move the global elite's wealth from traditional tax havens like the Bahamas, Switzerland and the British Virgin Islands to the U.S.
Last month, the Free Thought Project reported on the above the law tax haven established inside the United States by the Rothschilds.
After opening a trust company in Reno, Nev., Rothschild & Co. began ushering the massive fortunes of the world's most wealthy individuals out of typical tax havens, and into the Rothschild run U.S. trusts, which are exempt from the international reporting requirements.
The Rothschild banking dynasty is a family line that has been accused of pulling the political strings of many different governments through their control of various economic systems throughout the world.
Historically, there is ample evidence to show that the family has used insider trading to bilk money from both private and public funds.
During the Battle of Waterloo in the Napoleonic wars, Nathan Rothschild was responsible for one of the oldest cases of "insider trading," which led to the Rothschild family robbing a whole nation blind. In 1815 when the battle of Waterloo took place, there were no quick methods of communication like we have today so messengers were used for communication in times of war. The Rothschild's took advantage of this by having spies on the frontlines of the battle who would return information to the family faster than the messengers used by the military.
When the British won the war, Nathan Rothschild, was of course, the first to know, and he immediately went to the stock exchange and started selling stocks while putting out the rumor that the French had won the war. This created a panic on the floor of the stock exchange and investors all over England began frantically selling their stocks. With the price of all stocks plummeting Rothschild was able to buy out the whole English market for a fraction of its cost. When word returned that the English had actually been victorious, the value of the market soared, and overnight Nathan Rothschild expanded his family's wealth, and cemented their position as one of the richest families in the world.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist
Let's start looking at some ideology, here is a good article to start with. Remember this culture is supposed to be just as good as our culture according to the PC MC view.
www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/muslim-professor-islam-has-no-age-barrier-in-marriage-and-muslims-have-no-apology-for-those-who-refuse-to-accept-this
Are you willing to accept this culture into our culture, they are locked into their 7th century cult and cannot change one single word of their book or they become apostates, and the punishment for being an apostate is DEATH, all four islamic schools of jurisprudence find death to be proscribed for apostates. All muslims are vigilantes of the cult and all are tasked with the apostates murder, who ever finds them first.
This isn't even the tip of the iceberg. This cult and so called culture is barbaric just look around at their actions and speech and start looking at the IDEOLOGY. And PLEASE quit making apologies for them, let them do the apologising for their barbaric culture.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.06, 22:59:11
I will be content with a Nobel Prize and a Specific Gravity Field ;D
Oh you are selling yourself short, you deserve much more then that- when can I get mine whats the price going to be? :)
Wow my heart goes out to the good people of Europe, and this is just the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIcltV7r-nM
Continuing on with our look at islamic ideology;
www.jihadwatch.org/2016/01/hugh-fitzgerald-islam-is-not-a-mystery
Current events :-*
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.07, 18:35:39
And PLEASE quit making apologies for them, let them do the apologising for their barbaric culture.
If you claim I am making apologies for "them", please define "them" and the claim in full with supporting background evidence. I am getting tired of telling you this, you are supposed to be a grandad.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.07, 18:47:49
Oh you are selling yourself short, you deserve much more then that- when can I get mine whats the price going to be? :)
What price are you willing to pay to earn one ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.03.09, 00:12:04
If you claim I am making apologies for "them", please define "them" and the claim in full with supporting background evidence. I am getting tired of telling you this, you are supposed to be a grandad.
What price are you willing to pay to earn one ?
@evolvingape,
I wasn't speaking to you but if the shoe fits. I was speaking to all the misguided politically correct people out there.
What price would I pay? you name it.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.03.09, 00:51:57
@evolvingape,
I wasn't speaking to you but if the shoe fits. I was speaking to all the misguided politically correct people out there.
What price would I pay? you name it.
Thankyou, for your time.
There are a few things I need to say.
There is a war going on in case some of you didn't notice, but islam knows , they declared it! So you and I can stand up and fight for human rights or we can surrender and start living our life as a muslim or dimmi, and we always have their third choice for us, death at their hands.
There is no excuse for anyone, especially if running for public office, to be ignorant of the belief system and the history of of mohammedanism. A politician showing ignorance of the topic is akin to gross if not criminal negligence. There is no longer any acceptable excuse when the threat from them is so great and when written information and reputable scholars are literally at one's fingertips, ready to peel away all the layers of obfuscation and deception and dissimulation, on the topic of islam, laying bare it's hideous reality.
It's a humorous irony that muslims accuse people like me of bigotry and racist hate when we point out islams evils. NO, I am not a hateful racist, I am a decent and moral human being and not only do I have a right to speak out, I feel obligated. What kind of person would I be if I didn't stand against the deep-rooted hatred and inhumanity that permeates the islamic faith?
In a moral world there can be no 'moderate' versions of murder, rape, pedophilia and bigotry. Either you are for humanity and their inalienable rights or you are not. Clearly islam is not. Any people that worship a violent and hateful god are a lost people, I wish there was more good and brave muslims that would speak out against their own faiths violent and bigoted ways, but I don't hold my breath.
What most people don't understand, with islam, is if you remove the jihad part, the murder, rape, pedophilia etc. you will have succeeded in totally gutting out islam and there will be no islam. It is not based on love, kindness or any of the things other religions are, they don't have the ten commandments, what they do have is Jihad. So there is no excuse anymore for not knowing about the 'religion of peace' if you already know great if not please start learning.
Room
Quote from: Room
There is a war going on in case some of you didn't notice, but islam knows , they declared it!
The war which is now in its early stages was predicted by
Albert Pike long ago. It has been in the PLANS for a very
long time as well. But who is the originator of the PLAN
and who are they today? It is not Islam.
What is happening now World-wide is but a prelude to the
coming New Order of the World.
The Protocols spell it out.
This Book is an extension of The Protocols.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.11, 20:19:27
The war which is now in its early stages was predicted by
Albert Pike long ago. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130187) It has been in the PLANS for a very
long time as well. But who is the originator of the PLAN
and who are they today? It is not Islam.
What is happening now World-wide is but a prelude to the
coming New Order of the World. The Protocols (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm) spell it out.
This Book (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml) is an extension of The Protocols.
Your 'protocols' are fiction and so is your so called extension.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRcP43oEZ9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgUXGnwPjM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzXtz4nOFyo
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.11, 20:19:27
But who is the originator of the PLAN
and who are they today? It is not Islam.
muDped,
I just have to ask, are you deaf, dumb and blind or are you just laying a smoke screen? You have consistently blamed, in all the years I've been here, all the worlds problems on everyone and anyone other then islam, and just who is causing the problems in the world that anybody with a brain in their head can see, 'islam', why have you never condemned islam but you condemn all other religions, groups, governments you name it but you consistently stand behind and back up murdering, lying, raping, stealing pedophiles. Does this show us who you are?
Room,
Radical Islam did not arise spontaneously. It was "engineered"
by the NeoCon West and is controlled as a Covert Operation by
Intelligence Services of The West.
As a matter of fact, Islam itself was created by the same entities
who created Modern Judah-ism. Both are essential for the PLANNED
emergence of the coming New Order of the World.
Read the Protocols for yourself if you dare. Then decide if they're
bogus or are consistent with the events of the past century.
Very sadly, Christendom has been bamboozled. The State of Israel
is a rogue state very much involved in brutal genocide. It is paving
the way for the coming New Order which will be headquartered there.
The State of Israel is a continuation of the Bolshevik Soviet Union.
Marxism/Communism is not Russian by any stretch.
The videos you provided links for, while interesting, are rather feeble
attempts to mis-inform or deceive.
Try these for a great deal more accuracy:
David Icke Explains the Protocols (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bUMVLHbRfs)
Brother Nathanael on The Illustrated Protocols of Zion
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xdogBS5Nrw)
It is a fascinating study. Depressing, but fascinating.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.13, 02:35:05
Room,
Radical Islam did not arise spontaneously. It was "engineered"
by the NeoCon West and is controlled as a Covert Operation by
Intelligence Services of The West.
As a matter of fact, Islam itself was created by the same entities
who created Modern Judah-ism. Both are essential for the PLANNED
emergence of the coming New Order of the World.
Read the Protocols for yourself if you dare. Then decide if they're
bogus or are consistent with the events of the past century.
Very sadly, Christendom has been bamboozled. The State of Israel
is a rogue state very much involved in brutal genocide. It is paving
the way for the coming New Order which will be headquartered there.
The State of Israel is a continuation of the Bolshevik Soviet Union.
Marxism/Communism is not Russian by any stretch.
The videos you provided links for, while interesting, are rather feeble
attempts to mis-inform or deceive.
Try these for a great deal more accuracy:
David Icke Explains the Protocols (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bUMVLHbRfs)
Brother Nathanael on The Illustrated Protocols of Zion
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xdogBS5Nrw)
It is a fascinating study. Depressing, but fascinating.
mudped,
Talk about a predictable response from you, sorry to say radical islam has been around for 1400 years, it did not just start and was not engineered by anyone in the modern world, how about you get your facts straight. The ferocity of islam against Jews has been going on for that same period of time, ever since mohammed told his followers that Jews are the greatest of their enemy's for all time and they must be destroyed to the last man, woman, and child before the last days will come. Islam will have nothing to do with Jews, so trying to pin islamic atrocities on Jews holds no water, all of islams atrocities are on islams head I can't believe they never tire of blaming everyone else. Very sadly you have been bamboozled by the lies of islam, and you bring nothing new to this discussion and once again you stand up for the murderers, liars ,rapists and pedophiles never ever pointing a finger at islam but at anything and everything else. I am not trying to deceive or misinform anyone, like you do, and the protocols are trash created to make Jews look bad, I don't see them doing anything except protecting themselves from the islamic onslaught, they have lost land, not gained any in the last 30 years. If the protocols were Jewish, what were they thinking to write a book about their plans, and then publish it? You really believe Jews are that stupid? I don't but I believe islam is, when you only have education in a book full of lies how smart can you be?
Room,
The Radical Islam which I made reference to is the
present day version.
The Original Radical Islam was a somewhat different
Beast. It was controlled by Guess Who?
The words of The Greatest Teacher in The Book
reveal that the organization which arose from
Babylonian exile was indeed the spawn of
The Father of the Lie. The present day State of
Israel is the creation of that same entity.
@muDped,
You are so full of it, your BS is not worth my time responding to.
Current affairs, does islam hate us!
www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/03/13/islam-hates-us-more-than-you-know/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-must-seize-means-communication-protect-basic-freedoms/214728/
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-03/09/un-privacy-ip-bill-not-compliant-international-law
http://www.krollontrack.co.uk/company/press-room/legal-technologies-news/parliament-debates-backdoor-technology-policy559.aspx
Quote from: Room
Current affairs, does islam hate us!
Hate towards the Brutal, Warmongering United States Government
is growing world-wide. Those who are awakening to the TRUTH
about our very sad state of Current Affairs are repulsed by the
arrogance and hubris of those who call for War and More War.
The events currently taking place in the Middle East were foretold
long ago in The Book of The Word. What is yet to come will be
very, very difficult to deal with. The Bad Boys who worship the
Father of the Lie are temporarily enjoying great freedom to do
nearly all that they please.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.15, 20:26:06
Hate towards the Brutal, Warmongering United States Government
is growing world-wide. Those who are awakening to the TRUTH
about our very sad state of Current Affairs are repulsed by the
arrogance and hubris of those who call for War and More War.
The events currently taking place in the Middle East were foretold
long ago in The Book of The Word. What is yet to come will be
very, very difficult to deal with. The Bad Boys who worship the
Father of the Lie are temporarily enjoying great freedom to do
nearly all that they please.
This sure sounds like ISIS.
For all
www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/hugh-fitzgerald-jonathan-power-and-why-islam-is-not-violent-yet-again
Radical Islam is violent. That is why Radical Islam was
created. The violence of Radical Islam takes the heat off
the violence of the State of Israel. Which explains why
the State of Israel secretly supports and provides for the
Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS, DAESH) as it unleashes its violence
throughout the Middle East. It is all part of the PLAN.
Violence is the "trade-mark" of those who worship The
Father of the Lie. The State of Israel desperately wants to
show the World that there are others who are equally
violent, if not more-so, to justify their programs of brutal
destruction and genocide against the people of Palestine.
We are approaching the time when every dark secret will
be revealed as TRUTH is made known. At that time none
will be able to deny.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.03.17, 01:45:33
Radical Islam is violent. That is why Radical Islam was
created. The violence of Radical Islam takes the heat off
the violence of the State of Israel. Which explains why
the State of Israel secretly supports and provides for the
Islamic State (ISIL, ISIS, DAESH) as it unleashes its violence
throughout the Middle East. It is all part of the PLAN.
Violence is the "trade-mark" of those who worship The
Father of the Lie. The State of Israel desperately wants to
show the World that there are others who are equally
violent, if not more-so, to justify their programs of brutal
destruction and genocide against the people of Palestine.
We are approaching the time when every dark secret will
be revealed as TRUTH is made known. At that time none
will be able to deny.
muDped,
Here let me give you some more rope! :)
Erdogan of turkey has said islam is islam, there is no moderate islam as there is no radical islam, it is all just islam, and he is a muslim so should know.
Have you been to Palestine lately, it's actually a pretty nice place, things only get bad when the Palestinians start shooting missles at Israel and Israel defends itself or Israel is attacked through underground tunnels dug to do just that by the Palestinians. I personally don't believe that Israel defends itself vigorously enough against the muslim attacks on them. Islam teaches that any land ever taken, purchased or conquered is islamic land and must be retaken if lost ( they do not give up any land except by force), add that to the eternal hate of Jews commanded in the Koran, and you have the biggest thorn in the side of islam that has ever existed and right smack dab in the heartland of islam. Israel even looks shaped like a thorn, muslims just can't stand those facts and will never quit fighting Israel, they would be bad muslims if they did, apostates, and we all know what islam proscribes for that.
But I tire of this, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, your islamic lies are becoming transparent! :-*
Room,
It seems that you've come to believe the propaganda
of the State of Israel which they speak repeatedly to
justify their program of destruction and genocide.
Isn't it odd that the State of Israel cannot seem to live
up to the Conditions of the Covenant? If the State of
Israel chose to follow such a course there would be
peace and justice. Sadly, the State of Israel was never
founded on such a premise. The State of Israel chooses
instead to act as an earthly agent of The Father of The Lie.
The State of Israel was founded on a policy of destruction
and genocide by means of terrorism. They have chosen to
worship The Father of The Lie in order to be given control
over all of the nations on Planet Earth. While on Earth as
the Son of Man, the Word was made the same offer by The
Father of The Lie. Why did the Son of Man refuse the offer?
Erdogan is a disciple of Radical Islam.
An interesting analysis of how the PLAN is unfolding in Europe. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130501)
It reveals how the mood of the people is changing in a rather
strange way. Be sure to watch the video linked at the bottom
of the page.
This is a very good recent speech by the Hungarian PM, everyone should read it or watch the video.
www.therebel.media/hungarian_prime_minister_victor_orban_shall_we_be_slaves_or_men_set_free
Victor Orban of Hungary is an unusually brave and perceptive
man. His speech is stirring and contains enormous truth.
Victor, however, dares not to pointedly reveal who the true
masters of Brussels are or that it is forbidden by law to
"question" what they have made "unquestionable."
Soon, the peoples of Europe will indeed come to "see" that
they are being controlled by those same anti-Christian agents
who always seem to worm their way into positions of power
and influence and who have been striving to undermine their
nations for centuries. Those people who were from time to time
removed or evicted from their lands because of their cunning and
deceptive dishonesty and exploitive practices.
It will happen as it was foretold some 2000 years ago...
Gilad Atzmon identifies some of The Deceivers. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130567)
Henry Makow identifies many more of The Deceivers. (http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/Trump-belongs-to-the-club.html)
Comments following the article are incredibly revealing.
Les Visible finishes it up with even more of The Deceivers.
(http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130543)
An historical accounting of how our present World Condition came
to be. (http://fairdinkumradio.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Ep-644-Inside-Judaism.mp3)
Thanks for those links muDped, especially that last one. Bookmarked for reference. O0
You're quite welcome FarmHand. I just recently discovered the
site myself and am very favorably impressed.
Henry Makow spills the beans on the Big Names. (http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/Many-Evangelical-Preachers-are-Satanists%20.html) The infiltration
and corruption of Christendom runs very deep and very high up
into the power structure. Again, comments following the
main article are exceedingly enlightening.
This morning news.. http://neurope.eu/article/two-explosions-brussels-airport/
www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/03/22/an-islamic-apocalypse-in-brussels/
Yes, the PLAN for the implementation of the New Order of the World
is progressing at an increasingly rapid pace. As it continues on with
war and more war fueled by unprecedented terrorism it will become
ever clearer who is truly behind all of the chaos. The Bad Boys behind
the "curtain" have but a limited time to get their PLAN accomplished.
Insights into the PLAN:
What Purim has become. (http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/Judaism-Sinister-Purim-Fest.html)
Purim in Brussels (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130747).
Security at Brussels airport. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130781)
Additional Food for Thought... (http://www.zengardner.com/322-false-flag-gladio-strikes-brussels-satanic-holiday/)
The U.S. Gov't. created ISIS. (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/shocker-or-not-evidence-us-govt-wanted-isis-emerge-syria/ri13540)
Sooner or later ISIS will go after the U.S. (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/sooner-or-later-isis-will-go-after-us/ri13537)
Analysis of Brussels and what led up to it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MGR_GLIIEw)
Yes, that is how the PLAN was designed to work.
www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/hugh-fitzgerald-why-do-so-many-ask-why-do-they-hate-us
Tractatus Terroismo Philosophicus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uKBxo5XMU)
It is a sad story indeed...
The Convenient Timing of the Brussels Attack. (http://www.zengardner.com/brussels-attack-convenient-timing/)
Bye Bye Europe. (http://www.zengardner.com/brussels-attacks-next-step-bye-bye-europe/)
The PLAN for Syria is an old one. Syrian Girl
reminds us that the PLAN is coming to fruition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnkaZFxO3zY)
largely due to the NeoCon controlled West.
Refugee Crisis: Using Chaos to Build Power (http://www.zengardner.com/60804-2/)
The Saker is, once again, on the mark with his analysis. (http://thesaker.is/the-writing-is-on-the-wall-for-the-european-union/)
Two very informative videos:
(1) Benjamin Fulford on the State of Our World (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKXsKQyCyc&feature=youtu.be)
(2) We the People Stimulus Package
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA)
Tony Blair and the PLAN for the Middle East (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=130941)
Quote from: Introduction to Guardian Article
Introduction — March 27, 2016
Tony Blair's call for a more extensive Western military deployment against Isis is entirely predictable. That was why it was created in the first place.
Just as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were created with the assistance of western intelligence to justify military campaigns in the name of fighting "terror", Isis (otherwise known as Islamic State, or ISIL) is the latest embodiment of this ruse.
It could be defeated overnight if its sponsors in the western aligned Gulf states decided to stop funding the militants. It would likewise be rendered totally ineffective if covert Western assistance were withheld.
However neither is likely to happen because Isis was created to help oust President Assad. Russian intervention has prevented that and Tony Blair's calls for more direct Western involvement should be seen in this light.
Remember this is the man who warned of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and called for military action to neutralise the threat they posed. No matter that Saddam never had any WMD, the episode illustrates how Blair is ready to twist the truth in order to further the New World Order's agenda.
In short he's a consummate con artist and he's not calling for boots on the ground to fight Isis. In reality he's calling for more extensive military intervention to finish what the Russians prevented the militants from accomplishing — the ousting of Syrian President Assad. Because that is ultimately what any such campaign would morph into if Blair's calls were to be heeded. Ed.
Think our government and our institutions are not infiltrated? Then you are very naive!
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/31/how-many-american-politicians-do-the-saudis-own/
It is true that Politics in America is exceedingly corrupt.
Quote from: Room's linked article
...
So we get the government the Saudis and other enemies pay for.
The
"other enemies" referred to in the bottom line quote above
have an even more pernicious grip on the
District of Corruption.Clarification.
I call on all of you to stand up and fight for freedom and equality! Start being men!
Islam kills women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lo_7iCjYpw
It is instructive to look at all sides of any controversy.
Radical Islam (https://www.rt.com/news/338278-turkey-diyanet-children-martyrdom/)
Radical Zionism (http://henrymakow.com/2016/04/israeli-seeks-intervention.html)
What do they have in common? Violence and Terrorism.
Which begat whom?
Tribal Membership Privileges (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/4/is-the-jewish-symptom-hereditary)
America's Legacy: Fallujah
(http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131703)
The Destruction of America is "in your face" but few can see... (http://henrymakow.com/2016/04/Broad-City-Sick-is-the-New-Healthy.html)
The Plan is rolling right along.
9/11, in effect, signaled the beginning of the end.
The PLAN includes the destruction of Europe.
(http://henrymakow.com/2016/04/Migrants-are-an-Underground-Army.html)
That there would be an "awakening" during the time
of the Apocalypse was foretold. This report is encouraging
news regarding the ability of the people to discern the lies. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131876)
Those who have studied the prophecies, or who have
some familiarity with what they predict, will recognize the
significance of numerous events now taking place:
Earthquakes and geological activity spikes. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131899)
Increasing awareness that "Science" is corrupt. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131913)
"The Boule" and what it means. (http://henrymakow.com/2016/04/Boule-Black-Elite-Betrayed-their-Brothers%20.html)
Seeing the Evil which is running rampant. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131904)
Wondering why in Russia but not America? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=131911)
What is now increasing in intensity will get much, much worse.
The End is approaching.
muDped,
I was checking on this thread for a while and have some thoughts about what is being posted. Here is idea:
Throw all negativity away and do opposite now. Including utilizing your creativity for better world and quality of life. Some OU experiments would surely benefit. :)
Cheers!
www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/04/18/the-muslim-will-vs-the-western-way/
Quote from: T-1000
I was checking on this thread for a while and have some thoughts about what is being posted. Here is idea:
Throw all negativity away and do opposite now. Including utilizing your creativity for better world and quality of life. Some OU experiments would surely benefit. :)
Rest assured T-1000 that a "better world and quality of
life" will be the outcome of the "birthpangs" which we're
beginning to experience. It is going to far exceed any sort
of good life we can possibly dream of, including the restoration
of life and health to all who have died. That is the promise.
Perhaps it seems negative to take note of the deterioration of
our World with its increasing corruption and bloodshed brought
about by lust for power and war upon war to retain that power.
It really is looking like the "leaders" of the nations are drunk
with the hubris of their positions so are unaware that they're
heading for a massively destructive fall.
Those who are, on the other hand, paying attention to World
Events and making comparisons to the prophecies will be
ready for what is coming. It is going to be unlike anything
that has occurred before in the history of Planet Earth and
fortunately, for those who survive, it will not last too long.
The Forces of Good will prevail.
Your handle reminds me that my first computer was a
TS-1000 (ZX-81.) It is nothing short of miraculous to see how
the technology has advanced since 1982.
Room's link doesn't go far enough. (http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/04/18/the-muslim-will-vs-the-western-way/)
The article doesn't reveal who is behind the "invasion"
of Europe by the "refugees/immigrants." What is now
taking place in the Middle East and Europe is the culmination
of a PLAN which has slowly come to pass by the powers of the
Synagogue of Satan. The Son of Man cautioned us that these
things would occur. It hasn't gotten as bad yet as it is going to
get.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2016.04.19, 17:20:38
muDped,
I was checking on this thread for a while and have some thoughts about what is being posted. Here is idea:
Throw all negativity away and do opposite now. Including utilizing your creativity for better world and quality of life. Some OU experiments would surely benefit. :)
Cheers!
Hear Hear!
Treaty of Sèvres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres
The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was one of a series of treaties[2] that the nations constituting the Central Powers signed subsequent to their defeat in World War I. The treaty was signed on 10 August 1920, in an exhibition room at the Manufacture nationale de Sèvres porcelain factory[3] in Sèvres, France.[4]
The Sèvres treaty marked the beginning of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and its ultimate annihilation. The terms it stipulated included the renunciation of all non-Turkish territory that was part of the Ottoman Empire and their cession to the Allied administration.[5] Notably, the ceding of Eastern Mediterranean land allowed the creation of, amongst others, the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria.[6]
Russia was not a participant because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi.
Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France, and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy. Avetis Aharonian, the President of the Delegation of the First Republic of Armenia, which had signed the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918, was also a signatory. One Allied power, Greece, did not accept the borders as drawn and never ratified the treaty.[7]
The four signatories for the Ottoman Empire were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI: the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha, the minister of education Reşid Halis, and Rıza Tevfik.
The terms of the treaty brewed hostility and nationalistic feeling amongst Turks. The signatories of the treaty were stripped of their citizenship by the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,[8] and the treaty ultimately led to the Turkish War of Independence, following which Atatürk and Turkish nationalists accepted a new treaty, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which effectively brought into being the modern-day republic of Turkey.
The Treaty of Versailles was signed with the German Empire before the Sèvres treaty, and it annulled German concessions in the Ottoman sphere, including economic rights and enterprises. Also, France, Great Britain and Italy signed a secret "Tripartite Agreement" on the same date.[9] The Tripartite Agreement confirmed Britain's oil and commercial concessions, and turned the former German enterprises in the Ottoman Empire over to a Tripartite corporation.
The terms of the Treaty of Sèvres were far more severe than those imposed on the German Empire by the Treaty of Versailles.[10][11] France, Italy, and Great Britain had secretly begun the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The open negotiations covered a period of more than fifteen months, beginning at the Paris Peace Conference. They continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after the premiers' meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. The delay occurred because the powers could not come to an agreement which, in turn, hinged on the outcome of the Turkish national movement. The Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence, and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 and 1924.
Forget Sykes-Picot. It's the Treaty of Sèvres That Explains the Modern Middle East.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/sykes-picot-treaty-of-sevres-modern-turkey-middle-east-borders-turkey/
Ninety-five years ago today, Europe carved up the Ottoman empire. That treaty barely lasted a year, but we're feeling its aftershocks today.
By Nick Danforth, August 10, 2015
Ninety-five years ago today, European diplomats gathered at a porcelain factory in the Paris suburb of Sèvres and signed a treaty to remake the Middle East from the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The plan collapsed so quickly we barely remember it anymore, but the short-lived Treaty of Sèvres, no less than the endlessly discussed Sykes-Picot agreement, had consequences that can still be seen today. We might do well to consider a few of them as the anniversary of this forgotten treaty quietly passes by.
In 1915, as British troops prepared to march on Istanbul by way of the Gallipoli peninsula, the government in London printed silk handkerchiefs heralding the end of the Ottoman empire. It was a bit premature (the battle of Gallipoli turned out to be one of the Ottomans' few World War I victories) but by 1920 Britain's confidence seemed justified: With allied troops occupying the Ottoman capital, representatives from the war's victorious powers signed a treaty with the defeated Ottoman government that divided the empire's lands into European spheres of influence. Sèvres internationalized Istanbul and the Bosphorus, while giving pieces of Anatolian territory to the Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, French, British, and Italians. Seeing how and why the first European plan for dividing up the Middle East failed, we can better understand the region's present-day borders, as well as the contradictions of contemporary Kurdish nationalism and the political challenges facing modern Turkey.
Within a year of signing the Treaty of Sèvres, European powers began to suspect they had bitten off more than they could chew. Determined to resist foreign occupation, Ottoman officers like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk reorganized the remnants of the Ottoman army and, after several years of desperate fighting, drove out the foreign armies seeking to enforce the treaty's terms. The result was Turkey as we recognize it today, whose new borders were officially established in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
Sèvres has been largely forgotten in the West, but it has a potent legacy in Turkey, where it has helped fuel a form of nationalist paranoia some scholars have called the "Sèvres syndrome." Sèvres certainly plays a role in Turkey's sensitivity over Kurdish separatism, as well as the belief that the Armenian genocide — widely used by European diplomats to justify their plans for Anatolia in 1920 — was always an anti-Turkish conspiracy rather than a matter of historical truth. Moreover, Turkey's foundational struggle with colonial occupation left its mark in a persistent form of anti-imperial nationalism, directed first against Britain, during the Cold War against Russia, and now, quite frequently, against the United States.
But the legacy of Sèvres extends well beyond Turkey, which is precisely why we should include this treaty alongside Sykes-Picot in our history of the Middle East. It will help us challenge the widespread notion that the region's problems all began with Europeans drawing borders on a blank map.
There's no doubt that Europeans were happy to create borders that conformed to their own interests whenever they could get away with it. But the failure of Sèvres proves that that sometimes they couldn't. When European statesmen tried to redraw the map of Anatolia, their efforts were forcefully defeated. In the Middle East, by contrast, Europeans succeeded in imposing borders because they had the military power to prevail over the people resisting them. Had the Syrian nationalist Yusuf al-'Azma, another mustachioed Ottoman army officer, replicated Ataturk's military success and defeated the French at the Battle of Maysalun, European plans for the Levant would have gone the way of Sèvres.
Would different borders have made the Middle East more stable, or perhaps less prone to sectarian violence? Not necessarily. But looking at history through the lens of the Sèvres treaty suggests a deeper point about the cause-and-effect relationship between European-drawn borders and Middle Eastern instability: the regions that ended up with borders imposed by Europe tended to be those already too weak or disorganized to successfully resist colonial occupation. Turkey didn't become wealthier and more democratic than Syria or Iraq because it had the good fortune to get the right borders. Rather, the factors that enabled Turkey to defy European plans and draw its own borders — including an army and economic infrastructure inherited from the Ottoman empire — were some of the same ones that enabled Turkey to build a strong, centralized, European-style nation-state.
Of course, plenty of Kurdish nationalists might claim that Turkey's borders actually are wrong. Indeed, some cite Kurdish statelessness as a fatal flaw in the region's post-Ottoman borders. But when European imperialists tried to create a Kurdish state at Sèvres, many Kurds fought alongside Ataturk to upend the treaty. It's a reminder that political loyalties can and do transcend national identities in ways we would do well to realize today.
The Kurdish state envisioned in the Sèvres Treaty would, crucially, have been under British control. While this appealed to some Kurdish nationalists, others found this form of British-dominated "independence" problematic. So they joined up to fight with the Turkish national movement. Particularly among religious Kurds, continued Turkish or Ottoman rule seemed preferable to Christian colonization. Other Kurds, for more practical reasons, worried that once in charge the British would inevitably support recently dispossessed Armenians seeking to return to the region. Some subsequently regretted their decision when it became clear the state they had fought to create would be significantly more Turkish — and less religious — than anticipated. But others, under varying degrees of duress, chose instead to accept the identity the new state offered them.
Many Turkish nationalists remain frightened by the way their state was destroyed by Sèvres, while many Kurdish nationalists still imagine the state they might have achieved. At the same time, today's Turkish government extolls the virtues of Ottoman tolerance and multiculturalism, while Kurdish separatist leader Abdullah Ocalan, apparently after reading the sociologist Benedict Anderson in prison, claims to have discovered that all nations are merely social constructs. The governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the pro-Kurdish HDP spent much of the last decade competing to convince Kurdish voters that a vote for their party was a vote for peace — competing, that is, over which party was capable of resolving Turkey's long-simmering conflict by creating a more stable and inclusive state. In short, as many Americans still debate the "artificial" nature of European-made states in the Middle East, Turkey is fitfully transcending a century-long obsession with proving how "real" it is.
Needless to say, the renewed violence Turkey has seen in the past several weeks threatens these fragile elements of a post-national consensus. With the AKP calling for the arrest of Kurdish political leaders and Kurdish guerrillas shooting police officers, nationalists on both sides are falling back into familiar, irreconcilable positions. For 95 years, Turkey reaped the political and economic benefits of its victory over the Treaty of Sèvres. But building on this success now requires forging a more flexible political model, one that helps render battles over borders and national identity irrelevant.
So, why was Tritium found at the 9/11 site which was oddly named
"Ground Zero?"
That question and more answered in this re-cap of the evidence (http://www.zengardner.com/one-man-asks-tritium-found-911-ground-zero/)
which obliterates the "Official Story Line."
Yemen: A very British war
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/328560-yemen-war-saudi-bombing-uk/
Britain is at the heart of a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions unfolding in the Yemen.
At least 10,000 people have been killed since the Saudi bombing campaign against Yemen began in March 2015, including over 630 children. There has been a massive escalation in human rights violations to a level of around 43 per day and up to ten children per day are being killed, according to UNICEF. Seventy-three percent of child casualties are the direct result of airstrikes, say the UN.
Civilian targets have been hit again and again. Within days of the commencement of airstrikes, a refugee camp was bombed, killing 40 and maiming over 200, and in October a Medicins San Frontier [Doctors Without Borders] hospital was hit. Schools, markets, grain warehouses, ports and a ceramics factory have all been hit. Needless to say, all of these are war crimes under international law – as is the entire bombing campaign, lacking, as it does, any UN mandate.
Beyond their immediate victims, the airstrikes and accompanying blockade – a horrendous crime against a population which imports 90 percent of its basic needs – are creating a tragedy of epic proportions. In August 2015, Oxfam warned that around 13 million people were struggling to find enough to eat, the highest number of people living in hunger it had ever recorded. "Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years," the head of the International Red Cross commented in October. The following month, the UN reported that 14 million now lacked access to healthcare and 80 percent of the country's 21 million population are dependent on humanitarian aid. "We estimate that over 19 million people lack access to safe water and sanitation; over 14 million people are food insecure, including 7.6 million who are severely food insecure; and nearly 320,000 children are acutely malnourished," the UN's Humanitarian Coordinator told reporters in November. He estimated that around 2.5 million have been made refugees by the war. In December, the UN warned that the country was on the brink of famine, with millions at risk of starvation.
Statements from British government ministers are crafted to give the impression of sympathy for the victims of this war, and opprobrium for those responsible. "We should be clear" said Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond in September 2014, "the use of violence to make political gains, and the pointless loss of life it entails, are completely unacceptable. Not only does the recent violence damage Yemen's political transition process, it could fuel new tensions and strengthen the hand of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – threatening the security of all of us...Those who threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, or violate human rights, need to pay the price for their actions."
Indeed. So presumably, one might have thought, when the Saudis began their massive escalation of the war six months after Hammond made this statement, the British government must have been outraged?
Not quite. The day after the Saudis began 'Operation Decisive Storm', David Cameron phoned the Saudi king personally to emphasize "the UK's firm political support for the Saudi action in Yemen."
Over the months that followed, Britain, a long-term arms dealer to the Saudi monarchy, stepped up its delivery of war materiel to achieve the dubious honor of beating the US to become its number one weapons supplier. Over a hundred new arms export licenses have been granted by the British government since the bombing began, and over the first six months of 2015 alone, Britain sold more than £1.75billion worth of weapons to the Saudis – more than triple Cameron's usual, already obscene, bi-annual average. The vast majority of this equipment seems to be for combat aircraft and air-delivered missiles, including more than 1000 bombs, and British-made jets now make up over half the Saudi air force. As the Independent has noted, "British supplied planes and British made missiles have been part of near-daily raids in Yemen carried out by [the] nine-country, Saudi Arabian led coalition."
Charities and campaign groups are unanimous in their view that, without a shadow of a doubt, British patronage has greatly facilitated the carnage in the Yemen. "The [British] government is fuelling the conflict that is causing unbearable human suffering. It is time the government stopped supporting this war," said chief executive of Oxfam GB, Mark Goldring. The director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen, said: "The UK has fuelled this appalling conflict through reckless arms sales which break its own laws and the global arms trade treaty it once championed....legal opinion confirms our long-held view that the continued sale of arms from the UK to Saudi Arabia is illegal, immoral and indefensible."
For Edward Santiago, Save the Children's country director in Yemen, the UK's "reluctance to publicly condemn the human cost of conflict in Yemen gives the impression that diplomatic relations and arms sales trump the lives of Yemen's children," whilst Andrew Smith from Campaign Against the Arms Trade, has written that "UK fighter jets and UK bombs have been central to the humanitarian catastrophe that is being unleashed on the people of Yemen." Leading lawyers including Philippe Sands have argued that Britain is in clear breach of international law for selling weapons which it knows are being used to commit war crimes.
Now it has emerged that it is not only British weapons being used in this war, but British personnel as well. According to Sky News, six British military advisors are embedded with the Saudi air force to help with targeting. In addition, there are 94 members of the UK armed forces serving abroad "carrying out duties for unknown forces, believed to be the Saudi led coalition," according to The Week – although the government refuses to state exactly where they are.
Indeed, even British airstrikes in Syria may have been motivated in part by a desire to prop up the flagging war effort in Yemen. Questioning of Philip Hammond in parliament recently led him to admit that there had been a "decrease in air sorties by Arab allies" in Syria since Britain's entry into the air campaign there due to the "challenges" of the Yemen conflict.
For Scottish Nationalist MP Stephen Gethins this suggests that, by stepping up bombing in Syria, Western countries were effectively "cutting them [Arab states] a bit of slack to allow them to focus on the Yemen conflict," especially needed given that support for the Yemen campaign has been flagging from states such as Jordan, Morocco and Egypt. It is particularly ironic that British MPs' supposed commitment to destroying ISIS in Syria is actually facilitating a war in Yemen in which ISIS is the direct beneficiary.
Finally, it is worth considering British support for the Saudi bid for membership of the UN Human Rights Council. The Council's reports can be highly influential; indeed, it was this Council's damning (and, we now know, fraudulent) condemnation of Gaddafi that provided the 'humanitarian' pretext for the 2011 NATO war against the Libyan Jamahiriya. And the Yemeni government's recent expulsion of the UN Human Rights envoy shows just how sensitive the prosecutors of the Yemeni war are to criticism. It would, therefore, be particularly useful for those unleashing hell on Yemen to have the UN Council stacked with supporters in order to dampen any criticism from this quarter.
Britain, then, is the major external force facilitating the Saudi-fronted war against the people of Yemen. Britain, like the Saudis, is keen to isolate Iran and sees destroying the Houthis as a key means of achieving this. At the same time, Britain seems perfectly happy to see Al-Qaeda and ISIS take over from the Houthi rebels they are bombing – presumably regarding a new base for terrorist destabilization operations across the region as an outcome serving British interests.
War criminals against war crimes
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/340728-war-crimes-hague-sexual-violence/
Satire died the day Tony Blair was appointed Peace Envoy to the Middle East. But William Hague's fronting of a campaign against sexual violence is pissing on its grave.
Ibtisam was 15 when Islamic State (also known as ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh) came to her village. It was 9 a.m., and the gunfire of the approaching forces was getting louder. Her family piled into their car and fled; in need of baby milk, they passed by the city of Duhok, Iraqi Kurdistan to stock up. That was when they were caught. The men were executed immediately; Ibtisam and her two younger sisters were taken into captivity in the city of Tal Afar.
After several weeks they were moved to another building with around 700 other women and girls, where her younger sisters – one of them five months old – were forcibly removed from her. She and another girl were singled out by a much older man who took them home and raped them. The next morning, finding the house apparently empty, they were able to escape. They reached a road and hailed a taxi; luckily the driver was sympathetic and gave them refuge in his home, hiding and disguising them as best he could. But it soon became unsafe for them to stay there, so he took them to a friend's house. Passing through a checkpoint, they were again caught by ISIS, and taken to a basement full of other women and girls. There they were beaten regularly, as a message to any others who might try to escape. When her friend started vomiting blood, they were taken to a hospital; but when she stopped, they were taken back to the basement and beaten again. They were again sold as sex slaves, and resold and raped repeatedly over the months that followed.
This is one of many disturbing testimonies from a report published this month by the House of Lords Committee on Sexual Violence in Conflict. Ibtisam (not her real name; the testimonies in the report are anonymous) was a Yazidi, one of hundreds if not thousands who have lived through similar experiences. The plight of the Yazidis was briefly front-page news in autumn 2014, but the Committee's report shows that such experiences are far from unique.
In fact, the report refers to 19 countries in which conflict-related sexual violence is particularly prevalent. That list derives from another report, prepared by the UN Secretary General for the Security Council last year. Across all 19, the report noted, "non-state actors account for the vast majority of incidents," referring in particular to "those pursuing extremist ideologies in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Libya and Yemen."
That list is significant, for violent extremism it not the only thing these countries have in common. The other is that all of them have been willfully destabilized by British government policy, creating the conditions for that extremism to flourish.
Take Yemen, for example. The depth of British involvement in the Saudi bombing campaign which began last year is on such a scale that it could be seen as a British war by proxy. Since it started, Britain has overtaken the US to become the leading supplier of weapons to the Saudis, providing all the bomber jets, missiles and bombs necessary for the campaign, which has killed at least 10,000 people, left 90 percent of the population without access to safe water and sanitation, and pushed 14 million to the brink of famine. The British military also have six "advisors" embedded with the Saudi Air Force to help with targeting, with suspicions that nearly 100 more British soldiers are also involved in some capacity.
The Secretary-General's report on sexual violence was issued before the Saudi bombing started. But he noted that 148,108 people had already been internally displaced by the fighting in Yemen, with "the majority of those displaced... women and children, who faced increased vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence. A marked increase in violence against women has been observed in conflict-affected areas, with the most prevalent manifestations being rape, sexual assault and early marriage. A disturbing link exists between the presence of armed groups and an increase in early and forced marriage, resulting in the sexual abuse of some of the poorest and most vulnerable girls in society."
The 148,000 refugees exposed to such risks has now increased to an estimated 2.5 million, as a direct consequence of the British-supplied and directed escalation. British government policy, then, has likely facilitated an approximately 16-fold expansion of sexual violence in Yemen.
But a similar story could be told for every country on the Secretary-General's list. In Syria, the "non-state actors...pursuing extremist ideologies" that "account for the vast majority of [sexual violence] incidents" have been consistently supported by the British government, and continue to be so. Providing diplomatic support and even special forces for the insurgents since 2011, Britain has been encouraging and facilitating their expansion ever since, implicated in the delivery of 3000 tons of weapons to them in November 2012 (delivered via Croatia to evade an EU arms embargo) and successfully lobbying the EU to end the arms embargo altogether the following year.
It has been training these militias in Jordan, and is now providing them with air support: in discussions prior to airstrikes last year, David Cameron explicitly stated that his allies on the ground would not be the non-sectarian Syrian Arab Army under the control of the elected government, but rather 70,000 militia fighters, 40,000 of which have been identified by his own national security advisor Mark Lyall Grant as "radical Islamists." As is well known, ISIS emerged precisely out of the groups Britain had been helping to destroy Syria, and even now, in the midst of a supposed "war against ISIS," Britain still refuses to attack the group when they are fighting the Syrian government.
Equally well established is that it was precisely the foothold they gained in Syria, with Western support, that allowed ISIS to then take control of large swathes of Iraq, itself already weakened by decades of British-US bombings, sanctions and occupation. The 1,500 civilians estimated by the UN to be held in sexual slavery by ISIS in Iraq, then, like those suffering sexual violence in Yemen, largely have Britain and its allies to thank for their predicament.
Then, of course, there is Libya. Early in 2011, Britain led calls for NATO intervention in support of a violent and racist insurgency led by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, originally the Libyan franchise of Al-Qaeda. The utterly predictable outcome of NATO's destruction was the country's rapid slide from the most developed and prosperous in Africa to the continent's latest failed state, with all the attendant poverty, kidnappings, gang warfare and sexual violence that entails. "Extremist activity in Libya," said the UN report, "is a source of serious concern given regional trends regarding sexual violence committed by armed groups" – that is, the armed groups armed and brought to power by NATO.
But NATO's actions in Libya were much more far-reaching than this. The destruction of Libyan state authority meant that, following the collapse of the government, most of the army's arsenal fell into the hands of the region's various militias. As a report by Al-Jazeera Center for Studies (AJCS) noted, "terrorist groups like AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] acquired heavy weapons such as SAM-7 anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, transporting them back to the Sahel region" (encompassing parts of Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Chad, Nigeria and elsewhere). Subsequently, "courtesy of AQIM, these arms have been transferred to groups such as Ansar Dine [and] Boko Haram... emboldening and enabling them to mount more deadly and audacious attacks."
Both the 2012 war in Mali, and the rise of Boko Haram, then, are the direct fallout of NATO's Libya war. Of Boko Haram, the UN report wrote that "forced marriage, enslavement and the "sale" of kidnapped women and girls are central to Boko Haram's modus operandi and ideology." As for Mali: "In November 2014, non-governmental organizations filed 104 criminal complaints against armed groups for incidents of conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls that took place in 2012 and 2013. These incidents were filed as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and have been attributed to members of the Mouvement national de libération de l'Azawad, Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa," all of them beneficiaries of the regional instability and weapons free-for-all generated by NATO's war.
The British government, then, has played a pivotal role in not only igniting those conflicts characterized by serious sexual violence, but in directly supporting and arming the very groups perpetrating that violence. For that same government to now be claiming to be leading a global "Initiative" to "Prevent Sexual Violence in Conflict" is a supremely sick joke – and that it is fronted by William Hague, the foreign minister who oversaw British support to Al-Qaeda and their allies in Libya and Syria, is an insult to the thousands of victims of that policy.
Pentagon Confirms US Ground Troops in Yemen
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/05/06/pentagon-confirms-us-ground-troops-in-yemen/
Troops Were Deployed Two Weeks Ago, Officials Say
by Jason Ditz, May 06, 2016
Hot on the heels of yesterday's admission that the US has become militarily involved in a second war inside Yemen, this time between the pro-Saudi faction and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Pentagon officials are also admitting that US ground troops have been deployed inside Yemen, and have been operating there for the past two weeks.
The US had previously withdrawn all of its ground troops from Yemen after the ouster of President Hadi by the Shi'ite Houthis in early 2015, and appears to have returned despite the Saudi war (which the US has also been involved in) failing so far to reinstall Hadi.
The war against the Houthis ultimately set the stage for major territorial gains by AQAP, which has prompted the United Arab Emirates and other nations in the coalition to launch this secondary war, which the US eagerly joined.
It is unclear where the US troops are actually deployed, though likely somewhere in the very limited territory held by the pro-Saudi faction. Pentagon officials insisted yesterday that their troops are all at a "headquarters" somewhere, and not in combat.
Since the UAE has been running this war, this raised a lot of speculation that the US troops were simply deployed to Dubai to advise on the conflict, but it seems instead they've set up shop inside war-torn Yemen, where even places that aren't "the front lines" are far from safe.
The US deployments within Yemen are just the latest in a growing number of small US deployments across the world, representing the US dipping its toe into yet another conflict. Given small deployments in Iraq have amassed over 5,000 ground troops, however, these wars are not likely to stay "small" forever.
We really need to do a fact driven assessment of our enemy and this war soon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg3WUB146i0
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.05.08, 22:26:29
We really need to do a fact driven assessment of our enemy and this war soon!
You are a little late to the game with this position, the assessment was completed most magnificently long ago.. and disseminated globally..
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3270.msg55562#msg55562
Donald Trump is fully aware of the New world order. In this sensational interview with Alex Jones he spells it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zF-7S-TEA
Trump is totally against globalization.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2016.05.17, 14:55:52
Donald Trump is fully aware of the New world order. In this sensational interview with Alex Jones he spells it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zF-7S-TEA
Trump is totally against globalization.
Aking,
Great video, I believe Don Trump is our only hope and our last chance for sanity in the government. Hillary has been a part of the current insanity for many years and should really be in prison.
Who you going to vote for! (rhetorical)
Quote from: Aking.21
Donald Trump is fully aware of the New world order. In this sensational interview with Alex Jones he spells it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zF-7S-TEA
Trump is totally against globalization.
Unfortunately, The Donald is presently being re-educated on the
workings of the Deep State (shadow government) and a "deal"
is being arranged to enable The Donald to continue into the
election. His "priorities" are being adjusted.
Big Money and those who Love Money will have their way.
Here is Brigitte Gabriel with some truth.
The muslim brother hoods plan to overthrow the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiCIqfJpRU0
One Brave woman! Look into her life story.
The Donald must be re-trained so that he will
fully support the AGENDA of those who have the
Real Power. (http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/donald-trump-will-meet-war-criminal-henry-kissinger-tomorrow/ri14405)
The Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim Extremism in
general, are an essential part of the AGENDA.
The success of American Hegemony depends upon
terrorism and fear.
The Donald will ultimately do as he is told. If he should
defy his "Masters" he will himself be undone.
Will Trump Defy? (http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1115)
The Riddle (http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1118)
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.05.17, 18:25:16
Aking,
Great video, I believe Don Trump is our only hope and our last chance for sanity in the government. Hillary has been a part of the current insanity for many years and should really be in prison.
Who you going to vote for! (rhetorical)
Brexit. I am UK based. However a little birdie tells me that all is not well in the USA and I suggest you get your own geiger counter and iodine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg16aTnJoRs
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2016.05.21, 03:28:36
Brexit. I am UK based.
Brexit. I am English.
Is the 9/11 Scam Coming Undone? (http://www.zengardner.com/911-scam-coming-undone/)
False Flag Weekly News (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oos880sRZLM)
Quote from: muDped on 2016.05.21, 23:01:00
Is the 9/11 Scam Coming Undone?
The 9/11 Scam has come undone, past tense is appropriate in this present moment.
The scam currently coming undone is the critical mass realisation that the Al Qaeda network, and more recently the ISIS rebranded terrorist proxy armies, are NATO armed, trained, funded and supported.
Furthermore the direct, documented, and obvious support by NATO member Turkey for ISIS, is in collaboration with the Gulf State colonies operating as false flag sovereign nation FOB's for the US war machine, along with Israel.
Scarcity ideology is the past, another way has been found that leads to energy abundance in paradise, almost everywhere, for the benefit of Everyman.. forever.
How Israel Created the Fiend for the War on Terror
http://www.bollyn.com/#article_15568
"In reality, the War on Terror is an Israeli propaganda construct designed to deceive the West into destroying Israel's enemies on behalf of the Zionist state."
"By continuously morphing the identity, moving the players, and carrying out acts of false-flag terrorism, the targets set for destruction by the U.S. military have moved with the virulent anti-Western Islamic "enemy" – all according to a screenplay choreographed by Israeli military intelligence - from the beginning."
Social constructionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notions that human beings rationalize their experience by creating models of the social world and share and reify these models through language.[1]
David Icke is real good at making things easy to
comprehend.
What Others Dare Not Say (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojvQWO6fonE)
Henry Makow on Memorial Day (http://henrymakow.com/veteransdayrequires.html)
The Donald is already one of "them." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=133836)
Brexit: Necessary for saving democracy in Europe & stopping war
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/345325-brexit-saving-democracy-war/
In the last few days the British public became witness to an interesting performance: Tory MP's calling for the resignation of their own prime minister for what they called his lies about the Brexit referendum.
Two rebellious Tory MPs, Andrew Bridgen and Nadine Dorries, said that even winning the referendum would not prevent Cameron from facing a challenge in the summer. Bridgen, in an interview to BBC, called Cameron's statements to persuade voters to remain in the EU "outrageous."
He said the PM had in effect lost his parliamentary majority. Dorries told ITV that Cameron was not telling the nation the truth in his EU referendum campaign and that she had already submitted a letter of no confidence against the prime minister within the party.
If Tory MPs accuse Mr. Cameron of lying, then who doesn't?
In fact, Britain still has a whole month to go before the Brexit referendum, but the British people are already the subject of outrageous intimidation by big business and big Government to stay in the European Superstate.
David Cameron and his finance minister George Osborne in their opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph are busy doing exactly that – intimidation. How else can one characterize their claim that "Britain would be worse off to the tune of £4,300 for every household every year by 2030." Neither Mr. Cameron nor Mr. Osborne bothered to explain what was the basis for such a gloomy forecast. They simply asserted that Brexit would chop off 3.6 percent of British GDP, never explaining why it would not be 3.7 percent or 0 percent.
But there are other statistics, a lot more reliable, which show that we would have lived much better now if Edward Heath, the then prime minister of Britain, had not signed the accession Treaty in 1972, making Britain a part of the so called European Community. Since we are talking here about past mistakes, reliable statistics are much more readily available, than Mr. Cameron's and Mr. Osborne's outageous predictions for the year 2030. Here are the figures.
In 1980 the member states of the European Union formed the fastest growing economic region in the world, with 31 percent of world trade done through the current member states of the EU. Now, after 36 years of increasing "integration" the EU can boast of no more than 17 percent of world trade, with 10 percent of the EU's population of the working age unemployed (24 million in 2016).
Only 6 of UK companies export to the EU and only 12 percent of our economy is traded with the EU, and this part of our economy is massively loss making. But to "enjoy" this trade, 100 percent of our economy is burdened with EU regulations and external tariffs which cost us far more than any tariffs paid by non-members of the EU! No wonder that in the last 20 years there are 27 non-EU countries whose exports of goods to the EU grew faster than the United Kingdom's.
Now you can understand with what feelings the British people read Cameron's words about a NO vote during the Brexit referendum. In his article, Cameron said the Leave campaign wanted to make Britain exit "not just Europe, but the single market," creating a "do it yourself" recession.
As if the current recession had nothing to do with Britain's decision to enter the future EU in the first place! Mr. Cameron writes that a Brexit "would mean turning our backs on the largest marketplace in the world – something Margaret Thatcher helped to create and Britain championed ever since."
Nothing could be further from the truth about Mrs. Thatcher, who was known for her stubborn defense of British sovereignty against the European Superstate - "No, No, No" she said in Parliament! In fact, that defense was the principal reason for her replacement in the early 1990s by an intellectually challenged and supine Prime Minister John Major, who allowed Britain to be sucked into a more and more intrusive European Union and went down to the worst election defeat for 80 years.
This was not only against the will of Mrs. Thatcher, but also against the will of the late Prime Minister Winston Churchill who said about Europe: "If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea. We are with Europe but not of it. We are associated but not absorbed."
Association, not absorption – such should be the slogan of the day on British-EU relations. Unfortunately, we are long past the stage when association started transforming itself into absorption - and takeover. Let me cite an interesting historical fact illustrating that process.
In 1960 the then Prime Minister Edward Heath asked the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, to advise him on joining the European Economic Community (as the future EU was then called). The reply was never published and it was suppressed for over 30 years as the gradual surrender of the British nation to the European State gathered speed.
In the late 1990s that letter was published. Parliament, Lord Kilmuir wrote, would no longer govern in Britain for which there "was no precedent" and the surrender of self-government to a foreign power was a serious offense that "ought to be brought out into the open."
But Heath took no notice of the Lord Chancellor and surrendered not just our country, but also our courts. Under British Constitutional law the undermining of the constitution is a treasonous act (Norris McWhirter and I wrote a 1994 book on that). And for over 40 years the British people have been gradually deceived - by treaties signed by Ministers (under the authority of the Queen) and then effectively forced on Parliament. So, the subjugation of our laws and customs to the bureaucratic corporatist EU norms was never truly approved by the true sovereigns in a democracy - the voters!
The British State, through the utter failure of its education system to teach the foundations of the nation, the Law and democracy, had produced just the kind of ignorance among voters and MPs which made this surrender to a bureaucratic elite in Brussels so easy.
As the left moved right (under Tony Blair) and the right moved left (under John Major) these two mediocrities finally met. They agreed on a model of authoritarian corporatism which unites big business on the right with deniers of individual freedoms on the left. Neither of these had any sympathy with countries, national parliaments, cultural and racial identities or entrepreneurial businesses. Families and communities were spared even less, as something "obsolete" and "standing in the way of development."
So, the words of Mr. Cameron about the EU as the "largest marketplace in the world" are right for corporations, but not for the people. Corporations see not peoples but only units of production and the more the peoples of the world are forced to move to where big business wants them, the cheaper are the costs of labour. That makes corporations' profits greater, but it does not help the providers of labour and that certainly destroys communities and national economies, which become volatile and dependent on corporations. So long as national democratic governments and their borders can be bypassed and their parliaments made irrelevant, the fewer the number of politicians and bureaucrats who need to be lobbied for favorable legislation. Such convenience for lobbyists for corporatist and State socialist lobbyists goes hand in hand with the collapse in the power of the individual voter - whether he goes to the ballot box or the (now monopolistic) market place.
This disenfranchisement of the European voter is now to be extended to others – that is the secret process behind the latest stage in the creation of supranational government - the TTIP and the TPP.
The statist, authoritarian left is as active as the corporate right in this process of disenfranchisement. It helps the corporations to impose the will of supranational elites on the "stupid voters" who might not approve of, for example, massive energy taxes, or the feminist and homosexual transformation of the family.
The British people, having stood alone from 1939 to 1941 in the struggle against the corporatist fascist Euro-state (supported then as now by large US, German and British corporations) and enjoying uniquely in Europe a continuous emancipating history from Magna Carta in 1215, instinctively reject the idea of a superstate and realize they were deceived by two generations of politicians.
The result in Europe of over 60 years of the destruction of nation states, their parliaments and communities has been economically and politically catastrophic.
My own books since 1989 (see freenations.net) have warned of the return to those precise corporatist elements, both within the UK and in continental Europe, which brought Britain to war in 1939 - and Russia in 1941.
Breaking every agreement with post-Soviet Russian leaders, NATO and the European Union has pushed ever eastwards, taking over embryo democratic nation states and absorbing them into the new corporatist supranational Euro-State.
NATO/EU, having destabilized Ukraine, is pushing troops towards the Russian border setting up "defense shields" in Poland and Romania and threatening war. The British will, I sincerely expect, realize that leaving the European Union is not just about saving ourselves but about saving democracy in Europe and preventing a war.
As the former Labour Foreign Secretary, Lord Owen, has said "We have the opportunity to leave the EU before the temple comes crashing down."
Rodney Atkinson, for RT
Rodney Atkinson is a businessman, academic and political economist, as well as an occasional adviser to Ministers and MPs. He is the founder of the freenations.net website and author of 7 books on macroeconomic policy and the EU.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
I thought this was good concerning Brexit.
The moment of truth for the Brits,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-pRIvL9E
Quote from: Room3327
I thought this was good concerning Brexit.
The moment of truth for the Brits,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-pRIvL9E
An exceedingly important message brilliantly delivered!
Let us hope that his effort makes a difference. He's
absolutely correct about our Prez and his motivations.
Hopefully, the People of Britain will seriously consider what
is at stake.
The #StolenReferendum. How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU 'Project'
https://southfront.org/the-stolenreferendum-how-cameron-co-have-ruthlessly-exploited-the-murder-of-mp-jo-cox-to-save-their-skins-and-the-eu-project/
Written by Nick Griffin; Originally appeared at TheSaker
Britain's vote on Europe looks set to go down in history as the 'Stolen Referendum'. As the Remain campaign's ruthless exploitation of the appalling murder of MP Jo Cox continues, big business, banks and other Remain enthusiasts are increasingly confident of coming out on top in Thursday's historic poll.
Yet such a victory will have been bought at a terrible price – a blatant triple fraud against the democratic process, perpetrated with the enthusiastic support and involvement of all three leaders of the UK's old established governing political parties and of the overwhelmingly dominant political force in Scotland.
The damage such a consensus for deceit and election rigging will do to faith in the democratic process is incalculable.
The first great Establishment electoral fraud in the now terminally polluted campaign was in place even before the sorry farce began: In a shameless re-run of the corruption that discredited the UK's first In/Out referendum, in 1975, the contest was drastically skewed by the fact that every household received two documents in favour of EU membership (one from the Government and one from the Europhile campaign) compared to just one from the campaign for independence.
This disparity was then reinforced by the fact that massive funding from big business meant that the pro-Brussels side was able to outspend the antis on a massive scale. In 1975, the spending disparity in favour of remain was 11 to 1; there is no reason to suppose that the gap will be any less obscene this time around.
This propaganda imbalance on its own is enough to corrupt the contest and to deny a 'Remain' win any real democratic legitimacy, but as the campaign got under way and polls began to show that it was not going to be the expected Remain walkover, a second trick was brought into play in the effort to ensure the 'correct' result:
This was the decision of the Prime Minister to extend the deadline for voter registration by a whole 48 hours after the suspiciously convenient 'crash' of the online registration site, just two hours before the deadline to apply for a vote.
No explanation was given as to why the lost two hours should lead to 48 hours of extra time, but it was seized on by the various taxpayer-funded organisations that were already working to maximise voter registration among the demographic groups regarded as being most likely to vote Remain, particularly ethnic minorities (Operation Black Vote) and students (HopeNotHate). The extra time saw a staggering 430,000 additional applications to vote.
This would be more than enough to swing a close contest and the very fact that it was even thought acceptable speaks volumes for the 'win at any costs' mentality of Cameron and Remain.
Perhaps the best way to grasp the fundamental corruption of the entire extra voters registration drive is to imagine that it had been undertaken in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, with the notorious 'Orange Ascendancy' regime using taxpayers' money to fund a campaign to sign up new voters which operated only in Protestant areas.
Had such a disgraceful affront to democracy been undertaken, the left to this day would – rightly – hold it up as an example of loyalist electoral practice, of discrimination against the Catholic community and as one of the factors that turned nationalists in the Province to abandon the democratic road and turn to terrorism.
As it happens, by the start of the final week of the campaign, a succession of opinion polls, backed up by worried articles in all the pro-Remain newspapers, indicated that, despite the first two frauds, the Leavers were on course for a remarkable, perhaps even crushing, victory.
And then one of the youngest and prettiest MPs campaigning for Remain was murdered in her constituency.
Over the course of the months and years ahead, it is inevitable that a plethora of conspiracy theories will grow up around this tragic event, the CIA's Mkultra experiments and parallels with the fictional Manchurian Candidate being the most likely to gain traction and lead to even more cynicism about the democratic process in general and the referendum result in particular.
But no such speculation is in fact required for the murder of Jo Cox or, rather, the reaction to it of Remain and of the pro-Remain broadcast media, to be the third fraud against the electorate which will lead in due course to the whole contest being discredited as the 'Stolen Referendum'.
Future conspiracy theories notwithstanding, in the light of any fresh evidence the simplest explanation of the murder is that Thomas Mair was either genuinely mentally ill or a political fanatic who despaired of the possibility of change through the democratic or legal process.
The latter is entirely possible and, given the relentless fraud, marginalisation and demonisation directed by the entire political and media establishment against opponents of the multi-cultural project to 'remake' Britain, it really should not surprise its authors if their totalitarian liberalism has begun to produce a terrorist backlash among those who have lost out most from globalisation and the multicultural Utopia.
This is true whether Mair was a 'lone wolf' or even part of a bigger 'right-wing extremist conspiracy': The evil is both a reflection and an unintended consequence of the long campaign to use mass immigration to transform Britain, and especially of the Blair regime's conscious and deliberate aim to import millions more migrants in order both to it impossible for opponents of the change to win future elections. When Labour set out to "rub their noses in it", they should perhaps have expected to get bitten.
When Northern Ireland's Unionists denied working class Catholics realistic hope of change through the ballot box, they unwittingly contributed to the rise of the IRA and thirty years of terrorism. Why would denying alienated working class communities in multi-cultural England realistic hope that their fears would be listened to and their aspirations met, have any different effect?
Whatever Mair's motivation, the murder of Jo Cox has been – and continues to be – ruthlessly used to corrupt the referendum result beyond redemption. This has nothing to do with Mair and is no reflection on Jo Cox herself, but it does reflect, very badly, on Britain's Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and on almost the entire Remain campaign.
The murder was used in a 'shock and awe' propaganda campaign by Remain and its media allies, who took the natural revulsion of all decent people against the killing and added in wave after wave of utterly unfounded allegations and insinuations that the murder was in some way the result of the Leave campaign 'encouraging division and hatred'.
The elite's 'blanket guilt' approach in this case stands in stark contrast to their opinion when Wahhabi terrorists carry out one of their all too common atrocities, in which case the liberal (including Cameron) response ranges from the increasingly absurd "nothing to do with Islam" to the slightly more nuanced "you can't blame all Muslims for the action of a few extremists", invariably rolled out with the help of a gaggle of 'moderate Imams' who duly condemn the Jihadis and assure the world that they "do not act in our name" and are in fact "anti-Islamic".
No such treatment for Brexiteers, of course. The total exclusion of notable Leave campaigners from the TV news interviews, producing the impression that they were either in some way guilty or – almost as bad – simply didn't care, was particularly outrageous and effective.
Meanwhile, an endless queue of Europhile bien pensants chattered angrily on TV, radio and in newspaper columns about how the murder was supposedly connected to a 'tone' of division and hatred created by the Leave campaign.
Here, for example, is Jonathan Freedland:
"And throughout this campaign, there has been a drumbeat denouncing 'the Westminster elite', castigating all politicians, along with anyone in authority or in a public position of expertise, as either a liar or the corrupt dupe of a wicked Brussels conspiracy.
"Perhaps this had nothing to do with the cruelty that deprived two children of their mother yesterday. Maybe it's a coincidence that the killer struck at this moment. Maybe it's a coincidence that he targeted an MP who was a passionate advocate of remaining inside the EU, and whose signature issue had been a campaign to admit Syrians in desperate need of refuge.
"Maybe it's a coincidence that she was a member of a political class that has been reviled for years and with heightened fervour in recent weeks. Maybe it's a coincidence that she was an advocate for a position depicted by its most fevered opponents as unpatriotic and verging on treason."
You see! Brexit campaigners accuse Remainers of 'treason' and two innocent children lose their mother. Now you have to vote Remain!
Polly Toynbee was even more blatant, actually blaming some Leave campaigners (and specifically, Nigel Farage, the politician whose success forced David Cameron to grant the referendum in the first place) for creating the 'mood' which led to the killing:
"There are many decent people involved in the campaign to secure Britain's withdrawal from the EU, many who respect the referendum as the exercise in democracy that it is. But there are others whose recklessness has been open and shocking. I believe they bear responsibility, not for the attack itself, but for the current mood: for the inflammatory language, for the finger-jabbing, the dogwhistling and the overt racism.
"It's been part of a noxious brew, with a dangerous anti-politics and anti-MP stereotypes fomented by Leave and their media backers mixed in. Only an hour before this shooting Nigel Farage unveiled a huge poster showing Syrian refugees fleeing to Slovenia last year."
Operation Fear – the effort to frighten voters into backing Remain – had clearly been a dismal failure, so Cameron and other key Remain figures seized eagerly on the even more cynical opportunity to exploit the tragic death of Jo Cox – Operation Grief and Smear.
While journalists and TV news editors were left to do the bulk of the actual name calling dirty work, Cameron himself set about manipulating public emotions, speaking of the need to "drive out division and hatred" and blatantly using the dead Labour MP's name and opinions in the desperate drive to save his own skin from the career-crushing referendum disaster that had, according to insider reports, reduced Number 10 to "panic" just two days earlier.
Martin Armstrong On Assassination Conspiracies: "There's Too Much At Stake To Allow Brexit"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-20/martin-armstrong-assassination-conspiracies-theres-too-much-stake-allow-brexit
There is disturbing opinion circulating about Jo Cox may have been assassinated to prevent a BREXIT vote. Many are starting to believe there is a conspiracy plot connecting the dots to ensure a sympathy vote to remain within the EU. People are pointing to the familiar tool of assassination often used to achieve political agendas.
So is there a conspiracy? Perhaps. They would never investigate themselves, so all this is has been suspicion. What is clear, has been that the EU will collapse if BREXIT is allowed. There is far too much at stake to allow this vote. The burning question will be, just how they cover it up and at what cost?
Scotland independence referendum: with no exit poll isn't there a democratic deficit?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit
James Ball Thursday 18th September 2014
Anyone who's sat up watching the TV on election night knows there's a pattern to how things go: before the polls close, early in the evening, broadcasters assiduously say as little as possible to avoid breaking election broadcasting rules.
Then comes 10pm, and the polls close. Moments later, the anchor behind the desk (almost always a Dimbleby of some description) gives the results of the exit poll – often the only bit of red meat to talk about for the next several hours.
Except, as the polls close in the Scottish referendum, this won't happen – as neither the BBC nor any other media outlet has bothered to pay to get one done.
Exit polls are the best form of voting-related data we can ever get our hands on. They're collected by large numbers of researchers standing outside polling stations and asking tens of thousands of people how they voted – as well as collecting a little demographic information, such as age, gender, race or social class.
The most visible outlet for the results of this (quite expensive) work is in the first hours after polls close: it gives a snapshot of the result while the laborious work of actually counting the votes is done.
As we won't start to see the referendum results start to trickle in until at least 2am, without an exit poll broadcasters will have to fill the first four hours of their coverage with ... what, exactly? This "poll" of Grindr users might be as good as anything else we've got (about 53-47 against independence, if you were wondering).
Why no exit poll for such a momentous and consequential vote? The first possibility is that no one thought the vote would be close, and so deemed it as not interesting enough to be worthy of the spend.
More likely, hopefully, is that the broadcasters were afraid of the consequences of a poll being wrong: if the BBC spends four hours discussing a poll that's 51-49 in favour of yes, and when the final votes come in the result is no, deputy heads may roll amid the backlash.
In reality broadcasters may have been too cautious: campaigns are very familiar with arguing against exit polls they don't like. The exit polls for the 2010 general election were very accurate, but disagreed with regular polls suggesting a Lib Dem surge. Early in the evening, many suggested the polls might be wrong and we should wait for the results – which in time confirmed the exits.
While the story in the 1992 general election was very different – the exit polls suggested a Labour win, which did not pan out – the experience has taught everyone caution in how they are handled. Even though a referendum, unlike elections, is without precedent, making weighting a poll tricky, more information is better than less.
But it's not on election night itself when we will miss having an exit poll. Today, Scotland is making a momentous decision, which could end the 307-year history of the union – and because there's no exit poll, we'll all be guessing when it comes to working out how the decision was made. We can't, of course, use the actual ballots for this as they're anonymous.
If the polls turn out to be wrong, and yes wins, we won't know whether it's because 16- to 17-year-olds, given the vote for the first time, turned out en masse, or whether it's because of a last-minute change of heart among pensioners (who currently lean towards no).
This detail and data is what lets academics, journalists and politicians alike work out what really happened and how voters act. No other way of getting the information is nearly as reliable.
One way or another, Scottish voters will make history today. For the sake of saving a few tens of thousands of pounds, we'll never really know why the vote turned out the way it did. We've been sadly short-changed.
EU Referendum..... Our One and Only Chance of Escape to Sanity
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2016/06/eu-referendum-one-chance-escape-sanity/
Posted by Stuart Littlewood on June 23, 2016 in Middle East, News & Analysis, UK, World
I have a bad feeling about the referendum vote tomorrow (Thursday).
All the mainstream political parties – Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens – want us to remain in the EU. The Establishment wants us to remain. The US wants us to remain. And roughly half of British voters are bribed by cosy perks like EU-guaranteed employment and maternity rights to remain; or they feel the devil they know is better than the devil they don't. The trouble is, they neither know nor properly understand the EU and its devlish machinations. Hardly anyone outside the Brussells bubble does. If the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus cannot understand it, and has no chance of exercising democratic control, that on its own is good reason for not belonging to it.
The referendum is a vote the Establishment and our political elite cannot afford to lose. And it's a vote the EU itself cannot afford to lose. If the UK brick is removed from the crumbling wall the whole top-heavy edifice is likely to come crashing down.
It is for ordinary people to decide the question whether to stay or leave. The referendum is not interested in the views of political parties and their self-serving agendas. Nevertheless the parties are trying desperately to force their views on ordinary voters and persuade them to become their proxies. Millions will do so.
Rational discussion has been further derailed by the horrific slaying of Jo Cox, who was a prominent pro-EU campaigner. Her husband and children were recorded shortly before her murder taking part in a counter-demo against the fishermens' anti-EU protest flotilla on the Thames and flying an 'In' flag on their speedboat.
There's a strong whiff of dishonesty about the way the murder story unfolded. It has changed or been "corrected" many times. Did the perpetrator shout "Britain first", or not? Was he attacking an elderly man with Jo intervening, or was he attacking Jo with the elderly gent intervening? He fired three rounds. Was it from a home-made handgun or a sawn-off shotgun? Nobody seems sure. Did he have a history of mental illness, or not? Was he getting treatment? Was he high on drugs, or not? Whatever the truth, the 'Remain' side and mainstream media have managed to whip up public hysteria against the 'hatemongers' who caused her death, implying the anti-EU brigade.
There's also a disturbing similarity to the murder, in public, of prominent pro-Euro MP and foreign affairs minister, Anna Lindh, just four days before the Swedish referendum on joining the Eurozone in 2003. All campaigning was cancelled but the vote went ahead. The result was 'no', although in Stockholm where the murder took place, a clear majority voted 'yes'. The killer was judged mentally ill and admitted he was high on drugs at the time.
Let's assume Jo was the victim of a deranged loner rather than a 'psy-ops' operation as now suggested in some quarters. How are unstable individuals, who may be fiercely patriotic inasmuch as they consider British people and their interests must come first, supposed to regard MPs who are so passionately pro-EU that they support the idea of giving away £8.5bn of British taxpayers' money a year to a foreign bureaucracy over which we have little or no control? The arithmetic, by the way, is the 2015 figure of £13 billion net contribution minus £4.5 billion then spent by the EU in the UK. The remainder, £8.5 billion, disappears into the gaping maw and is lost for ever. There are hundreds of MPs who seem happy with this gigantic loss of public funds at a time of austerity, real hardship and crumbling public services at home.
Where is such an individual, on a bad day with his pschotropic medication, likely to focus his rage? Jo Cox had other potential nutty enemies too on account of her work in the Middle East (and by the way how wise was it to set up a fund in her name for the Syrian White Helmets?). These are things all MPs need to think about when tempted to stray outside their prime task which is to serve British parliamentary democracy.
Another concern affecting the chances of a positive outcome tomorrow is the strange assortment of spokesmen assigned to the 'Out' campaign. Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove have very little following. Boris Johnson is more likable but a misfit. His clowning in the past means that no-one knows whether to take him seriously on this most serious of subjects. Besides, his CV includes Eton and the Bullingdon Club so he comes from the same stable of loutish toffs as 'Remain' leaders Cameron and Osborne. Why would he turn on his own and deepen the already throbbing rift in the Conservative Party? The threesome are joined by the volatile Nigel Farage with whom they have little in common and whose UKIP party overflows with undisciplined hardliners with dodgy backgrounds – a gift to the opposing side.
This unlovely quartet are flanked by a handful of more credible MPs who get little chance to speak, and it is not the team most ordinary 'Leave' citizens would choose to champion their cause. Farage in particular sails close to the wind in terms of inflammatory language and images, and his placing of a questionable advertisment just prior to the tragedy gave opponents a chance to link Jo Cox's murder to the Brexiteers and discredit the entire 'Leave' campaign.
Farage doesn't actually put a foot wrong but his inability to soften the tone provides the ever-righteous thought police, the coiled-to-strike propagandists and hostile media enough ammunition to score telling points. And in a neck-and-neck contest that's all it takes to tip the result the wrong way.
Many of us have a deep sense of foreboding as a result of what happened these last few days. This vote is our one and only chance to escape to sanity and prosperity before the stricken ship goes down. But I'm afraid the Dark Powers may have arranged things so that they keep us under lock and key.
Stuart Littlewood
22 June 2016
Look, the 'powers that be' control the planet. Stand against them and you're put aside. The planet history is the on going tide of conspiracy theories showing up as true. The history books are only the reported collateral damage of any backroom decisions.
Why waste any more server space?
Move on and do something really real and end up not being able to write about yourself.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2016.06.28, 12:39:40
Look, the 'powers that be' control the planet. Stand against them and you're put aside. The planet history is the on going tide of conspiracy theories showing up as true. The history books are only the reported collateral damage of any backroom decisions.
In this moment now I choose to stand with hhop fait accompli, it's a new piece on the global chessboard and a 'let's all get along' mentality :)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2016.06.28, 12:39:40
Why waste any more server space?
Got this covered ;)
Quote from: Peterae on 2016.06.28, 19:47:22
Bandwidth & Disk Space is actually free with this hosting account LOL
Quote from: giantkiller on 2016.06.28, 12:39:40
Move on and do something really real and end up not being able to write about yourself.
Could you clarify that please ? Are you threatening me ?
ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic state?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/index.html
By Tim Lister, CNN
Updated 0325 GMT (1125 HKT) June 13, 2014
What are its origins?
In 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq -- under the ruthless leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- embarked on seemingly arbitrary and brutal treatment of civilians as it tried to ignite a sectarian war against the majority Shia community.
It came close to succeeding, especially after the bombing of the Al-Askariya Mosque, an important Shia shrine in Samarra, which sparked retaliatory attacks.
But the killing of al-Zarqawi by American forces, the vicious treatment of civilians and the emergence of the Sahwa (Awakening) Fronts under moderate Sunni tribal leaders nearly destroyed the group.
Nearly, but not quite.
When U.S. forces left Iraq, they took much of their intelligence-gathering expertise with them.
Iraqi officials began to speak of a "third generation" of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Two years ago, a former spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, warned that "if the Iraqi security forces are not able to put pressure on them, they could regenerate."
The capability of those Iraqi forces was fatally compromised by a lack of professional soldiers, the division of military units along sectarian lines and a lack of the equipment needed for fighting an insurgency, such as attack helicopters and reconnaissance capabilities.
The new al Qaeda was rebranded in 2006 as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). It would add "and Syria" to its name later.
The group exploited a growing perception among many Sunnis that they were being persecuted by the Shia-dominated government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, starved of resources and excluded from a share of power.
The arrest of senior Sunni political figures and heavy-handed suppression of Sunni dissent were the best recruiting sergeants ISI could have. And it helped the new leader re-establish the group's influence.
The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
r.cook@theguardian.com
Friday 8 July 2005 15.00 BST
I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead.
The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.
It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?
But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?
At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.
Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.
In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.
Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.
The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.
But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.
And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.
Robin Cook dies after collapse on mountain
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/07/uk.labour
Sunday 7 August 2005 01.14 BST
Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, died in hospital last night after collapsing while walking in the Scottish hills he loved.
The 59-year-old MP was airlifted to hospital in Inverness yesterday afternoon after being taken ill while walking with his wife, Gaynor, and friends near the summit of Ben Stack, close to Lochinver, Sutherland.
There were unconfirmed reports last night that he suffered a heart attack and then fell, breaking his neck.
Week one of the Russian military intervention in Syria
http://thesaker.is/week-one-of-the-russian-military-intervention-in-syria/
October 10, 2015
This column was originally written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-one-of-the-russian-military-intervention-in-syria/
The speed at which the Russian military operation in Syria was conducted what a big surprise for the US intelligence community (which I can hardly blame as I was just as surprised myself). Make no mistake here, the Russian force in Syria is a small one, at least for the time being, and it does not even remotely resemble what the rumors had predicted, but it is especially the manner in which it is being used which is very original: as a type of " force multiplier " for the Syrian military and a likely cover for the Iranian one. This is a very elegant solution in which a small force achieves a disproportionately big result. This is also a rather dangerous strategy, because it leaves the force very vulnerable, but one which, at least so far, Putin very successfully explained to the Russian people.
According to the most recent poll , 66% of Russian support the airstrikes in Syria while 19% oppose them. Considering the risks involved, these are extremely good numbers. Putin's personal popularity, by the way, is still at a phenomenal 85% (all these figures have an margin of error of 3.4%). Still, these figures indicate to me that the potential for concern and, possibly, disappointment is present. The big advantage that Putin has over any US President is that Russians understand that wars, all wars, have a cost, and they are therefore nowhere as casualty-averse as the people in the USA or Europe. Still, while combat footage taken from UAV is a good start, Putin will have to be able to show something more tangible soon. Hence, probably, the current Syrian army counter-offensive. Still, the current way of triumphalism in Russia makes me nervous.
The reaction in the West, however, has been very negative, especially after the Russian cruise missile attacks (which mark the first time ever that the Russians have used their non-nuclear but strategic forces in a show of force aimed less as Daesh than at the USA).
Is Washington Coming To Its Senses?
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/05/16/518290is-washington-coming-to-its-senses-paul-craig-roberts/
By Paul Craig Roberts on May 16, 2015
There is much speculation about US Secretary of State John Kerry's rush visit to Russia in the wake of Russia's successful Victory Day celebration on May 9. On May 11, Kerry, who was snubbing Russia on the 9th, was on his way to Russia, and Putin consented to see him on May 12.
As time passes we will find out why Kerry was snubbing Putin on May 9 and 3 days later was criticizing Washington's puppet regime in Ukraine. For what is known at this time, a possible explanation is that Washington is coming to its senses.
In Syria, There are no Moderates
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/in-syria-there-are-no-moderates.html
Latest Western fabrication attempts to portray "moderate rebels" locked in combat with hordes of Al Qaeda militants as ploy to justify further arming of terrorists and even direct intervention along Syria's borders.
September 20, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - Stopped short of direct military intervention by Syrian-Russian geopolitical maneuvering, the West has attempted to retrench their agenda of subverting Syria in a variety of ways. It was reported that the US is now officially arming terrorists inside of Syria after years of semi-covertly passing them thousands of tons of weapons at a time and billions in cash directly and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Qatar. The goal, in part, is to sabotage any attempted UN incursion into Syria to verify and disarm Syria's chemical weapons, then use the UN's failure as justification for direct military intervention.
Additionally, a new narrative is taking shape as the Syrian government stands poised to restore order across its war-ravaged nation. The West is claiming that the "moderate" fighters it has been sponsoring since 2011 are locked in combat with Al Qaeda terrorists across the country, even after numerous attempts to claim Al Qaeda was not even present inside of Syria, or present but in insignificant numbers.
In USA Today's article titled, "Kerry: Syrian rebels have not been hijacked by extremists," it was reported that:
Extremist groups make up between 15% and 25% of the rebels fighting Syrian leader Bashar Assad, but moderate forces are growing stronger as a result of support from regional allies, Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday.
"I just don't agree that a majority are al-Qaeda and the bad guys," Kerry said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "That's not true."
Yet now, the Western media admits they are indeed present in Syria and overwhelming the increasingly "stronger" US-Saudi-armed militants Kerry claimed constituted the vast majority of the so-called "opposition." The Washington Post's article, "Al-Qaeda-linked fighters seize Syrian town of Azaz from more moderate rebels," claims:
Al-Qaeda-linked militants seized a key northern Syrian town from rebels on Wednesday, as mounting friction between anti-government extremists and more moderate, Western-backed opposition factions erupted into all-out conflict.
The Post also reported [emphasis added]:
"There is a huge expansion of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant," said Col. Malik al-Kurdi, a senior commander in the Free Syrian Army, who said the extremists had also recently seized the town of Kafarnaje. With Islamic State well-financed and armed, "the FSA power is in reversal," he said.
But if the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) is being funded, armed, trained, and otherwise supported with the combined resources of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, NATO-member Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and others, just how exactly is the "Islamic State," and other extremist factions such as Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Al Nusra, getting even more cash and weapons?
The answer, as will be explained further in documented detail below, is that there were never, nor are there any "moderates" operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria's borders as "divided" along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria's borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.
There aren't, nor were there ever "moderates" fighting in Syria.
In an astounding admission, the New York Times confirmed in an April 2013 report that the so-called "Syrian opposition" is entirely run by Al Qaeda and literally states:
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
From the beginning, it was clear to geopolitical analysts that the conflict in Syria was not "pro-democracy" protesters rising up, but rather the fruition of a well-documented conspiracy between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to arm and direct sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda against the Syrian government.
This was documented as early as 2007 - a full 4 years before the 2011 "Arab Spring" would begin - by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, ""The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which stated specifically (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
For over two years the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey have sent billions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into Syria along side known-terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. In the Telegraph's article titled, "US and Europe in 'major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb'," it is reported:
It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November
The story confirmed the origins of ex-Yugoslav weapons seen in growing numbers in rebel hands in online videos, as described last month by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers, but suggests far bigger quantities than previously suspected.
The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria's neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came "from several other European countries including Britain", without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.
British military advisers however are known to be operating in countries bordering Syria alongside French and Americans, offering training to rebel leaders and former Syrian army officers. The Americans are also believed to be providing training on securing chemical weapons sites inside Syria.
Additionally, The New York Times in its article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid," admits that:
With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria's opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.
The US State Department had also announced it was sending hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, equipment and even armored vehicles to militants operating in Syria, along with demands of its allies to "match" the funding to reach a goal of over a billion dollars. The NYT would report in their article, "Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria," that:
With the pledge of fresh aid, the total amount of nonlethal assistance from the United States to the coalition and civic groups inside the country is $250 million. During the meeting here, Mr. Kerry urged other nations to step up their assistance, with the objective of providing $1 billion in international aid.
In recent weeks, the US has admitted that it is now officially arming and equipping terrorists inside of Syria. The Washington Post's article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," reported:
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria's civil war.
The US State Department has admitted Al Qaeda is the prominent fighting force in Syria.
And as this astronomical torrent of cash, weapons, and equipment was overtly sent by the West into Syria, and continues to this very day, the US State Department since the very beginning of the violence has known that the most prominent fighting group operating inside Syria was Al Qaeda, more specifically, the al Nusra front. The US State Department's official press statement titled, "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," stated explicitly that:
Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.
The State Department admits that from the very beginning, Al Qaeda has been carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major city in Syria. Clearly for those who read the 2007 Hersh piece in the New Yorker, and then witnessed the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria, the explanation is quite simple - the West intentionally and systematically funded and armed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Syria, then overthrow the Syrian government in an unprecedented sectarian bloodbath and subsequent humanitarian catastrophe, just as was planned years ago.
If the US & its allies are funding "moderates," who is funding Al Qaeda? (The US).
However, now, according to Western leaders, the public is expected to believe that despite the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey flooding Syria with billion in cash, and thousands of tons of weapons, all sent exclusively to "secular moderates," somehow, Al Qaeda has still managed to gain preeminence amongst the "opposition."
How can this be? If a 7-nation axis is arraying the summation of its resources in the region behind "secular moderates," who then is arraying even more resources behind Al Qaeda? The answer is simple. There never were any "secular moderates," a fact the New York Times has now fully admitted.
In its article titled, "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," the New York Times admits:
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
However, in an explanation that defies reason, the article states [emphasis added]:
The Islamist character of the opposition reflects the main constituency of the rebellion, which has been led since its start by Syria's Sunni Muslim majority, mostly in conservative, marginalized areas. The descent into brutal civil war has hardened sectarian differences, and the failure of more mainstream rebel groups to secure regular arms supplies has allowed Islamists to fill the void and win supporters.
To "secure regular arms supplies" from whom? According to the West, they have been supplying "mainstream rebel groups" with billions in cash, and thousands of tons of weaponry - and now according to the BBC, training as well. Where if not intentionally and directly into the hands of al-Nusra, did all of this cash, these weapons, and training go?
The NYT also admits (emphasis added):
Of most concern to the United States is the Nusra Front, whose leader recently confirmed that the group cooperated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and pledged fealty to Al Qaeda's top leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's longtime deputy. Nusra has claimed responsibility for a number of suicide bombings and is the group of choice for the foreign jihadis pouring into Syria.
Not only is the Syrian government fighting now openly admitted Al Qaeda terrorists, but terrorists that are not even of Syrian origin.
More outrageous still, is that the New York Times fully admits that the very oil fields the European Union has lifted sanctions on and is now buying oil from in Syria (see BBC's "EU eases Syria oil embargo to help opposition"), are completely controlled by Al Qaeda - meaning the European Union is now intentionally exchanging cash with known international terrorists guilty of horrific atrocities, in exchange for oil. The NYT reports:
Elsewhere, they [al-Nusra] have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.
And:
In the oil-rich provinces of Deir al-Zour and Hasaka, Nusra fighters have seized government oil fields, putting some under the control of tribal militias and running others themselves.
The Times continues by admitting (emphasis added):
Nusra's hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo, where the group has set up camp in a former children's hospital and has worked with other rebel groups to establish a Shariah Commission in the eye hospital next door to govern the city's rebel-held neighborhoods. The commission runs a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings, though not amputations or executions as some Shariah courts in other countries have done.
Nusra fighters also control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running.
This last point, "and distribute flour to keep the city's bakeries running," is of extreme importance, because that "flour" they are "distributing" comes admittedly, directly from the United State of America.
The US feeds Al Qaeda...
In the Washington Post's article, "U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly," it is claimed that:
In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria's northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.
The Washington Post then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda's al-Nusra with providing the aid:
"America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all," said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn't sure where it comes from.
Clearly, the puzzle is now complete. Indeed Mr. Mohammed Fouad Waisi was correct, Jabhat al-Nusra, a listed terrorist organization by the US State Department, is supplying the people with flour - flour it receives by the ton directly and intentionally from the United States in direct contradiction to its own anti-terror laws, international laws, and the US State Department's own frequent denials that it is bolstering terrorists inside of Syria.
Clearly the US and its allies are propping up terrorism, and more alarming is that the "aid" they have been providing the Syrian people, appears to have been used as a political weapon by Al Qaeda, allowing them to take, hold, and permanently subjugate territory inside Syria. It should be noted again, that the New York Times itself admits that the ranks of al-Nusra are filled with foreign, not Syrian, fighters.
US narrative aims at "saving" non-existent "moderates" from the Al Qaeda terrorists they themselves are intentionally arming.
Revealed is a conspiracy so insidious, so outrageous, and a web of lies so tangled, that Western governments perhaps count on their populations to disbelieve their tax money is being used to intentionally fund and arm savage terrorism while purposefully fueling a sectarian bloodbath whose death toll is sounded daily by the very people driving it up to astronomical heights. The cards are down - the US has been exposed as openly funding, arming, and supplying Al Qaeda in Syria for over two years and in turn, is directly responsible for the death, atrocities, and humanitarian disasters within and along Syria's borders that have resulted.
While the US attempts to sell military intervention on behalf of Al Qaeda in Syria, using the flimsy, yet familiar pretext of "chemical weapons," it appears that before even one American boot officially touches Syrian soil, an already horrific crime against humanity of historic proportions has been committed by the US and its allies against the Syrian people.
This is a crime against humanity the West intends to fully compound with its new narrative of "moderates" fighting Al Qaeda. The goal is to justify the continued torrent of cash and weapons into Syria to fuel the conflict and perhaps to have "safe zones" imposed across Syria's borders under the guise of "running out" Al Qaeda. Of course, Al Qaeda will continue to be armed and funded by the very interests "running them out" deeper and deeper into Syria.
It is important to understand two undeniable, verified facts. First, there are no moderates in Syria, and second, Al Qaeda's ascendance in Syria is the direct results of the West intentionally arming them, funding them, training them, providing them with tactical, logistical, and strategic support, as well as financing them through the purchase of Al Qaeda-controlled oil fields. Understanding these facts lifts the veil regarding the latest round of lies and fabrications by the West to regain the initiative amidst their premeditated, 2-plus year assault on Syria.
Israel: The missing link in Syria puzzle
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/istael-syria-attack-crisis-251/
Published time: 31 Aug, 2013 15:55
As the world holds its breath, wondering when the US and its allies will attack Syria, Western governments and its well-oiled mainstream media seem to be ignoring a key player that has kept strangely quiet during this crisis: Israel.
Today, US power rests heavily on its terrifying military, its industrial-financial complex, and its global media clout. But that power is fast eroding because, in the age of the Internet, power is increasingly much more about prestige, credibility and trust, an area where the US is falling to pieces.
US interventionism has become all too blatant over the past 20 years. The Balkans War in the late 1990s, with the bombing of Belgrade, triggered initial alarms especially amongst non-ally countries because, coupled with Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War, it became clear that the American global hegemon was out to get the whole world, especially with the former Soviet Union out of the way.
But what got red lights blinking really strongly was Iraq. Baby Bush's false accusations of "weapons of mass destruction" as an excuse to take out an entire country just so he could "smoke out" an uncomfortable former associate, Saddam Hussein, were blatantly obscene and proved to many that the American global hegemon was officially out of control.
Back then, America still had the excuse of the horrendous 9/11 terror attacks in New York and Washington to justify its mass war-mongering. But American credibility took a sharp fall when George W himself ended up admitting that: (a) there was no connection whatsoever between nasty Saddam and nasty Osama who allegedly did 9/11 (Alas! We'll never know because Obama later threw Osama into the ocean...) and (b) there most definitely, assuredly and unequivocally were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... Add to that the burden of growing proof that 9/11 may have been a false flag...
So, America had to design a new system of war or, rather a new system of getting itself into war against its selected "rogue state" targets. It's no longer enough to go on TV and accuse such and such a country of being a "danger to world peace" or that it "does not have the kind of democracy that we want to see" as Hillary Clinton said when visiting Egypt only last year...
No. Something new had to be invented: "The Arab Spring", which is the code for instigating, triggering and engineering civil strife in target countries which can then be escalated, as necessary, to veritable social war. And if the ongoing leadership still don't get the message and insist on clinging to power, then US, UK, Israeli and other intel agencies can escalate the engineered nationwide mischief all the way up to fully–fledged civil war. Libya, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq...
Engineering such wars throughout the Middle East basically required:
(a) Identifying who the "freedom fighters" would be – mostly thugs, terrorists, guerrillas, soldiers of fortune and a wide assortment of violent mercenaries;
(b) Then arming them with lethal high (though not too "high")-tech weaponry, financing them to ensure they can do as they please inside the target country, and
(c) Unleashing them onto the cities of Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, just as they did (and still do) inside Iraq.
And if all of that doesn't work, then just order several NATO fighter squadrons to bomb the damn place to smithereens and provide satellite Intel to local "freedom fighters" so they can execute Hollywood-like operations such as the live-TV assassination of Muammar Gaddafi and his family, accompanied by Hillary Clinton's chuckles on CBS TV.
But the case of Syria is different.
The world will no longer have America pulling the wool over its eyes. Growing sectors in the international community are coming to understand that those gangs of violent assassins, rapists and criminals – aka Syrian Freedom Fighters – have been armed, trained, financed and given the fullest media support by the US and its allies.
America's dirty tricks department is raving full-blast right now trying to pin recent chemical weapons attacks on Bashar al-Assad's government, but this is getting very low credibility ratings. Common sense dictates that it would be suicide for President Bashar Assad to kill his own civilians – including children – in a Damascus neighborhood, when his real enemies are the Western-backed terrorists and delinquents trying to take over his country.
Why would Assad give his enemies the "perfect excuse" for an armed attack against Syria? Common sense tells us that Assad is surely telling the truth when he accuses those very same terrorists for that "false flag" attack as a way of bringing NATO in on their side, with its jets, cluster bombs and napalm.
Every time we hear of such dreadful terror attacks we need to understand two fundamental issues: (1) who benefits from such attacks, and (2) follow the money trail...
Today, America's credibility, trust and prestige have fallen so low that even the British Parliament finally disavowed any armed intervention by the UK, at least until such time as the UN or some truly trustworthy independent entity churns up irrefutable proof regarding who perpetrated those heinous chemical weapons atrocities in Syrian last week.
So David Cameron cannot just yet go into "puppy poodle mode" behind Obama, as his predecessor Tony Blair did so obediently behind George W. a decade ago over Iraq.
But let's look at three factors that are missing in the ongoing analysis of the Syrian crisis:
1) Israel
Ever since the two Gulf wars, America has been fighting Israelis' wars for them. In the case of the 2003 invasion and destruction of Iraq, this was so obvious that the very same NeoCons who in 1996-7 planned war against Iraq in their "Project for a New American Century (PNAC)" think-tank - Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Bush, Douglas Feith, David Wormser and others – would later execute that war in 2003 as top officers in the George W. Bush regime. The prime reason: Saddam Hussein was then the greatest threat to "democratic and favored ally" Israel.
Several of those NeoCons – Douglas Feith, David Wormser, Richard Perle and other Bushites - had already gone so far as to prepare a strategy report for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which, again, targeted Iraq as Israel's key foe at the time.
So, the Iraq War was to a great extent a proxy war that only benefitted Israel, becoming a huge headache for America, which lost thousands of its sons.
As the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohammed, once famously pointed out: "The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
2) Israel
The excessive and overpowering role that Zionism plays in American politics, American finance, American universities, American mainstream media including it Hollywood "entertainment industry," and over American foreign policy, has been all but proven. This vital issue today lies at the heart of an increasingly far-reaching debate among America's intelligentsia, which is, of course, being hushed up by the mainstream media.
One of its milestones was played out by two of its prestigious academics – Stephen Walt, former Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and his colleague John Mearsheimer, professor of Political Science at Chicago University – who published their groundbreaking book: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" in 2007.
In it, they show in a very convincing and well-documented manner the long reach and powerful clout that the "Israel First" lobby exercises over the US media, the banks, the Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon, whereby they are able to systematically tip the scales in favor of Israel, no matter what the cost. No matter if right or wrong.
And the cost to America has been extremely detrimental to its National Interest. Here lies one of the roots of much of the disrespect, mistrust and even hate that growing sections of global public opinion feel towards the US and its key allies.
3) Israel
President Barack Obama's problem right now is that America's military establishment is very much aware of the stakes involved in any "preventive attack" against Syria and, much more importantly, against Iran. Intervention against either or both countries will undoubtedly lead to massive war in the Middle East.
Look at a map: Syria and Iran lie squarely inside Russia's vital geopolitical sphere of interest, which is already under heavy Western encroachment. Read their lips: Russia is saying, "not one step further!"
America would do very well to think twice or thrice before doing anything rash...
But here comes the problem: ever since Israel was kicked out of Southern Lebanon in July 2006 by the well-armed and trained (by Iran and Russia) forces of Hezbollah commanded by Nasrallah, Israel has been licking its wounds; dark furor and revenge burns in Zionism's heart.
Since Bibi Netanyahu came back to power in 2011, Israel has gone into preventive war mode, using Iran's inexistent nuclear program as a pretext. For that past four or five years, Israel has been threatening Iran with military attack almost every other day, with Washington, London and Paris nervously obliging...
The American military, however, are painfully aware that there's some truth to former Prime Minister Mahathir's words. They don't want to fight yet another Israeli war this time in Iran. So, they have been acting as a brake which is reflected in Obama's increasing "caution" regarding Iran, going so far as to dispatching his military top brass to Israel to calm Netanyahu down, trying to make sure Israel does not launch a unilateral "preventive attack" on Iran that will drag the US into a massive conflict in the Middle East, the results of which are far from clear.
Actually a US-UK defeat in the Middle East could very well spell the beginning of the end of America as a global superpower. Russia (and China) are staring very sharply at the Middle East... They are not blinking...
The ongoing US military strategy says that if the White House must take on Iran, it should first take out Syria. At least that seems to be America's promise of sorts to keep Netanyahu's dogs of war at bay.
But the weeks have turned into months, the months into years and Zionists in Israel, the US, Britain , France and elsewhere are getting awfully impatient.
They want their D-Day now!
If the road to Tehran must go through Damascus, then, America: take out Damascus now!
For three years the US has been engineering "Arab Spring" civil war in Syria but Bashar Assad's still there. Russia stands behind him.
A UN Security Council unanimous vote against Syria is no longer an option. Britain's Parliament just said no to David Cameron, and French President Hollande's support of the US lacks clout: sadly for the French it's been many decades since France was last able to decide the outcome of any war, anywhere... Now, many in the US Congress are grumbling...
So, Mr. "CEO" of the United States of America Barack Obama: it's your call now!
You either strike against Syria now – today, even – to the unanimous applause of Zionists in Israel, Congress, the global banks and markets, the mainstream media and throughout the world, or you stand down and your prestige, "Mr. President," goes down the drain.
Your bluff will have been called. And a bluffing president is no president at all.
Mr. Putin knows this only too well, which is why he maintains Russia's powerful fleet roaming the waters of the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria...
Once again, it's shame on you, America!
Another fine mess the Israeli Trojan Horse has gotten you into...!
Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ayalon Institute Bullet Factory
January 10th 2015
http://shalomisraeltours.com/ayalon-institute-museum/
More than meets the eye, the Ayalon Institute Museum is located north of the central Israeli city of Rehovot. On the surface, this area was used for training young people for idyllic and pastoral kibbutz life. Above ground, there was a fully functioning kibbutz, which was built in just 22 days, complete with housing, a dining hall, chicken coop, cow barn, workshops, a laundry, a bakery, and a vegetable garden. But underground, this kibbutz was the first pre-state Israeli bullet production factory, built during the times of the British Mandate and used by pioneer groups including the Palmach, Hagana and Hatzofim.
In the 1930s, the Zionist leadership began to illegally produce and smuggle weapons for the coming revolt against British rule and War of Independence, which ultimately saw Israel defend itself against eight Arab armies. Machine guns were relatively easy to procure, but bullet production proved more difficult. The Jews smuggled machinery into Palestine and began to produce bullets underground. In its day, the Ayalon Institute was the largest underground IMI (Israel Military Industries) factory and produced well over two-million 9mm bullets during its years of operation from 1946 to 1948. And all the while, only a few of the kibbutz residents were privy to the activities taking place below ground.
Today, the Ayalon Institute functions as a museum. Watch a short film on the history of the institute and see how this factory was hidden from the British for so many years and how it operated. You will see the laundry, which ran 24 hours a day to conceal the noise of the factory below. The bakery provided clean air to the factory through pipes attached to its furnace. Both the bakery and the laundry concealed secret entrances into the factory, which you can climb down. Learn how the bullets were produced, how they were shipped to military groups, and how the British were kept in the dark.
The Ayalon Institute is open Sunday-Thursday 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM (last tour is at 3:00 PM), Friday and Holiday Eves, 8:30 AM-2:00 PM, Saturday and Holidays: 9:00 AM-4:00 PM, by appointment only.
The Ayalon Institute is not far from the Weizmann Institute, Israel's premier science research center. Complete your day with a guided tour of the Weizmann campus.
Is the Saudi 9/11 Story Part Of The Deception? — Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/20/is-the-saudi-911-story-part-of-the-deception-paul-craig-roberts/
James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions. Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation. I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of "national security" or "politically sensitive issues" or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.
Watching the expert craftsmanship of the "Saudis did 9/11" story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a story within a story.
The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing. The collapse of Building 7, which, if memory serves, was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, has been proven to have been a controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved with controlled demolition.
Over 100 firemen, policemen, and building maintenance personnel who were inside the two towers prior to their collapse report hearing and experiencing multiple explosions. According to William Rodriguez, a maintenance employee in the north tower, there were explosions in the sub-basements of the tower prior to the time airplanes are said to have hit the towers.
An international team of scientists found in the dust of the towers both reacted and unreacted residues of explosives and substances capable of instantly producing the extreme temperatures that cut steel.
A large number of pilots, both commercial and military, have questioned the ability of alleged hijackers with substandard flight skills to conduct the maneuvers required by the flight paths.
2,500 architects and engineers have called for an independent investigation of the failure of the towers that were certified to be capable of withstanding a hit by airplanes.
The revelation that the 9/11 attack was financed by the Saudi government has the effect of bolstering the sagging official story while simultaneously satisfying the growing recognition that something is wrong with the official story.
Commentators and media are treating the story of Saudi financing of 9/11 as a major revelation that damns the Bush regime, but the revelation not only leaves in place but also strengthens the official story that Osama bin Laden carried out the attack with precisely the hijackers identified in the original story. The Bush regime is damned merely for protecting its Saudi friends and withholding evidence of Saudi financing.
The evidence of Saudi financing is what restores the credibility of the original story. Nothing changes in the story of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania. American anger is now directed at the Saudis for financing the successful attacks.
To hype the Saudi story is to support the official story. A number of commentators who are usually suspicious of government are practically jumping up and down for joy that now they have something to pin on Bush. They haven't noticed that what they are pinning on him supports the official 9/11 story.
Moreover, they have not explained why the Saudi government would finance an attack on the country that protects it. Saudi Arabia is a long-time partner. They accept pieces of paper for their oil and then use the paper to finance the US Treasury's debt and to purchase US weapons systems, purchases that lead to larger weapons sales, thus spreading R&D costs over larger volume.
What do the Saudis have to gain from embarrassing the US by demonstrating the total failure of US national security? Really, if a few hijackers can outfox the NSA, the CIA, and the national security state, we clearly aren't getting our money's worth and are giving up our civil liberties for nothing.
Saudi financing does not explain who had access to wire the buildings for demolition, or to schedule on 9/11 a simulated attack that the actual attack modeled, thus causing confusion among some authorities about what was real and what was not.
Saudi financing does not explain the dancing Israelis who were apprehended filming the attacks on the towers and who later said on Israeli TV that they were sent to New York to film the attack. How did the Israelis know? Did Prince Bandar tell them? Bush didn't tell us about the Saudis, and the Israelis didn't tell us about the attack. Which is worse?
This Saudi revelation is too convenient for the official story. How do we know that it was not devised as a story inside the story to be used when the story got into trouble? The Saudis would be a logical choice to be put in such a position as the original neoconservative plan for overthrowing Middle Eastern governments included overthrowing Saudi Arabia. Now we have an excuse.
I have doubts that the alleged hijackers played any role other than cover for bringing down buildings by controlled demolition. Possibly the hijackers and the Saudis who financed them, if the evidence is real and not concocted, were not aware of their role and thought they were participating in a different deception.
Are we being deceived again with a story inside a story? Will it succeed along the lines that Angleton explained? Or will it possibly backfire? If the US government will hide some of the truth from us for 13 years, why not all of the truth? What else in the official story is false?
Boris Johnson & the strange case of the British foreign secretaries
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/352912-boris-johnson-uk-us-obama/
Whatever one thinks of him, British Conservative Party politician and newspaper columnist Boris Johnson hasn't been one to blindly follow what could be called a slavishly pro-US line on foreign policy.
In December, he called for the UK and its allies to work with Russia and the Syrian government against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). When Syrian forces, with Russian assistance, liberated the ancient city of Palmyra in March, Johnson praised President Assad. Johnson has also blamed the EU for the crisis in Ukraine – something else you don't expect to hear from prominent British politicians who are always so keen to blame Russia.
But now Boris Johnson seems to have changed his tune.
Consider: Boris Johnson, March 2016, 'Bravo for Assad!' (after Palmyra is liberated from IS).
Boris Johnson, July 2016, 'Assad must go!'
What's going on? How can someone be toasting President Assad one minute and the next minute be saying that it's his "clear view" that "the suffering of the Syrian people will not end while Assad remains in power"?
Answer: It's called 'Being Appointed UK Foreign Secretary.'
Something very strange seems to happen to people who land this gig. Beforehand they say some quite sensible things on foreign policy, as Johnson did when he called for the West to work with Assad and Russia to defeat IS.
But it seems as soon as they go through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doors in King Charles Street, SWIA 2AH, the new foreign secretary comes over all Uncle Sam and starts talking the language of the US State Department. "The official enemy Saddam/Milosevic/Gaddafi/Mullah Omar/Assad (delete as appropriate) must go"; "There can be no future for the official enemy", "we must play an active, more engaged role in foreign affairs"...Repeat ad infinitum.
It's not just BoJo – who, let's face it, is not a politician renowned for his consistency – who has changed his tune after becoming foreign secretary.
The late Robin Cook was a center-left Labour politician who railed against Ronald Reagan and the arms race in the 1980s. He was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). But when he became foreign secretary, Robin Cook the one-time foreign policy dove morphed into Robin Cook the hawk, with Britain, under his watch, taking part in the December 1998 bombing raids on Iraq and the US Secretary of State's Madeline aka 'Mad' Albright's 78-day bombing of socialist Yugoslavia in 1999. Old admirers of the politician looked on aghast at the transformation.
In 2001 Cook lost his job as foreign secretary and was demoted to be Leader of the House. And guess what? Straight away, he stopped talking the language of the US State Department and became Robin Cook, the man of peace again. He earned a lot of plaudits – and rightly so – for his powerful speech when resigning from the Blair government on the eve of the Iraq war – in which he talked about "the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest."
"Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq," Cook added.
In July 2005, just a month before his untimely death, Cook wrote in the Guardian of how Osama bin Laden had been "armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan."
Robin Cook was a great anti-war politician – except for when he was foreign secretary.
It was a similar story with Cook's successor, Jack Straw. Straw was a one-time student activist – and like Cook, was also in CND. But as foreign secretary, he helped take Britain into the Iraq war. When he left the Foreign Office, Straw started talking sense again. In 2013 he voted against bombing the Syrian government, which the US and the British government were so keen to do.
"There will be casualties from any military action – some military and almost certainly many civilian," Straw warned.
Yes, it really was the same Jack Straw who played such a key role in the Iraq war.
Or was it?
One theory (cue some sinister, creepy music), is that politicians who are appointed foreign secretary are kidnapped by the CIA, put in cold storage – and replaced by 'doppelgängers' – i.e. doubles of themselves, programmed to blindly follow the US State Department line. Then, when their time as foreign secretary is over, a switch takes place: the originals are de-frozen and the 'doppelgängers' are destroyed. This could explain why the people in question go back to talking sense – as they did before they were foreign secretary. If that sounds a bit sci-fi-ish then it's not surprising.
In the classic 1970 Dr Who story The Autons, the Nestene, a non-physical alien intelligence, plan to replace leading politicians and public figures in Britain with plastic replicas, who will help them to take over the country.
While in the New Avengers episode Faces, from 1976, high-ranking British government officials are replaced by down-and-outs who are given plastic surgery by a certain Dr Prator and then brainwashed.
Did the bigwigs at the CIA watch these programs and think, "That's a darn good idea. Let's try it on UK foreign secretaries!" We do know that Dr Who and The New Avengers were screened in the US....
OK, joke over. My gut feeling, and I expect yours too, is that 'doppelgängers' is one conspiracy theory too far.
So why then do our foreign secretaries feel obliged to dance enthusiastically to whatever tune Uncle Sam's playing on his tin whistle?
For much of the post-WW2 period it could be explained in four words: The Anglo-American Loan. A $3.75 billion loan at 2 percent annual interest. That's around $57 billion in today's money.
Pipe-puffing premier Harold Wilson went as far as he could in keeping the UK out of the Vietnam quagmire in the Swinging Sixties, but when anti-war critics asked why he did not come out publicly and denounce US imperialist aggression in south-east Asia, he replied: "Because we can't kick our creditors in the balls!"
Now here's the really fascinating bit. As Britain's debt to the US was reduced, the UK's adherence to the US in foreign policy became stronger, not weaker. Just compare Tony Blair's "I'll be with you, whatever" stance, to that of Wilson's or Heath's. The Anglo-American loan was finally paid off in 2006, but four years after the debts were cleared, WikiLeaks revealed how leading members of the Conservative government, when in opposition, had pledged to US diplomats that they would run a 'pro-US regime' and buy more US arms when they got into power.
To show his 'Atlanticist' credentials, Foreign Secretary William Hague revealed he has a sister who is an American and that he vacationed in the States.
Well, I've taken vacations in the States and love visiting the country, but that doesn't mean I go along with US foreign policy. The US diplomats themselves were amused by just how much Hague and his colleagues were willing to suck up to them.
This child-like eagerness to please the US could also be seen by the comment Boris Johnson made when being asked by a reporter about an apology to Barack Obama he might have to make having been appointed foreign secretary. Johnson, who has offended quite a few people in the past, said that the US "would be in the front of the queue" for apologies. His quip referred of course to the comment Obama had made about Britain having to go to "the back of the queue" for trade deals if it left the EU.
It seems a US president can talk about Britain going to the back of a queue but the British foreign secretary can only talk of the US being at the front.
Doesn't that tell us everything we need to know about the so-called 'Special Relationship'?
The conclusion has to be that whoever gets the gig, British foreign secretaries fall into line. Obedience is probably achieved in a variety of ways. It's silly to think that the 'deep state' only occurs in Turkey – there's enough evidence that we've got one in Britain too.
The role of senior civil servants at the Foreign Office, whose job is to ensure continuity, is undoubtedly important. Careerism too plays a big part – as I mentioned here, there are a set of foreign policy positions which those who hold, or aspire to high office in the UK, are expected to hold. Boris Johnson is smart enough to know that if he did displease Washington by exclaiming 'Bravo for Assad!' at the top of his voice at a White House dinner, word would get through to his boss Theresa May through 'official channels' and he'd be sent to the backbenches.
The many ways – covert and overt – in which the US, even after debts have been repaid, exerts pressure on its 'allies' to stay subservient is worthy of serious examination. Does the US have files on top British politicians revealing past indiscretions which can be used to turn them into toadies? "Johnson, we have certain information that on March 4, 1981, when you should have been in a Latin class at Eton, conjugating semi-deponent verbs, you were having an illicit cigarette with Carruthers Minor at the back of the bike sheds. Now step into line on Syria!"
The role of the media – particularly the extremely Atlanticist and neocon Murdoch-owned media – in hunting down foreign policy heretics and Imperial Truth Enforcement must also be considered. "There's someone here who doesn't support bombing Syria and regime-change in Libya! Exterminate! Exterminate!"
And we must not forget the many US-funded (and often US military-industrial complex funded) think tanks and pressure groups whose job is to make sure there's no deviation from Atlanticism and an 'interventionist' foreign policy, which just happens, totally coincidentally, to be good for arms sales.
Ironically, the biggest threat to the continuance of the special doormat relationship could be an American. Donald Trump – whatever one thinks of his domestic policies (or his hairstyle) – differs from the Beltway consensus on foreign policy in that he doesn't seem to want to provoke WW3 with Russia and doesn't seem all that crazy about NATO.
This week we've had Boris Johnson taking issue with Trump's comments on NATO. Now, there's every possibility that Trump, if elected, will himself fall into line and do what the US military-industrial complex and other foreign policy lobby groups want him to do – i.e. to stir up more conflicts around the world, particularly in the Middle East. But what if he doesn't? What if The Donald really does – against all the odds – manage to change US foreign policy?
Will we then have the British foreign secretary telling us that we need to leave countries that don't threaten us alone? And that we should stop trying to provoke WW3 by continually prodding the Russian bear?
If so, it'll be the neocons who'll be getting concerned about a British foreign secretary following the US line, and not the rest of us. Who knows, they might even start coming up with wild conspiracy theories about 'doppelgängers'. After all, some are already calling Trump a 'Manchurian candidate'...
Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66
I wanted to ask if anyone can identify the flying object in this footage at 59 seconds into the clip. It's only there for a couple of seconds. Is it a drone ? If so why the hell is it there ?
Edit: I can see by watching the second clip that the object I see in the first is in fact a bird (hawk or eagle), however the orb visible at the time of the explosion in clip 2 is very suspicious looking.
Video clip 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNNXP-orEQo
I realise this is off topic but I thought it would interest the same people.
EDIT: OK wow anyone else see the orb in the picture ? To the left at the top of the rocket. This picture is from a different clip (below) so the time counter shows a different time.
If you watch the video you can actually see the orb thing pass at high speed as the explosion happens.
Video clip 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
P.S. I think they are lying as to the nature of the satellite.
2nd P.S. I do see all the birds but in my opinion there are also other flying objects in the clip.
..
Looks like permission denied !
..
Now, that (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1195.0;attach=22630) is quite interesting FarmHand!
The mysterious craft is very similar to the ones I've
seen on two occasions. Spherical in shape with a
bronze metallic color.
The explosion that occurs when the satellite hits
ground is puzzling too. As well as the ongoing
explosions afterwards. Could it be that the
satellite was actually intended to be some sort
of weapon?
Doing a frame by frame view (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ) with AVI-Demux the
strange craft first appears on frame 2147 coming
across right to left. It moves very rapidly until frame
2152 just prior to its exit from view at the left.
Then beginning at frame 2170 something really strange
appears above the tip of the rocket and moves across
slowly from right to left as the explosion expands.
If you have a video tool capable of frame by frame
have a look. Then at frame 2323 something appears
in the distance between the towers. One would need
a really hi-res copy of the video to get a better idea
what the objects might be...
OK, I downloaded video clip 2 and the object appears to pass beyond at least the leftmost tower. It passes from right to left in about 7 frames or roughly 0.25 of a second.
Given that the towers are a certain distance apart and from the camera it should be possible for the objects approximate minimum speed to be calculated.
Looks way too fast to be a bird considering it is beyond the tower to far left at least. hmmm.
IMHO, I think Elon Musk is a bit off his rocker to be spending so much investor money on chemical rocketry, which should have died a long time ago.
If he were to invest in serious anti-gravity research he could be way ahead of the Buck Rogers mentality pack.
"Sure looks strange for a new dinosour
to be in an old dinasour's shoes
Dina Shore shoes"
From "Smithsonian Institute Blues"
b Captain Beefheart aka Don VanVliet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuJErWbzP1Y
OK ok, if the object traverses 100 meters to cross the frame in 0.25 of one second then it would be going at roughly 1440 kph.
I'm gonna have a guess and say it was probably going at just under the speed of sound, if it was not an optical glitch of some kind that is.
SeaMonkey, it is interesting as similar things were apparently seen on 911 as well.
I'm almost dumbfounded. Why did I have to see that ?
..
I knew there was something odd about the video when I first seen it on TV but I only just decided to look closely.
I guess I'll need to step through the entire clip just to see if there is more to see.
Yes yes too many explosions, seems like.
..
I see your post grown muDped, O0
Edit: Good that somebody got straight on to it yesterday and has made a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmMdYWCeAo
In this slow mo another object can be seen going from bottom left corner (ground) and apparently up through the blast area on about a 45 degree angle at 2:02 in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXRWFGNqAm0
..
This may be the explanation (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2108.htm) for what caused the
rocket to mysteriously explode.
Only in America...
Well that may explain a reason for the event, but those high speed spheres are not X-47B stealth UACV's. The spheres themselves are still a mystery, probably the most important part.
Even if it was interference in a benign program for commercial or other reasons, the spheres are the most interesting part. There are at least two objects that in my opinion show anomalous movements.
The sphere that sped past the rocket as it blew up looked to be about 1 meter or so in diameter travelling at what I estimate to be somewhere around or between 500 and 1000 kph. Not a bird and
I don't think it could be the X-47B either.
One strange object left the ground (left of screen) at about a 45 degree angle and sped up through or behind the expanding fireball in a straight line.
In this 911 video at 2:14 we can see an object coming in at a very steep angle then impacting the second tower, the object appears to have no wings and the news reporter does not seem to see it or a plane. Also at about 3:04 there is an object that flies at a fair speed from right to left just above the towers in a way I cannot imagine a chopper or plane pilot would fly in such a situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AJXajQVu0E
And then there is this analysis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k
Much progress in sphere weapon tech. since then I'm guessing.
..
Quote from: FarmHand
The sphere that sped past the rocket as it blew
up looked to be about 1 meter or so in diameter
travelling at what I estimate to be somewhere
around or between 500 and 1000 kph.
Not a bird and don't think it could be the X-47B either.
Aye, it surely isn't the unmanned X-47B.
But could the event have been executed
to prevent the Chinese acquisition?
For the time being whodunnit would seem to
be who ever benefits from the failure.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.09.04, 22:55:11
Aye, it surely isn't the unmanned X-47B.
But could the event have been executed
to prevent the Chinese acquisition?
For the time being whodunnit would seem to
be who ever benefits from the failure.
I've been doing some thinking and may have injured my brain. haha But yes that could be the reason.
I am of the opinion that it is possible the satellite was weaponized and that it was destroyed mainly because of that.
Which does not necessarily rule out the dual goal of destroying the weapon and preventing the Chinese acquisition to boot.
I find it kind of par for the course and no surprise that there is no MSM reporting on the fast moving spheres that I am aware of.
It's in plain sight for everyone to see.
I have shown a few people and without exception all have been a bit surprised but kind of happy that at least someone or something
is doing something. All agree it cannot be a bird and also agree that the claimed purpose of the satellite is most likely another lie.
In an honest world there would be at least some kind of announcement from some part of the administration. But there seems to be only silence.
..
An Anomaly is probably the best way to describe it for most.
That is exactly the kind of anomalous energetic event most on these forums would be
interested in because of the tech. the energy and the power source ect. required for a
1 meter or so size sphere to perform like that.
I for one do not put it beyond human capabilities. As yet.
..
Or maybe the crop circle makers have moved on to more direct methods of influence/warnings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SJvVW8s_Oc
..
Quote from: FarmHand
I for one do not put it beyond human capabilities. As yet.
Certain of the Very Deep Underground military research
facilities operate in alliance with beings who have
incredible powers and intelligence. With their help
some unbelievable technologies have been made
available for military exploitation. This in preparation
for a coming war.
It is possible that the Russian programs are much more
advanced as indicated by recent developments. It is
also possible that their alliance is with a much more
peaceful and capable group of beings. They're showing
much restraint with respect to provocations from the West.
The crop circles video is a good one. They're not being
created by any human government but by those who
are watching us. They're attempting to warn us all
of the coming very difficult times.
Documentary -Planet Oil 1of 3 How Oil Made Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00a_bO1G1wQ
Documentary series exploring how we've become so reliant on oil in little longer than a human lifetime.
1908 First oil discovered in an Arab nation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zqgxtfr#z9cpsbk
As car ownership grew so did the demand for oil to make the gasoline used as fuel. At this time oil was also discovered in the Middle East.
Soon other reserves were found across the region. Middle Eastern nations lacked the technology and knowledge to extract oil. This led to Western companies securing oil exploration and extraction rights for a relative pittance. Middle Eastern production would develop to provide over 60% of the world's supply.
Anglo-Persian Oil Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was a British company founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran. In 1935 APOC was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 it became the British Petroleum Company (BP), one of the antecedents of the modern BP public limited company.
1914-1918 WW1 shows how much the world depended on oil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zqgxtfr#zxjvb9q
With the outbreak of a global war, WW1 showed how important oil was to the defence of the nation. It was needed for tanks, trucks and warships.
The run up to WW1 saw a naval arms race as the world's superpowers updated and expanded their navies. Modern warships were converted from coal-burners to run on oil as it allowed them to move faster and stay at sea for longer. Oil was one of the few resources the British Empire did not produce and access to Middle Eastern oil became a strategic priority. Rival nations also rushed to secure their own sources of oil.
1944 Post-war carve up of Middle East oil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zqgxtfr#zpvtpv4
After the end of WW2, post-war leaders knew that oil was an important commodity. The control of oil had been a key factor in who won the war.
Even during WW2, Roosevelt and Churchill had been eyeing the growing oil reserves of the Middle East. On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the US and the UK. Roosevelt said, "Persian oil... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours." However this arrangement did not include the people of the countries concerned.
Execution of Operation Ajax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax
The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[9][10][11] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers." The Shah, who had been resisting the CIA's demands for the coup, finally agreed to support it.[9][10][11] Having obtained the Shah's concurrence, the CIA executed the coup.[61] Farmans (royal decrees) dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi (a loyalist who had helped Reza Shah reunify Iran decades earlier)[10] were drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. Having signed the decrees and delivered them to General Zahedi, he and Queen Soraya departed for a week-long vacation in northern Iran.[62] On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[10] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[63][64][65] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mossadegh considered unfair.[11][66][67] The action was publicized within Iran by the CIA and in the United States by The New York Times. Mossadegh's supporters (reduced to mainly the Tudeh by this time) took to the streets in violent protests.[9] Following the failed coup attempt, the Shah, accompanied by his second wife Soraya Esfandiary-Bakhtiari and Aboul Fath Atabay[68] fled to Baghdad. Arriving unannounced, the Shah asked for permission for himself and his consort to stay in Baghdad for a few days before continuing on to Europe.[62] After high-level Government consultations, they were escorted to the White House, the Iraqi Government's guest house, before flying to Italy in a plane flown by Mohammad Khatami.[68]
After the first coup attempt failed, General Zahedi, declaring that he was the rightful prime minister of Iran, shuttled between multiple safe houses attempting to avoid arrest. Mossadegh ordered security forces to round up the coup plotters, and dozens were imprisoned. Believing that he had succeeded, and that he was in full control of the government, Mossadegh erred. Assuming that the coup had failed, he asked his supporters to return to their homes and to continue with their lives as normal. The Tudeh party members also returned to their homes, no longer carrying out enforcement duties.[9][10][11] The CIA was ordered to leave Iran, although Kermit Roosevelt was slow to receive the message—allegedly due to MI6 interference—and eagerly continued to foment anti-Mossadegh unrest. The Eisenhower administration considered changing its policy to support Mossadegh, with undersecretary of state Walter Bedell Smith remarking on August 17: "Whatever his faults, Mossadegh had no love for the Russians and timely aid might enable him to keep Communism in check."[69]
However, General Zahedi, who was still on the run, met with the pro-Shah Ayatollah Mohammad Behbahani and other Shah supporters in secret. There (using CIA money deridingly known as "Behbahani dollars"), they quickly created a new plan. Already, much of the country was in shock from the Shah's flight from Iran, fears of communism, and Mossadegh's arrests of opponents. They capitalized on this sentiment in their plans. The Ayatollah Behbahani also used his influence to rally religious demonstrators against Mossadegh.[9][10][11]
On 19 August, hired infiltrators posing as Tudeh party members began to organize a "communist revolution". They came and encouraged real Tudeh members to join in. Soon, the Tudeh members took to the streets attacking virtually any symbols of capitalism, and looting private businesses and destroying shops. Much of southern Tehran's business district, including the bazaars, were vandalized. With sudden mass public revulsion against this act, the next part of Zahedi's plan came into action. From the vandalized bazaars, a second group of paid infiltrators, this time posing as Shah supporters, organized angry crowds of common Iranians who were terrified about a "communist revolution" and sickened by the violence.[9][10][11]
By the middle of the day, large crowds of regular citizens, armed with improvised weapons, took to the streets in mass demonstrations, and beat back the Tudeh party members. Under Zahedi's authority, the army left its barracks and drove off the communist Tudeh and then stormed all government buildings with the support of demonstrators. Mossadegh fled after a tank fired a single shell into his house, but he later turned himself in to the army's custody. To prevent further bloodshed, he refused a last attempt to organize his supporters.[70] By the end of the day, Zahedi and the army were in control of the government.[9][10][11] Despite the CIA's role in creating the conditions for the coup, there is little evidence to suggest that Kermit Roosevelt or other CIA officials were directly responsible for the actions of the demonstrators or the army on August 19. It has even been suggested that Roosevelt's activities between August 15–19 were primarily intended to organize "stay-behind networks as part of the planned CIA evacuation of the country," although they allowed him to later "claim responsibility for the day's outcome."[71]
The Shah stayed in a hotel in Italy until he learned what had transpired, upon which he "chokingly declared": "I knew they loved me."[3] Allen Dulles, the director of the CIA, flew back with the Shah from Rome to Tehran.[72] Zahedi officially replaced Mosaddegh. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and originally sentenced to death. But on the Shah's personal orders, his sentence was commuted[10][11][73][74] to three years' solitary confinement in a military prison, followed by house arrest until his death.[75]
The very mysterious failed satellite launch in Florida
may be indicative of an ongoing "war" in America (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2111.htm).
Are things getting crazy or what?
Bruce Lee - "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIA_-HgugAI
It is indeed! Superb analogy!
Bruce Lee knew too much which led to his
"neutralization" by "termination."
Quote from: muDped on 2016.09.07, 21:56:46
Bruce Lee knew too much which led to his
"neutralization" by "termination."
Bruce Lee died.
None of us were there at the time, and no record of the event has been known.. therefore it's just a dot on the information wall.
The battlespace has shifted and focused itself for the final battle of the only human war, scarcity ideology and moral corruption.
No aliens required.
Quote from: EvolvingApe
Bruce Lee died.
None of us were there at the time, and no record of the event has
been known.. therefore it's just a dot on the information wall.
Those who believe Bruce Lee was the victim of Foul Play
continue to explore his very early death.
The Mystery of Bruce Lee's DeathSpecial Investigation: Bruce Lee Murder ConfidentialSuspicions to the present day remain strong...Was Bruce Lee Murdered?
15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Steven Jones (1), Robert Korol (2), Anthony Szamboti (3) and Ted Walter (4)
(1) Brigham Young University (early retired)
(2) McMaster University (emeritus)
(3) Mechanical design engineer in the aerospace industry
(4) Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Abstract
On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/node/547843#axzz4Jy8l9JWL
"Another scientific study pointing out that the collapse of the building on 9-11 could not have been due to fire."
Dear All.
A very interesting video article.
http://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-us-uk-isis-axis-evil-globalist-farage-migrant-warfare-19th-september
Cheers Grum.
It's been going on for a long time.
Apache escorting ISIS toyota convoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_Ciq9BI-I
The US also bombed Iraqi forces that were fighting ISIS, it is not new.
..
On a slightly different but related (deception issues) we have a political party in Australia that is really saying things differently.
The leader Pauline Hanson was some time ago falsely jailed and subsequently released, she is sitting just in front of the Senator speaking, she has red hair.
It seems they are ready to tear the major party gimps a new one. hooraah. They have quite a bit of support, even from disgruntled "major party pollies".
At about 13:00 he starts talking about the banks. At about 16:20 he begins to speak of the UN, EU, IMF, Agenda 21/2030 ect.. He's calling them all out as gutless accomplices.
It's priceless !
One Nation Senator Calls for Australia to Exit UN, Refers to EU as 'Socialist Monolithic Monster'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhB8GRemWO4
Could there be some hope ?
Very gratifying FarmHand!!
The Love of Truth may be catching on.
Mr. Apocalypse told us he'd reveal all of the shenanigans
taking place under cover of "darkness" and bring it all
out into the light of day. It may have begun!
Yes it is refreshing, considering that voting here is compulsory and if we have a option that favours truth
and we vote for them then we have at least got some input towards a better future maybe.
Malcolm Roberts is an educated man and it seems Brian Cox is either nervous or has Parkinson's disease as
he is quite visibly shaking in his left hand while he holds up the "Graph", at 4:15 for a bit in the video.
It's really quite funny, but also shocking. Brian Cox as educated as he is is either very naive and silly or a part of the problem "purchased science".
And just to clarify the show and it's audience is always biased, the applause is not indicative of popular opinion as far as I can see, but I live in the north
away from the cities most up here do not buy into the global warming at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8
..
Here's another good one that is well worth watching and
listening to: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRksyoKoxfk) A Ukrainian lady telling us the straight-poopy
about the situation there. She is a very capable spokes-
person for that segment of the Ukrainian population that
"gets-it."
After all, what is happening in The Ukraine and for that matter
all of Europe, is a direct outgrowth of the 9/11 deception.
America has very dirty and very bloody hands.
A year of Russian anti-ISIS ops in Syria: 5 key milestones
https://www.rt.com/news/361144-russia-syria-campaign-anniversary/
Published time: 30 Sep, 2016 05:10
Precisely a year ago Moscow joined the campaign in Syria at the request of Damascus. While killing thousands of jihadists, Russia suffered military losses, but became one of the driving forces behind attempts at the national reconciliation process.
On September 30, 2015 Russian jets conducted their first strikes against terrorist targets in Syria, hitting Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL) positions near the cities of Homs and Hama.
By that time the US-led coalition had been already active in Syria for over a year. Yet Russia became the only state which received an official request from Syrian President Bashar Assad to conduct air strikes in the country. The Russian jets operated from the Khmeimim air base located in Syria's Latakia Governorate.
Liberation of Palmyra
During its mission, the Russian Air Force aided the Syrian army in liberating one of the country's key cities and a world heritage site – Palmyra. The ancient city had been under the control of IS since May 2015 before it was retaken by government forces backed by Russian airstrikes in March this year.
Jihadists destroyed numerous historical landmarks during the occupation, while leaving roads, houses and monuments booby trapped. Russian and Syrian sappers defused thousands of mines left by the terrorists after their retreat. Following the liberation of the ravaged city, the world-famous Russian conductor Valery Gergiev led a concert in Palmyra to support its restoration and honor the victims of the war.
Downing of SU-24
The Russian military operation in Syria was marred by a tragic incident last year after Turkish fighter jets downed a Russian Su-24 bomber near the Syria-Turkey border. One pilot died as a result, while another one was rescued. Ankara said that the Russian plane violated its airspace, but Moscow said the Su-24was attacked over the Syrian border. During their rescue operations Russian forces also lost a helicopter, which was attacked from the ground by the militants.
Reacting to the Su-24 downing President Putin called the incident "a stab in the back", with Moscow imposing sanctions on Turkey. Russia suspended direct air connections with Turkey as a result. In June Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized for the attack in a written statement, which led to the normalization of bilateral relations.
The Russian air campaign in Syria resulted in the loss of three more choppers. One of the helicopters was downed in Idlib province in July after a human aid delivery to civilians in the embattled city of Aleppo.
Reduction of military presence
On March 15 Putin ordered the withdrawal of the majority of Russian jets and personnel from Syria, announcing that the major part of the operation in Syria was over. "I believe that the objectives with which the Ministry of Defense has been tasked have been largely reached. Therefore, starting with tomorrow I order the withdrawal of the main part of our military from the Syrian Arab Republic," Putin said.
Back then officials stated that the Russian jets conducted over 7,000 sorties destroying numerous bases and hideouts of jihadists and leaving nearly 13,000 terrorists dead. The remaining units of the Russian air force continued to assist Syrian government troops in tackling jihadists across the country.
Humanitarian assistance
Over the course of the Syrian mission Russia established a Reconciliation Center in the country. The facility was tasked with helping to monitor the cessation of hostilities and implement international peace proposals on the ground.
On July 28 this year the center and the Syrian government introduced three "safe corridors" for civilians willing to leave the ravaged Aleppo. The plan also included a fourth passage for militants who wanted to surrender. The corridors have been largely used to deliver humanitarian aid, including medicine and water to the population.
According to a representative, Moscow delivered tens of tons of aid to Aleppo from the Khmeimim airbase. Following the introduction of the routes, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu voiced his discontent with militants who "shelled villages, attacked the positions of government troops" near the exit routes as well as inside Aleppo. The UN estimated that around 250,000 residents of the city have been in dire need of basic supplies.
Peace process
While battling jihadists from the air, Russia alongside the US was a key player in negotiating a political solution to the Syrian deadlock. Following marathon talks in Geneva in February, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his US counterpart John Kerry brokered a deal on the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
The agreement, which came into force on February 27, included a stop to military action from both the rebel and government side. Terrorist groups, like IS and Jabhat al-Nusra were excluded from the truce deal. After establishing its Reconciliation Center at Khmeimim air base, Moscow handed over contact data to Washington.
However in the following weeks, the Russian Defense Ministry said that it noted "verified proof of systematical violations" on the part of anti-government forces. It has also urged Washington to stick to promises and push the rebels to delineate their territories from those held by terrorists. The US on its part said Damascus attempted to jeopardize the cessation of hostilities, adding that Moscow did not use its influence over President Assad.
The deteriorating violence across Syria forced the US and Russia to acknowledge that the ceasefire had to be renegotiated. A fresh round of talks resulted in a new deal on the cessation of hostilities, announced by Lavrov and Kerry on September 9 in Geneva. The agreement was part of a larger peace plan, which also included the delivery of humanitarian aid, in particular to Aleppo. The deal, which again excluded terrorist groups came into force on September 12 but has since been marred by numerous violations. Just three days later Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said US-backed rebels had been "intensifying the shelling of residential areas" in Aleppo.
Moscow also demanded Washington use its influence to persuading rebel forces to clearly separate themselves from jihadists in Syria to avoid hitting them in airstrikes. John Kerry in return said President Assad has not been willing to comply with the peace agreement.
Speaking to RT President Assad's Political and Media Adviser Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban said that while Russia is "truly fighting terrorism," internal disagreements in the US are hampering truce efforts inside Syria.
A fresh row between Moscow and Washington blew up Wednesday when State Department spokesperson John Kirby warned Russia that "more Russian lives will be lost" and its interests attacked if violence in Syria continued.
His comments came in the wake of reports of heightened bombing in Aleppo. In response on Thursday a spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry said that Moscow is "fully prepared to continue the dialogue with the American side and carry on with the joint actions to combat terrorists in Syria."
However Konashenkov noted that even "slightest hints of a threat to our soldiers and Russian citizens must be excluded from this dialogue."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.09.30, 20:02:21
Precisely a year ago Moscow joined the campaign in Syria at the request of Damascus.
Precisely a year ago I, along with many other analysts, held our collective breath.. for six (6) weeks straight..
Why did we do that ?
Oh gee what a surprise
Pentagon paid PR firm $540mn to make fake terrorist videos
https://www.rt.com/usa/361385-pentagon-pr-firm-terrorist-videos/
Many Australians are taking the idea of leaving the UN seriously.
I never would have thought so but it seems that the polls I'm seeing
are almost 95% in favour of having nothing more to do with the UN.
I had no idea so many people were feeling that way.
http://blog.idftraining.com.au/cast-your-vote-do-you-support-an-aus-exit-from-the-united-nations/
However there is some confusion as the term ausexit is being used for the UN exit idea, but there is also a campaign
to exit the Commonwealth or break from Britain so to speak using the same ausexit term, Independence for Australia in other words.
May be deliberate or maybe not, confusing yes.
Here are my thoughts, we should have nothing to do with the U.N., Australia should be independent and Australia should
also tell the U.S. to remove all military hardware/Bases/missile sites and military personnel from our country at least until
such time as the war mongering elite are dealt with.
We should remove ourselves from the central banking system as a matter of priority as well.
It's high time all the corrupt and criminal governmental behaviour and policies were challenged and ended.
Australia needs to shut up shop and clean house.
Many people need to held accountable for high crimes and jailed. We should start at the top and go back maybe 25 years or more.
..
Those are very encouraging signs FarmHand.
It would seem that all y'all down in Oz are awakening
much more than we 'Merkans. Perhaps it is due
to your location near my favorite part of the Planet:
Asia. While in the Navy I had the good fortune to
visit numerous Asian nations and found them all to
be delightful.
It is also very encouraging to see how the East
European nations of Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech
Republic and the Balkans are awakening to the
evils of the E.U. and beginning to resist its pressures.
Pressures which actually originate from the War-Mongers
in Washington.
'US, Britain and France now air force for terrorists in Syria'
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362107-us-france-uk-syria-terrorists/
For nearly six years, Washington and its allies have gotten away with playing a cynical double game in Syria's war. But now the mask is slipping to reveal the ugly face of Western involvement – it is openly siding with terrorists.
Russia was correct to veto a French-sponsored draft resolution at the UN Security Council this weekend. Along with American and British vigorous support, the French proposal centered on halting military flights over the besieged northern Syrian city of Aleppo.
As Russia's foreign ministry commented, the French initiative was tantamount to giving air cover for insurgents dominated by the internationally proscribed terrorist group Jabhat al Nusra. In short, a no-fly zone protecting terrorists would have been imposed in violation of Syrian sovereign rights, as well as international law.
An alternative draft resolution put forward by Russia was subsequently nixed by the US, Britain and France. The Russian proposal was aimed at reviving the ceasefire arrangement declared last month by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Moscow's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. It reiterated the need for anti-government militants to dissociate from the proscribed terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda, including al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS).
Russia is calling for a general ceasefire, but it does not specify the condition of halting military flights over Aleppo.
If France and its Western allies were genuine about wanting to stop the violence, then why don't they get behind the Kerry-Lavrov deal? They have evidently abandoned that ceasefire arrangement because it was exposing Western claims about supporting "moderate rebels" as distinct from "extremists" as a fallacy.
That the Kerry-Lavrov truce was immediately violated by the insurgents and that there was no separation of "moderates" and "extremists" showed once and for all that Western claims of supporting "legitimate rebels" are a farce. Washington, London and Paris are patently backing a terrorist army fighting for their objective of regime change in Syria.
Since Syria and its Russian ally resumed offensive operations to take the key battleground city of Aleppo on September 22, the Western sponsors of the terror proxies have become increasingly shrill in a media campaign to thwart that offensive.
America, Britain and France have decried "war crimes" allegedly committed by Syrian and Russian air strikes. John Kerry, ahead of the weekend spat at the UN, called for a probe into suspected war crimes attributed to Russia.
Western media have been saturated with unverified reports from the militant-held eastern Aleppo purporting to show Syrian and Russian air strikes on civilian centers, including hospitals. Much of the information coming out of eastern Aleppo is sourced from Western-funded "activists" who are embedded with the Nusra terrorists. Tellingly, Western media and governments are in effect peddling what is terrorist propaganda.
The Russian and Syrian governments deny Western claims. They say their military operations are targeting terrorist groups that are deliberately using the 250,000 civilian population in east Aleppo as human shields.
It is significant that the more the Syrian army and its allies among Iranian, Lebanese and Iraqi militia, as well as Russian air support, make advances to retake Aleppo, the more hysterical Western governments and media become about "war crimes".
If we start from the premise that the conflict in Syria has from the outset been a Western-orchestrated covert war for regime change involving the sponsoring of a terrorist mercenary army, then the Western hysteria over Aleppo is perfectly understandable.
A defeat for the insurgents in Aleppo means the end of the Western criminal enterprise to install a pro-Western puppet regime in Syria. That would mark a historic blow to the prestige of Washington and its European allies in the Middle East. It would also further expose their criminal complicity.
By contrast, Russian influence in the strategic region would be elevated. And for good reasons too. Moscow will be seen as having stood by a sovereign nation to vanquish Western powers who have wreaked havoc in the region with illegal wars and regime-change subterfuges.
Given the high stakes, this is why Western powers are evidently becoming more desperate to impede Syrian and Russian military success against the insurgents. Western emotive denunciations against Syria and Russia have nothing to do with concern for human suffering. It is all about contriving a moralistic political pressure to hamper the campaign against the West's terrorist project.
Seen in this context, French calls at the UN for a no-fly zone around Aleppo is a startling admission by the Western powers that they are trying to protect terrorist al Qaeda-affiliated organizations. It is a stunning revelation of the fraudulent and criminal nature of Western governments. Their claims of "fighting terrorism" which have justified overseas wars over the past 15 years are self-evidently bogus. Their claims of supporting a "pro-democracy uprising" in Syria are grotesque.
This giant fraud has, of course, been made possible because Western media corporations have gone along with the vile charade. These media organizations are equally complicit. Giving succor to war crimes is in itself a war crime, as international attorney Christoper Black points out.
Meanwhile, away from Aleppo and the Western distortion of what is happening there, the alternative media report that the US-led military coalition is destroying bridges on the Euphrates in the eastern province of Deir ez-Zor.
According to the Syrian Free Press and others, American air strikes have demolished seven major river crossings over the past week. The latest strike was on the al Syasia bridge north of the city of Deir ez-Zor, the largest bridge in the province.
Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. It will prevent humanitarian aid convoys reaching civilians in government-held Deir ez-Zor. But more significantly, the US, French and British coalition – which is operating illegally in Syria in the first place – is working to block the Syrian army and Russian offensive against the Daesh terror stronghold of Raqqa. The bridges knocked out were providing key linkages for the Syrian and Russian forces from Deir ez-Zor towards Raqqa.
The US-led air strikes also give full meaning to the deadly American attack on the Syrian army base at Deir ez-Zor on September 17. Over 60 Syrian troops and nearly 200 more were wounded when US, British and Australian warplanes blasted the base in a sustained attack. Washington claimed it was an "accident".
But to many other observers, the massacre was no accident. It was a deliberate assault by the Western coalition to end the Kerry-Lavrov pact because the failing ceasefire was exposing the systematic terror connections of the Western governments in Syria.
Washington and its allies are not just trying to give air cover to the terrorists in Syria indirectly by setting up so-called no-fly zones. They are evidently now giving the terrorists air fire-power.
As in the NATO regime-change war in Libya in 2011, the Americans, French and British are riding shotgun in the air for terrorists on the ground.
And the truly disgusting thing about this criminal collusion is that the Western powers claim to be concerned about international law, war crimes and human suffering.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41964#msg41964
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.10.10, 06:28:50
As in the NATO regime-change war in Libya in 2011, the Americans, French and British are riding shotgun in the air for terrorists on the ground.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.10.10, 06:28:50
'US, Britain and France now air force for terrorists in Syria'
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362107-us-france-uk-syria-terrorists/
For nearly six years, Washington and its allies have gotten away with playing a cynical double game in Syria's war. But now the mask is slipping to reveal the ugly face of Western involvement – it is openly siding with terrorists.
snip
And the truly disgusting thing about this criminal collusion is that the Western powers claim to be concerned about international law, war crimes and human suffering.
A well written report, with the exception that Germany and Israel are not mentioned.
Ron
Quote from: Farmhand on 2016.10.06, 07:55:55
Many Australians are taking the idea of leaving the UN seriously.
I never would have thought so but it seems that the polls I'm seeing
are almost 95% in favour of having nothing more to do with the UN.
I had no idea so many people were feeling that way.
http://blog.idftraining.com.au/cast-your-vote-do-you-support-an-aus-exit-from-the-united-nations/
However there is some confusion as the term ausexit is being used for the UN exit idea, but there is also a campaign
to exit the Commonwealth or break from Britain so to speak using the same ausexit term, Independence for Australia in other words.
May be deliberate or maybe not, confusing yes.
Here are my thoughts, we should have nothing to do with the U.N., Australia should be independent and Australia should
also tell the U.S. to remove all military hardware/Bases/missile sites and military personnel from our country at least until
such time as the war mongering elite are dealt with.
We should remove ourselves from the central banking system as a matter of priority as well.
It's high time all the corrupt and criminal governmental behaviour and policies were challenged and ended.
Australia needs to shut up shop and clean house.
Many people need to held accountable for high crimes and jailed. We should start at the top and go back maybe 25 years or more.
..
We can only hope FarmHand O0
Brad
Rwanda genocide: France was at fault, Sarkozy admits
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/25/sarkozy-rwanda-genocide-kagame
Thursday 25 February 2010 15.34 GMT
Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged today that Paris had made serious mistakes over the 1994 Rwandan genocide, as he made the first visit by a French head of state to the central African country for a quarter of a century.
In carefully worded comments at a press conference with his Rwandan counterpart, Paul Kagame, the president reiterated his belief that the international community, including France, had suffered from "a kind of blindness" in its response to the bloodshed, which killed more than 800,000 people.
But, keeping to the line normally held by Paris, he refused to take the opportunity to apologise for "political errors" by his country.
"We are not here to have fun, to fiddle with vocabulary," he said. "What happened here is unacceptable and what happened here forces the international community, including France, to reflect on the mistakes that prevented it from anticipating and stopping this terrible crime."
Rwandan genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
The Rwandan genocide, known officially as the genocide against the Tutsi,[2] was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority government. An estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed during the 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994,[1] constituting as many as 70% of the Tutsi and 20% of Rwanda's total population. The genocide and widespread slaughter of Rwandans ended when the Tutsi-backed and heavily armed Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) lead by Paul Kagame took control of the country. An estimated 2,000,000 Rwandans, mostly Hutus, were displaced and became refugees.[3]
The genocide was planned by members of the core political elite, many of whom occupied positions at top levels of the national government. Perpetrators came from the ranks of the Rwandan army, the Gendarmerie, government-backed militias including the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi, as well as Catholic clergy and countless ordinary civilians. Some militias called themselves the 'Army of Jesus' and they believed their mission was to destroy God's enemies.[4] The genocide took place in the context of the Rwandan Civil War, an ongoing conflict beginning in 1990 between the Hutu-led government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which largely comprised Tutsi refugees whose families had fled to Uganda after the 1959 Hutu revolt against colonial rule. Waves of Hutu violence against the RPF and Tutsi followed Rwandan independence in 1962. International pressure on the Hutu government of Juvénal Habyarimana resulted in a ceasefire in 1993, with a road-map to implement the Arusha Accords, which would create a power-sharing government with the RPF. This agreement was not acceptable to a number of conservative Hutu, including members of the Akazu, who viewed it as conceding to enemy demands. The RPF military campaign intensified support for the so-called "Hutu Power" ideology, which portrayed the RPF as an alien force who were non-Christian, intent on reinstating the Tutsi monarchy and enslaving Hutus. Many Hutus reacted to this prospect with extreme opposition. In the lead-up to the genocide the number of machetes imported into Rwanda increased.[5]
On April 6, 1994, an airplane carrying Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down on its descent into Kigali. At the time, the plane was in the airspace above Habyarimana's house. One person survived but died soon after en route to the hospital. The assassination of Hayarimana ended the peace accords.
Genocidal killings began the following day. Soldiers, police, and militia quickly executed key Tutsi and moderate Hutu military and political leaders who could have assumed control in the ensuing power vacuum. Checkpoints and barricades were erected to screen the national identity cards of Rwandans in order to systematically kill Tutsi.
Dear All
All our smarthphon are spied by everyone that own your number.
I've change the mobile to a Nokia Gsm
Oilver Stone made a movie on Edward Snowden in Italy will be shown on 1 December.
http://www.wired.it/play/cinema/2016/10/17/oliver-stone-snowden-film/
This link is a movie from a program in Italy that show how is so simple to get information from our smarthphone
I Didn't find in english..... sorrry.
http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/iene/puntata/viviani-e-se-ti-spiassero-dal-tuo-cellulare_562166.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf7kI1GPiuY here work...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.10.10, 06:48:04
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg41964#msg41964
Prepare for the worst --- it looks like they got Julian
Ron
http://yournewswire.com/julian-assange-extradited-guantanamo-express/ (http://yournewswire.com/julian-assange-extradited-guantanamo-express/)
EDIT, October 21, Good news... or at least better news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bVVAVwfSQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bVVAVwfSQ)
Quote from: ronee on 2016.10.19, 15:05:37
Prepare for the worst --- it looks like they got Julian
Ron
http://yournewswire.com/julian-assange-extradited-guantanamo-express/ (http://yournewswire.com/julian-assange-extradited-guantanamo-express/)
EDIT, October 21, Good news... or at least better news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bVVAVwfSQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bVVAVwfSQ)
Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water...
Quote:
Julian Assagne and His "New" Video Speaking from the Grave
Last night someone sent me this link- supposedly showing Julian Assange giving a speech at the Ecuadorian Embassy- BUT THIS MORNING- I was sent THIS...
"This speech apparently Published 21st October 2016 Is the same speech I found on the internet delivered on Monday 20 August 2012 00.52 AEST Last modified on Thursday 11 August 2016 22.59 (He has identical Hair cut since 2012)"
So I guess they get an A for effort- but an F for actually pulling off this lie...
compared to this one
He is WEARING THE EXACT SAME OUTFIT...says the SAME things to "show" he isn't dead- but they need to show something NEW- NOT regurgitate something from years ago...
I have just been to see the film SNOWDEN, really worth seeing, all 21/2hrs of it
Regards
Mike 8)
Inside the invisible government: War, Propaganda, Clinton & Trump
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/364567-terrorism-west-russia-wars-propaganda/
The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.
The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term "public relations" as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions.
In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade – behavior then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, "Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!" Bernays' influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was "engineering the consent" of people in order to "control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it."
He described this as "the true ruling power in our society" and called it an "invisible government."
Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged.
Imagine two cities.
Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.
But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.
In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.
The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by "us" – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media center that is funded by Britain and America.
Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.
Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.
What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.
Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.
Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was "vindicated" for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell's fabrications.
The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, "What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?"
He replied that if journalists had done their job, "there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq."
It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question - Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.
There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005. There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.
When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande's bombast about France being "at war" and "showing no mercy." That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.
"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikiLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitized intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.
Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – "our" bombs – that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.
The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news.
Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia - and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
These organizations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life.
In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie.
In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call "regime change" in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi's influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable.
So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France. Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!"
The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong."
Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.
According to its own records, NATO launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misrata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The UNICEF report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten."
As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS.
Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war.
All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and NATO.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war. Once again, the 'Ruskies' are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil.
The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.
Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.
There is almost the joie d'esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behavior and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America's design for the 21st century.
This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China.
To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China.
In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over." That was not news.
Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.
The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.
She has now pledged to support a no-fly zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime –a distinction for which the competition is fierce.
Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.
That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders.
Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.
Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, if the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defense drills being conducted in Russia. None will recall Edward Bernays' "torches of freedom".
George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers." Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history.
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."
This is adapted from an address to the Sheffield Festival of Words, Sheffield, England. JohnPilger.com - the films and journalism of John Pilger
Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-clinton-cheered-11th-hour-indictment-that-doomed-bush-re-election/article/2606000#.WBX9mQsNnWE.twitter
Whispers of "payback" are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as "unprecedented" the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.
The Director of the FBI Reopens the Hillary Case. "Donald Trump will win the Popular Vote for President"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-director-of-the-fbi-reopens-the-hillary-case-donald-trump-will-win-the-popular-vote-for-president/5553872
Word has reached me from Washington that the FBI has reopened the Hillary case of her violation of US National Security protocols, not because of the content of the new email releases, but because voter support for Trump seems to be overwhelming, while Hillary has cancelled appearances due to inability to muster a crowd. The popular vote leaves the FBI far out on the limb for its corrupt clearance of Hillary. The agency now has to redeem itself.
Despicable Balfour: A Story of Betrayal – Part 1
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/29/despicable-balfour-a-story-of-betrayal-part-1/
November 2 marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which began the still-ongoing colonisation of Palestine and sowed the seeds of an endless nightmare for the Palestinian people, both those who were forced to flee at gunpoint and those who have managed to remain in the shredded remains of their homeland under Israel's brutal military occupation.
How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/britain-destroyed-palestinian-homeland-161102054348710.html
Ninety-nine years since Balfour's "promise", Palestinians insist that their rights in Palestine cannot be dismissed.
by Ramzy Baroud
When I was a child growing up in a Gaza refugee camp, I looked forward to November 2. On that day, every year, thousands of students and camp residents would descend upon the main square of the camp, carrying Palestinian flags and placards, to denounce the Balfour Declaration.
Truthfully, my giddiness then was motivated largely by the fact that schools would inevitably shut down and, following a brief but bloody confrontation with the Israeli army, I would go home early to the loving embrace of my mother, where I would eat a snack and watch cartoons.
At the time, I had no idea who Balfour actually was, and how his "declaration" all those years ago had altered the destiny of my family and, by extension, my life and the lives of my children as well.
All I knew was that he was a bad person and, because of his terrible deed, we subsisted in a refugee camp, encircled by a violent army and by an ever-expanding graveyard filled with "martyrs".
Decades later, destiny would lead me to visit the Whittingehame Church, a small parish in which Arthur James Balfour is now buried.
While my parents and grandparents are buried in a refugee camp, an ever-shrinking space under a perpetual siege and immeasurable hardship, Balfour's resting place is an oasis of peace and calmness. The empty meadow all around the church is large enough to host all the refugees in my camp.
Finally, I became fully aware of why Balfour was a "bad person".
Once Britain's Prime Minister, then the Foreign Secretary from late 1916, Balfour had pledged my homeland to another people. That promise was made on November 2, 1917, on behalf of the British government in the form of a letter sent to the leader of the Jewish community in Britain, Walter Rothschild.
At the time, Britain was not even in control of Palestine, which was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Either way, my homeland was never Balfour's to so casually transfer to anyone else. His letter read:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
He concluded, "I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation."
Ironically, members of the British parliament have declared that the use of the term "Zionist" is both anti-Semitic and abusive.
The British government remains unrepentant after all these years. It has yet to take any measure of moral responsibility, however symbolic, for what it has done to the Palestinians. Worse, it is now busy attempting to control the very language used by Palestinians to identify those who have deprived them of their land and freedom.
But the truth is, not only was Rothschild a Zionist, Balfour was, too. Zionism, then, before it deservedly became a swearword, was a political notion that Europeans prided themselves to be associated with.
In fact, just before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron declared, before the Conservative Friends of Israel meeting, that he, too, was a Zionist. To some extent, being a Zionist remains a rite of passage for some Western leaders.
Balfour was hardly acting on his own. True, the Declaration bears his name, yet, in reality, he was a loyal agent of an empire with massive geopolitical designs, not only concerning Palestine alone, but with Palestine as part of a larger Arab landscape.
Just a year earlier, another sinister document was introduced, albeit secretly. It was endorsed by another top British diplomat, Mark Sykes and, on behalf of France, by François Georges-Picot. The Russians were informed of the agreement, as they too had received a piece of the Ottoman cake.
The document indicated that, once the Ottomans were soundly defeated, their territories, including Palestine, would be split among the prospective victorious parties.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, also known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was signed in secret 100 years ago, two years into World War I. It signified the brutal nature of colonial powers that rarely associated land and resources with people that lived upon the land and owned those resources.
The centrepiece of the agreement was a map that was marked with straight lines by a china graph pencil. The map largely determined the fate of the Arabs, dividing them in accordance with various haphazard assumptions of tribal and sectarian lines.
Once the war was over, the loot was to be divided into spheres of influence:
- France would receive areas marked (a), which included: the region of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq - including Mosel, most of Syria and Lebanon.
- British-controlled areas were marked with the letter (b), which included: Jordan, southern Iraq, Haifa and Acre in Palestine and a coastal strip between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan.
- Russia would be granted Istanbul, Armenia and the strategic Turkish Straits.
The improvised map consisted not only of lines but also colours, along with language that attested to the fact that the two countries viewed the Arab region purely on materialistic terms, without paying the slightest attention to the possible repercussions of slicing up entire civilizations with a multifarious history of co-operation and conflict.
The agreement read, partly:
"... in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states."
The brown area, however, was designated as an international administration, the nature of which was to be decided upon after further consultation among Britain, France and Russia. The Sykes-Picot negotiations finished in March 1916 and were official, although secretly signed on May 19, 1916. World War I concluded on November 11, 1918, after which the division of the Ottoman Empire began in earnest.
British and French mandates were extended over divided Arab entities, while Palestine was granted to the Zionist movement a year later, when Balfour conveyed the British government's promise, sealing the fate of Palestine to live in perpetual war and turmoil.
The idea of Western "peacemakers" and "honest-brokers", who are very much a party in every Middle Eastern conflict, is not new. British betrayal of Arab aspirations goes back many decades. They used the Arabs as pawns in their Great Game against other colonial contenders, only to betray them later on, while still casting themselves as friends bearing gifts.
Nowhere else was this hypocrisy on full display as was in the case of Palestine. Starting with the first wave of Zionist Jewish migration to Palestine in 1882, European countries helped to facilitate the movement of illegal settlers and resources, where the establishment of many colonies, large and small, was afoot.
So when Balfour sent his letter to Rothschild, the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was very much plausible.
Still, many supercilious promises were being made to the Arabs during the Great War years, as self-imposed Arab leadership sided with the British in their war against the Ottoman Empire. Arabs were promised instant independence, including that of the Palestinians.
The understanding among Arab leaders was that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was to apply to Arab provinces that were ruled by the Ottomans. Arabs were told that they were to be respected as "a sacred trust of civilization", and their communities were to be recognised as "independent nations".
Palestinians wanted to believe that they were also included in that civilization sacredness, and were deserving of independence, too. Their conduct in support of the Pan-Arab Congress, as voting delegates in July 1919, which elected Faisal as a King of a state comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria, and their continued support of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, were all expressions of their desire for the long-coveted sovereignty.
When the intentions of the British and their rapport with the Zionists became too apparent, Palestinians rebelled, a rebellion that has never ceased, 99 years later, for the horrific consequences of British colonialism and the eventual complete Zionist takeover of Palestine are still felt after all these years.
Paltry attempts to pacify Palestinian anger were to no avail, especially after the League of Nations Council in July 1922 approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine - which was originally granted to Britain in April 1920 - without consulting the Palestinians at all, who would disappear from the British and international radar, only to reappear as negligible rioters, troublemakers, and obstacles to the joint British-Zionist colonial concoctions.
Despite occasional assurances to the contrary, the British intention of ensuring the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine was becoming clearer with time.
The Balfour Declaration was hardly an aberration, but had, indeed, set the stage for the full-scale ethnic cleansing that followed, three decades later.
In his book, Before Their Diaspora, Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi captured the true collective understanding among Palestinians regarding what had befallen their homeland nearly a century ago:
"The Mandate, as a whole, was seen by the Palestinians as an Anglo-Zionist condominium and its terms as instrument for the implementation of the Zionist programme; it had been imposed on them by force, and they considered it to be both morally and legally invalid. The Palestinians constituted the vast majority of the population and owned the bulk of the land. Inevitably, the ensuing struggle centreed on this status quo. The British and the Zionists were determined to subvert and revolutionise it, the Palestinians to defend and preserve it."
In fact, that history remains in constant replay: The Zionists claimed Palestine and renamed it "Israel"; the British continue to support them, although never ceasing to pay lip service to the Arabs; the Palestinian people remain a nation that is geographically fragmented between refugee camps, in the diaspora, militarily occupied, or treated as second-class citizens in a country upon which their ancestors dwelt since time immemorial.
While Balfour cannot be blamed for all the misfortunes that have befallen Palestinians since he communicated his brief but infamous letter, the notion that his "promise" embodied - that of complete disregard of the aspirations of the Palestinian Arab people - is handed from one generation of British diplomats to the next, the same way that Palestinian resistance to colonialism is also spread across generations.
In his essay in the Al-Ahram Weekly, entitled "Truth and Reconciliation", the late Professor Edward Said wrote: "Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate ever specifically concede that Palestinians had political, as opposed to civil and religious, rights in Palestine.
The idea of inequality between Jews and Arabs was, therefore, built into British - and, subsequently, Israeli and US - policy from the start."
That inequality continues, thus the perpetuation of the conflict. What the British, the early Zionists, the Americans and subsequent Israeli governments failed to understand, and continue to ignore at their own peril, is that there can be no peace without justice and equality in Palestine; and that Palestinians will continue to resist, as long as the reasons that inspired their rebellion nearly a century ago, remain in place.
Ninety-nine years later, the British government is yet to possess the moral courage to take responsibility for what their government has done to the Palestinian people.
Ninety-nine years later, Palestinians insist that their rights in Palestine cannot be dismissed, neither by Balfour, nor by his modern peers in "Her Majesty's Government".
Of course this is from Aljazeera! The truth is there never was a nation or country called Palestine and certainly no Palestinians, it was all made up at I believe it was the Oslo accords. Check out the history, it is easy enough to find the truth, you can go all the way back to the Roman Empire. Never was a Palestine, it is islamic propaganda.
Balfour Declarationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[1][2]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[3] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18419#msg18419
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011.11.27, 17:34:31
I would like to know why none of the rest you have addressed the elephant in the room. With all this banter no one has brought up ISLAM, which is the elephant in the room, You say we are fighting terrorism and don't know who our enemy is, I say BS we know who the enemy is! just because no one wants to name the elephant in the room it does not mean the elephant doesn't exist.
If 911 was our own government perpetrating this on us, and you are trying to say the Bush administration came up with this conspiracy, think about it. Bush was only in the white house for a few months before this happened. Could you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out. If not Bush then the explosives must have planted before his administration, then you must mean that the Clinton administration did it, at least they had time to plan it and set it up. So are you telling me the Clinton government and the Democrats planned 911 and perpetrated it on us. Just what are you people saying?
And I really love the accusations of being a disinformant, that is really funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal twisted beliefs is obviously an agent provocateur and must be working with the enemy, because they couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you people.
https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation
[quote
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011-11-27, 17:34:31
I would like to know why none of the rest you have addressed the elephant in the room. With all this banter no one has brought up ISLAM, which is the elephant in the room, You say we are fighting terrorism and don't know who our enemy is, I say BS we know who the enemy is! just because no one wants to name the elephant in the room it does not mean the elephant doesn't exist.
If 911 was our own government perpetrating this on us, and you are trying to say the Bush administration came up with this conspiracy, think about it. Bush was only in the white house for a few months before this happened. Could you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out. If not Bush then the explosives must have planted before his administration, then you must mean that the Clinton administration did it, at least they had time to plan it and set it up. So are you telling me the Clinton government and the Democrats planned 911 and perpetrated it on us. Just what are you people saying?
And I really love the accusations of being a disinformant, that is really funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal twisted beliefs is obviously an agent provocateur and must be working with the enemy, because they couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you people.
[/quote]
Certainly your government. Well the secret services of your government in co-operation with mossad.
But you fail to go back far enough, the C4 was installed as the building was being built back in the early '70's, Nixon? But american presidents are only puppets so it would be more correct to state that the cartel planned and executed 911.
Islam and zionism, etc (Jesuits, Masons) are only front groups of the cartel/ illuminati/ secret government, what ever you wish to call it.
Their US puppet this year was going to be Killary but that ball of wax seems to be decomposing?
Ron
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.05, 07:27:45
Balfour Declaration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[1][2]
The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917.[3] The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine. The original document is kept at the British Library.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg18419#msg18419
https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation
The Romans called that part of their empire Palestine in the same way we talk of the American west, it was a specific area of Roman hegemony, there was no country of Palestine and no Palestinian people, I care not what some English moron wrote in a 1917 letter without a clue as to what he was saying, just like Chamberlain new all about Hitler! Wake up people. Islamic revisionist history is not fact, it is REVISED, pay attention!
I'd also like to thank you for bringing up an old quote of mine from 2011 as you all know I still stand by my words!
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.05, 14:56:10
[quote
Quote from: Room3327 on 2011-11-27, 17:34:31
I would like to know why none of the rest you have addressed the elephant in the room. With all this banter no one has brought up ISLAM, which is the elephant in the room, You say we are fighting terrorism and don't know who our enemy is, I say BS we know who the enemy is! just because no one wants to name the elephant in the room it does not mean the elephant doesn't exist.
If 911 was our own government perpetrating this on us, and you are trying to say the Bush administration came up with this conspiracy, think about it. Bush was only in the white house for a few months before this happened. Could you possibly think that that was enough time to plan and execute a conspiracy of this size and plant all the explosives etc. you think were used to carry this whole thing out. If not Bush then the explosives must have planted before his administration, then you must mean that the Clinton administration did it, at least they had time to plan it and set it up. So are you telling me the Clinton government and the Democrats planned 911 and perpetrated it on us. Just what are you people saying?
And I really love the accusations of being a disinformant, that is really funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal twisted beliefs is obviously an agent provocateur and must be working with the enemy, because they couldn't possibly be as intelligent as you people.
Certainly your government. Well the secret services of your government in co-operation with mossad.
But you fail to go back far enough, the C4 was installed as the building was being built back in the early '70's, Nixon? But american presidents are only puppets so it would be more correct to state that the cartel planned and executed 911.
Islam and zionism, etc (Jesuits, Masons) are only front groups of the cartel/ illuminati/ secret government, what ever you wish to call it.
Their US puppet this year was going to be Killary but that ball of wax seems to be decomposing?
Ron
Dear Ronee,
Your new here so I will cut you some slack, but you shouldn't jump into this fray without knowing what you are talking about.
C4 was it now, you better check in with the physics prof first, he says it was thermite, quite a difference from C4, OK cutting slack.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.05, 16:01:06
The Romans called that part of their empire Palestine in the same way we talk of the American west, it was a specific area of Roman hegemony, there was no country of Palestine and no Palestinian people, I care not what some English moron wrote in a 1917 letter without a clue as to what he was saying, just like Chamberlain new all about Hitler! Wake up people. Islamic revisionist history is not fact, it is REVISED, pay attention!
I'd also like to thank you for bringing up an old quote of mine from 2011 as you all know I still stand by my words!
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Balfour_Introduction_to_Zionism.htm
INTRODUCTION By the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M. P.
He wrote this introduction to a book published in 1919, 'History of Zionism 1600-1919' by Nahum Sokolow.
'The Jews have never been crushed. Neither cruelty nor contempt, neither unequal laws nor illegal oppression, have ever broken their spirit, or shattered their unconquerable hopes. But it may well be true that, where they have been compelled to live among their neighbors as if these were their enemies, they have obtain obtained, and sometimes deserved, the reputation of being undesirable citizens. Nor is this surprising. If you oblige many men to be money-lenders, some will assuredly be usurers. If you treat an important section of the community as outcasts, they will hardly shine as patriots. Thus does intolerance blindly labor to create the justification for its own excesses.'
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.05, 16:41:01
Dear Ronee,
Your new here so I will cut you some slack, but you shouldn't jump into this fray without knowing what you are talking about.
C4 was it now, you better check in with the physics prof first, he says it was thermite, quite a difference from C4, OK cutting slack.
Well the point I was making is the Saudi thing is a red herring.
However I am glad to open a further line of research for you. The "twin towers" were built to be demolished, that was the plan. They had C4 built in as the quote below shows...
"The method of demolition was that the towers were built with C4 plastic explosive cast into the concrete in 2 basic explosive circuits. The rebar of the concrete shear walls of the tubular cast concrete core was one circuit and each panel of every floor comprised the other circuit.
All that need to be done was the setting of detonators by digging our paraffin plugs sealing and preserving the C4 where blasting caps were placed. Digital counters were wired into redundant security telephone circuit that ran throughout the towers. One audio tone on that circuit set the digital counter counting and each floor was timed for 75 seconds more delay descending and every 40 foot of core followed the floors down at a rate of free fall.
The core detonation circuits were inside the core and protected by the blasts of the floors by the thick core walls."However it was a long time from 1974 and the concern was... is the C4 still viable? So to make sure they added thermite wherever they could and installed a mini nuke to take out the core and had a beam weapon on standby.
This is why the "fall" was so dramatic, there was so much overkill on the explosives.
If you wish we can continue this and I can provide links
Ron
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.05, 16:01:06
I care not what some English moron wrote in a 1917 letter without a clue as to what he was saying.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.05, 07:27:45
The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I think he knew exactly what he was saying!
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.05, 20:37:35
I think he knew exactly what he was saying!
On Palestine!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/a-tour-and-census-of-palestine-year-1695-no-sign-of-arabian-names-or-palestinians
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.05, 23:27:01
On Palestine!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/a-tour-and-census-of-palestine-year-1695-no-sign-of-arabian-names-or-palestinians
Some very interesting information there, that I was not aware of. Thanks for posting.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.06, 18:48:26
Some very interesting information there, that I was not aware of. Thanks for posting.
Ron
Ronee,
Not many people are aware of this, and many other things, that the elite are trying desperately to hide, so your welcome. I just ask that you do not try to tell
me about islam, after more years studing it then most PHD's do for their degree, I know islam better then the majority of muslims practicing it. Then we will get along great Ronee.
Room
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.06, 20:45:53
Ronee,
Not many people are aware of this, and many other things, that the elite are trying desperately to hide, so your welcome. I just ask that you do not try to tell me about islam, after more years studing it then most PHD's do for their degree, I know islam better then the majority of muslims practicing it. Then we will get along great Ronee.
Room
LOL, I was just concerned with your linking Islam and 9-11. I am well aware of the horrors of islam
But in the case of 9-11 we should ask, cui bono?--- Islam? no --- Saudi Arabia, not much, a couple of favourable arms deals maybe.
But Israel, yes! 9-11 brought the great military might of the USA in to smash Israel's problems, Iraq, Syria, Libya, mind you Lybia was not a direct threat but it did free up arms and terrorists for the Syria offensive. The preferred target was of course Iran, but they just couldn't manage to get that one hotted up.
Are we pretty much on the same page now?
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.06, 22:02:51
LOL, I was just concerned with your linking Islam and 9-11. I am well aware of the horrors of islam
But in the case of 9-11 we should ask, cui bono?--- Islam? no --- Saudi Arabia, not much, a couple of favourable arms deals maybe.
But Israel, yes! 9-11 brought the great military might of the USA in to smash Israel's problems, Iraq, Syria, Libya, mind you Lybia was not a direct threat but it did free up arms and terrorists for the Syria offensive. The preferred target was of course Iran, but they just couldn't manage to get that one hotted up.
Are we pretty much on the same page now?
Ron
Ronee,
There are many unanswered questions concerning 911, will we ever know the real truth? Not anymore it has been too obscured, but bringing in C4 and thermite and Atomic bombs to take down the twin towers is too far for me to go to be on the same page as you. If you read what Physics Prof has written about it, he makes a good case for thermite possibly having been used, but I can't buy C4 or atomic bombs so we'll see I'm sure our thoughts will cross here and there.
Room
Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.11.06, 22:20:57
Ronee,
There are many unanswered questions concerning 911, will we ever know the real truth? Not anymore it has been too obscured, but bringing in C4 and thermite and Atomic bombs to take down the twin towers is too far for me to go to be on the same page as you. If you read what Physics Prof has written about it, he makes a good case for thermite possibly having been used, but I can't buy C4 or atomic bombs so we'll see I'm sure our thoughts will cross here and there.
Room
It is just common sense really. The evidence for the use of thermite is quite clear but thermite is an exothermic reaction and mostly releases its energy in the form of heat. In other words melts steel, as we see in the cascades of molten steel pouring down the sides of the tower. But it is slow and often used for welding --- welding steel train tracks for example.
But what is need to quickly cut steel columns is a cutter charge, that is C4 between shaping plates as is seen in the next two videos. The second video is using a similar product, "dioplex" but see how it cuts an H beam. Now compare that to all the column pictures you have seen with there neatly cut ends, either square or diagonal cuts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4--tFosoM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH4--tFosoM)
A mini nuke is not too hard to grasp if you look at the evidence, for example...
http://www.henrymakow.com/911_-_nukes_caused_this_devast.html (http://www.henrymakow.com/911_-_nukes_caused_this_devast.html)
Keep in mind I am not making this stuff up, dozens, hundreds? have already figured it out
Ron
Quote from: Ronee
The evidence for the use of thermite is quite clear but thermite is an exothermic reaction and mostly releases its energy in the form of heat. In other words melts steel, as we see in the cascades of molten steel pouring down the sides of the tower. But it is slow and often used for welding --- welding steel train tracks for example.
The Thermite mixture which is used for welding consists of rather large
particles of Aluminum and Iron Oxide in order that it will burn slowly
and non-explosively. If, on the other hand, the particles are made very
small (micro-particles) and the mixture is thoroughly incorporated in
much the same fashion as Black Powder or Flash Powder, then it is
capable of very rapid deflagration and explosion.
Military Thermite Mixtures (Super Thermite) which are used to destroy
structures are composed of such thoroughly incorporated nano-particles.
These mixtures burn extremely rapidly with explosive power.
Quote from: muDped on 2016.11.08, 05:02:48
The Thermite mixture which is used for welding consists of rather large
particles of Aluminum and Iron Oxide in order that it will burn slowly
and non-explosively. If, on the other hand, the particles are made very
small (micro-particles) and the mixture is thoroughly incorporated in
much the same fashion as Black Powder or Flash Powder, then it is
capable of very rapid deflagration and explosion.
Military Thermite Mixtures (Super Thermite) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite) which are used to destroy
structures are composed of such thoroughly incorporated nano-particles.
These mixtures burn extremely rapidly with explosive power.
Thank you for the correction. However it doesn't change the fact that C4 cutter charges were in place when the towers were built.
And most of them worked despite the suggested 10 year shelf life.
Quote:The Steven Jones group used the scientific method to determine that the yellow stream in the photo originated from a prematurely ignited cutter charge. Previously they suggested that thermite was used
but have now expanded the explosive compound used to be RDX, PETN, etc. typical of common linear shaped cutter charges.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.07, 01:50:40
Keep in mind I am not making this stuff up, dozens, hundreds? have already figured it out
Ron
'Millions', and they are very pissed off.
My Grandad Bill,
QuoteHere is remembering all the brave Men and Women who gave their all in Britain's conflicts around the World. In this picture taken in 1939, Pauline's Father, Bill, is front row centre. He was 19 when this was taken before he was sent to Burma.
God bless them all, and we will remember them.
Explosives or cutter charges can be detonated from a safe distance
without wiring with the use of special fuses or primary ignition caps that are tuned to receive power at a certain frequency from a distant transmitter.
Typically the devices would be self contained with only a tiny one inch antenna and use low Q tuned circuits so that they would not be accidentally detonated by a nearby cellphone or other radio wave transmitter. They can be designed so that only a powerful distant microwave beam of a specific frequency could trigger them. They otherwise are completely passive and require no batteries.
For this type, imagine a horizontal narrow beam microwave signal of the appropriate size sweeping from top to bottom of the target tower at the appropriate rate from a not too distant distant source transmitter.
A second generation type would receive the frequency, but also require a specific code or tone on the carrier wave to arm the fuse to prevent accidental detonation.
Third generation types would have built in primary battery and more extensive arming and coded detonation circuitry and also a delay timer such that one trigger signal could arm all the devices and they would then proceed to detonate in a predetermined accurate sequence.
This is certainly all within conventional science and engineering technology.
If you dig deep enough, I'm sure you could find the patents if they have not already been classified.
But then you might have to also wonder what was actually going on in building 7 on that certain floor 23 with all the specialized electronic equipment, special windows, and why it may have been necessary to "pull it".
QuoteBuilding 7 occupied a block to the north of the World Trade Center Plaza. Its 23rd floor held Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center. This floor had bullet- and bomb-resistant windows, an independent air and water supply, and an unobstructed view of the north faces of both towers.
Cellphones were reportedly "blanked out" during the collapse.
Speculation? maybe, but too far out science fiction....maybe not!
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.11, 18:28:57
My Grandad Bill,
Thanks Rob.
Lest we forget.......
My grandad fought in the Great War, captured and escaped once, wounded slightly the first time very severely the second, was still in hospital 6 months after the armistice.
I'm lucky, I wouldn't be typing this otherwise.... So many lives cut short.....
Lest we forget......
Kind regards, Graham.
Trump: I'm Reopening 9/11 Investigationhttp://investmentwatchblog.com/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/
"First of all, the original 9/11 investigation is a total mess and has to be reopened" Trump announced to supporters. "How do two planes take out three buildings in the same day? I never got my head around the fact that nothing is mentioned about the destruction of Building 7 in the 585 page document," he explained, talking about World Trade Center 7 which also collapsed – inexplicably – during the September 11 attacks.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.11, 21:46:57
"How do two planes take out three buildings in the same day?"
http://www.google.com/patents/US4576093
Very crude method of what I was referring to in earlier post.
I think we all agree that the technology required to implode a tall building into it's own footprint at freefall speeds exists, and has for a long time.
With the video evidence of obvious freefall of WTC 7 available, and the fact that controlled demolition is the only known method to create simultaneous failure of all load bearing structural members, it is puzzling why the 9/11 investigation did not start from this hypothesis as the most self evident possibility.
WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
In actual fact, they tried to ignore it completely.
My earlier posts were merely meant to quench the argument that it would be a nightmare of wiring required to do the demolition and the wiring would have been noticed.
With radio detonation, no wiring is required.
Quote from: ION on 2016.11.12, 14:21:18
My earlier posts were merely meant to quench the argument that it would be a nightmare of wiring required to do the demolition and the wiring would have been noticed.
With radio detonation, no wiring is required.
Aye, that is how it was done. The whole operation was exceedingly
carefully planned and executed.
Unfortunately, the "minions" who perhaps unwittingly performed
the "dirty deed" have too been executed... There were many.
No matter, in due time the Truth will out. It is nearly that time.
Quote from: ION on 2016.11.12, 14:21:18
My earlier posts were merely meant to quench the argument that it would be a nightmare of wiring required to do the demolition and the wiring would have been noticed.
With radio detonation, no wiring is required.
This is probably true for the "secondary" planted explosions but ignores the fact of how the buildings came down. Yes definitely the control room in building seven was the control center for the operation.
But with the wiring "problem" solved there is no solution for the majority of the columns being cut to 40 feet in length. How were the cutter charges installed? Two, where was the heap of floor pans? There were none as each one had been blown to dust. It is simplest to just accept that the building was pre-wired and pre-planted explosives installed as the building was built. Records indicate that not only did the men doing the welding on the core re-enforcement bars had a welding certificate but also that they had to have security clearance as well. Then there are the stories of pouring the floor pans, each time one was ready to pour the crew was led off site while some "special preparation" was undertaken. They were then brought back on site and admonished to, "don't step in the green stuff".
It was intended to be brought down before it was built. That is the reason it was called the Twin Towers and not the "Rockefeller Center" as originally planned.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.12, 18:29:44
It was intended to be brought down before it was built. That is the reason it was called the Twin Towers and not the "Rockefeller Center" as originally planned.
Ron
Some recently released pictures of the twin towers demolition --- showing the pyroclastic flow typical of nuclear explosions
Ron
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow?id=9763032&imageid=9763123 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow?id=9763032&imageid=9763123)
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.12, 18:29:44
This is probably true for the "secondary" planted explosions but ignores the fact of how the buildings came down. Yes definitely the control room in building seven was the control center for the operation.
But with the wiring "problem" solved there is no solution for the majority of the columns being cut to 40 feet in length. How were the cutter charges installed? Two, where was the heap of floor pans? There were none as each one had been blown to dust. It is simplest to just accept that the building was pre-wired and pre-planted explosives installed as the building was built. Records indicate that not only did the men doing the welding on the core re-enforcement bars had a welding certificate but also that they had to have security clearance as well. Then there are the stories of pouring the floor pans, each time one was ready to pour the crew was led off site while some "special preparation" was undertaken. They were then brought back on site and admonished to, "don't step in the green stuff".
It was intended to be brought down before it was built. That is the reason it was called the Twin Towers and not the "Rockefeller Center" as originally planned.
Ron
Ron
You have way more info than I have heard regarding the pre-planting of explosives. What you say makes good sense. The buildings do appear to shred themselves to dust from the top down. You make a good case for the missing floor pans and all that concrete. If as you say they were pre-wired, then all that was left to do was install the igniter radio control unit for each string on each floor. Do you have any links to the pre-wiring? Very interested.
Edit: OK there is a lot on this subject on youtube, I will check it out.
Regards
ION
Quote from: ION on 2016.11.20, 14:26:48
Ron
You have way more info than I have heard regarding the pre-planting of explosives. What you say makes good sense. The buildings do appear to shred themselves to dust from the top down. You make a good case for the missing floor pans and all that concrete. If as you say they were pre-wired, then all that was left to do was install the igniter radio control unit for each string on each floor. Do you have any links to the pre-wiring? Very interested.
Edit: OK there is a lot on this subject on youtube, I will check it out.
Regards
ION
Thanks, seems we are moving on to the same page now.
The original story that I quoted from had the "redundant" second telephone circuit used as the control wiring. And "they" were most concerned that the shelf life of the C4 was long overdue, hence the tons of extra explosives that was packed in. Now just for the outcome the C4 seems to have still been viable... with only a portion of the core failing to fall down. But they were prepared for this and immediately fired up the beam weapon and the core came down! Proof of the beam weapon is really the 1400 cars that caught fire or exploded mysteriously.
Don't forget that as much as possible of this material has been scrubbed, wherever possible. For example building six may have been blown before the "plane" strikes. I saw pictures of the building six windows blackened and blown out at about the time of the lobby blasts --- yet none of this materiel remains. However some good after pics still up. This is the building with a huge hole from top to bottom that the official story has the "hole" resulting from "falling debris" yet is nearly empty!!!
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo&feature=youtu.be)
Dimitri Khalezow
This is part 10 of a 26 series of vids.
QuoteDimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition 1 to 26
a groundbreaking interview of an ex officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence
exposing the truth of the 9/11 events
This Video series has been censored all through the web.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc)
Mike
I think we all agree that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a false flag designed to justify a perpetual war on terror allowing the globalists a cover story to complete their regime change by force goals, amongst others.
It has now progressed to the point where the narrative has broken down, few thinking individuals can accept the implausibility of the official story.
Fast forward 15 years and Al Qaeda is at the gates of Damascus, Syria is about to fall, and the Russians step in with a small but efficient military force and drive back the "moderate rebels" in a matter of weeks. Contrast this with the 4 year long "coalition" led by NATO that had been so completely ineffective that Al Qaeda had grown substantially, not been destroyed.
Of course they were no longer Al Qaeda by the end of September 2015 but had been rebranded as ISIS, this was necessary as the destruction of Libya by Al Qaeda terrorist ground troops with NATO providing the air cover and command and control had become too obvious..
The resultant refugees fleeing the war zone have swamped Europe and pushed its infrastructure and it's people to breaking point. This could only be accomplished by eliminating all border controls in Europe in the 15 years leading up to the refugee invasion.
White Christian Europe is very close to total civil war breaking out and it is a terrifying prospect. There are many people, minorities in Europe, that have learned to peacefully coexist with the indigenous white man.. many of them are my friends, we laugh and cry together, our children play together and the cultural diversity enriches all our lives. There are many however whose tolerance has grown thin and so we see the rise of hate crimes, manufactured or not.
While I do not agree with branding all Jews as Zionists, it is very clear that Zionists have created this situation deliberately, and occupy the highest positions in the white race's governments. Those white Zionists are referred to as traitors outside of the MSM propaganda.
This situation must be discussed openly and with a proper respect to the history that has led us to this dangerous precipice.
In the end it is a simple choice between choosing reason or force to solve the problem. If we choose to forego reason and embrace the use of force as the answer we will all die.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.27, 21:27:00
snip
While I do not agree with branding all Jews as Zionists, it is very clear that Zionists have created this situation deliberately, and occupy the highest positions in the white race's governments. Those white Zionists are referred to as traitors outside of the MSM propaganda.
This situation must be discussed openly and with a proper respect to the history that has led us to this dangerous precipice.
In the end it is a simple choice between choosing reason or force to solve the problem. If we choose to forego reason and embrace the use of force as the answer we will all die.
A very astute and correct assessment of the current situation, kudos.
The basic threat to humanity, in my opinion, is any "religion" that sees itself as the chosen one and takes as its goal the total domination and or elimination of all others. Thus we have three major threats to us that "nice" people refuse to recognize, Islam, (Muslims) Jews (Zionists) and the Roman Catholic Church (Jesuits)
Yet floating over this mess seems to be one more level of control, the Rothschild's / Illuminati / Black pope / Black nobility, who's stated agenda is the elimination of 90% of us (Georgia Guide Stones)
The simple solution would be education.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.28, 18:22:15
A very astute and correct assessment of the current situation, kudos.
The basic threat to humanity, in my opinion, is any "religion" that sees itself as the chosen one and takes as its goal the total domination and or elimination of all others. Thus we have three major threats to us that "nice" people refuse to recognize, Islam, (Muslims) Jews (Zionists) and the Roman Catholic Church (Jesuits)
Yet floating over this mess seems to be one more level of control, the Rothschild's / Illuminati / Black pope / Black nobility, who's stated agenda is the elimination of 90% of us (Georgia Guide Stones)
The simple solution would be education.
Ron
Hi Ron.
Your post reminded me of something my Father said just before I started my fist day at work....
Two things should never be discussed..... Religion and Politics...... Quickest way to get into an argument......
Funny how most of this worlds conflicts over the aeons have been religion based....
Ah well. My epitaph will read..... Here lies an aethiest, all dressed up with no place to go.....
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.28, 18:54:04
Hi Ron.
snip
Ah well. My epitaph will read..... Here lies an aethiest, all dressed up with no place to go.....
Cheers Graham.
Ah, you will be surprised then. We all come from somewhere --- and return to somewhere. religion, for the most par,t is just a diversion.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.28, 23:02:56
Ah, you will be surprised then. We all come from somewhere --- and return to somewhere. religion, for the most par,t is just a diversion.
Ron
Good day Ron
I might add.......... "for the most part, is just a diversion" and a control mechanism............
take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.28, 18:22:15
The basic threat to humanity, in my opinion, is any "religion" that sees itself as the chosen one and takes as its goal the total domination and or elimination of all others. Thus we have three major threats to us that "nice" people refuse to recognize, Islam, (Muslims) Jews (Zionists) and the Roman Catholic Church (Jesuits)
Yet floating over this mess seems to be one more level of control, the Rothschild's / Illuminati / Black pope / Black nobility, who's stated agenda is the elimination of 90% of us (Georgia Guide Stones)
The simple solution would be education.
Jews Blamed for Holocaust at London Event Slammed by Israelhttps://sputniknews.com/europe/201610281046817238-jews-blamed-for-holocast-london/
The Israeli Embassy in London is decrying an event held Tuesday night by the British Parliament's House of Lords, in which speakers implicitly blamed Jewish people for the Holocaust and said that Zionists exercise undue influence over parliament.
The affair was held on the 99th anniversary of the British declaration to support the establishment of Israel, to kickstart a UK campaign to apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration. It was hosted by Baroness Jennifer Tonge, a Liberal Democrat party MP who has been accused of being anti-Semitic. Tonge is an independent peer, after anti-semitic comments caused her to resign as party whip in 2012.There is a difference between Islam and radical Islam, as there is between Judaism and radical Judaism.
"The unnamed speaker compared Zionism to Daesh, suggesting that jihadism "is a perversion of Islam just as Zionism is a perversion of Judaism."It can be argued that Jews are a proxy for Zionists, just as the western government vassals (controlled by Zionists) are a proxy for Israel.
Read the comments..
https://jamesperloff.com/2016/11/22/to-911-and-beyond-the-rothschild-israeli-obsession-with-nuclear-weapons/
I stand with the Jewish people because they are the winning team in the end.
But, the Zionists could have sold their brethren out to the Nazis for gain.
It has been done before across the landscape of humanity. This would not be the first or only case.
We will never fully know, but it is better to search for answers than to blindly take sides.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2016.11.29, 18:26:40
I stand with the Jewish people because they are the winning team in the end.
This statement appears to me as hubris. Did you miss President Putin's United Nations address last year ?
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201609281045788670-russia-putin-syria-us/
'Do You Realize What You've Done?'https://sputniknews.com/politics/201609281045788670-russia-putin-syria-us/
"What we propose is to join efforts to address the challenges that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism," he told the UN General Assembly in 2015. "Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind."
Putin warned that some might be tempted to use this proposal as a pretext for accusing Russia of "its growing ambitions," as if they themselves have no ambitions.
"It is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."Usuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/[1][2]) is, as defined today, the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. Historically in Christian societies, and still in many Islamic societies today, charging any interest at all can be considered usury.[3][4][5] Someone who practices usury can be called a usurer, but a more common term in contemporary English is loan shark.
Nuclear blackmailhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_blackmail
Nuclear blackmail is a form of nuclear strategy in which an aggressor uses the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action or make some concessions. It is a type of extortion, related to brinkmanship.
EffectivenessNuclear blackmail is considered most effective[by whom?] when the person making the threat is unhinged and ostensibly willing to commit suicide. (See game theory)
It is generally regarded[by whom?] as ineffective against a rational opponent who has or is an ally of someone who has assured destruction capability.
If both states have nuclear weapons, the form of nuclear blackmail becomes a threat of escalation. In this situation if the opponent refuses to respond, then one's choices are either surrender or suicide. During the Cold War, the explicit threat of nuclear warfare to force an opponent to perform an action was rare in that most nations were allies of either the Soviet Union or the United States.
The Jewish people could only be 'the winning team in the end' if they achieved total domination without the opponent realising what was happening until it was too late. The events of the last 15 years have clearly shown that this is not the situation. The Jews, or Zionists (you have not clearly differentiated the two, and many passionate Zionists like the current UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson are not Jewish) have clearly lost and their only option is surrender and make peace, or nuclear suicide that will destroy all life on planet Earth and end our species.
Your position on this matter GK quite clearly disturbs me.
In schoolyard politics, there is always the little bully that terrorizes the schoolyard brandishing his brass knuckles, given to him by his big brother and protector, also a bully.
We have that situation in the world today. To want to be on the winning side of the little bully only shows a short sightedness and lack of compassion for the terrorized and exploited worldwide and maybe also an ignorance of world history.
For anyone to want to be on the winning team regardless of their gross crimes against humanity is puzzling to me.
Fortunately, the world is waking up to the little bully and his protector.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2016.11.29, 18:26:40
I stand with the Jewish people because they are the winning team in the end.
But, the Zionists could have sold their brethren out to the Nazis for gain.
It has been done before across the landscape of humanity. This would not be the first or only case.
We will never fully know, but it is better to search for answers than to blindly take sides.
There is no need to suppose that one is better than the other...
Kol Nidre, the Jewish doctrine of deception
The Jewish Talmud provides Jews with an extremely well crafted and clever doctrine called "Kol Nidre" which allows them to break their oaths at any time. So potent is the culture of Kol Nidre among Jews that they even find it hard to trust each other, and governments who become aware of this practice often put legal provisions (Jew Oaths) into their legal systems to counter its effect. Jews often try to deceive Gentiles into believing that Kol Nidre is a simple prayer with no reference to human relations, but the Talmud and other sources reveal this tactic to be a use of Kol Nidre itself.
"All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called 'ḳonam,' 'ḳonas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent.
May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths." http://www.thegoldencalfspeaks.com/judaism/lying-stealing-and-cheating/kol-nidre-the-jewish-doctrine-of-deception/ (http://www.thegoldencalfspeaks.com/judaism/lying-stealing-and-cheating/kol-nidre-the-jewish-doctrine-of-deception/)
Ron
Edit: GT what part of being a Goy (gentile) do you not understand?
Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.30, 00:05:21
Edit: GT what part of being a Goy (gentile) do you not understand?
Awww..
Don't scare him off Ron, soon I won't have anyone left to play with.. :'(
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.11.30, 17:19:53
Awww..
Don't scare him off Ron, soon I won't have anyone left to play with.. :'(
Gosh i am sorry--- but maybe if we were to expand the 9-11 topic to include Chernobyl and Fukushima, as instigated by these same people, we could gain more "nice" people to rally to the cause?
In good humour, there is always Conrad?
Ron
I don't think we need to go there, Chernobyl and Fukushima, for the same reason we don't need to invoke aliens.. lack of evidence.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/12/5/off-the-press-this-is-how-corbyns-labour-plans-to-win-british-workers
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/12/7/stop-everything-you-do-and-listen-to-this-rabbi
Those three links are worthy of further investigation O0
The big question we should be talking about is how do we wind this all down without further loss of life. I am not a cheerleader for a total war situation which will become reality one day for everyone if Zionists continue to blackmail the world with nuclear weapons, and other forms of terrorism.
The Mainstream Media Is Asking For A Government Bailout Via Censorship
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-09/mainstream-media-asking-government-bailout-censorship
The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate over Wikileaks — not because the email were untrue but because they proved what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to combat what will be declared "fake" news or propaganda. It is only the latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually embrace censorship.
– From Jonathan Turley's: Washington Post Issues Correction To "Fake News" Story
Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6]
Fascist Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
In 1933, Salazar stated, "Our Dictatorship clearly resembles a fascist dictatorship in the reinforcement of authority, in the war declared against certain principles of democracy, in its accentuated nationalist character, in its preoccupation of social order. However, it differs from it in its process of renovation. The fascist dictatorship tends towards a pagan Caesarism, towards a state that knows no limits of a legal or moral order, which marches towards it goal without meeting complications or obstacles. The Portuguese New State, on the contrary, cannot avoid, not think of avoiding, certain limits of a moral order which it may consider indispensable to maintain in its favour of its reforming action".[41]
Israel National News Against Gilad Atzmon
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/12/9/israel-national-news-against-gilad-atzmon
By Gilad Atzmon
"Jews can be anti-Semites too!" is the title of Jewish settlers outlet Israel National News' article dedicated to my work by one Manfred Gerstenfeld. Needless to mention that being subject to a smear campaign led by the Israeli ultra nationalist outlet is pretty much the kind of publicity I wish for. However, I would point out to Gerstenfeld that his title is slightly misleading. Jews are not Semites and I haven't even been a Jew for two decades now.
Settler Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that yours truly is an 'antisemite'. Let's examine his arguments, one by one. I am genuinely quoted as saying that I am totally "against Holocaust denial." I clearly resent those who deny the genocides taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example..." (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html)
I guess that in the eyes of settler Gerstenfeld, supporting Palestine equals anti-Semitism. But considering the obvious fact that the Palestinians are Semites*, taking their side is actually the ultimate form of philo-Semitism. But I will dutifully address Gerstenfeld's concern regarding the Holocaust and its denial. I believe that history must be subject to revision. This applies, as well, to the Holocaust otherwise it becomes alienated from history and alien to historicity. The Holocaust in its current state is reduced into a religion, a dogma. To insist that the Holocaust is subject to revision is by no means a form of denial. On the contrary, it integrates this chapter into our human past. It becomes a universal ethical lesson instead of another celebration of the primacy of Jewish suffering. Such a transition in our take on the holocaust can prevent the Jews and their institutions from repeating the same mistakes that they have made throughout their history, having made the Jewish past look like a Shoah continuum.
Gerstenfeld, who writes in an ultra right-wing settler outlet curiously complains that in my work I "attack", as well, some Jewish anti-Zionists. In an article titled Goyim Must Obey, Atzmon accuses the Jewish anti-Zionists of telling "Goyim and even Palestinians what they may or may not do and who they may or may not listen to." Here, Gerstenfeld's language lacks accuracy. I do not "attack" people. This is what Israel does to its enemies. I actually criticize people whom I believe to be wrong. My weapon is my pen. However, the quote above is genuine and I stand by my words. I believe Jewish political lobbying is a total disaster. It is very dangerous for Jews, in particular.
I am indeed critical of all forms of Jewish politics, left and right, Zionist and 'anti'. I challenge Jewish political identification because it is racially oriented. I argue in the open that from a Judeo-centric perspective Israel and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) are identical. We are dealing with two racially exclusive Jewish clubs. In fact, and this is slightly embarrassing, Israel may even be mildly less racist than JVP, for in the Israeli Knesset the 3rd biggest party is Arab, yet JVP leadership is purely and exclusively Jewish.
Gerstenfeld mistakenly writes, "Atzmon even attacks Jews who completely disavow Judaism and Zionism." Once again the settler believes that I have "attacked" Shlomo Sand and Avigail Abarbanel. I have great respect for Sand and dedicated to his work a chapter in my previous book, "The Wandering Who." I am critical of some aspects of the work of Sand and of Abarbanel. And yet, I wonder, does intellectual criticism of Jewish writers equate to anti-Semitism? If it does, it suggests that Jews are actually beyond criticism. This is probably the real meaning of "chosenness" in the eyes of some rabid Zionists.
Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that I am an anti-Semite. But the one thing he can't find is where I express hatred to Jews for being Jews. Instead, he seeks the help of the IHRA's (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism. According to the IHRA "making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, as such, or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, is an example of anti-Semitism."
Gerstenfeld suggests that some of my remarks fall in the above category. Gerstenfeld then attempts at cherry-picking but fails to find fruit. "Why are the Jews, a people who are obsessed with their own past, so afraid of other people, say, 'White' people, being nostalgic for their own past?" (www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/8/28/utopia-nostalgia-and-the-jew) Gerstenfeld is kind enough to also quote my answer. "The progressive Jew grasps that the working class is nostalgic for a pre-Jerusalem-dominated society - a time when American politics wasn't controlled by the likes of Saban, Soros, Goldman Sachs and other global capitalists who are isolated from production, manufacturing, and farming."
Gerstenfeld foolishly fell into a trap here. He actually admits that my reference is not to the Jewish people, per se, but to the progressive Jews which is a politically identified sector within American Jewry.
I do accept that Gerstenfeld is not happy with me pointing the finger at Jewish oligarchs like Soros, Saban and, more precisely, at their corrosive role within American politics. But maybe Gerstenfeld should make sure that Jewish press outlets stop bragging about Jewish billionaires being the 'Five Top Democratic Donors' as they do here, here and here...
Gerstenfeld, who is probably not the most developed thinker, repeats the same mistake. The IHRA definition asserts that "accusing Jews 'as a people' of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews is anti-Semitism." I totally agree with the IHRA definition. Jewish people shouldn't be implicated collectively by the crime of a single Jewish felon, a sex offender, or a tyrant. But in the following quote I suggest the complete opposite. "Talking of apologies, the Board of Deputies (BOD) has yet to apologize for Lord Janner allegedly raping British orphans when he was their president and therefore pretty much the representative of British Jews."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3t3cXjXGU
Rather than asking Jews, or British Jews, for that matter, to disassociate themselves from Lord Janner, I expect the Board of Deputies of British Jews to apologize for the sex crimes allegedly committed by their President, especially because the BOD claims to represent British Jews. Is it truly anti-Semitic, I wonder, to expect Jewish institutions to take responsibility for their actions and associations?
In my recent satirical dictionary "A to Zion" I define anti Semites as 'brutally honest people, often of Jewish origin.' I guess that I should confess. I am brutally honest and I was a Jew for thirty years.
* I am fully aware that Semite is a reference to a set of languages rather than race.
Fake News ?
The night comedian Julian Clary joked that he had "fisted" politician Norman Lamont at the British Comedy Awards (I didn't wanna post this.. cos o' the kiddies reading.. but immoral war cares not for kids so they must be informed :'()
https://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-night-comedian-julian-clary-joked-that-he-had-fisted-politician-norman-lamont-at-the-british-comedy-awards-2/
David wrote that he had watched the ITV1 Life Stories interview of Julian Clary by Piers Morgan.
He said he found it difficult to watch because of Piers Morgan's own personal involvement in what had happened at the 1993 Comedy Awards. He said Piers Morgan – who was Showbiz Editor of the Sun at the time – was responsible for the 'public outrage' that started in the following day's issue of the Sun.
David had been in the press room of the London Studios on the night of the British Comedy Awards.
He was sitting next to Piers Morgan in the room. The ITV Duty Log (of viewer's complaints) was being relayed to a small adjoining room.
To put what happened into context, David pointed out that Norman Lamont had actually been booed by the Comedy Awards audience when he had gone on stage to present an award.
When Julian Clary made the "fisting" reference, everyone in the room laughed and, according to David, Piers Morgan observed that most viewers – particularly Sun readers – would not actually know what the word "fisting" meant.
Some complaints did come in from viewers – but about a joke over (David thought he remembered) a puppy. No viewers complained about the audience booing Lamont nor about the actual Julian Clary "fisting" joke.
However, near the end of the Awards show, comedian Michael Barrymore (who, at that time was at the height of his popularity) mentioned Julian Clary's joke and accompanied it with a fisting mime.
"We'll have to run it now!" David remembers Piers Morgan saying and Piers rushed off to phone the Sun newsroom.
The next morning, remembered David, the Julian Clary story was spread over the front page of the Sun.
Several months later, Piers Morgan was promoted to become the News Of The World's youngest ever editor.
Now, here on ITV in 2013, was the person who had caused Julian Clary's misery – Piers Morgan – appearing to sympathise with his victim.
Israeli Penetration Of The U.S. Media
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/12/07/israeli-penetration-of-the-u-s-media/
The first step in fixing a problem is to acknowledge that it exists.
By Rahul Manchanda, Esq
Much has been written over the past few weeks about how allegedly the Russian Government has penetrated the American media in order to tell their side of the story and to counter the steady diet of anti-Russian propaganda by the thoroughly corrupted and co-opted US Mainstream media by the Neo-Conservatives, Warmongers, and Military Industrial Complex in order to brainwash and motivate average Americans into hating Russia and to support clandestine and overt military and paramilitary operations against Russia and their interests overseas.
The American Mainstream Media ("MSM") has been steadily beating the drum against Russia while vilifying Vladimir Putin in order to justify Neo-Conservative incursions into that sovereign country, as well as undermine their relationships overseas and subjugate their entire country.
This type of media script is also pushing the United States dangerously close to World War 3 by constantly provoking and poking the Russian bear, aided and abetted by NATO who is constantly pushing its troops, military, tanks, missiles and other hardware right up to the border of Russia in an increasingly menacing and hostile manner.
But next to nothing has been researched or written about the long-standing, ongoing, decades long penetration of the U.S. Mainstream Media by Israel and its vested spies within the US Government.
In fact many would argue that the Neo-Conservative movement is simply a front group for Israel and has thoroughly and openly taken over and corrupted the US Government in its legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
The U.S. Government, through its incredibly corrupted congress and senate, just swept through legislation outlawing "Russian Propaganda" within the alternative media, but completely ignored Israeli, British, Qatari, Saudi Arabian, and other foreign national funding, support, and penetration of the MSM in America.
The double standards are glaring and obvious.
President-Elect Donald Trump was a major recipient of this Israeli owned media abuse, by their relentless, 24/7 attacks on him and his candidacy using their useful idiot protected classes, also funded by them, consisting of hardcore militant feminist, homosexual, black, and zionist groups to gather around and accuse him of being a misogynist, homophobe, racist, or anti-semite, all simply because Donald Trump is an "America-Firster" and is against the Oligarchy in America running the roost.
The Israeli Zionist Media Character Assassination of President-Elect Donald Trump was carried out in the exact same manner by the same exact people who have ruthlessly and aggressively targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin, and so clearly these forces are not only anti-Russian, but also anti-American.
To that end as was explained in a previous article (http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/12/03/the-american-people-must-hold-the-mainstream-media-to-account/) the US actors involved are all at once guilty of treason, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, RICO, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Why the U.S. FBI and DHS is not doing anything about this, is because they are obviously being told to "stand down" or their leaders have been thoroughly co-opted and corrupted by the Israeli government.
The first step in fixing a problem is to acknowledge that it exists – Americans must put daily financial, logistical, telephone/email/fax pressure on each and every one of their elected representatives in the senate, congress, and local council, as well as the thoroughly corrupted and co-opted Federal Bureau of Investigation, to immediately and summarily "clean house" and terminate any and all links of Israeli influence in the United States Mainstream Media.
Hamilton Electors: The Left's misplaced confidence and its potentially deadly consequences
https://virginiafreemen.com/2016/12/14/hamilton-delegates-the-lefts-misplaced-confidence-and-its-potentially-deadly-consequences/
Part of what I do at work would probably be best described as a fixer, not in the nefarious sense, but basically the person on the other end of the phone when things have gone sideways. A few times I have run across someone equal parts confident and obtuse who refused to modify their behavior despite overwhelming evidence. The person would be so stuck on putting the square peg into the round hole that by the time I got there they had irreparably harmed the situation. An example would be if someone continued to drive a vehicle after they observed 7 quarts of Motorcraft in a puddle under the truck, and then be utterly flabbergasted when the motor locked up. Confidence and ignorance can be a lethal combination. If the Left, those clueless and those malevolent, succesfully undermines the electoral process, the resulting reality check will be lethal to many Americans.
I do not doubt the suggestion seems perfectly reasonable to some distraught Clinton voters, a man they see as the literal antichrist is taking office and the people who voted for him are all that is wrong with the world in their minds. Deplorable sums it up perfectly. Not their tax dollars and military service, mind you. Just because we can't be trusted to vote doesn't mean we can't be sent to fight the wars of our betters and pay 40% of our income to a government that only cares what we think so long as it is within their narrow definition of 'reasonable.' The entire election was not about a 'white-lash' or other nonsense spouted by clueless pundits. Michigan and Wisconsin did not magically become Aryanland and Nazitopia between 2012 and 2016, that is simply an indefensible position. Median income in Wisconsin was roughly $47,000 in 2005, and as of last year was $55,600. Using laughable CPI rates that translates to a $3,000 pay cut in purchasing power, corresponding with beef prices up almost 200%, 140% increase in bread, 160% increase in eggs, ~125% increase in electricity and a 135% increase in chicken. If I am a person in Wisconsin, I've seen a 20-30% increase in prices at the grocery store and if I'm lucky enough to still have a decent job, it hasn't kept up with even the ridiculous 2% inflation rate the CPI claims. Regardless of how they do the mental judo to tie down inflation to that level, the point is that wages have stagnated for at least a decade. The average person realizes this and the market has reacted in many areas, the most obvious being car loans that are approaching mortgage lengths. The DNC has long ignored the heartland and Trump spoke to those who felt they had no voice. Enough listened and whatever their opinions on the 63 genders now available, felt putting food on the table and the heat on in the winter were more pressing necessities.
Rather than look at hard figures and come to reasonable conclusions that don't involve 50M Americans turning into Heinrich Himmler clones, the left has instead elected to run what little is left of American's belief in the rule of law through a buzz saw. I'm doubtful this electoral coup has any chance of working, but the mere attempt indicated how utterly mistaken about the social dynamics many people are and how immune to evidence or reason that contravenes their narrow view of how Americans think. I don't believe many outside the existing power structure have malevolent intent, but rather narcissism that renders them incapable of even considering how their actions affect others. Regardless, demanding the election be overturned to fit the whims of even a simple majority reveals a distain and ignorance that would create the most extreme levels of blowback and civil disobedience at best. So in an effort to make your life easier and possibly more entertaining, I offer the following for those very mistaken about how things stand at this moment. Feel free to copy and paste.
Messrs. & Mesdames,
I know you feel righteously indignant about the election results. A lot of people in the media and political apparatchik are advocating for an electoral college revolt, wherein the electors vote against the popular vote of their respective states out of allegiance to New York and California voters and deny their own state's wishes. However, many among you seem to vastly misunderstand the dynamics and stark realities of the situation. Let me game out the very real, very possible reaction to this by all those deplorables that might, just might, not take it very well being told voting was for naught and to get back in line. Assuming enough of the electorates overturn the popular vote in their states, it makes the enormous brick thrown through the window of the establishment by a majority of states all for naught. To say many would be displeased is an understatement of rather epic proportions. Let us frame it in a different light. The people you just told to go pound sand on average purchase enough firearms in three months to outfit the Russian and Chinese frontline troops. Every. Three. Months. Those guys who were entrusted to go become experts at fighting insurgents and came home to better quality small arms in the private sector than they were issued, carved an entire market out of teaching what they learned from Uncle Sam to people with the coin and and the desire. You just told all of those guys to go pound sand. Not all are pipe hitters with steely eyes and camo. Many are farmers, utility workers, work in the oil fields, drive the big trucks that bend and go tshhh, tshhh when they brake, and produce thousands of things you never give a second glance to. The people who work 50-60 hours a week to feed, heat, and transport the nation. To really make sure we all got the point, it has been made abundantly clear that there is a desire to strip us of any voice online and silence those who do not conform to the appropriate level of 'tolerance.' I'm an eternal optimist, but I don't believe silencing and stripping the votes of the opposition, who own the vast majority of the 400-600M firearms in the US, bodes well for anyone.
You may think it untoward and hyperbole that people would react so...dramatically. I am not a violent man, nor are the vast majority of people I referenced above. Quite the opposite in fact, the people I think most likely to be absolutely intractable if you continue to pursue this road are those rooted in ideals greater than a case of political poor sportsmanship. Many of you have absolutely no concept of our culture, our values and where our sense of identity is derived. The reason I am willing to die defending my home is not because of any tangible goods inside it, the person inside it and the trust she has in me to keep her safe means that I have no other choice. The idea is what overrides any thought of self-preservation and makes me unwilling to live with the consequences of failure, demanding I either prevail or die in the process. It is my responsibility, not the cops, not the government's, mine. Simply put, on this present course you are setting yourself at war, not with a political movement, not with a people group or any box you can check on the census, but with a set of ideals...a culture. Usurping the established electoral process, the last vestige of legitimacy amongst the decades of broken promises, lies, and betrayals, leaves a whole lot of people with simply no recourse left. You strip a man of his voice, politically and socially...demand nearly half of what he earns, and what would you have him do? Grin and bear it? A man may bear many things for his family and friends, but there comes a time when his core ideals are so violated that his conscience demands he either correct the situation or die in the pursuit. To continue is not to live, but to merely exist and is death of the soul rather than just the body. Another said it best, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
I hope by now you have a sense of why this road leads to something far worse than anything Trump could ever accomplish in four years. I can empathize with you, and do not mistake my plea for sanity as tacit approval of him. I don't care about the person, I care about the office, and the process. A government who demands my taxes and obedience whilst stripping me of my duly elected representation is the casus belli enshrined in our Founding Documents. Work to repeal the electoral college if you must, and hold the Trump administration accountable. However, do not resort to leaving the bounds of lawful governance in the vain hope of salvaging political setbacks. Because should you do so, it frees any and all obligations I posses to the government and becomes a nation of occupation. I don't bear hatred toward those of different political persuasions than myself, and I want those marching towards the conflagration to do so with open eyes. Millions of Americans are either cowards or forbearing. I do not wish to find out, and neither should you. I've made peace with dying for my principles, are you willing to do the same for Hillary Clinton? If that question makes you uncomfortable then perhaps you should consider exactly what is at stake here. It certainly isn't just a presidency.
–Jesse James
World War 3 'will be in Europe': Continent facing mass civil unrest
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/568976/europe-civil-war-islam-france-italy-referendum-eurozone-crisis-far-right-movement
Published 11th December 2016
Europe on the brink: Streets 'will become war zones' as continent descends into crisis
EUROPEAN leaders are said to be preparing for mass civil unrest as multiple catastrophic problems engulf the continent.
So how do we bring this down a couple of notches before total war breaks out and everyone starts killing everyone ?
If the MSM keep pumping this total war scenario sooner or later it is coming to a neighborhood near you.. Can we all find a way to get along, or is it too late for that ?
Migrant crisis and Euro tensions threaten to trigger catastrophic conflict claim experts
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607158/World-War-3-Experts-raise-fears-migrant-crisis-could-lead-to-catastrophic-scenario
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Wed, Sep 23, 2015 | UPDATED: 14:42, Wed, Sep 23, 2015
RISING tensions between central and east European countries over the escalating migrant crisis could be the spark for a catastrophic WORLD WAR, experts warned today.
Both the Hungarian and Italian prime ministers have spoken of huge dangers of unchecked floods of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East which have set previously peacable EU nations against each other.
The scenario - especially the one currently being played out in Serbia and Hungary - is hauntingly similar to that which triggered the First World War.
The problem has manifesting itself in central Europe where Hungary is besieged by growing numbers of refugees passing through from Serbia and Croatia, forcing its government to build fences to stem the influx.
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán warned European life and its established laws were under threat from huge numbers of people heading through the continent from war-torn states in the Middle East.
In a defence against criticism of the aggressive stance against refugees taken by the country , he said yesterday: "Our borders are in danger. Our way of life where we respect the law is in danger.
"The whole of Hungary and Europe is in danger.
"The migrants are blitzing us."
Hungary and Serbia have constantly been at each others' throats over the issue, with Budapest urging its non-EU neighbours to do more to help tackle the growing neighbours migrants.
It is now sending troops armed with rubber bullets and tear gas to the border with Serbia to protect the country's frontier.
Pinter Bence, a Hungarian political journalist for the mandiner.hu website said the situation with growing tensions between nations was reminiscent of the international scenario from just over 100 years ago.
He said: "This is how the eve of the First World War could have looked like: complete hesitancy, the termination of the usual channels of diplomacy, the lack of solidarity, pressure to take a step and the countries issuing threats to each other are all reminding us of that. It definitely doesn't look like a cooperating Europe.
"Mr Orban is right in stating that it would only worth to talk about quotas if we can control the registration of the migrants coming to Europe. And so far no country has any idea how to do that.
"That's what the Hungarian Government has done, though it risks projecting an image of inhumanity."
He said reports of a Croatian train filled with 1,000 migrants illegally entering Hungary last week, could easily be the sort of act that escalates the currently fraught situation.
Politicians in Budapest described the train's unannounced arrival as a "major, major incident".
Mr Pinter said: "What did the Croatian government think when they sent a train with 40 fully armed police officers on it, crossing the border at a red signal? In the worse cases an affair like this can lead to an outbreak of a war."
The escalating situation on the continent has also drawn interest across the Atlantic Ocean.
Like Mr Pinter, Gerald Celente, who is a trend forecaster in the United States, said the current crisis draws huge parallels with a previous global conflict - in this case the Second World War.
He blames America's attacks on Libya, Iraq and most recently Syria, for bringing "refugees of war" to Europe.
Mr Celente said this is going hand in hand with trade wars, with China devaluing its currency to gain a global advantage, similar to what happened prior to the Second World War.
Considering the current situation in Syria, where America is bombing president Bashar al-Assad's regime while Vladimir Putin's Russia is defending him by attacking ISIS, his warnings are all too clear.
He said: "We're on the march to war. History is repeating itself.
"It's a repeat of the 1930s. The crash of 1929, the Great Depression, currency wars, trade wars, world war.
"We've got the panic of '08, the Great Recession, currency wars, trade wars and now we're seeing the refugees of war sweeping on the shores of Europe."
He said another big terror attack on society will see an emotional outpouring across the Western world that will then transform into a catastrophic thirst for revenge.
Mr Celente said: "They are leading us to the next great war. All it is going to take is a terror attack and people will be tying yellow ribbons around everything that doesn't move, waving American flags and we're off to what Einstein called the whole war scenario."
US economist Dr Paul Craig Roberts, who served in the Reagan administration, is another who predicts doom on the horizon.
He spoke at an Occupy Peace event organised by Mr Celente at the weekend about rising tensions.
Dr Roberts remarked on the impact of a nuclear war under the currently tense climate, if countries such as Russia and China are involved.
He said the effects would be devastating, as there would be a "first-strike, pre-emptive force".
He added: "Armageddon could be at hand.
"This is chilling. People should be scared to death."
Running alongside the rising tension between global superpowers is the threat emanating from Islamic State.
Just weeks ago Italian prime minister Sergio Mattarella said the seeds of a major conflict were being planted across the region, with religious-based terrorism at the root of it.
Speaking at a meeting of world leaders in Rimini, he said: "Terrorism, energised by a fanatical belief in God, aims to start a third world war in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Africa. Our duty is to stop it.
"It is our responsibility to defuse the threat, because peace in the world will depend on the ability of the monotheistic religions to talk with each other and to understand each other."
He called for "intelligence" in dealing with migration to help tackle radicalism.
But he also called for refugees to be welcomed in Europe, which is at odds with many across continent, who fear ISIS is looking to exploit the migrant crisis by sneaking jihadis into Europe with them.
Aleppo Victory... US And Its Crime Partners Suffer "Meltdown Of Sanity"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-15/aleppo-victory-us-and-its-crime-partners-suffer-meltdown-sanity
The US and its terrorist-sponsoring partners are seeing their criminal regime-change project in ruins, as the Syrian army and its allies win a spectacular victory to retake the strategically important city of Aleppo.
Western governments and their flunkies at the UN are cynically, perversely decrying a «meltdown of humanity».
Closer to the truth is their own «meltdown of sanity». This is because the official Western narrative about the Syrian war is finally being exposed on a glaring scale.
The exposure for the whole world to see is one of a systematic, fake propaganda cover that concealed a criminal enterprise – an enterprise involving terrorist proxies, or fake moderate rebels, whom the Western governments have sponsored for the past six years in a conspiracy to overthrow the government of Syria. The gravity of this systematic crime committed by Washington and its various partners is now unfolding.
Unable to cope with their own cognitive dissonance over the criminality, the Western governments and their complicit corporate news media are resorting to outright denial and to compounding lies with even more lies.
Instead of dealing with the reality that Syrian state forces have recaptured Aleppo from brutal, illegally armed groups, which the West and its regional clients have bankrolled and armed, the West distorts the dramatic victory as the «fall of Aleppo». One report on American channel CNN even referred to the victorious Syrian army and its allies as «persecutors».
With typical unhinged emotion, US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power cited unverified reports of civilians being executed in Aleppo, and slammed Syria and its allies Russia and Iran for having «no shame». It is Power and her Western partners-in-crime, including top UN officials, who should be hanging their heads in shame.
Among the hysterical soundbites about alleged atrocities and slaughter being lobbed around this week was this from UN «humanitarian» official Jens Laerke who said Aleppo was seeing a «meltdown of humanity». Catchy words, but divorced from reality.
Western news media outlets were screaming headlines alleging summary executions of women and children by the Syrian army and its Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies as they moved in to finally retake the whole of the northern city.
Outgoing UN chief Ban Ki-Moon talked in disparaging tones about an «uncompromising military victory», while his underlings Rupert Colville and Jan Egeland decried «hellish» conditions and «war crimes» committed by Syria and Russia.
The problem is that all these sensational, reckless assertions are based on unverified claims by anonymous «activists» or persons involved with militants – militants who are integrated with terror groups like Jaysh al Fatah, Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and Nour al din al Zenki. All of them affiliated with the internationally proscribed Al Qaeda terrorist network – which the Western governments claim to be at war with.
It truly is a grotesque revelation when Western governments and UN officials publicly spout propaganda on behalf of terrorist groups.
Samantha Power and her British counterpart at the UN Matthew Rycroft cited UN «reports» of 82 civilians being executed, including 11 women and 13 children, by the pro-government Syrian forces during the final hours of recapturing Aleppo. But the same UN «reports» were themselves based on unverified sources supposedly embedded among the terrorists. This is not reportage. It is simply recycling rumors aimed at saving the necks of terrorist groups.
The simple fact of the information coming from unverified sources did not stop the UN, Power, Rycroft and the raft of Western media outlets, including the Washington Post, CNN, Guardian, Independent, France 24 etc, presenting the claims as if they were fact.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western governments and their dutiful, unquestioning news media of spreading «fake news» about the dramatic events in Syria this week. Lavrov pointed out that none of the alleged atrocities were acknowledged by independent humanitarian groups.
Syria's ambassador to the UN Bashar al Jaafari also refuted the claims of atrocities that Western counterparts appeared to be so perplexed by.
Western governments and media outlets persisted in their gory fantasies despite abundant video footage that even they themselves were broadcasting which showed thousands of civilians calmly walking away from militant-held pockets of Aleppo towards the Syrian state forces. Is that the behavior of people who are being massacred, summarily executed, slaughtered?
One of the most absurd distortions was this from France 24. The state-owned broadcaster of one of the countries that has supplied weapons and propaganda cover to terrorists in Syria over the past six years described this week how «people in government-held areas of Aleppo were celebrating». Given that the Syrian government holds virtually all of Aleppo that means that the vast majority of Syrians were celebrating. Yet France 24 roils its words to contrive a false division between pro and anti-government populations.
The more logical and truthful depiction is that Syrian civilians are at last able to flee from terror gangs that have held them under siege. But in reporting that the whole false Western narrative about what has been going on in Aleppo and Syria for the past six years would implode like a house of cards.
Why aren't the Western news media interviewing the tens of thousands of civilians who have now managed to flee from the defeated terrorist groups? Why don't the Western media ask questions about the nature of their captivity? Such as, why could they not escape from militant-held eastern Aleppo until now? What do these civilians think of the Syrian army and its allies who have crushed the militants?
The curious, gaping absence of any testimonies carried by the Western media from the thousands of liberated civilians in Aleppo is mirrored by the same curious, gaping absence of testimonies from thousands of civilians liberated elsewhere in Syria by the army over the past year.
That's because those civilians are telling media outlets which are willing to report, such as the Syrian state broadcaster SANA, as well as RT, Press TV and Al Manar, that their nightmare siege imposed by the Western-backed terrorists is over. If Western media outlets were to actually bother to conduct real journalism they would go into liberated areas of Aleppo and other towns and villages across Syria and report that life is returning to happy normalcy for these families and communities.
The truth is Aleppo was invaded by Western-backed mercenaries in July 2012, who turned the eastern side of the city into a den ruled under a reign of terror. A twisted, demented caliphate run by head-chopping Wahhabi jihadists was imposed. Like Syria as a whole, these mercenaries were sanitized in the West as «moderate, pro-democracy rebels» – albeit somehow supposedly «intermingled» with jihadi extremists.
If that were the case, then where are these supposed «moderates» now that the last den of the «rebels» in Aleppo has been routed?
The stark absence of «moderate», «pro-democracy», «Western-value-supporting rebels» emerging from the ruins of Aleppo is as stark as the absence of petrified civilians denouncing Syrian army «atrocities» or Russian «war crimes».
In one resounding moment this week, the Western narrative about Aleppo, and the Syrian war more generally, has collapsed in a pile of dust. No amount of denials and further distortions can hide the exposure of Western lies and propaganda fabrications.
So ironically, Western media outlets have recently whipped up the phenomenon of «fake news» in the context of trying to discredit Russia over alleged electoral interference in the US and Europe.
What Syria has demonstrated is that the real culprits of peddling false news, and more gravely false narratives, are the Western governments and their conceited, self-important news media.
Unable to deal with the unbearable truth of criminal complicity, the official West is displaying a meltdown of sanity.
Aleppo and Syria will one day emerge again from the present ruins. No such recovery from ruins will be made by the ignominious Western governments and their lying, criminally complicit media.
I was cruising by ZeroHedge earlier and came across this article by the Tyler's:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/merkel-decries-distorted-picture-refugee-policy-claims-our-state-stronger-together
Distorted picture of reality eh ? Let's take apart the Anglo-Zionist Establishment bullshit shall we..
Ethnic minorities to make up 20% of UK population by 2051
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/13/uk-population-growth-ethnic-minorities
The research shows the white British population shrinking from 87.1% to 67.1% and the white Irish group shrinking from 2.5% to 2.1%. The other white group share grows from 2.5% to 9.9% – the greatest gain. Asian groups increase their share by three percentage points, black groups by two percentage points and Chinese and other ethnic groups by 2.6 percentage points.
Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
People from various ethnic groups reside in the United Kingdom. Intermittent migration from Northern Europe has been happening for millennia, with other groups such as British Jews also well established. Since World War II, substantial immigration from the New Commonwealth, Europe, and the rest of the world has altered the demography of many cities in the United Kingdom.
As you can see there is a deliberate plan to destroy the cultural identity of the "White Man", followed to it's logical conclusion there will only be one ethnically pure state in the Western power structure.. Israel (once the genocide of the Palestinians is complete).
Some of you may recognise the map in the previous post resembles an infectious disease spread map..
Animated Map Timelapse: The Spread of Walmart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7ji9WxWvg
Who remembers this ?
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Widespread organised child sexual abuse took place in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013. Local investigations into the abuse began in 1999, although some reports were never finalised or made public by the authorities.[1] In 2010, five British-Pakistani men were found guilty of a series of sexual offences against girls as young as twelve.[2] A subsequent investigation by The Times reported that the child sex exploitation was much more widespread, and the Home Affairs Select Committee criticised the South Yorkshire Police force and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for their handling and covering up of the abuse.
'More than 10' politicians on list held by police investigating Westminster 'paedophile ring'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10947561/More-than-10-politicians-on-list-held-by-police-investigating-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html
Whistleblower who prompted Operation Fernbridge says up to 40 MPs and peers knew about or took part in child abuse
And this is just the tip of the disgustingly depraved peadophile iceberg that Britain has become! Had enough cultural enrichment yet ?
British peoplehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people
British people, or Britons, are the citizens of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, and Crown dependencies, and their descendants.[28][29][30] British nationality law governs modern British citizenship and nationality, which can be acquired, for instance, by descent from British nationals. When used in a historical context, "British" or "Britons" can refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous Brittonic-Pictish Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Brittany, whose surviving members are the modern Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.[29]
Although early assertions of being British date from the Late Middle Ages, the creation of the united Kingdom of Great Britain[31][32][33][34][35] in 1707 triggered a sense of British national identity.[36] The notion of Britishness was forged during the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and the First French Empire, and developed further during the Victorian era.[36][37] The complex history of the formation of the United Kingdom created a "particular sense of nationhood and belonging" in Great Britain and Ireland;[36] Britishness became "superimposed on much older identities", of English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish cultures, whose distinctiveness still resists notions of a homogenised British identity.[38] Because of longstanding ethno-sectarian divisions, British identity in Northern Ireland is controversial, but it is held with strong conviction by unionists.[39]
Modern Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic groups that settled in the British Isles in and before the 11th century: Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Normans.[40] Union[clarification needed] facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales during the late Middle Ages, Early Modern period and beyond.[41][42] Since 1922 and earlier, there has been immigration to the United Kingdom by people from what is now the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth, mainland Europe and elsewhere; they and their descendants are mostly British citizens, with some assuming a British, dual or hyphenated identity.[43]
The British are a diverse, multi-national[44][45] and multicultural society, with "strong regional accents, expressions and identities".[46][47] The social structure of the United Kingdom has changed radically since the 19th century, with a decline in religious observance, enlargement of the middle class, and particularly since the 1950's increased ethnic diversity. The population of the UK stands at around 62.5 million,[48] with a British diaspora of around 140 million concentrated in Australia, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United States and Spain.
Attitudes to multiculturalismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
A study conducted for the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 2005 found that in England, the majority of ethnic minority participants called themselves British, whereas indigenous English participants said English first and British second. In Wales and Scotland the majority of white and ethnic minority participants said Welsh or Scottish first and British second, although crucially they saw no incompatibility between the two identities.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.01.01, 11:38:43
although crucially they saw no incompatibility between the two identities.
This last sentence is bullshit.. "Great Britain" is representative of a cosmopolitan shithole.. and the indigenous population have returned to the concept of their bloodline roots in order to preserve what is left of our individual cultural identity. If this subject is not adequately debated in the immediate future and a peaceful solution found.. well.. it's gonna kick off big time, and all of you across Europe know it. Our leader's have betrayed us..
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.01.01, 11:38:43
British people
A study conducted for the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in 2005 found that in England, the majority of ethnic minority participants called themselves British, whereas indigenous English participants said English first and British second. In Wales and Scotland the majority of white and ethnic minority participants said Welsh or Scottish first and British second, although crucially they saw no incompatibility between the two identities.
This last sentence is bullshit.. "Great Britain" is representative of a cosmopolitan shithole.. and the indigenous population have returned to the concept of their bloodline roots in order to preserve what is left of our individual cultural identity. If this subject is not adequately debated in the immediate future and a peaceful solution found.. well.. it's gonna kick off big time, and all of you across Europe know it. Our leader's have betrayed us..
My father was Welsh, my mother English, so it was interesting to have been raised in the colonies (Canada) as, "more British then the British" as the saying of that time went.
And how fortunate the wife and I were to have travelled in Britain in the early '80's, to have seen the last of the great empire. We roamed from Lands end to Findhorn and already the cracks were showing... An order of "fish and chips" in London was so gross and stunk so badly that I carried them out of our lodging and down the street to the nearest trash bin.
However it was enlightening to see the country as a vast museum that our money had
wrought. However, still being in touch with relatives I can see that the
rot has been progressive.
The three factors behind this disintegration, that I see are, The Royals, The Free Masons and Tavistock.
Ron
Quote: Tavistock has set themselves up as the authority on ritual abuse and MPD (DID). In other words, the primary programming site, is pretending to be the leading institution trying to solve the problem! That's a good cover.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock02.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock02.htm)
It is a bit more complicated than that Ron. The key point for 2017 will be to acknowledge that individuals may have personal Nukes. Handle this hot potato with kid gloves..
A breakdown of the complimentary Sovereign Government vs NGO relationship is necessary. The armed forces of the world are training mercenaries to deploy in NGO's, they fight for money. A wee problem..
The Western economies make a lot of money from war, and rich people whose conscience is not subjected to the truth of what these weapon systems are doing immorally to children and innocents, sleep well and enjoy the money.
Austerity is when an ever increasing debt is taken out on your behalf, against you and your unborn children, to pay for your rapid enslavement now.
Lot's to talk about Ron, should be an interesting year!
Political spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that symbolize independent political dimensions.[1]
Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes on the right (classical liberalism). Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics.[2][3] Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates.
Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between sociocultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community).
Left-wing politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][page needed][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism), as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).[1] The term left wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[6] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".[7] The word "wing" was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century,[citation needed] usually with disparaging intent, and "left-wing" was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views.
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,[8] communism, anarchism, and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.[9] Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[10] including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,[11][12] as well as a wide range of parties.[13][14][15]
According to author Barry Clark, "Leftists [...] claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.".[16]
Right-wing politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]
The political terms Right and Left were first used during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.[15][16][17][18] The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[4]:693 The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[19] The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics until the 20th century.[20]
From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[21] This general economic shift toward capitalism affected centre right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded by becoming supportive of capitalism.[22]
Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term right-wing has been applied to extreme movements including fascists, Nazis, and racial supremacists.[23]
In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives.[24] In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal, and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives, and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.[25][26]
Alt-right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash the negative American connotations against overt racism, white supremacy, and neo-Nazism.[1][2][3][4][5] Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and spoken critically of the Jewish people,[5][6] although he has denied being a neo-Nazi; alt-right beliefs have been described as white supremacist,[7][8][9] frequently overlapping with antisemitism and Neo-Nazism,[10][11][12] nativism and Islamophobia,[13][14][15][16][17] antifeminism and homophobia,[10][18][19][20][21] white nationalist, right-wing populism,[22][23] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][24] The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump.[13][17][21][23][24][25]
The term drew considerable media attention and controversy during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after Trump appointed Breitbart News chair Steve Bannon, who has called Breitbart "the platform for the alt-right," CEO of the Trump campaign in August.[26][27] Media attention grew further after the election, particularly when Spencer cried out "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!" at a post-election celebratory conference near the White House. In response, a number of Spencer's supporters gave the Nazi salute similar to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis' mass rallies. Spencer, who used several Nazi propaganda terms during the meeting, defended the conduct, stating that the Nazi salute was given in a spirit of "irony and exuberance".[28] [29] Following the episode, the style guide of the Associated Press warned the "so-called 'alt-right' movement" is a label "currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists ... It is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters' actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In the past we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist."[1]
The alt-right has its roots on websites such as 4chan and 8chan, where anonymous members create and use Internet memes to express themselves.[7][12][30] It is difficult to tell how much of what people write in these venues is serious, and how much is intended to provoke outrage.[22][31] Members of the alt-right use websites like Twitter and Breitbart to convey their message.[32][33] Alt-right postings generally support Republican President-elect Donald Trump[34] and oppose immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness.[11][18][35]
Beliefs
The Associated Press stated that the "'alt-right' or 'alternative right' is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism, ... criticizes "multiculturalism" and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race."[1][39] There is no formal organization and it is not clear if the alt-right can be considered as a movement; according to a 2016 description in the Columbia Journalism Review: "Because of the nebulous nature of anonymous online communities, nobody's entirely sure who the alt-righters are and what motivates them. It's also unclear which among them are true believers and which are smart-ass troublemakers trying to ruffle feathers."[31] Many of its own proponents often claim they are joking or seeking to provoke an outraged response.[22] Andrew Marantz of The New Yorker describes it as "a label, like 'snob' or 'hipster,' that is often disavowed by people who exemplify it".[40]
'Challenging year brought us closer together': President Putin's New Year message (FULL TEXT)
https://www.rt.com/politics/official-word/372389-putin-new-year-address-2017/
The challenges endured by Russia in 2016 have only strengthened the nation's unity and aspirations for success, thus showing the way forward, President Vladimir Putin says, in his traditional New Year message televised at several minutes before midnight.
New Year Address to the Nation
Citizens of Russia, friends,
The year 2016 is coming to a close. It was a challenging year, but the difficulties we faced have brought us together and allowed us to reveal enormous resources for our movement forward.
The main thing is that we believe in ourselves, in our strengths and in our country. We are working, and working successfully, and we are achieving much. I would like to thank you for the victories and achievements, for your understanding and trust, and for your true, sincere care for Russia.
We have a vast, unique and wonderful country! We are united by common concerns and common joys, by our long-standing good tradition of meeting the New Year with our families and with hope for the best.
But not everyone is at the holiday table today. Many of our citizens are away from home, ensuring Russia's security, working at enterprises, on duty in hospitals, at operating trains and aircraft. I would like to convey my very best wishes for the New Year to all those who are now fulfilling their labor and military duties.
Dear friends,
We are excitedly awaiting the sound of the chimes of the Moscow Kremlin, and we feel the march of time and the approaching future more clearly than ever before. We experience this only during these moments, during this wonderful and beloved holiday.
Meanwhile, New Year has its own secrets. For instance, each of us may become something of a magician on the night of the New Year. To do this we simply need to treat our parents with love and gratitude, take care of our children and families, respect our colleagues at work, nurture our friendships, defend truth and justice, be merciful and help those who are in need of support. This is the whole secret.
May our dreams, heavenly thoughts and good intentions come true. May joy and love reign in every home. May our beloved streets, cities and villages become even more beautiful.
Peace and prosperity to our common, great homeland, Russia. Happiness, health and wellbeing to each of you.
Happy New Year 2017!
President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.01.01, 17:06:53
It is a bit more complicated than that Ron.
Ah yes, you and I know that. What I was attempting to do was simplify it for others who may, on occasion, read this thread.
It has very little to do with left or right groups and all the different names they are called as they are all front groups.
If one takes and studies the Tavistock Institute, then it should become apparent that this is the main main control of the paradigm..
It is well hidden in the UK but much easier to see in the USA.
Quote: "Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the Tavistock Institute foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, the destruction of the family, the degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why every agent of the federal government is against him; the alphabet agencies, the FBI, IRS, CIA and BATF must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.
Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences."
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml (http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml)
No politician or CEO is allowed to take office without first being trained by Tavistock
Ron
The good the bad and the just plain ugly
http://www.tavinstitute.org/
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: ronee on 2017.01.02, 16:09:37
It has very little to do with left or right groups and all the different names they are called as they are all front groups.
Democracy in the west is an illusion.
The political parties are bought and paid for, but they must operate within the narrow paradigm of the official narrative or they collapse, just like the Democrat party in the US has done.
President Trump is not a situation I imagine the Tavistock Institute was going for..
The Islamization Of Germany In 2016: "We Are No Longer Safe"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-02/islamization-germany-2016-we-are-no-longer-safe
A lot of people know what is going on, question is how do we stop it while occupying the political center, and not getting dragged into extremes.
Benjamin Netanyahu rejects calls for Israel to take more refugees – and pledges to build a fence instead
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-rejects-calls-for-israel-to-take-more-refugees-and-pledges-to-build-a-fence-instead-10488849.html
Prime minister says Israel has 'neither demographic or geographic depth' to take refugees, instead announcing a new 18-mile border fence
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.01.02, 20:35:27
Democracy in the west is an illusion.
The political parties are bought and paid for, but they must operate within the narrow paradigm of the official narrative or they collapse, just like the Democrat party in the US has done.
President Trump is not a situation I imagine the Tavistock Institute was going for..
Tavistock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3IM0esWXM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3IM0esWXM)
Ron
Belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Systems
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1] In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we may say that pistis refers to "trust" and "confidence", while doxa refers to "opinion" and "acceptance". The English word "orthodoxy" derives from doxa. Jonathan Leicester suggests that belief has the purpose of guiding action rather than indicating truth.
Systems
A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, political, ideological, or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always part of a belief system, and that tenanted belief systems are difficult for the tenants to completely revise or reject.
Philosophy of science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.
There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.
While philosophical thought pertaining to science dates back at least to the time of Aristotle, philosophy of science emerged as a distinct discipline only in the middle of the 20th century in the wake of the logical positivism movement, which aimed to formulate criteria for ensuring all philosophical statements' meaningfulness and objectively assessing them. Thomas Kuhn's landmark 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was also formative, challenging the view of scientific progress as steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge based on a fixed method of systematic experimentation and instead arguing that any progress is relative to a "paradigm," the set of questions, concepts, and practices that define a scientific discipline in a particular historical period.[1]
Subsequently, the coherentist approach to science, in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole, became prominent due to W. V. Quine and others. Some thinkers such as Stephen Jay Gould seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions, such as the uniformity of nature. A vocal minority of philosophers, and Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994) in particular, argue that there is no such thing as the "scientific method", so all approaches to science should be allowed, including explicitly supernatural ones. Another approach to thinking about science involves studying how knowledge is created from a sociological perspective, an approach represented by scholars like David Bloor and Barry Barnes. Finally, a tradition in continental philosophy approaches science from the perspective of a rigorous analysis of human experience.
Philosophies of the particular sciences range from questions about the nature of time raised by Einstein's general relativity, to the implications of economics for public policy. A central theme is whether one scientific discipline can be reduced to the terms of another. That is, can chemistry be reduced to physics, or can sociology be reduced to individual psychology? The general questions of philosophy of science also arise with greater specificity in some particular sciences. For instance, the question of the validity of scientific reasoning is seen in a different guise in the foundations of statistics. The question of what counts as science and what should be excluded arises as a life-or-death matter in the philosophy of medicine. Additionally, the philosophies of biology, of psychology, and of the social sciences explore whether the scientific studies of human nature can achieve objectivity or are inevitably shaped by values and by social relations.
There is a new show on Channel 4 being advertised on UK TV with a catchy tag line repeated ad nauseum:
"SPIES are MADE not BORN"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/spies
I think we all understand the point of the repetition..
However:
Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw
"In this video Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the soviet union, and she even considers that as a good thing. But she claims that the Americans are fighting Al-Qaeda nowadays. If you really fighting Al-Qaeda, then who are the scums and terrorists you used in order to topple the government of Qaddafi in Libya."
The Sting - How the FBI Created a Terrorist
https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/
It's Time to Reconsider U.S. Policies That Create Terrorists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/its-time-to-reconsider-us_b_3146845.html
There is one change that the United States could make in response to the terrorism threat that is never discussed. That is to consider the part U.S. policies have played in creating and sustaining it.
I understand that we are not supposed to say this, as if discussing why we are hated justifies the unjustifiable: the targeting of innocent Americans because of the perceived sins of their government.
But nothing justifies terrorism. Period. That does not mean that nothing causes it.
Acts of terror do not come at us out of the blue. Nor are they directed at us, as President George W. Bush famously said, because the terrorists "hate our freedom." If that was the case, terrorists would be equally or more inclined to hit countries at least as free as the United States, those in northern Europe, for instance.
No, terrorists (in this case Muslim terrorists) target the United States because they perceive us as their enemy.
And with good reason.
We have been at war with the people of various Muslim countries for decades, since perhaps as early as 1953 when we engineered Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh's overthrow in Iran after he nationalized the oil industry.
Since then the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, on a pretext that was shown to be phony, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. That war came after over a decade of U.S.-sponsored sanctions that resulted in the deaths of more than a million Iraqis, including more than a half million children due to malnutrition and diseases caused by the lack of clean water and medicine.
Then there are the current sanctions against Iran, ostensibly to deter its government from developing nuclear weapons but, in practice, punishing the Iranian people by degrading their quality of life as well as their health. (Just one example: the Iranian civilian airline has experienced a major spike in air crash deaths since sanctions have prevented it from purchasing parts needed to replace worn and outmoded machinery).
Then there are the drone attacks. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in February that, as of then, U.S. drone attacks had killed 4,700 men, women and children (including, he notes, "innocent people") in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan.
And, of course, our Israel policy is based on the premise, so often stated by Vice President Joe Biden, that there must be "no daylight, no daylight" between Israeli policies and our own. That statement has proven true on matters large and small — from Congressional promises to join Israel if it decides to attack Iran's nuclear reactor, to supporting Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza, to opposing any form of Palestinian representation at the United Nations. Muslims do not imagine that we view the Middle East almost entirely through Israeli eyes. We do.
In short, the aphorism often used to describe the effect of drone attacks can be applied to U.S. policy in the Muslim world in general: for every enemy we kill, we create dozens or hundreds more. And some of those enemies turn up here as terrorists.
So my question is this: Why can't the likelihood of blow-back at home be part of the calculation when policymakers decide to take a particular action or make a particular statement relating to the Middle East or the Muslim world in general?
Obviously the United States is not going to consider this factor as it decides on policies unambiguously affecting the fundamental security of the American people. No one would argue that we should not take out a terrorist cell poised to attack American targets out of fear of inflaming its sympathizers.
But few of the actions that so enrage (and radicalize) people in the Middle East are directly connected to the security of Americans at all: not the excessive number of drone attacks or Iran sanctions or our backing of the post-1967 Israeli occupation. Looking back at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it is difficult to argue that they did more to enhance the security of Americans than they did to damage it.
This is not to say that the United States should not have responded with force to the heinous 9/11 attacks. The successful effort to degrade the capabilities of Al Qaeda has, no doubt, made us safer. And some of our enemies hate us not because of anything we do but because they are driven by religious or political zealotry. And some are just monsters. But not all, and not most.
Not every threat is Al Qaeda. In fact, not every group we deem as terrorist is an enemy of the United States at all. Some are engaged in local wars or insurgencies that have nothing to do with us, at least not before we jump in to assume the role 1960's folk singer Phil Ochs referred to as "cops of the world."
Because if this is what we are going to be, we are going to feel it here, not only in the form of terrorism but in the form of the loss of our own freedoms here at home. At the rate we are going, the restrictions we have become accustomed to when trying to board an airplane will become a metaphor for the loss of the freedom we once thought of as encapsulating the American way of life.
The next threat to that freedom looms as the Obama administration considers whether it will permit (or even back) an Israeli attack on Iran. During his trip to Israel this week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told the Israelis that the United States believes that "in dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table." That "every option" formulation, of course, refers to the possibility of war.
Can anyone doubt that an Israeli attack on Iran backed by the United States would have terrible repercussions here at home and that they would continue for a long, long time? Is that what we want? Is that something we can even tolerate?
With the Boston Marathon horror still fresh in our memory, I think it is safe to say that we cannot. Nor should we. But it's our decision. Pursuing policies that enrage much of the world endangers Americans here. In Boston, New York, Washington and, ultimately, elsewhere as well.
Is it too much to ask that policy makers keep that in mind when making their calculations about where next to show the flag? Their primary responsibility is to protect Americans. It is time for them to stop endangering them.
How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran's growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, "by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation."
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of "the database" in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America's relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization's American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein's secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni's lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni's were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America's Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington's thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel's neighboring enemies, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestine's Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media's war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama's government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens' power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called "War on Terror" should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group's actions. Since George W. Bush declared the "War on Terror" in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington's military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, "the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S." Truth is, the only way America can win the "War On Terror" is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
In conclusion we can be sure of one thing: "TERRORISTS are MADE not BORN"
Who the hell do they think they are? Israeli Diplomat Caught on Camera Plotting to 'Take Down' UK MPs
http://www.jewworldorder.org/who-the-hell-do-they-think-they-are-israeli-diplomat-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps/
An Israeli embassy official has been caught on camera in an undercover sting plotting to "take down" MPs regarded as hostile, including foreign office minister Sir Alan Duncan, an outspoken supporter of a Palestinian state.
In an extraordinary breach of diplomatic protocol, Shai Masot, who describes himself as an officer in the Israel Defence Forces and is serving as a senior political officer at the London embassy, was recorded by an undercover reporter from al-Jazeera's investigative unit speaking about a number of British MPs.
The Israeli ambassador, Mark Regev, apologised to Duncan on Friday. An Israeli spokesman said Regev made clear that "the embassy considered the remarks completely unacceptable".
The Israeli embassy said Masot "will be ending his term of employment with the embassy shortly". Masot declined to comment or to elaborate on what he meant when he said he wanted to "take down" a number of MPs.
Source Article from https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/who-the-hell-do-they-think-they-are-israeli-diplomat-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps/
NATIONAL SECURITY:
Secret Saudi funding of Australian institutions
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3808
by Mervyn Bendle (reviewer)
News Weekly, February 21, 2009
Many Australian universities, now driven entirely by financial priorities, have uncritically welcomed Saudi sources of funding, even though this creates a major national security problem, writes Mervyn F. Bendle.
Massive funding is presently being provided by Saudi Arabia to promote Wahhabism, the fundamentalist, exclusivist, punitive, and sectarian form of Islam that is both the Saudi state religion, and the chief theological component of Sunni versions of Islamism, the totalitarian ideology guiding jihadism and most of the active terrorist groups in the world.
Globally, this money is flowing to terrorist groups, political parties and religious and community groups, as well as to universities and schools. In Australia, there is concern that such funding could damage and even corrupt the Australian university system, especially given the existing ideological bias, political naivety, opportunism, managerialism, and the pseudo-entrepreneurial attitudes of many university academics and administrators.
The question of how foreign powers and agents are able to influence, direct or even control tertiary education in Australia and other Western countries is vitally important. This is because the rise of Islamism, jihadism and the present terrorism crisis increasingly involve fourth-generation warfare (4GW).
This operates through various networks, franchises, and forms of leaderless jihad, and proceeds in an undeclared or unacknowledged manner, in accordance with Ayman al-Zawahiri's description of the Islamist approach to war ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad: "War is deceit [and] triumph is achieved [through] deception".
Role of Saudi Arabia
Fearing a revolution or coup, the Saudi king, Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, who ascended the Saudi throne in 1982, vigorously courted the Wahhabi religious establishment. He adopted the title of "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques", entrenched the position of Wahhabism as the Saudi state religion, and initiated massive spending programs to promote Wahhabism across the Muslim world and beyond, largely under the guidance of the World Muslim League.
In order to ensure that the Muslim world knew of the massive scale of the regime's commitment, the Saudi government English weekly Ain Al-Yaqeen published an article in March 2002 on the "billions spent by Saudi royal family to spread Islam to every corner of the earth". It described how oil revenues would allow the Saudi regime to "fulfil its ambitions".
The article continued: "In terms of Islamic institutions, the result is some 210 Islamic centres wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, more than 1,500 mosques and 202 colleges, and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children in non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia and Asia".
As a result, in 2005 it was estimated by former CIA director R. James Woolsey that the Saudis had spent some $90 billion since the mid-1970s to export Wahhabism on a global scale, and there has been no evidence of decreased activity in this proselytising effort.
With respect to the Saudi financing of terrorism, Stuart A. Levey, the Under-Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and head of the Office of Terrorist Finance and Financial Crime, testified to the US Senate Finance Committee on April 1, 2008, that "Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world".
As Levey further testified, Saudi Arabia is the leading financial supporter of Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, and huge amounts of money are channelled through complex networks of private, government and charitable organisations. Moreover, the Saudis have failed to implement vital measures requested by the US to stop the flow of such funds.
"The Project"
This vast program to promote Wahhabism, Islamism, and Jihadism is directed by various agencies within Saudi Arabia or associated with it. And these generally operate under the ideological and organisational control of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope", while its oath of allegiance declares that "I believe that... the banner of Islam must cover humanity".
This vision was subsequently developed and nurtured by subsequent Islamist ideologues such as the late Sayyid Qutb and Said Ramadan, and Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, who is the head of the department of Islamic law at the University of Qatar and one of the most influential Islamist ideologues in the world today.
This in turn derives much of its material from the mysterious document "Towards a world strategy for political Islam" (also known as "The Project"), which was prepared in 1982 by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood as a blueprint for their global strategy for Islamist supremacy.
Its likely principal author was Said Ramadan, who was the son-in-law and personal secretary of Hassan al Banna (the Egyptian who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928) and has been described as "the ideological grandfather of Osama bin Laden". He was also the actual father of Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial Islamist ideologue who is banned from visiting the US, but was nevertheless invited by Queensland's Griffith University to be the keynote speaker at a conference in March 2008.
"The Project" has been described as "revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organisation with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of 'cultural invasion' and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades". This involves "a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies".
It came to light after police raided the Bank Al Taqwa in Switzerland in November 2001 at the request of US security agencies, and experts recovered a copy from the computer of the bank's CEO.
Initially, access to "The Project" was limited to Western intelligence agencies, and it only came to public attention through the efforts of the Swiss investigative journalist Sylvain Besson, who regards it as one of the most tightly guarded secrets in the history of Islamism, and analysed it in his 2005 book La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes ("The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project"), which has been described as possibly "the most important book on the rise of Islamism in Europe".
"The Project" can be summarised as follows. It outlines a covert strategy for the gradual and secret promotion of Islamism on a global scale. It involves a complex process of organisational development and subversion, involving mosques, community groups, schools, hospitals, charities, advocacy groups, academic centres, Islamist think-tanks, and publishing companies, all of which are to be linked internationally.
The strategy also involves ordinary political activity in existing structures (e.g., political parties), and alliances with "progressive" Western organisations (e.g., NGOs) that share attitudes and goals with Islamism (e.g., anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, etc).
It requires extensive network-building, and the infiltration of existing or potentially sympathetic organisations - Muslim and non-Muslim - while avoiding open alliances with publicly-known terrorist groups; always promoting a public profile of moderation, coupled with a relentless insistence on Muslim "victimhood", with a special focus on the situation of the Palestinians, which is to be dramatised at every opportunity.
All target organisations are to be gradually realigned ideologically in accordance with the principles of Islamism and Jihadism, using whatever tactics of proselytising, re-education, subversion, manipulation, deception and dissimilation are required.
During this stage of development "The Project" emphasises that it is vital to avoid or minimise any conflicts with or within Western societies that might provoke a backlash and lead to restrictions on Islamist activities. In the longer term, the aim is to develop "security forces" that will protect Islamist organisations and intimidate enemies.
All of this is to be promoted through the media, which has to be carefully cultivated and monitored, while extensive use is to be made of strategically placed agents of influence and useful idiots in the media, universities, etc.
Case study: Griffith University
An excellent case study of how Saudi funding can impact on Australian universities is the recent fiasco at Queensland's Griffith University.
In April 2008, it was revealed that Griffith University "practically begged the Saudi Arabian embassy to bankroll its Islamic campus for $1.3 million", assuring the Saudis that arrangements could be kept secret if required. (The Australian, April 22, 2008).
These concerns had first surfaced in September 2007, when it was revealed that Griffith was to receive the Saudi funding, and moderate Muslims expressed an anxiety that "the Saudis [were] using their financial power to transform the landscape of Australia's Islamic community and silence criticism of Wahhabism [and especially] its link to global terrorism and national security issues". (The Australian, September 17, 2007).
Shortly beforehand, it had been revealed that the Saudi government was planning a $2.7 billion scholarship fund for Australian universities, designed to facilitate the entry of Saudi students into Australia to undertake tertiary education in the face of restrictions on their entry into the US and UK in the post-9/11 security environment. (Weekend Australian, March 17-18, 2007).
Subsequently, in March 2008, Griffith invited Tariq Ramadan, the Islamist ideologue mentioned earlier, to be the keynote speaker at a conference pointedly called "The challenges and opportunities of Islam in the West: the case of Australia". (The Australian, March 3, 2008).
The event was organised by the university's Griffith Islamic Research Unit (GIRU) and the chair of the opening ceremony was the director of the unit, whose salary was supplemented by the Saudi grant, while the Saudi ambassador made the welcoming remarks.
In the subsequent revelations, documents obtained under Freedom of Information provisions showed not only had Griffith University "begged" for the funds, but that its vice-chancellor, Ian O'Connor, promoted Griffith as the "university of choice" for Saudis and "offered the embassy an opportunity to reshape the Griffith Islamic Research Unit (GIRU) during its campaign to get "extra noughts" added to the Saudi cheques". (The Australian, April 22, 2008).
Concerns also emerged at the time about the director of the GIRU, Dr Mohamad Abdalla, who apparently played a central role in pursuing the Saudi funding. Dr Abdulla is also co-director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies, and is an associate investigator at the Centre of Excellence for Policing and Security at Griffith, which is a federally-funded academic facility, mandated to produce high-level research and policy advice on terrorism.
- Mervyn F. Bendle, PhD, is senior lecturer in History and Communications at James Cook University, Queensland. This article is part of a speech he delivered at the National Civic Council's national conference in Melbourne on February 7.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html
General Jonathan Shaw, Britain's former Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, says Qatar and Saudi Arabia responsible for spread of radical Islam
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have ignited a "time bomb" by funding the global spread of radical Islam, according to a former commander of British forces in Iraq.
General Jonathan Shaw, who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012, told The Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists.
The two Gulf states have spent billions of dollars on promoting a militant and proselytising interpretation of their faith derived from Abdul Wahhab, an eighteenth century scholar, and based on the Salaf, or the original followers of the Prophet.
But the rulers of both countries are now more threatened by their creation than Britain or America, argued Gen Shaw. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has vowed to topple the Qatari and Saudi regimes, viewing both as corrupt outposts of decadence and sin.
So Qatar and Saudi Arabia have every reason to lead an ideological struggle against Isil, said Gen Shaw. On its own, he added, the West's military offensive against the terrorist movement was likely to prove "futile".
"This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop," said Gen Shaw. "And the question then is 'does bombing people over there really tackle that?' I don't think so. I'd far rather see a much stronger handle on the ideological battle rather than the physical battle."
Gen Shaw, 57, retired from the Army after a 31-year career that saw him lead a platoon of paratroopers in the Battle of Mount Longdon, the bloodiest clash of the Falklands War, and oversee Britain's withdrawal from Basra in southern Iraq. As Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, he specialised in counter-terrorism and security policy.
All this has made him acutely aware of the limitations of what force can achieve. He believes that Isil can only be defeated by political and ideological means. Western air strikes in Iraq and Syria will, in his view, achieve nothing except temporary tactical success.
When it comes to waging that ideological struggle, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are pivotal. "The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahabist Salafism," said Gen Shaw.
"The primary threat of Isil is not to us in the West: it's to Saudi Arabia and also to the other Gulf states."
Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are playing small parts in the air campaign against Isil, contributing two and four jet fighters respectively. But Gen Shaw said they "should be in the forefront" and, above all, leading an ideological counter-revolution against Isil.
The British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," added Gen Shaw. "It's missing the point. It might, if it works, solve the immediate tactical problem. It's not addressing the fundamental problem of Wahhabi Salafism as a culture and a creed, which has got out of control and is still the ideological basis of Isil – and which will continue to exist even if we stop their advance in Iraq."
Gen Shaw said the Government's approach towards Isil was fundamentally mistaken. "People are still treating this as a military problem, which is in my view to misconceive the problem," he added. "My systemic worry is that we're repeating the mistakes that we made in Afghanistan and Iraq: putting the military far too up front and centre in our response to the threat without addressing the fundamental political question and the causes. The danger is that yet again we're taking a symptomatic treatment not a causal one."
Gen Shaw said that Isil's main focus was on toppling the established regimes of the Middle East, not striking Western targets. He questioned whether Isil's murder of two British and two American hostages was sufficient justification for the campaign.
"Isil made their big incursion into Iraq in June. The West did nothing, despite thousands of people being killed," said Gen Shaw. "What's changed in the last month? Beheadings on TV of Westerners. And that has led us to suddenly change our policy and suddenly launch air attacks."
He believes that Isil might have murdered the hostages in order to provoke a military response from America and Britain which could then be portrayed as a Christian assault on Islam. "What possible advantage is there to Isil of bringing us into this campaign?" asked Gen Shaw. "Answer: to unite the Muslim world against the Christian world. We played into their hands. We've done what they wanted us to do."
However, Gen Shaw's analysis is open to question. Even if they had the will, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be incapable of leading an ideological struggle against Isil. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is 91 and only sporadically active. His chosen successor, Crown Prince Salman, is 78 and already believed to be declining into senility. The kingdom's ossified leadership is likely to be paralysed for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile in Qatar, the new Emir, Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, is only 34 in a region that respects age. Whether this Harrow and Sandhurst-educated ruler has the personal authority to lead an ideological counter-revolution within Islam is doubtful.
Given that Saudi Arabia and Qatar almost certainly cannot do what Gen Shaw believes to be necessary, the West may have no option except to take military action against Isil with the aim of reducing, if not eliminating, the terrorist threat.
"I just have a horrible feeling that we're making things worse. We're entering into this in a way we just don't understand," said Gen Shaw. "I'm against the principle of us attacking without a clear political plan."
Dhaka government says at least 11 NGOs fund terrorist groups
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Dhaka-government-says-at-least-11-NGOs-fund-terrorist-groups-38101.html
The organizations receive money since 2012. The funds come from the Middle East countries - such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia - and the UK. Islamist groups have opened schools, madrassas, hospitals and training centers. At least 231 associations bankrolled terrorism, with 500 thousand employees throughout the country.
Dhaka (AsiaNews) - In an effort to curb the spread of radical Islam that led to the massacre of foreigners in the cafes of Dhaka, the Bangladeshi authorities have put under observation 11 non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
They are suspected of having received funds from abroad to finance terrorist groups banned at home. Sources close to the government revealed that the NGOs in question receive the money since 2012, and instead of spending it on development activities to combat poverty - as stated in an official declaration – it was delivered into the hands of Islamic militants.
Among the organizations supervised, there are several well-known names: Muslim Add Bangladesh, Rabatà Al-Alam Al-Islmi, Qater Charitable Society, Islamic Relief Agency, Kuwait Joint Relief Committee, to name a few. Over the years, NGOs have received funding from various Middle Eastern countries - such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia - and the United Kingdom.
K M Abuds Salam, the Director General for NGO affairs of, said: "We are monitoring organizations. If we detect their involvement in terrorist activities, we will take serious measures ".
In recent years the country has seen a dangerous Islamic drift, which led to the killing of about 40 people, including Hindu priests, Buddhist monks, Christian pastors, and secular bloggers, Lgbt activists. Most of them were murdered in broad daylight with machetes.
There are about 160 million people in Bangladesh, of which the majority professes the Islamic faith. Radical Islamic groups have founded colleges, schools, madrassas (Islamic schools), run hospitals and training centers.
According to Professor Abul Barakat, at least 231 organizations would receive funds to bankroll terrorism. "Thanks to this money - he says - they full-time employ 500 thousand workers. But the Koran does not preach violent jihad (holy war)".
How Saudi Arabia exports radical Islam
http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam
Saudi Arabia has spent billions promoting its extremist version of Islam. What has it wrought? Here's everything you need to know:
Why do the Saudis proselytize?
To combat the spread of Shiite Islam and ensure that the Islamic world is primarily Sunni. In recent years, the ancient Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq, Yemen, and throughout the Middle East has grown more overt, bitter, and violent. Now that Iran has agreed to rein in its nuclear program in return for the lifting of international economic sanctions, Riyadh fears a newly enriched Tehran will be more aggressive in spreading its Shiite doctrine and promoting Shiite-led revolutions. A trove of Saudi diplomatic documents covering 2010 to 2015, recently released by WikiLeaks, shows a Saudi obsession with Iranian actions and Iranian influence. Saudi government agencies monitor Iranian cultural and religious activities, and try to muzzle Shiite influence by shutting down or blocking access to Iranian-backed media. Saudi diplomats keep close tabs on Iranian involvement everywhere, from Tajikistan, which has strong historical Persian ties, to China, where the tiny, beleaguered Uighur population — which is Muslim — is growing more religious.
How do the Saudis promote their religious views?
By investing heavily in building mosques, madrasas, schools, and Sunni cultural centers across the Muslim world. Indian intelligence says that in India alone, from 2011 to 2013, some 25,000 Saudi clerics arrived bearing more than $250 million to build mosques and universities and hold seminars. "We are talking about thousands and thousands of activist organizations and preachers who are in the Saudi sphere of influence," said Usama Hasan, a researcher in Islamic studies. These institutions and clerics preach the specifically Saudi version of Sunni Islam, the extreme fundamentalist strain known as Wahhabism or Salafism.
What is Wahhabism?
Founded in the 18th century by Muslims seeking a return to Koranic literalism, Wahhabism is one of the strictest sects of Islam. The founder, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, sought the protection of an emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, and the two joined forces to spread the doctrine throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The cleric's daughter married the emir's son, which means the entire House of Saud is directly descended from Wahhab. The purist sect requires adherents to abstain from alcohol and drugs. The sexes are segregated, with women fully covered in public. Even other Muslims who stray from these medieval practices — such as Shiites and moderate Sunni sects — are considered infidels. Prescribed punishments for crimes — among them apostasy and blasphemy — include flogging, stoning, and beheading.
How did it become so strong?
A turning point came in 1979, when radical clerics who believed the House of Saud had been contaminated with Western decadence led hundreds of armed militants to occupy the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Deeply alarmed, the royal family sought to appease the militants by reversing the steps toward modernity the country had taken. Movie theaters and record stores were shut down, and more power was given to the religious police to seek out and punish offenses. "In effect," says former diplomat John Burgess, "the seizure of the Grand Mosque sent Saudi Arabia into a 30-year time warp that cut it off from the social-development trajectory it had been on." The royal family made a grand bargain with the clerics: Riyadh would fund the spread of Wahhabism abroad as long as the extremists kept any militant activities off Saudi soil. That deal ensured that radical Islam would overwhelm moderate versions in many countries, and planted the seeds of many terrorist groups.
Where has Wahhabism reached?
Nearly everywhere in the Muslim world except where Iran holds sway. In the 1980s, Saudi money and fighters poured into Afghanistan to help the mujahedeen fight the Soviets, an effort that gave rise to the Taliban and eventually to al Qaeda. In the 1990s, Saudi aid to the Bosnian Muslims struggling in the wars that broke up Yugoslavia brought the Wahhabi strain of Islam to Europe. That same decade, Saudi money helped to further radicalize Chechnya's Muslims. One of the cables released by WikiLeaks quotes then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Most members of al Qaeda were Saudi, including Osama bin Laden, and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.
Where does ISIS fit into this picture?
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria sees itself as purer than the Saudi regime, but its fundamentalist Sunni doctrine has its roots in Wahhabism. Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida who has called for declassification of the portion of the 9/11 Commission report dealing with Saudi Arabian links to the hijackers, says ISIS "is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money, and Saudi organizational support." In effect, Graham says, ISIS represents a form of Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis can't control — a cancer that now threatens the kingdom. "Who serves as fuel for ISIS? Our own youth," said Saudi dissident writer Turki Al-Hamad this year. "In order to stop ISIS, you must first dry up this ideology at the source."
The madrasas' impact
During the decade-long Afghan struggle against the Soviets, Saudi princes funded the explosive growth of madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The schools, located in rural communities where there was no other source of education, taught a militant form of Islam, telling students they had a sacred duty to fight infidels. Out of these schools came the radical students who eventually formed the Taliban, as well as many al Qaeda recruits. Today, many of these Pakistani schools draw students from Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere, and they return home radicalized. "The ideology that's propagated by these schools is so significant in shaping minds in the Muslim world," says political scientist Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "If regular schooling is not schooling people, and schools that propagate fanaticism are schooling people, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what would be the impact."
Wahhabism: A deadly scripture
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html
King Abdullah's Saudi regime spends billions of pounds each year promoting Wahhabism, one of fundamentalist Islam's most extreme movements. Much of it funds children's education in British faith schools and mosques. Should we be worried? Paul Vallely investigates
King Abdullah will go home to Saudi Arabia today with the charges of human rights protestors ringing irritatingly in his ears. But his controversial visit may well have left an unpleasant legacy for the people of the country which has feted him with full state honours.
There was a hint of it in a report written this week by Dr Denis MacEoin, an Islamic studies expert at Newcastle who previously taught at the University of Fez. Leading a team of researchers over a two-year project, he uncovered a hoard of malignant literature inside as many as a quarter of Britain's mosques. All of it had been published and distributed by agencies linked to the government of King Abdullah.
Among the more choice recommendations in leaflets, DVDs and journals were statements that homosexuals should be burnt, stoned or thrown from mountains or tall buildings (and then stoned where they fell just to be on the safe side). Those who changed their religion or committed adultery should experience a similar fate.
Almost half of the literature was written in English, suggesting it is targeted at younger British Muslims who do not speak Arabic or Urdu. The material, which was openly available in many of the mosques, including the East London Mosque in Whitechapel, which has been visited by Prince Charles, also encourages British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims.
There is, of course, nothing new in such reports. Investigative journalists have over the years uncovered all manner of material emanating from Muslim extremists in various parts of Britain. Earlier this year an undercover reporter for Channel 4 filmed preachers and obtained DVDs and books inside mosques which were filled with hate-filled invective against Christians and Jews. They condemned democracy and called for jihad. They presented women as intellectually congenitally deficient and in need of beating when they transgressed Islamic dress codes. They said that children over the age of 10 should be hit if they did not pray. Again the main mosque chosen for exposure was influenced and funded from Saudi Arabia.
And on it goes. A few years earlier one Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal, a Jamaican convert who had studied at a Saudi university, was caught spouting about how "Jews are rotten to the core and sexually perverted, creating intrigue and confusion to keep their enemies weak". Later jailed for nine years for urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Americans, he was recorded as saying: "You can use chemical weapons to exterminate the unbelievers. Is that clear? If you have cockroaches in your house, you spray them with chemicals." Among his followers was Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 bombers who killed 52 people and injured 700 others on the London transport system in 2005.
Small wonder, then, that Abdal Hakim Murad, the student chaplain at Cambridge University pronounced in the Channel 4 film: "I regard what the Saudis are doing in the ghettoes of British Islam as potentially lethal for the future of the community."
Muslims have always responded that such individuals constitute a tiny and highly unrepresentative minority of their community in Britain. But concerns are growing within Muslim circles about the increased reach of Wahhabism, Saudi's obscurantist and intolerant form of Islam in which Osama Bin Laden has his roots. There are fears for the increasingly baleful influence it may be having on young British Muslims.
Yahya Birt, an academic who is director of The City Circle, a networking body of young Muslim professionals, estimates "Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools".
More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs, Birt says, "can be five to 10 times that of any other British-based sectarian publication, aggressively targeted for a global English-speaking audience." This has had the effect of forcing non-Wahhabi publishers across the Muslim world to close. It has put out of business smaller bookshops catering for a more mainstream Muslim market.
The Saudis have also reserved for foreigners 85 per cent of the places at the Islamic University of Medina, which boasts of having more than 5,000 students from 139 countries. Despite the fact that British students gained the reputation in Medina of being unreliable, lazy, and prone to dropping-out, there have so far been hundreds of British graduates who have returned to the UK espousing the rigid Saudi worldview.
The strategy has in one way backfired on the Saudis. They accelerated their aggressive missionary work – targeting China and Russia as well as the UK – in reaction to the activities of Iran in the 1980s which, after its theocratic revolution, was pumping out propaganda across the globe. The Saudis had already been pump-priming Islamic terrorists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, at the behest of the Americans and funding among other things the schools in Pakistan that gave rise to the radicalism of the Taliban.
But the Saudis lost control of this new global Wahhabism. During the First Gulf War in 1991 there were splits among Wahhabis, both in Saudi Arabia and outside, over whether it was right to allow infidel American troops to protect the land of Islam's two holiest shrines, at Mecca and Medina. Anti-Saudi Wahhabis, such as the infamous hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza in Britain pronounced that the Saudi king had broken his divine covenant with God. It was therefore the duty of scholars to charge him with unbelief and incite the masses to rise against him in rebellion. Groups such as the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir capitalised on an anti-Saudi sentiment which spread throughout the Wahhabi community.
The focus of violent Islamic radicalism has shifted from Wahhabis in Saudi to anti-Saudi Wahabis in Iraq and other conflict zones where jihadists have learnt the heady lesson that if you are brutal and narrow-minded enough you can defeat the most powerful army the world has ever seen.
Since 9/11 the Saudis have begun to row back on their funding of fundamentalism abroad, according to Mehmood Naqshbandi, the Muslim advisor to the City of London police. Too late. The damage has been done.
The Saudis do not call themselves Wahhabis. That is largely a derogatory term applied by their opponents. Many Saudi religious leaders insist on calling themselves just Muslims, extending the implication that Muslims who do not share their particular interpretation of Islam are not proper Muslims at all. But some Saudis describe themselves as salafis. And it is salafism that has taken root among many second- and third-generation British Muslims.
To understand why you need to know a bit of theology. Salaf is the Arabic word for a pious ancestor. It refers to the generation of Muslims who personally knew the Prophet Muhammad, and those who knew that generation. Muslims regard any religious figure in the first three generations of Islam as a salaf. The term was first used in the 20th century by reformers in Egypt. But it has now been appropriated by the Wahhabists.
"Not all Muslims approve," says Dr Philip Lewis, who is the Bishop of Bradford's adviser on Islam. "Some say that the Wahhabi have hijacked a very venerable term for a very reactionary agenda to give them a bogus respectability."
Salafism comes from a way of looking at Muslim texts which date back to no later than that third generation after Mohamed. It disregards the four main traditions of Islamic law and practice which developed over the centuries since then. Rather like the Protestant reformers in Christianity it speaks of going back to the roots. Abdal Hakim Murad, who lectures in Islamic Studies at Cambridge explains: "Just as the Protestants wanted to get rid of the saints and shrines, the Aristotle and Aquinas of medieval theology, so the salafis declare as 'unbelief' most of the practices which are normative to Islam in the Indian subcontinent." Salafism is known for its scriptural rigidity, intense literalism, deep intolerance and rejection of traditional Muslim scholarship.
So why is this attractive to modern British Muslims? Because they are searching for an identity but rejecting the factional ethnic Indian subcontinental politics of their parents, says Mehmood Naqshbandi, the author of the City of London's guide to Islam for non-Muslims. "They are having an identity crisis." They have no patience with the old tribal rivalries of their parents' generation. They have weak links with the Indian subcontinent. They are unhappy with rural imams imported from Pakistan who do not understand the culture of sex, drugs, rock'*'roll, and politics that surrounds them. And they have been educated in a system that trains them to challenge and to research on their own.
"They are ripe for salafism, which claims to have the most transparent route back to the sources of the Prophet's time. And salafism's antagonism to mainstream orthodoxy makes it attractive to youth," he adds. They need not bother with the long tradition of Islam. The 7/7 suicide bombers Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer were salafis. So was the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. From there they provided easy prey to the al-Qa'ida notion that anyone who isn't a salafi is the enemy.
Hostile commentators such as Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam, dismiss salafism as a mere synonym for Wahhabism. It is cover, he says, just as in a previous age "euro-communist" became a palatable euphemism for Stalinist. Abdal Hakim Murad disagrees. "No one in the Muslim world denies that the theology preferred by terrorists is salafi/Wahhabi," he says. "But if most terrorists are salafis, most salafis are not terrorists. After the Iranian revolution the safe generalisation was the Shia were more dangerous [than the Sunni] because they had a martyrdom complex. You don't hear that said much today."
Naqshbandi agrees. "There's nothing in salafi principles which implies any relationship with political violence, it is just that if you are inclined that way salafism is a very attractive wrapper for you."
Some extremists have tried to take advantage of this by targeting salafi mosques in an attempt to recruit young Britons for violent jihad. They have adopted similar entryist tactics to those once employed by Militant in the Labour Party. Abu Hamza succeeded at Finsbury Park mosque, but a two-year infiltration plot at Brixton mosque, where the shoe-bomber Richard Reid worshipped, failed because non-violent salafis were alert to the danger.
The first individuals to report violent salafis to the British police were the non-violent salafis, who greatly outnumber the extremists, but the police largely ignored them. After 9/11 the leaders of several salafi mosques realised the danger of their position. "They recognised that they had become a useful vehicle for extremists and the problem of antagonism [this caused] between them and the rest of the Muslim community," says Mehmood Naqshbandi, " and they have gone to great pains to work with the authorities at all levels."
One conservative salafi leader went so far in an internet question session to tell Muslims that it was OK for them to work with the intelligence services to uncover violent jihadists. They had a duty to protect Britain, he said, which is a good place to be a Muslim. After 9/11 salafis in Birmingham subsidised the translation and distribution of a celebrated 1998 fatwa by Ibn Baz, the Saudi Grand Mufti, condemning terrorism, hijacking and suicide bombing.
Police are watchful but not unduly alarmed. Of the 1,526 mosques in Britain only 68 are salafi, according to Naqshbandi, and many of these are very small breakaways from bigger local mosques who refuse to take the salafi line. One Special Branch officer says privately that police have developed strong contacts inside salafi groups.
There is also an understanding that the non-violent salafi are their best allies against the jihadists. "They can pull people out of violence more easily than outsiders," said a member the Special Branch counter-terrorism unit. "They are the people they're going to listen to because they speak the same language. The closer you are theologically to the real hardliners the greater the chance you have of influencing them."
The problem is that terrorism needs only a tiny number of adepts to be devastatingly effective. And the fear is that the Saudis have created an ideological framework which makes that more possible. One mainstream Deobandi teacher told Yahya Birt that the salafi influence had bred such a climate of suspicion among his pupils that, even when teaching classic traditional texts, he had to leave out everything that could not be traced explicitly back to the Qur'an and the accepted sayings of The Prophet, the hadith. "British Islam has become more purely scripturalist," says Birt, "and petrodollar Wahhabism has been a key agent of this change."
It has also, says Abdal Hakim Murad, "made the public style of discourse and preaching more confrontational. . . . Salafis anathematise their opponents and their opponents internalise the violence of that language. It has soured the atmosphere considerably."
New technologies of mass communication have added to the problem. With the internet, videos and tapes ordinary Muslims are now studying texts once reserved for scholars in the higher reaches of clerical training. The result is a new highly individualistic theology which often reads holy texts in a literalist way with no understanding of the contexts in which different parts of the Islamic scriptures were framed.
It all facilitates interaction between young Muslims from Britain, Pakistan and the Arab world. But that is as true in an al-Qa'ida training camp in Afghanistan as it is on the internet.
"Violence is not inevitable," says Philip Lewis, "but it creates the environment in which it is possible for that to be the next step". Abdal Hakim Murad agrees. "Salafism increases the likelihood of combustion but doesn't mean it's inevitable. Wahhabism is Islam's unstable isotope, it regularly produces detonations around the edges," he says. "If you throw into the crucible racism, social exclusion and the other experiences of being a young Muslim in Britain's inner cities, and then combine that with British foreign policy blunders overseas, and then add that to a theology that divides the world in a Manichean way into good and evil, us and them, then – if you put all that together – you may have a very explosive mixture."
It is to be hoped, therefore, that when King Abdullah comes to leave for home today the Queen and British Prime Minister remember to say thank you.
Wahhabism: a history
By Michael Savage
Wahhabism is a conservative movement within the Sunni denomination of Islam which was founded by an 18th-century cleric, Mohamed ibn Abdul Wahhab.
The founder's intention was to return Islam to its early roots by stripping it of what he regarded as the alien influences added by the generations of Muslims since the death of Mohamed in 632.
Wahhab's principles were drawn mainly from direct readings of the Koran, and the life of Mohamed. He was also influenced by the writing of an earlier Sunni scholar, Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, who shared a belief that Islamic practice needed to return to a "purer" interpretation of the religion's fundamental texts.
According to Ibn Abdul Wahhab, all the ideas that had been added to Islamic worship after the "Salafis" – the three generations which followed the death of the prophet Mohamed – were false and divergent from true Islam.
He is believed to have been motivated by what he saw as a decline in standards in the Arab world and a regression back into polytheism, which had been present in the Arab world before the development of Islam.
In particular, Ibn Abdul Wahhab criticised idolatry in the form of saint worship and shrine visitation. He also believed that each Muslim had an individual responsibility to learn and adhere to the commands in the Koran and the speeches of the prophet. He was prepared to be very critical of fellow Muslims whom he regarded as having developed "false practices", even going as far as to declaring jihad on those who engaged in the kinds of Islamic worship of which he disapproved.
The term "Wahhabi" was first used pejoratively by the opponents of Ibn Abdul Wahhab to describe both him and his followers. In 1924, Wahhabist fighters conquered what is now the western part of Saudi Arabia. It has been the dominant strand of Islam in Saudi Arabia since the kingdom was unified in 1932, and its growth overseas has in part been helped by wealth accrued from the country's oil reserves.
Today, Wahhabism is present in Muslim communities across the West. It is also a strong strain of Islam in Arab states such as Kuwait and Qatar, and has some followers in Somalia and Palestine.
How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html
Dr. Yousaf Butt is a senior advisor to the British American Security Information Council and director at the Cultural Intelligence Institute. The views expressed here are his own.
LONDON — The horrific terrorist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo weekly in Paris have led to speculation as to whether the killers — the brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi — were lone wolves or tied to masterminds in ISIS or its rival, Al-Qaeda. Although Al-Qaeda in Yemen has taken credit for the attack, it is unclear how closely the affiliate actually directed the operation. No matter which organizational connections (if any) ultimately prove to be real, one thing is clear: the fountainhead of Islamic extremism that promotes and legitimizes such violence lies with the fanatical "Wahhabi" strain of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia. And if the world wants to tamp down and eliminate such violent extremism, it must confront this primary host and facilitator.
Perversely, while the Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Asiri took part in a "Je suis Charlie" solidarity rally in Beirut following the Paris attacks, back home the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi received the first 50 of 1,000 lashes he is due each Friday over the next 20 weeks. His crime? Running a liberal website promoting the freedom of speech. (Thankfully, in recent days it seems the Saudi authorities have buckled to international pressure and suspended the sentence.)
It would be troublesome but perhaps acceptable for the House of Saud to promote the intolerant and extremist Wahhabi creed just domestically. But, unfortunately, for decades the Saudis have also lavishly financed its propagation abroad. Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991.
This appears to be a monumental campaign to bulldoze the more moderate strains of Islam, and replace them with the theo-fascist Saudi variety. Despite being well aware of the issue, Western powers continue to coddle the Saudis or, at most, protest meekly from time to time.
For instance, a Wikileaks cable clearly quotes then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." She continues: "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." And it's not just the Saudis: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are also implicated in the memo. Other cables released by Wikileaks outline how Saudi front companies are also used to fund terrorism abroad.
Evidently, the situation has not improved since Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Late last year, Vice President Biden caused a stir by undiplomatically speaking the truth at an event at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, saying:
"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends... [and] the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera. What were they doing?.... They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world."
More recently, the Saudi role in promoting extremism has come under renewed scrutiny. Calls for declassifying the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 congressional commission have been getting stronger. And statements from the lead author of the report, former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, suggest they are being hidden because they "point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier" of the 9/11 hijackers. He has been unusually explicit, "Saudi Arabia has not stopped its interest in spreading extreme Wahhabism. ISIS...is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support, although now they are making a pretense of being very anti-ISIS."
In fact, Saudi blogger Raif Badawi's wife, Ensaf Haidar, made a similar observation about her husband's flogging: "the Saudi government is behaving like Daesh [a derogatory Arabic term for ISIS]." About 2,500 Saudis are thought to be in ISIS' ranks.
Ensaf Haidar's quip exposes a deeper truth. One could reasonably argue that the House of Saud is simply a more established and diplomatic version of ISIS. It shares the extremist Wahhabi theo-fascism, the lack of human rights, intolerance, violent beheadings etc. — but with nicer buildings and roads. If ISIS were ever to become an established state, after a few decades one imagines it might resemble Saudi Arabia.
How does Saudi Arabia go about spreading extremism? The extremist agenda is not always clearly government-sanctioned, but in monarchies where the government money is spread around to various princes, there is little accountability for what the royal family does with their government funds. Much of the funding is via charitable organizations and is not military-related.
The money goes to constructing and operating mosques and madrassas that preach radical Wahhabism. The money also goes to training imams; media outreach and publishing; distribution of Wahhabi textbooks, and endowments to universities and cultural centers. A cable released by Wikileaks explains, regarding just one region of Pakistan:
Government and non-governmental sources claimed that financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making its way to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in the region from "missionary" and "Islamic charitable" organizations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with the direct support of those governments.
Although the Wahhabi curriculum was modified after the 9/11 attacks, it remains backward and intolerant. Freedom House published a report on the revised curriculum, concluding that it "continues to propagate an ideology of hate toward the 'unbeliever,' which include Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sufis, Sunni Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine, Hindus, atheists and others." This is taught not only domestically but also enthusiastically exported abroad.
Of course, initially there was complicity with the U.S. and Pakistan in promoting this ideology to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In addition to the radical indoctrination, thousands of volunteer jihadis from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries were also dispatched to fight alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan. But it remains a complicated problem to this day because the politicians in the poor countries getting the Saudi and Gulf-Arab funds approve these extremist madrassas in part because the local authorities likely receive kickbacks.
In many places in poor Muslim countries the choice is now between going to an extremist madrassa or getting no education at all. Poverty is exploited to promote extremism. The affected areas include Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, India and parts of Africa. The same Wikileaks cable explains:
The network reportedly exploited worsening poverty in these areas of the province to recruit children into the divisions' growing Deobandi and Ahl-eHadith madrassa network from which they were indoctrinated into jihadi philosophy, deployed to regional training/indoctrination centers, and ultimately sent to terrorist training camps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
The more tolerant indigenous versions of Islam cannot survive in the face of the tsunami of money being poured into promoting theo-fascist Wahhabism. This is a major problem that the Muslim world must urgently address.
But it is also a problem where the West can help by stopping its historical pandering and support of Middle East tyrants who spread this extremism. The most fundamental way to make the message clear to the House of Saud would be to threaten to stop buying oil from them. Given the relatively cheap oil prices these days it need not be an empty threat.
Eliminating the occasional militant leaders in drone and special-forces strikes is of limited use in reducing extremism if millions of radicals are being actively trained in Wahhabi madrassas across the Muslim world.
The fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda is deeply ironic since these organizations were created and are sustained, in part, by funds we hand over to the Saudis and Gulf Arab nations to purchase their oil. And while France mourns its cartoonists and police officers, the French government is busy signing military and nuclear deals worth billions with the Saudis. If we continue down this road, it may well be a never-ending war.
The House of Saud works against the best interests of the West and the Muslim world. Muslim communities worldwide certainly need to eradicate fanatical Wahhabism from their midst, but this will be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish if the West continues its support of the House of Saud. The monarchy must be modernized and modified — or simply uprooted and replaced. The House of Saud needs a thorough house cleaning.
To really combat terror, end support for Saudi Arabia
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism
Ramped up rhetoric on security makes no sense so long as the west cosies up to dictatorships that support fundamentalism
The so-called war on terror is nearly 13 years old, but which rational human being will be cheering its success? We've had crackdowns on civil liberties across the world, tabloid-fanned generalisations about Muslims and, of course, military interventions whose consequences have ranged from the disastrous to the catastrophic. And where have we ended up? Wars that Britons believe have made them less safe; jihadists too extreme even for al-Qaida's tastes running amok in Iraq and Syria; and nations like Libya succumbing to Islamist militias. There are failures, and then there are calamities.
But as the British government ramps up the terror alert to "severe" and yet more anti-terror legislation is proposed, some reflection after 13 years of disaster is surely needed. One element has been missing, and that is the west's relationship with Middle Eastern dictatorships that have played a pernicious role in the rise of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. And no wonder: the west is militarily, economically and diplomatically allied with these often brutal regimes, and our media all too often reflects the foreign policy objectives of our governments.
Take Qatar. There is evidence that, as the US magazine The Atlantic puts it, "Qatar's military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra", an al-Qaida group operating in Syria. Less than two weeks ago, Germany's development minister, Gerd Mueller, was slapped down after pointing the finger at Qatar for funding Islamic State (Isis).
While there is no evidence to suggest Qatar's regime is directly funding Isis, powerful private individuals within the state certainly are, and arms intended for other jihadi groups are likely to have fallen into their hands. According to a secret memo signed by Hillary Clinton, released by Wikileaks, Qatar has the worst record of counter-terrorism cooperation with the US.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
And yet, where are the western demands for Qatar to stop funding international terrorism or being complicit in the rise of jihadi groups? Instead, Britain arms Qatar's dictatorship, selling it millions of pounds worth of weaponry including "crowd-control ammunition" and missile parts. There are other reasons for Britain to keep stumm, too. Qatar owns lucrative chunks of Britain such as the Shard, a big portion of Sainsbury's and a slice of the London Stock Exchange.
Then there's Kuwait, slammed by Amnesty International for curtailing freedom of expression, beating and torturing demonstrators and discriminating against women. Hundreds of millions have been channelled by wealthy Kuwaitis to Syria, again ending up with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra.
Kuwait has refused to ban the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, a supposed charity designated by the US Treasury as an al-Qaida bankroller. David Cohen, the US Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has even described Kuwait as the "epicentre of fundraising for terrorist groups in Syria". As Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, an associate fellow at Chatham House, told me: "High profile Kuwaiti clerics were quite openly supporting groups like al-Nusra, using TV programmes in Kuwait to grandstand on it." All of this is helped by lax laws on financing and money laundering, he says.
But don't expect any concerted action from the British government. Kuwait is "an important British ally in the region", as the British government officially puts it. Tony Blair has become the must-have accessory of every self-respecting dictator, ranging from Kazakhstan to Egypt; Kuwait was Tony Blair Associates' first client in a deal worth £27m. Britain has approved hundreds of arms licences to Kuwait since 2003, recently including military software and anti-riot shields.
And then, of course, there is the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. Much of the world was rightly repulsed when Isis beheaded the courageous journalist James Foley. Note, then, that Saudi Arabia has beheaded 22 people since 4 August. Among the "crimes" that are punished with beheading are sorcery and drug trafficking.
Around 2,000 people have been killed since 1985, their decapitated corpses often left in public squares as a warning. According to Amnesty International, the death penalty "is so far removed from any kind of legal parameters that it is almost hard to believe", with the use of torture to extract confessions commonplace. Shia Muslims are discriminated against and women are deprived of basic rights, having to seek permission from a man before they can even travel or take up paid work.
Even talking about atheism has been made a terrorist offence and in 2012, 25-year-old Hamza Kashgari was jailed for 20 months for tweeting about the prophet Muhammad. Here are the fruits of the pact between an opulent monarchy and a fanatical clergy.
This human rights abusing regime is deeply complicit in the rise of Islamist extremism too. Following the Soviet invasion, the export of the fundamentalist Saudi interpretation of Islam – Wahhabism – fused with Afghan Pashtun tribal code and helped to form the Taliban. The Saudi monarchy would end up suffering from blowback as al-Qaida eventually turned against the kingdom.
Chatham House professor Paul Stevens says: "For a long time, there was an unwritten agreement ... whereby al-Qaida's presence was tolerated in Saudi Arabia, but don't piss inside the tent, piss outside." Coates Ulrichsen warns that Saudi policy on Syria could be "Afghanistan on steroids", as elements of the regime have turned a blind eye to where funding for anti-Assad rebels ends up.
Although Saudi Arabia has given $100m (£60m) to the UN anti-terror programme and the country's grand mufti has denounced Isis as "enemy number one", radical Salafists across the Middle East receive ideological and material backing from within the kingdom. According to Clinton's leaked memo, Saudi donors constituted "the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
But again, don't expect Britain to act. Our alliance with the regime dates back to 1915, and Saudi Arabia is the British arms industry's biggest market, receiving £1.6bn of military exports. There are now more than 200 joint ventures between UK and Saudi companies worth $17.5bn.
So much rhetoric about terrorism; so many calls to act. Yet Britain's foreign policy demonstrates how empty such words are. Our allies are up to their necks in complicity with terrorism, but as long as there is money to be made and weapons to sell, our rulers' lips will remain stubbornly sealed.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.01.08, 09:47:01
In conclusion we can be sure of one thing: "TERRORISTS are MADE not BORN"
Understanding The Power-Contest Between Aristocracies
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/understanding-power-contest-between-aristocracies
Authored by Eric Zuesse,
At the core of global power stands the conflict between the Sauds and their Sunni clergy, versus the Iranians and their Shiite clergy.
One can't understand U.S.-Russian relations, nor much else of what is happening in the world, without knowing the relevant historical background; and the origins and nature of the Sunni war against Shiia are arguably the most essential part of that. Just how the United States came to back the Sunnis, and how Russia came to back the Shiites, in this war, will be discussed in subsequent articles.
This great intra-Islamic conflict, little understood outside the Middle East, came into clearer-than-ever focus on 2 August 2013 when Sami Kleib at al-Monitor headlined "Saudi Arabia Tries to Cut a Deal With Russia Regarding Syria", and he reported about Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud's trip to Moscow, as the Director of Saudi Intelligence. It was an extraordinary private meeting, because the Sauds and the Russians have been enemies ever since the Sauds allied themselves with the Americans against the atheistic Soviet Union in 1945. Kleib wrote that:
Like all Saudi Arabian leaders, Bandar wants to deal a blow to Hezbollah and weaken Iran. And they will do anything to accomplish that, including hitting President Assad's regime.
But why did Saudi Arabia change its mind and decide to send Prince Bandar to a country that "supports the genocide in Syria"?
To find the answer, first look for Iran.
Then, Kleib noted the central point:
Saudi Arabia faced a choice: to reach an understanding with either Iran or Russia.
Saudi Prince Bandar — sometimes called "Bandar Bush" because he was virtually accepted as a member of the Bush family — had been forced into a position of choosing between Russia and Iran as an ally to join with the Sauds' war to dislodge Assad from Syria; and he chose Russia to become an ally with the Sauds, instead of choosing the Sauds' 'fellow'-Muslims, Shiite Iran.
Why did the Sauds choose Russia, over Islamic Iran, to join them?
Russia, to the Sauds, represents (even today), as Kleib put it, "the 'capital of communist atheism'." (After all: Putin had once been a communist, though he was now a follower of the Russian Orthodox Church.) Iran, by contrast, represents the leadership of what to the Sunni Sauds is their real competition: Shiite Islam.
The Thirty Years War in Europe was fought between Catholics and Protestants, two competing wings of Christendom. It was a vicious and deadly war. Both sides of it were killing for the same God — just different clergies and their respective aristocracies.
The civil war in Iraq after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 was between Shiites and Sunnis; and they too were killing each other for the same God — just different clergies, and their respective aristocracies.
Before the Sauds-Salafists (Wahhabists) can defeat atheists and former atheists (Russia), and also defeat non-Islamic religionists (such as the vast majority of Europeans and Americans), they must first settle their scores against the Shiites — above all, against Iran.
Furthermore: the fundamentalist Salafist-Wahhabist Saud family, in 1945, allied with the Christian-majority nation of America, against the atheistic Soviet Union; and, today, Russia is (reverted to its being) an overwhelmingly Christian-majority nation; so, some of the Sauds' sheer animus against Russians has, indeed, subsided a bit. However, by contrast, Iran has become (after the 1979 ousting of the American stooge Shah) assertively Shiite, which is, perhaps, to the Sauds, even more infuriating than is atheism.
However, it actually goes much deeper back than that: It goes back to the deal in the year 1744, that the fanatical anti-Shia cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab and the ambitious gang-leader Muhammad ibn Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia) made, which established simultaneously the Saudi-Wahhabist nation and the Wahhabist sect of Islam, both of which are joined-at-the-head with Saud's descendants, so as to constitute the existing nation of, actually, Saudi-Wahhabist Arabia. (It's actually not only Saudi. The Sauds fulfill their contract, because, if they didn't, the Wahhabist clergy would support a revolution to overthrow them.) This deal was the most clearly and succinctly described in the 1992 U.S.-Library-of-Congress-published book by Helen Chapin Metz, Saudi Arabia: A Country Study (and the highlighting of a sentence in it here is by me, not by Metz):
Lacking political support in Huraymila [where he lived], Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab returned to Uyaynah [the town of his birth] where he won over some local leaders. Uyaynah, however, was close to Al Hufuf, one of the Twelver Shia centers in eastern Arabia, and its leaders were understandably alarmed at the anti-Shia tone of the Wahhabi message. Partly as a result of their influence, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was obliged to leave Uyaynah, and headed for Ad Diriyah. He had earlier made contact with [and won over to his hatred of Shiia] Muhammad ibn Saud, the leader in Ad Diriyah at the time, and two of [Saud's] brothers had accompanied [Saud] when he [in accord with Wahhab's hate-Shiia teachings] destroyed tomb shrines [which were holy to Shiia] around Uyaynah.
Accordingly, when Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab arrived in Ad Diriyah, the Al Saud was ready to support him. In 1744 Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab swore a traditional Muslim oath in which they promised to work together to establish a state run according to Islamic principles. Until that time the Al Saud had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders whose rule was based on longstanding but vaguely defined authority.
Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab offered the Al Saud a clearly defined religious mission to which to contribute their leadership and upon which they might base their political authority. This sense of religious purpose remained evident in the political ideology of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s.
Muhammad ibn Saud began by leading armies into Najdi towns and villages to eradicate various popular and Shia practices. The movement helped to rally the towns and tribes of Najd to the Al Saud-Wahhabi standard. By 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud's forces had established Wahhabism — and with it the Al Saud political authority — over most of Najd.
So: Saudi Arabia was founded upon hatred of Shiia Muslims, and it was founded upon a deal that was made in 1744 between a Shiia-hating fundamentalist Sunni cleric Wahhab, and a ruthless gang-leader Saud, in which deal the clergy would grant the Sauds holy legitimacy from the Quran, and the Sauds would finance the spread of Wahhab's fanatical anti-Shiia sect.
The Sauds are thus obsessed with Iran, and with its foreign Shiite allies, such as Assad in Syria, Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — and want them all dead, if those Shiites won't become subservient to Sunni clerics.
The United States is (and since 1945 has been) allied with the Sauds. But the U.S. was now reaching out to Iran, for a deal on nuclear inspections. This antagonized the Sauds. So: the Sauds were considering the possibility of becoming allied instead with Russia against both Assad and Iran. This despite the fact that America's aristocracy (such as the Bushes*) is obsessed to overthrow or else cripple Russia, so as to give the U.S. aristocracy virtually a power-monopoly over the entire world.
That meeting between Bandar and Putin on 2 August 2013 was for the big-power stakes; it was for really history-shaping stakes. If Bandar had succeeded, then the post-World-War-II era (the U.S.-Saudi alliance especially) would have definitively ended; and, going forward, a Russia-Saud alliance, including the other Sunni-controlled nations — Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, etc. — would be at war to defeat Syria and other Shiite nations, especially their leader: Iran.
The U.S. would have become odd-man-out: desperately trying to get Sunni Pakistan's military (Pakistan's aristocracy) to ally with the U.S. instead of with the Sauds. If Pakistan were to go with Saudi Arabia (such as, for example, the Wahhabist Taliban would hope), then Iran would be at war against not only the Arabic aristocracies to the west, but against the Pakistani aristocracy to the east. (Pakistan's aristocracy mainly run the military, and so in order for Pakistan to go with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's aristocracy would be joining with, and would no longer resist, the Taliban and other Wahhabists in Pakistan. Pakistan would become a Saudi satellite state.) Also, the Afghan aristocracy, being Sunni, would be a part of the Saudi alliance (as they already largely have been, since at least 1979; Afghanistan is a Saudi satellite). Virtually the entire Islamic world would be united behind the Sauds.
The U.S. would lose its influence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The EU would be the site of enormous conflicts between the old Christian majority and the flood of new Muslim refugees, most of whom would be Sunnis who would feel torn between their loyalties to Mecca versus to their new Christian-majority home-nation.
The big losers, in other words, would be not only the clergy and aristocracy in Iran, but also the clergies and aristocracies in Europe and the U.S.
Bandar Bush was actually angling for the defeat of the U.S., and not only of Iran. (He had been a major donor to Al Qaeda. George W. Bush's Saudi buddy had contributed to financing the 9/11 attacks.)
Putin said no. He refused Prince Bandar's offer.
The U.S. aristocracy continues trying to overthrow Putin and any nation's leaders who cooperate with him. Previously, it was Gaddafi in Lybia, then Yanukovych in Ukraine. Now it's Assad in Syria. Side-coups had also been attempted but failed in Venezuela, Ecuador, and possibly a few other countries.
After the 13 November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the major world leaders met at the G-20 talks; and, in conclusion of the conference, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summed up on November 17th by saying that:
Analysis of the strikes delivered by the United States and its coalition at terrorist positions [in Syria] over the past year drives us to a conclusion that these were selective, I would say sparing, strikes and in the majority of cases spared those Islamic State groups that were capable of pressing the Syrian army. It looks like a cat that wants to eat a fish but doesn't want to wet its feet. They want the Islamic State to weaken Assad as soon as possible to force him to step down this or that way, but they don't want to see Islamic State strong enough to take power.
In other words: even at the G-20 conference right after the Paris attacks, the U.S. remained more anti-Russian than anti-jihadist. Whereas the American public were vastly more anti-jihadist than anti-Russian, U.S. President Barack Obama was committed to the same policy that he had pretended — both to Russian leaders and to the American public — to be opposed to when he was running against Mitt Romney in 2012; and, as Romney put it: "This [Russia] is without question our number one geopolitical foe." In America'sdictatorship, Obama's repudiation of Romney's statement turned out to have been a lie from Obama — Americans 'elected' there Romney merely in blackface.
* In a previous article, "How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West," I quoted the detailed account by Mary Louise Sarotte, about George H.W. Bush's having double-crossed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 by having Bush's agents tell Gorbachev that the U.S. had no aim of conquering Russia and that if Gorbachev would peacefully let the Berlin Wall fall and East Germany become absorbed into West Germany, then "NATO will not expand itself to the East." However, when German Chancellor Helmut Kohl tried then to proceed that way to the end of the Soviet Union, Bush brought Kohl to Camp David and told him in private there, "To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn't." Kohl from that moment on worked as part of the American aristocracy's continuing sub-rosa war to take over Russia — and NATO now virtually surrounds the eastern half of Russia. Kohl's protégé Angela Merkel continues this.
Bush's successor Bill Clinton followed through on the senior Bush's double-cross by bringing into NATO Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. Bush's son then brought in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Obama brought in Albania and Croatia, and he's still trying to bring in Ukraine, after his coup there in February 2014, whose aim was largely to get that big one into NATO — plus to cut off Russia's gas-supplies into Europe, which pass through Ukraine.
Anyone who would deny that the U.S. aristocracy aren't rabid to take over Russia is ignoring a lot of recent history, especially the most important parts.
As regards the Saudi obsession to defeat Iran: The billionaire Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal was reported on 2 July 2015 to have said in Saudi Arabia's newspaper Okaz (with highlighting here by myself, to indicate what I see as the most important parts):
All my Muslim brothers and sisters must understand that it became a moral imperative for all inhabitants of war-torn Middle-East, namely Arabs, to desist their absurd hostility toward Jewish people.My sovereign, King Salman has instructed me to open a direct dialogue with Israel's intellectuals building amicable ties with our Israeli neighbors.
The same English-language site then reported on 27 October 2015 that he said in Kuwait's newspaper Al Qabas:
I will side with the Jewish nation and its democratic aspirations in case of outbreak of a Palestinian Intifada (uprising) and I shall exert all my influence to break any ominous Arab initiatives set to condemn Tel Aviv, because I deem the Arab-Israeli entente and future friendship necessary to impede the Iranian dangerous encroachment. ... The whole Middle-East dispute is tantamount to life and death for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from my vantage point, and I know that Iraniansseek to unseat the Saudi regime by playing the Palestinian card, hence to foil their plots Saudi Arabia and Israel must bolster their relations and form a united front to stymie Tehran's ambitious agenda.
I have been unable to find in English any record of a repudiation by Saudi King Salman of either of those comments. Talal's statements come at a time when the U.S., Obama Administration, had negotiated an agreement with Iran about nuclear issues. A re-alignment of the key global aristocracies might result from this situation. The U.S. is willing to negotiate with Iran but refuses even to work together with Russia to defeat jihadists in Syria. (Or at least refused prior to the 13 November 2015 ISIS terrorism in Paris.) America's attitude toward Russia has been unremittingly hostile, as if Russia had done anything that threatened the United States (except to respond to America's/NATO's aggressive moves against Russia, such as its overthrow of Ukraine's government, next door). Clearly, America's aristocracy have played their public as suckers; but a big debate in American politics these days is whether the U.S. should temporarily reduce its anti-Russian focus in order to increase its anti-jihadist focus after the November 13th Paris terrorist attacks.
In order for the U.S. to end its war against Russia, a basic re-alignment of aristocracies would occur. The U.S., like Russia, would be aligned with Iran. Israel doesn't want that to happen. Israel is aligned with the Sauds. Does Israel control U.S.? Will the American public continue to favor America's being controlled by Israel? Will even American Jews continue to support America's being controlled by Israel? America's aristocratic Jews do, but will the vast majority, the others, or will they instead repudiate their aristocracies, not only American but Israeli? Or, instead, will America abandon Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni aristocracies, and Israel's aristocracy; and, so, abandon the fundamentalist-Jewish apartheid state, and re-assert its own democracy?
These are not only questions about America's ideology — whether to be democratic, or instead aristocratic (as it has been since at least 1981). These questions are about America's military and economic position in the world.
The United States remains a part of the Saudi-Israeli-U.S. alliance; it remains fundamentally inimical to democracy. It remains as an aristocratically controlled nation, which accepts control of the public by a theocratic-aristocratic alliance via the state, and rejects control of both the aristocracy and the clergy by the public via the state. It sides especially with the aristocracy against democracy.
However, even secular-democratic nations, such as Russia and a few others in Europe, are constantly under both aristocratic and theocratic threats. Much of Russia's aristocracy crave to return to the Yeltsin years when the U.S. aristocracy controlled there. And Russia's alliance with Iran is with a theocratic Shiite state, no authentic democracy.
The key decision is for the U.S. aristocracy: whether to continue as dictators there, or, instead, abandon both the Sauds who control Arabia, and the Orthodox Jews who have come to control Israel. Barring that, there is no way in which the current soaring 'defense' budgets will head down again: 'defense' stocks will continue to rise, and services to the public will continue to erode. The world is headed for an increase in wars.
The last U.S. President before 1981, Jimmy Carter, said recently that the United States is "just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president." Changing this will be difficult if not impossible. The global aristocracies might not 'win,' but dislodging them from power is extremely unlikely. Their wars will continue to be our wars.
The world's 80 wealthiest individuals own half of the world's wealth, and the way that this was calculated ignored the very wealthiest people entirely, including the wealthiest of all, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, whose actual wealth is certainly well in excess of a trillion dollars. So, the true number there wouldn't be 80 individuals, but perhaps more like only 40, many of whose personal fortunes aren't even calculated by Forbes, etc. But regardless of whether it's instead as large as, say, 70, the wealthiest people need to grab wealth from some of the other wealthiest people in order to raise their respective rank, as studies indicate to be the main motivation for the super-rich — rank instead of money per se. For example, "the richest 8.6% own $224.5T (trillion), while the poorest 91.4% own only $38.7T." So, stealing from even a large number of individuals in the poorest 91.4% won't likely increase the rank of a person who is in the top 100 worldwide — they've got to steal from each other, in order to raise their rank. Wars are the way that's done. It's an essential business for the global aristocracy, especially at the global top; and, so, as the world's wealth becomes more and more concentrated, more and more weapons will be sold. There's just no other way for it to happen.Whether any of them are willing to go so far as nuclear war is another question. Bluffing is one thing; willingness to follow through with it, is something very different.
As Islamic extremists declare Britain's first Sharia law zone, the worrying social and moral implications
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html
By Sue Reid for The Mail on Sunday
Updated: 22:34, 29 July 2011
As a throng of Muslim families crowd around him, Abu Izzadeen speaks in a quiet voice of his plans for the future of Britain. The tall, bearded 36-year-old — who was recently freed from prison after serving a term for funding terrorism — is telling, in chilling detail, how he wants to impose Islam's strict Sharia law on this country.
At a shopping mall in Waltham Forest, North London, Muslim passers-by listen intently. Some shout greetings in Arabic from across the street.
Fathers push forward their young sons (wearing skull caps for prayers at the local mosque) so they can get a good view of the man who is plainly viewed by many as a hero.
Today, Izzadeen, the self-styled 'Director for Waltham Forest Muslims', will march with his supporters — many of them new young recruits to Islam — as part of their campaign to make the suburban borough into Britain's first Sharia-law zone.
Under his brutal set of rules, there would be a ban on alcohol, gambling, drugs, music, smoking and homosexuality, as well as on men and women mixing in public.
This is all part of Izzadeen's concerted campaign to defeat 'Western decadence' and turn large parts of Britain — where, his supporters say, 'people live like animals in a jungle' — into an Islamic Emirate.
Already, 20,000 yellow leaflets have been printed by Islamic activists, saying 'You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.' The leaflets have been stuck onto lamp-posts, put up in shop windows and on pillar boxes. As fast as the police and council officials tear them down, more go up.
Izzadeen says: 'This is the first step towards turning Britain into an Islamic state. There are nearly three million Muslims in this country. Islam is a sleeping giant that is waking. We have moved on from the debate about the provision of halal meat to more political issues.
'Twenty-five areas around Britain have large Muslim populations, including Bradford, Dewsbury, Leicester and Luton. We want to turn them all into Islamic Emirates, where the excesses of Western civilisation are not tolerated.'
According to this year's Global Islamic Finance Report, Britain is now the main centre for Islamic finance outside the Muslim world.
Baroness Cox, a crossbench peer and campaigner for Muslim women, has highlighted the dangers of the increasing influence of extreme factions within Islamic culture.
She says: 'As the Muslim population has grown, and the state-sponsored creed of multiculturalism has become ever more powerful, so Sharia law has strengthened its grip on our society.
'This is a recipe for disaster, because different legal systems for people of different religions will promote divisions between communities.
As Trump makes a passing mention of 9-11 I feel this is the correct forum...
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term Askenazi Jew, recent mitochondrial studies suggest that that the majority of Askenazi are descended from European women, thus nothing to do with the lost tribes, in other words they are not descendants of King David.
As is vividly shown in the following link these people, who flooded back into Israel, have now spread out to control the world governments. The bottom line, i believe, is that Trump is not just a useful idiot being used by them but is in fact one of them.
What can we expect? A continuation of the agenda, same sh*t...different day.
It is a fairly long video but the meat is from 9:30 to 19:12
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg)
Quote from: ronee on 2017.01.29, 16:01:00
As Trump makes a passing mention of 9-11 I feel this is the correct forum...
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term Askenazi Jew, recent mitochondrial studies suggest that that the majority of Askenazi are descended from European women, thus nothing to do with the lost tribes, in other words they are not descendants of King David.
As is vividly shown in the following link these people, who flooded back into Israel, have now spread out to control the world governments. The bottom line, i believe, is that Trump is not just a useful idiot being used by them but is in fact one of them.
What can we expect? A continuation of the agenda, same sh*t...different day.
It is a fairly long video but the meat is from 9:30 to 19:12
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg)
In that video one of the names shot out of the screen at me,
Sheldon Adelson, Vegas Mafia, he headed the attempt to build a European Vegas just outside Madrid and he wanted to pay no taxes for 10 years, smoking in all buildings, the government invest money in the project, apart from the free land, and in return he would supply jobs. The man is a complete crook, the type that would not make your day.
Sorry this is in Spanish
http://www.eleconomista.es/empresas-finanzas/noticias/5391316/12/13/El-Gobierno-rechaza-las-condiciones-de-Las-Vegas-Sands-para-instalarse-en-Madrid.html
Regards
Mike 8)
And spreading around the world
http://www.expansion.com/2014/01/05/empresas/1388930181.html
Regards
Mike 8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovegas
Regards
Mike 8)
Why we must defend those who dare to speak about the ideology of Jewish supremacy
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ja/node/578993#axzz4XeABSAro
Forbidden words, taboo topics, witch hunts, smear campaigns, excommunications, thought-policing and book banning are no longer the trademark of fascists and right wing extremists, the profession is shared now by Jewish "anti-Zionists," alleged "friends of Palestine." We are left watching in astonishment and disbelief as some "anti-Zionists" are doing the work of hyper-Zionists the likes of ADL and BoDoBJ.
I have recently witnessed the ostracizing and excommunication of two activists, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, by my local group affiliated to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) using the Zionist method of character assassination of using the labels "racist" "anti-Semitic" as a method of muffling truth.
Yet, among the numerous intellectuals and political activists that have publicly defended Atzmon are many Jews for whom I have only high praise and have expressed much admiration.
It seems that those who wish to stifle discourse are acting as controlled opposition. They attempt to block intellectual discussion, suppress academic freedom, obstruct rational and scholarly debate, filter vital information and smother serious research that examines three main identifiable problems:
The problem of the ideology of Jewish supremacy
The problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying
The problem of idolizing the holocaust (which is used as a tool to further Zionist aims)
In 2009, soon after the Gaza massacres, by sheer coincidence I came across the word Neshama. Curious, I googled the word, and lo and behold a Pandora's Box opened before my eyes; a new learning curve began; I learned about a group called Chabad Lubavitch. I was horrified to discover the supremacist ideology at the core of this group and the level of influence accomplished by the Rebbe and his followers.
Horror-struck, I started investigating, studying then writing about two main issues; the supremacist ideology and the high influence of this prominent organization, attempting to alert our Jewish PSC allies to the danger of such ideology and influence... only to be faced with utter silence.
The problem of the ideology of Jewish supremacy
First; if we accept that Zionism is defined by the crime of genocide and the ethnic cleansing of a nation and has caused the wiping out of a country, then investigating the motivation behind such crime is essential to fight it and hopefully to defeat it. Without unfiltered scrutiny, we would never know who we are dealing with and how to stop them.
Second; supremacism in Jewish ideology is not above criticism; like every other ideology, it should be transparent, accessible and not kept secretive. Without unfiltered scrutiny we would never know what animates Zionists to act with such aggravated cruelty and sadism.
Third; to accuse of "anti-Semitism" and "racism" those who expose Jewish supremacy, is the equivalent of covering up the ideology behind the crime and dissuading people from learning about it, hence challenging and fighting this form of racism.
Dismissing such supremacist beliefs as irrelevant and obsolete would be a huge mistake because these views are the very motor that charges, motivates and energizes the Jewish settlers in Palestine, and gives them the sense of entitlement to do what they do without feeling any guilt or remorse.
For us Palestinians and for our supporters in the solidarity movement, it is a matter of extreme importance to inspect and scrutinize the ideology that motivates and animates the Jewish settlers in our occupied Palestine in order to better understand it, hence combat it. Restricting our understanding of the occupiers, their ideology and mindset cripples our ability to fight back against them knowledgeably and effectively. Furthermore, in our day and age, racism has become outlawed, when people learn about the extent of the ideological racism in the Zionist entity, it will enable us to fight them in their weakest point, thus, bring the day of our liberation closer.
The problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying
First; when we look at Zionism as a crime, again, then logically we must identify and investigate the modus operandi. Failure to do so would leave us unable to understand how our oppressors operate and succeed.
Second; with regards to the Jewish-Zionist lobby: investigative work that examines information, no matter how well concealed, and attempts to identify at least some of the culprits and the real criminals behind the fearmongering, the endless wars and the catastrophic conditions that our world suffers is neither racist nor anti Semitic.
Third; devoid of proof or evidence for their false accusations the controlled opposition gate-keepers insidiously filter information through intimidation and by labeling anyone who dares to divulge vital facts. They disable Friends of Palestine (FoP) members from understanding the animus and the methods used to install and to perpetuate the criminal Zionist project, in particular the global network of collaborators who organize and effectively manipulate world policies by coercing world governments into continuous support of the Zionist project in spite of its growing inhumanity.
Expecting to become myself sooner or later a victim of such smear and filtering activity, I always utilize extensive links to primary sources I quote, mostly Jewish organizations. The network formed by these organizations involves large sections of Jewish communities worldwide, and its ultimate role is generally to support the Zionist entity, by inserting themselves in influential positions.
Suppression of inquiry amounts to a dynamic protection system (by peripheral concealment) of the global Zionist network.
Lite-Zionist critics of Israel are attempting to impose on FoP their restrictive dogma, i.e. that a majority of Jews worldwide, whether Zionist "diaspora" or "Israelis", are not the manipulators of international policy with regards to "Israel", but the complacent, docile instrument of U.S. imperialism.
To persist, such dogma imperatively needs, again, to filter out glaring facts such as the over-representation of Jewish-Zionist dual citizens in vital areas of UK-US policy making, or the cross-pollination of racist and supremacist ideology between many Talmudic Rabbis and many Secular Jewish-Zionist Organizations supporting the Zionist project.
The persistence of this dogma also requires strict and repressive censorship and gagging of whomever tries to scrutinize, analyze and discuss the facts, let alone expose them to an audience concerned by matters of equality and humanism, such as FoP and the Palestine solidarity movement in general was supposed to be. That is how and why smear campaigns with killer words such as "anti-Semitism" or "racism" are launched.
At best, such activity on part of alleged "friends of Palestine" is irresponsible. The logical implication of such nonsense, would be that Jewish Israelis, almost all of them serving at least 2 full years in the Israeli army, are just naïve and innocent victims. Thereby, this nonsensical dogma exculpates the notoriously perverted cruelty and psychopathy of the Israeli military's crimes, up and down the command ladder.
The problem of idolizing the holocaust
First; "Facts" do NOT need laws to enforce or defend them, what they require is research to examine their narrative and correct it for better accuracy and understanding. The denial of these principles will invariably lead to the eradication of the Science of History, and thus cause the blind repetition of more genocides, as we already see in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan... Much like what we see with the cover up and suppression of information about The Truth about 9/11, who benefited and how the event was used to create a climate of hatred and fear which enables the power elite to continue waging wars of aggression and extermination.
Second; without understanding how the holocaust has been used by Zionists, from its onset til this very day, we would continue to succumb to intimidation and give allowances that legitimize and justify the existence of a criminal entity. By insisting on keeping an aura of holiness, uniqueness and exceptionality around the holocaust which would continue to put it above any historical event, preventing researchers from examining how this event has been used, and how it enables our occupier to continue to use it as justification for what they do in Palestine.
The holocaust ought to be studied as a historical event with a historical narrative that has NO sacred or exceptional dimension. The emotional, dogmatic and sacred luggage that has been attached to it has been systematically used and is still used by Zionists to justify and minimize their ongoing heinous crimes in Palestine, as well as the claim of special status with special benefits in their respective countries.
Third; there is absolutely no link -strictly none- between the so-called Holocaust and Palestinians. Nowhere can Palestinians be incriminated in the abhorrent oppression committed by central Europeans against Jews during World War II.
I, as a Palestinian, am not prepared to live in guilt, nor to pay for crimes my people haven't committed. We refuse to accept and will reject forcibly if necessary, pathologically violent and racist Jewish occupiers.
Military conquest, terrorism, robbery, torture, ethnic cleansing and slow genocide ongoing since the arrival of the first Zionists in Palestine almost one century ago (i.e. before the holocaust) does NOT make someone the rightful "owners" or "co-owners" of my homeland, it makes them abject and violent occupiers.
I and with me my People are not accepting any more to keep having to listen to this narrative shoved down our throat with the repetition of tragedies about legendary love stories, human-fat soap or human-skin lamp shades in order that the Zionists continue to deceive, to trade with and reap the profit by deception and theft of a historical crime that has already been dealt with, and while they continue to use it to justify the ongoing theft of Palestine and extermination of Palestinians.
When someone claims to be in the solidarity movement with Palestine, but then at a crucial time when the Palestinian struggle for Liberation gains momentum, engages in such blatant cover up and concealment of vital information and analysis that would enable people to better understand the core problematic issues and how to effectively deal with them, I and with me every member of the FoP and the Palestine solidarity movement, have the right to question the dubious intentions and motivations of such acts, and to evaluate the damage such people are causing to the movement, hence to Palestinians.
I would like to add a thought about the accusation of racism and anti-Semitism used as a method to silence debate. Anti-Semitism is nothing but one form of racism. Jewish supremacy is yet another form of racism. All forms of racism are vile and ought to be rejected.
An aggravating factor makes the accuser's motives appear to be even more dubious. Indeed the false accusations of racism is inconsistent with their deafening silence about the mountain of evidence of the wide-spread existence of the ominously racist Jewish supremacist ideologies. This utter silence is a glaring attempt to deflect from the real racism about which I happen to have done extensive research during the past 2 years.
Also, I perceive the attacks as an attempt to block intellectual debate about the problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying, which to me is very worrisome, to say the least, when coming from self proclaimed "Friends of Palestine."
What I find really mind-boggling and hard to fathom in all this is the inconsistency with regards to racism.
On the one hand they do not hesitate to throw such a label against many honorable activists, scholars and intellectuals, in fact they label as "racist" and "fools" anyone who exposes the revolting yet well concealed Jewish supremacy, anyone who notices the effect of Jewish-Zionist networking or who objects to their disproportionate over-representation in key positions with all what it entails of conflict of interest and promotion of the interest of a foreign entity at the detriment of the interest of their national constituency. Yet, on the other hand, mystifyingly, the same people, who without hesitation accuse us of racism, stay utterly mute about the massive, revolting and offensive racism that fills thousands of pages in the Talmud, and major Jewish religious books! And I am not talking about some fringe lunatic fundamentalists who use these always mutating texts as tools, what I am talking about is the inter-connective network of people deeply entrenched in the main centers of government, power and capital, and who are veritably driving policies, war-mongering and hate-mongering!
This sharp contrast between the fervent reaction of those disloyal activists to alleged "racism" on one hand, and on the other, their apathetic deflated reaction or lack thereof, to the sickening anti-human racism emanating from Jewish sources with its correlation with Zionists' activities, leaves me speechless, beyond words.
Since I started exposing this racism, and over the past two years, I heard NOT ONE WORD about their outrage, opposition or willingness to expose or fight Jewish supremacist ideology, such as seen in the writing of one of the most respected, most reputable Jewish philosophers Moses Ben Maimon (also known as Maimonides).
"Maimonides's Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics." Moses Ben Maimon sees no problem with subjugating and enslaving gentiles:
"They shall be your subjects and serve you."
"The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble.
They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever."
He also talks about the right of the Jewish king to:
"wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation."
These "chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics" do not see any ethical predicament with "Jewish wars" of extermination and annihilation either.
Since this notorious ideology is the unequivocal underlying animus and root cause of the Zionist aggression and occupation, and since the "facts on the ground" prove the cross-pollination between this degradation and the secular Zionist aims, including the irrefutably slow-genocidal Zionist military policies, scrutiny and criticism of this racist supremacist filth is not a matter of fringe theology, but a vital matter of totalitarian politics.
Now, where is their outrage against such blatant Jewish racism and supremacy and terrifying nihilistic ideology? Don't they claim to be against racism wherever it comes from? Why don't they have the guts to condemn and campaign against such racism?
Is it not ludicrous to hear them condemn instead, those who expose and vehemently oppose such racism?
Without using any commonsense they jump into the ADL bandwagon and rub shoulders with Zionists!
If someone obstinately objects to the massive control and unwelcome influence and the robbing of others rights and property, under the pretext of divine entitlement, does that person become the unreasonable "bigot" !
What kind of skewed logic is that?
This inconsistency is incomprehensible to me.
Why are they entitled to classify people and to dictate to people what they should read and what they should avoid?
Why this condescending attitude that appears to be claiming to know what is best for people and selecting their intellectual diet for them?
Why deprive people of the right to read a wide range of opinions, including my own writing, and allow them to make up their analysis, and conclusions without manipulation, repression or restraint?
In my writing I vehemently criticize racist Jewish ideology, but I never accuse all Jews of being racist, never put them -or anyone else for that matter, in one basket. Ever.
In my writing I quoted the poll that 95% of USA Jewry support Israel as a Jewish state and 90% of British Jewry believe that Israel is the 'ancestral homeland' of the Jewish people, and concluded that most world Jewry are supportive of the theft of Palestine.
Truth is that the majority of world Jewry insist that Jews have a right and claim to the land. Including some of our Jewish "anti-Zionist" friends under whatever pretext. Their claims are not acceptable and unjustifiable!
I have pointed out the influence of organized Jewish networks, such information is available for any serious researcher, it can be easily verified, yes it is troublesome to find such a tiny group extremely overrepresented in so many vital areas of public affairs, such as finance, media, security and policy making, more so when the interests of such a group are in conspicuous conflict with the interest of the larger group, and when this minority supports a genocidal entity that has not evolved in six decades.
Over-representation is as unfair as under-representation, and if anti-racists take it upon themselves to defend the rights of the under-represented minorities, it is of equal importance to do the same with over-representation.
Perhaps such questions of over-representation might have not surfaced had the behavior of those in question been shrouded with morality and humanity. Had they been working to establish social justice, building homes, schools and hospitals instead of destroying and polluting the planet for generations to come, and instead of law of the jungle where the super-rich eat the poor to the last bone, had they chosen cooperation instead never-ending conflict, and promoted peace and justice instead of fomenting perpetual wars.
No one should be slandered for observing and objecting to such blatant mockery of morality, equality and justice.
I do not need to focus on Christian Zionists because their ideology is almost entirely sourced from the Old-Testament which is none other than the Jewish Torah! Most authentic Christians consider the Christian Zionists as worshipers of "Israel" and of the "Jewish people" rather than God, and in that sense they share the same ideology as Jewish-Zionist supremacists, in terms of their reverence and idolization of the Jewish people as the "Chosen", they are one and the same. Furthermore, those who occupy my land, those who drove me out of my homeland, and those who are still depriving me from going home are the Jewish Zionists.
I criticize the deafening silence of anti-Zionist Jews with regard to the racism that thrives amidst many Jewish communities. A silence which I believe will backfire one day, as they would be seen as not only complaisant but also complacent by deflecting away and concealing horrendous truths.
My criticism is motivated by concern and genuine care for good Jewish individuals that I have known and those whom I don't know, because of what I perceive as the danger that would befall all of them if they continue to ignore the supremacist ideology, the growing influence of the adherents of this ideology and if they continue to ignore all the warning signs that point to accumulating bottled rage against such villainy, which no doubt would one day manifest itself violently as an inevitable backlash to much unsaid, yet felt, oppression and unspoken, but lived, subjugation.
I find it rather pathetic that the only defense mechanism that the accusers come up with is the smear, slander and the accusation of being a "racist" against anyone who pokes the boil exposing the pus infesting inside one of the most vile racist and supremacist ideologies thriving at the heart of some Jewish teachings as per Mishna Torah, Zohar, Tanya, and Talmud. By insisting on dismissing Jewish supremacy and Jewish-Zionist networks they only promote the most cruel and degenerative racism to be found on the planet by means of concealment and shifting attention away from the real racism that I vehemently fight and deplore.
The persons who resort to accusation, suppression, character assassination and smear campaigns very cunningly and dishonestly omit to mention that those who expose and condemn the racist concepts of "chosen-ness", "exceptionality", "superior morality", "superior intelligence", and "Jewish entitlement of world leadership" do not invent these concepts. It is not racist to expose or quote such abomination, it is not a crime to bring such Jewish-claims to the public awareness. Any honest criticism should be directed against those who believe such filth and make such revolting claims.
To those individuals who take part in such ADL style smear campaigns of accusation of racism, I say:
I accuse you of acting as a smoke screen to cover up real racism as manifested by Jewish supremacists
I accuse you of acting as protectors and gatekeepers of the global Jewish Zionist networks and lobby groups by denying their existence and effectiveness.
I accuse you of complicity by insisting to conceal planned crimes against humanity as manifested in the supremacist nihilistic Chabad ideology.
Any Solidarity Movement with Palestine should take the opinions, the interests, and the future well being of Palestinians at heart, otherwise, it speaks only for itself, not for Palestinians.
Palestinians have the right to fight for the full liberation of their country, those who are willing to march with us all the way are welcome, those who are not, may look for other more convenient and less controversial campaigns to support.
I denounce any person or group who pretends to speak in my name as a Palestinian, yet behind closed doors, they plot and whisper about how to mute Palestinian voices and curtail the spread and impact of daring Palestinian opinions.
I denounce any person or group who claims to work for Palestine, yet their actions are contrary to the legitimate interest and aspirations of Palestinian people. Allowing themselves to be used as a vehicle to secure the future of the Jewish-Zionist invaders by facilitating the permanent takeover of Palestine with the pretext of "two peoples, one future" blather or "equal rights to both sides" nonsense.
I denounce any person or group who turns a blind eye and reacts with a deafening silence to the unimaginable repulsive racism that oozes from some Jewish supremacist groups, yet instead, hysterically and shamelessly react to someone who accidentally came to discover such horrors.
Finally, I fully trust the Palestine solidarity movement to have the intellectual integrity and capacity to see through the fog of manipulation, and to have the assertiveness, the respect for their own intellect and enough open-mindedness to look at many sources of information, and that they have the courage to read for themselves and evaluate what they read independently, without having some gurus spoon-feeding them with filtered, processed, misrepresented or manipulated information.
Nahida Izzat is a Jerusalem-born Palestinian refugee who has lived in exile for over forty five years, after being forced to leave her homeland at the tender age of seven in 1967, during the six-day war. She has a degree in mathematics, but art is one of her favorite pastimes. She loves hand-made things and so makes dolls, cards, and most of her own clothing. She also writes poetry, participates in written dialogues and believes in building bridges, not walls.
The whatreallyhappened.com thought for the day:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/#axzz4XhX1XtCH
"The Nations will exhort to tranquility. They will be ready to sacrifice everything for peace, but WE WILL NOT GIVE THEM PEACE until they openly acknowledge our International Super-Government, and with SUBMISSIVENESS." (Zionist Congress at Basle in 1897)
Kol Nidre
an Aramaic prayer annulling vows made before God, sung by Jews at the opening of the Day of Atonement service on the eve of Yom Kippur.
Insidious
Ron
Zionism threatens to bring anti-semitism full-circle
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/zionism-threatens-semitism/
Zionism is very much a mirror image of anti-Semitism. It was founded and based on an assumption that assimilation is bound to fail, and that the Jews must resort to other measures in order to protect their existence – as persons, but perhaps even more significantly – as a supposed nation. David Ben-Gurion's words to the Mapai committee in 1938 reveal how the national aspect could supersede the humanitarian concern to actual people: "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." In that same year he spoke to the Jewish Agency in regards to the Évian conference which sought to facilitate the plight of Jewish refugees, saying, "[I do] not know if the conference will open the gates of other countries. . . . But I am afraid [ it ] might cause tremendous harm to Eretz Yisrael and Zionism. . . . and the more we emphasize the terrible distress of the Jewish masses in Germany, Poland and Rumania, the more damage we shall cause" — to Zionism and Eretz Israel by promoting emigration to western countries. [Both quotes at this link].
That is to say, that the priority of nationalism (as opposed to personal security) was extremely high in Zionism from the outset. Zionism sought to forge a sense of 'nationhood' for a people that were of a vast spectrum of ethnicity, language, even religion (from ultra-orthodox to atheist) and claim that they were one. The British (and notably Jewish) Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, in his critique of His Majesty's Government's intentions to endorse a 'Jewish national home" in Palestine in 1917, said: "I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries – through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race".
Jonathan Cook in his recent article relates how "Hannah Arendt, the German Jewish scholar of totalitarianism, argued even in 1944 – long after the Nazis abandoned ideas of emigration and embraced genocide instead – that the ideology underpinning Zionism was 'nothing else than the uncritical acceptance of German-inspired nationalism'." He also notes that "even today the Zionist movement cannot help but mirror many of the flaws of those now-discredited European ethnic nationalisms....Such characteristics – all too apparent in Israel – include: an exclusionary definition of peoplehood; a need to foment fear and hatred of the other as a way to keep the nation tightly bound; an obsession with and hunger for territory; and a highly militarised culture".
So Zionism seems to be based on the idea of maintaining and supporting a "nation", a "people" – but those "people" are by large not even there, in the 'homeland'. The 'nation', that is, 'the Jewish nation', is a construct that supersedes the nationality of the people actually residing in the country. As I have earlier written, Israelis do not actually exist as 'nationals' – only as citizens. As the state is by definition the Jewish State, the 'nationals' who by default are closest to being 'Israeli' are the Jews – wherever they may be. This aspect is also embodied in the 'Law of Return' (1950) which allows any Jew to become automatic citizen in Israel. As even the Jewish Virtual Library notes, "at present, the definition is based on Hitler's Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate." (My emphasis.)
The Jewish State is thus acting, still today, as if the Nuremberg Laws and their like are a real-time threat and the threat of a second Holocaust is looming. It relies upon this perception to maximise its appeal to Jews with the ever-present suggestion of existential threat. This is why any incident where Jews are targeted around the world can quickly become a claim by Israeli leaders, to prove the Zionist point – that Israel is their ultimate home, suggesting that their safety cannot be guaranteed elsewhere. As PM Netanyahu said last year in Paris:
"The State of Israel is not just the place to which you turn in prayer. The State of Israel is also your home. This week, a special team of ministers will convene to advance steps to increase immigration from France and other countries in Europe that are suffering from terrible anti-Semitism. All Jews who want to immigrate to Israel will be welcomed here warmly and with open arms. We will help you in your absorption here in our country, which is also your country."
But the "defense" of this "home", this "national home"– which has required ethnic cleansing, Apartheid and military oppression for its maintenance since day 1– has meant that the more Zionism became representational for Jews all over the world, the more Jews would naturally be associated with the crimes perpetrated on their behalf, as it were. Zionism and Israel have tried to conceal these crimes by a well-funded, constant and relentless propaganda over the years, to depict these acts as mere 'necessary responses' to an unfortunate reality. Yet the reality is unmistakably that of colonialism (see my lecture on the subject here), which involved the predictable crimes that go with it. As Israeli historian Benny Morris summarizes:
"Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism—because it sought to transform a land which was 'Arab' into a 'Jewish' state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population." (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited).
This 'displacement', this 'transfer', or whatever other terms one wishes to apply to describe what we generally know today to be ethnic cleansing, the Apartheid, the seasonal massacres and sieges even fulfilling the definition of genocide, are acts that continue today. The astounding success of Zionism must be said to have been the ability to paint these crimes as something else. But this cannot continue forever. Not only is access to real-time news now more instant than ever – people's access to critical evaluations of the situation is also more instant, and bypasses the archaic means by which the powers that be exerted censorship of information and ideas in past decades.
As the reality of Zionism on the ground is becoming harder to hide, as Israel presses on with its subjugation of Palestinians and enters ever more horrid cycles of state-terror, as Israel continuously intensifies its claim to act on behalf of all Jews, the obvious danger is that Zionism, the supposed answer to anti-Semitism, will become the major propellant of such feelings towards Jews – all over the world.
For Zionists, this danger is not necessarily something that would bother them that much. After all, whenever there is a case of anti-Semitism, real or imagined, that raises the validity of the Zionist raison d'etre. Jews around the world (who number more than Jews in Israel), should not be so sure to rely upon the motivations of the Jewish State and blindly regard it as their 'insurance policy'. Not only is Israel the most dangerous country in the world for Jews, it is also one of the most dangerous countries in the world in general. To rely on such an 'insurance policy' might not be the best investment – especially not when it is a major cause not only of regional unrest, but also of hatred towards Jews around the world. Yes, I know, I've stepped on another eggshell – how can I trivialise the monster of anti-Semitism by playing into the anti-Semitic canard that Jews are to blame for others hating them? My answer is, that we simply need to withdraw from the absolutism of considering criticism, indeed even harsh criticism, of what the Jews in their collective representation under the Jewish State of Israel do, as necessarily unreasonable, endemically hateful and having nothing to do with their actual acts. In other words, critique doesn't have to be anti-Semitic just because it is the goyim levelling it at Jews – even when it is heavy.
I don't like to generalise people. I don't like to be considered with generalisation. But the 'Jewish State' has generalised me for its nationalist ends in such ways, that I just cannot chide others for harbouring hostility towards me as a Jew. That I should require them to make the distinction between "Jew" and "Zionist" whilst Israel conflates the two, seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical. Nonetheless I have many friends, non-Jews and notably many Palestinian, who do make this distinction and place great value on doing so. I feel honoured to know these people, and cherish their tolerance greatly. Yet the Jewish State threatens, increasingly, to erode these distinctions. If all Jews must be identified by an inevitable connection to Israel, as the state seeks, then it may be that Israel will become their greatest peril.
Misunderstand me not – I have connection to Israel. I am an Israeli citizen, and I have family there who I love dearly. But my connection to them as persons has no bearing on my feeling about Israel as a Jew or as an Israeli. My critique of its construct as an ethnic-religious exclusivist one is fierce. My advocacy for the relinquishing of our Jewish privilege is clear. I have to separate the two – the macro political paradigm and the persons – knowing that in the long run, a faulty macro paradigm will come to mean peril to all its subjects.
Jonathan Ofir
Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.
1948 Palestinian exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, "al-Nakbah", literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.[3] The term "nakba" also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.
The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute[4] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[5][6]
The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre,[7]:239–240 which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes;[8] collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders.[9][10] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.[11][dubious – discuss][12]
Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[13][14] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[15][16][17] while others dispute this charge.[18][19][20]
The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will grant them their claimed right to return to their homes or be compensated, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The events of 1948 are commemorated by Palestinians both in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere on 15 May, a date now known as Nakba Day.
UN: 9 million Syrians now displaced as conflict ticks into fourth year
March 14, 2014
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/14/syriaa-s-forciblydisplacedtop9million.html
As country surpasses Afghanistan in displaced persons, the UN mediator in Syria expresses skepticism over peace talks
On the eve of the third anniversary of unrest that led to the Syrian civil war, the United Nation's refugee agency (UNHCR) said Friday that the country now leads the world in forced displacement, with more than 9 million people uprootedas a result of the conflict.
The total number of displaced people is comprised of over 2.5 million refugees who are living in neighboring countries and 6.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Syria, according to the UNHCR. The number of people uprooted — half of which are children — equals 40 percent of the country's pre-war population.
In crossing the 9 million mark, experts believe that Syria has overtaken Afghanistan as the world's leader in forcibly displaced persons.
'Bercow's Trump ban: Slap in face for US president & UK govt'
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376576-uk-parliament-us-trump/
The proposal by the Speaker of the UK Parliament to ban President Trump from addressing the House is a slap in the face to the president and the British government trying to bring America on side, political commentator Adam Garrie told RT.
On Monday, the Speaker of the UK House of Commons John Bercow denounced Donald Trump's policies and said the US president should be barred from addressing Parliament during his state visit.
A number of politicians objected to Bercow's proposal, and some Tory MPs are suggesting forcing a vote of no confidence in the Speaker.
John Bercow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bercow
John Simon Bercow (born 19 January 1963) is a British politician who has been the Speaker of the House of Commons since June 2009. Prior to his election to Speaker, he was a member of the Conservative Party. A former hardline right-winger who moderated his views after becoming an MP and at one time was rumoured to be likely to defect to the Labour Party, Bercow's election to the Speaker's chair depended heavily on the backing of other parties, and was deeply unpopular with many of his former colleagues.[2]
He served as a councillor from 1986 to 1990 and unsuccessfully contested parliamentary seats in the 1987 and 1992 general elections. In the 1997 general election, Bercow was elected the MP for Buckingham and promoted to the shadow cabinet in 2001. He held posts in the shadow cabinets of Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. In November 2002, he resigned from the shadow cabinet over disputes concerning the Adoption and Children Act but returned under Howard in 2003. In September 2004, Bercow was sacked after disagreements with Howard.
Following the resignation of Speaker Michael Martin, Bercow announced his intention to stand for the Speakership election on 22 June 2009 and was successful. He remained Speaker and was re-elected in his constituency at the general election on 7 May 2015. He was re-elected as Speaker, unopposed, when the House sat at the start of the new parliament on 18 May 2015.[3]
In 2014 Bercow was appointed Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire.[4]
Early life and education
Bercow was born to an English Jewish family in Edgware, London.[5] His paternal grandparents were Jews from Romania who arrived in England a century ago..
Zionist Jew becomes speaker of British Parliament
https://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/britain/speaker_bercow_jewish.htm
John Bercow is a member of the Zionist Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group and has been to Israel courtesy of the Israel Government.
John Bercow will be protected by the Zionist Broadcasting Corporation. No mention of his former views on repatriation. No mention of his links to Israel.
Israel's manipulation of UK politics: time for zero tolerance
https://mycatbirdseat.com/2017/02/israels-manipulation-uk-politics-time-zero-tolerance/
We have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.
by Stuart Littlewood
Both the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK's foreign secretary, have declared the Shai Masot affair "closed" after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to "take down" senior government figures, including Johnson's deputy, Alan Duncan.
"The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed," they announced. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who is Jewish, has also declined to investigate.
Sorry, Boris. It isn't closed – hell no. It's just opening and it'll run and run. You and your fellow stooges can be sure of it.
According to some reports, Masot served in the Israeli navy in Palestinian waters off Gaza. Given the many atrocities committed by Israel's gunboats against Gaza's fishermen, and children playing on Gaza's beach, and even peaceful unarmed humanitarian vessels bringing relief to the sick and starving there, he may well be on a wanted list for questioning about war crimes. Masot's damning comments were captured and revealed in an undercover investigation by Aljazeera and not, as one might have hoped, by Britain's own beloved press barons.
Masot's hostile conniving was going on under the eye of a recently arrived ambassador, the loathsome Mark Regev, ace propagandist, mastermind of the Israeli lie machine and personal spokesman for the Zionist regime's chief thug, Binyamiin Netanyahu.
Emily Thornberry, the Labour Party's shadow foreign secretary, called Masot's activities "extremely disturbing" and has demanded a probe into the potential extent of political "interference" in the United Kingdom. There are calls for Regev to be packed off back to Tel Aviv.
Are British parliamentarians at last waking up? Are those who wave the flag of a nasty, murderous foreign military power about to feel the heat from an increasingly furious public? They should be very afraid.
Nothing new
The realisation that we are in the grip of great evil has been slow in coming. Nine years ago 20 senior professionals wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about the undue influence of the Israel lobby at the heart of British government and their deep concern about the appalling conditions forced on the civilian population in the occupied territories, particularly Gaza, by the Israeli blockade and called-for sanctions to be imposed by Britain and the European Union.
A letter had earlier been delivered to the Foreign Office minister then responsible for the Middle East, Kim Howells, suggesting that Britain consider suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The rules provide for this sanction if Israel's conduct towards its neighbours falls short of what is required under the UN Charter and other obligations.
Howells replied:
We consider that the Association Agreement is a key tool for the EU to both enhance cooperation with Israel but also to raise any concerns. We do not support suspension of that agreement, which would limit how we could put our viewpoint across to the Israeli government.
When the EU demanded an end to the emergency in Gaza and the military occupation of the West Bank, Israel responded with an even tighter lockdown, so another letter was sent to Howells. He replied:
The UK... has strong relationships with Israel on a number of fronts... We do not consider it would be in the best interests of the UK, or the European Union, to end this relationship.
Howells was a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). His opposition shadow at the time was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).
The minister was then asked to explain what "viewpoint" Her Majesty's Government had put to the Israeli government regarding the medieval-style siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on its already impoverished civilians in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and every conceivable code of conduct. What action had he and his department taken to alleviate the suffering in this former British mandate? What was the status of the coastal waters off Gaza? How could Israel maintain a sea blockade lawfully and deny Gazan fishermen their livelihood?
And how did continuing the association agreement in these cruel circumstances "enhance cooperation" with Israel?
No answers to these questions were ever received.
So the 20 signatories reminded the Standards Committee how the lobby group, Friends of Israel, had embedded itself in the British political establishment with the stated purpose of promoting Israel's interests in our Parliament and bend British policy.
British MPs eating out of the Israeli government's hand
It was put to the committee that MPs are surely not at liberty to act for a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, or to let foreign influence cloud their judgement. Such conduct breached the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – "Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties."
The various Friends of Israel organisations had gone to great lengths to influence those in power. A good many of them, it seemed, reached their high positions with Friends of Israel help. The network acted as a sort of parliamentary freemasonry. The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claimed that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 per cent of the Conservative MPs, CFI was the largest affiliated group in the party.
Its website stated that the CFI
strives to support the Conservative Party at all available opportunities. In the run up to the 2005 General Election... CFI supported candidates up and down the country. As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections.
It also had a "Fast Track" group for Conservative parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats at the next election. The political director himself was seeking election to Parliament. If successful where would his loyalty lie?
Senior Conservatives tried to justify these activities by insisting that Israel was "a force for good in the world" and "in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together".
The danger of inappropriate "friendships" with foreign regimes had become blazingly obvious a few days earlier when Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, was reported to have twice asked David Miliband, our foreign secretary, to scrap the law that authorised magistrates to issue arrest warrants for suspected war criminals who set foot in the UK, she being a particularly blood-soaked example. Avi Dichter, a former director of the Shin Bet spy service and involved in the Shehadeh assassination in which 14 Palestianian civilians, including children, were killed by an Israeli air strike, had to cancel a trip to London for fear of being arrested.
Doron Almog, a former Israeli general, also involved in the Shehadeh affair, narrowly avoided arrest when he landed at Heathrow in 2005. Israel wished the UK to change its laws to protect alleged war criminals. So, we did so just to oblige them, in the name of "enhanced cooperation", as Howells might have put it.
The Standards Committee was also told bluntly:
It is especially disconcerting to discover that at least two members of your committee, which is pledged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, are Friends of Israel [one the president of Conservative Friends of Israel and the other a member of Labour Friends of Israel]... Given that Israel's deep penetration of our political system apparently prevents Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East matters, including the violations of Palestinian human rights, we invite your committee – minus those with an interest – to uphold the Principles of Public Life and consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation.
But the Standards Committee refused to look into it. The chairman's reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: "I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter."
So, the public's watchdog – the Standards Committee – which was formed specifically to uphold those Seven Principles, wasn't playing ball. Its published remit called on it to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.
Wasn't this the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like the committee's chairman could understand?
Apparently not. He added:
This Committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001. The committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future.
The angry 20 pointed out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country's political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse. No reply.
And there the matter has rested for nine years.
Tarnished watchdog
Fast-forward to the present day and we find it's now the Anglo-Israel Association (AIA) casting a shadow over the Standards Committee. "The Association's primary purpose is to promote wider and better understanding of Israel in the UK; to encourage exchanges between both countries at every level and generally to support activities which foster good will between British and Israeli citizens," says the website. But its programme is skewed mainly towards "educating" Britons, including our clergy, about Israel.
The honorary president of the AIA is the ambassador of Israel himself. The chairman of the AIA's Executive Committee is none other than Lord Bew, also chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. And its council includes the Earl of Balfour – the fifth earl, that is – related of course to the first earl, that nincompoop Arthur Balfour whose infamous Declaration in 1917 paved the way for the shameful handover of the Palestinians' homeland – and Christianity's homeland – to Zionist Jews. "What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section," warned Lord Sydenham at the time, "is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend."
The centenary of Balfour's Declaration will be joyously celebrated this year by Israel's many Westminster stooges including Theresa May if her sucking-up speech to the Israel lobby last month is anything to go by.
So there's a lot of weeding-out to do.
Those disgruntled 20 could easily become 2 million if the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), the unions and other activist groups got together.
The sinister machinations of Masot and Regev have presented them an open goal. And we have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.
Great Britain
https://radioislam.org/islam/english/index_uk.htm
The Jews in Great Britain make out only 0.5 percent of the total population but have an overhelming grip on British politics and medias, completely out of proportion to their status as a minority. This Jewish influence is used for the goals of Zionism where Britain's foreign policies are made to coincide with the aims of Israel.
vassal
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vassal
1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance.
2. A bondman; a slave.
3. A subordinate or dependent.
As Netanyahu and Theresa May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed
http://www.globalresearch.ca/as-netanyahu-and-theresa-may-chat-a-large-nest-of-israeli-spies-in-london-exposed/5573588
By Craig Murray
The Israeli Embassy has seventeen Israeli "technical and administrative staff" granted visas by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The normal number for an Embassy that size would be about two. I spoke to two similar size non-EU Embassies this morning, one has two and one zero. I recall I dealt with an angry Foreign Minister during my own FCO career incensed his much larger High Commission had been refused by the FCO an increase from three to four technical and administrative staff.
Shai Masot, the Israeli "diplomat" who had been subverting Britain's internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.
I queried this with the FCO, and was asked to put my request in writing. A full three weeks later and after dozens of phone calls, they reluctantly revealed that Masot was on the "technical and administrative staff" of the Israeli Embassy.
This is plainly a nonsense. Masot, as an ex-Major in the Israeli Navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List, which includes typists and personal assistants. There are six attaches – support staff – already on the List.
Masot was plainly not carrying out technical and administrative duties. The term is a formal one from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and it is plain from the convention that technical and administrative staff are in official status lower than the diplomatic staff. The majority of support activities are carried out in all Embassies by locally engaged staff already resident in the host country, but a very small number of technical and administrative staff may be allowed visas for work in particularly secure areas. They may be an IT and communications technician, possibly a cleaner in the most sensitive physical areas, and perhaps property management.
These staff do not interact with politicians of the host state or attend high level meetings beside the Ambassador. The level at which Shai Masot was operating was appropriate to a Counsellor or First Secretary in an Embassy. Masot's formal rank as an officer in his cover job in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs would entitle him to that rank in the Embassy if this were a normal appointment.
The Al Jazeera documentaries plainly revealed that Masot was working as an intelligence officer, acquiring and financing "agents of influence". It is simply impossible that the FCO would normally grant seventeen technical and administrative visas to support sixteen diplomats, when six of the sixteen are already support staff. The only possible explanation, confirmed absolutely by Masot's behaviour, is that the FCO has knowingly connived at settling a large nest of Israeli spies in London. I fairly put this to the FCO and they refused to comment.
I asked my questions on 10 January. On 12 January the FCO asked me to put them in writing. On 2 February they finally replied to the first three questions, but refused to comment on questions 4 or 5 about involvement of the intelligence services in Masot's appointment.
FCO Media Department have replied that they refuse to give me any further information on the subject, and that I should proceed through a Freedom of Information request so the FCO can assess properly whether the release of any further information is in the national interest.
What is it they are always saying to us: if you have got nothing to fear, you have got nothing to hide?
I am confident I know what they are hiding, and that is FCO complicity in a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted. It is also worth noting that while the media could not completely ignore the fantastic al Jazeera documentaries that exposed the scandal, it was a matter of a brief article and no follow up digging.
This was not just a curiosity, it reveals a deep-seated problem for our democracy. I intend to continue picking at it.
English people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ("family of the Angles"). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[6] England is one of the countries of the United Kingdom.
Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.
Today many English people have recent forebears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.
The English people are the source of the English language, the Westminster system, the common law system and numerous major sports such as cricket, football,[8] rugby union, rugby league and tennis. These and other English cultural characteristics have spread worldwide, in part as a result of the former British Empire.
English nationality
The concept of an "English nation" is far older than that of the "British nation", and the 1990s witnessed a revival in English self-consciousness.[9] This is linked to the expressions of national self-awareness of the other British nations of Wales and Scotland – which take their most solid form in the new devolved political arrangements within the United Kingdom – and the waning of a shared British national identity with the growing distance between the end of the British Empire and the present.[10][11][12]
Many recent immigrants to England have assumed a solely British identity, while others have developed dual or mixed identities.[13][14] Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".
Craig Murray defines a small nest of spies with diplomatic cover who are part of a Governmental Organisation (GO). There is a larger nest of Non Governmental Organisation actors (lobbyist) who operate without official diplomatic cover and also subvert established democracies in the same way as Shai Masot got caught doing.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.02.09, 17:45:18
Shai Masot, the Israeli "diplomat" who had been subverting Britain's internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.
Subversionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion
Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor".[1] Subversion is used as a tool to achieve political goals because it generally carries less risk, cost, and difficulty as opposed to open belligerency. Furthermore, it is a relatively cheap form of warfare that does not require large amounts of training.[2] A subversive is something or someone carrying the potential for some degree of subversion. In this context, a "subversive" is sometimes called a "traitor" with respect to (and usually by) the government in power.
Subversion, however, is also often a goal of "comedians", artists and people in those careers.[3] In this case, being subversive can mean questioning, poking fun at, and undermining the established order in general.[4] When a comedy or comic is referred to as being subversive, it is as much of a compliment to their work as it could be an accusation,[5] from comics like Charlie Chaplin, Lenny Bruce, Andy Kaufman and Stephen Colbert to writers like Paddy Chayefsky, Larry Charles and Mel Brooks, and activists like Abbie Hoffman, and Michael Moore. Satire is one of the most potent forms of subversion for artists and comics, and it can take shape in films, television, books, and even political protest.
Terrorist groups generally do not employ subversion as a tool to achieve their goals. Subversion is a manpower-intensive strategy and many groups lack the manpower and political and social connections to carry out subversive activities.[6] However, actions taken by terrorists may have a subversive effect on society. Subversion can imply the use of insidious, dishonest, monetary, or violent methods to bring about such change.
This is in contrast to protest, a coup d'état, or working through traditional means (if) available in a political system to bring about change. Furthermore, external subversion is where, "the aggressor state attempts to recruit and assist indigenous political and military actors to overthrow their government by coup d'état".[7] If subversion fails in its goal of bringing about a coup it is possible that the actors and actions of the subversive group could transition to insurrection, insurgency, and/or guerilla warfare.[8]
The word is present in all languages of Latin origin (see: seditio), originally applying to such events as the military defeat of a city. As early as the 14th century, it was being used in the English language with reference to laws, and in the 15th century came to be used with respect to the realm. The term has taken over from "sedition" as the name for illicit rebellion, though the connotations of the two words are rather different, sedition suggesting overt attacks on institutions, subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other.
DefinitionThe problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.[9] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term, "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults".[10] What follows are some of the many attempts to define the term:
"Subversion is the undermining or detachment of the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the victimized state, and their transference, under ideal conditions, to the symbols and institutions of the aggressor."[11]
"Subversion — Actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority."[12]
"Subversive Activity — Anyone lending aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence is subversive and is engaged in subversive activity. All willful acts that are intended to be detrimental to the best interests of the government and that do not fall into the categories of treason, sedition, sabotage, or espionage will be placed in the category of subversive activity."[12]
"Subversive Political Action — A planned series of activities designed to accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of another government."[12]
Subversion — "A destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy... [by demoralizing the cultural values and changing the population's perception of reality].[13]
Subversion — Roger Trinquier defined subversion as a term that could be lumped together under the name modern warfare, "as being interlocking systems of actions, political, economic, psychological and military that aims at the overthrow of established authority in a country."
Conceptual understandingDefining and understanding subversion means identifying entities, structures, and things that can be subverted. Furthermore, it may help to identify practices and tools that are not subversive. Institutions and morals can be subverted, but ideology on the other hand cannot.[15] The fall of a government or the creation of a new government as a result of an external war is not subversion. Espionage does not count as subversion because it is not an action that leads directly to an overthrow of a government. Information gathered from espionage may be used to plan and carry out subversive activities.[16]
To gain an understanding of what is considered to be subversive requires understanding the intent of those taking action. This makes defining and identifying subversion a difficult process. As Laurence Beilenson points out, "to criticize a government in an effort to reform it or to change its policies is not subversion, even though such criticism may contribute to overthrow. But criticism intended to help a projected overthrow becomes subversive without regard to whether it is right or wrong."
Kingdom of Great Britain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain /ɡreɪt ˈbrɪ.tən/,[1][2][3] was a sovereign state in western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800. The state came into being following the Treaty of Union in 1706, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands. It did not include Ireland, which remained a separate realm. The unitary state was governed by a single parliament and government that was based in Westminster. The former kingdoms had been in personal union since James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 following the death of Queen Elizabeth I, bringing about a "Union of the Crowns". Also after the accession of George I to the throne of Great Britain in 1714, the kingdom was in a personal union with the Electorate of Hanover.
The early years of the unified kingdom were marked by Jacobite risings which ended in defeat for the Stuart cause at Culloden in 1746. Later on in 1763, victory in the Seven Years' War led to the dominance of the British Empire, which was to become the foremost global power for over a century and later grew to become the largest empire in history.
On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[4] In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom and the state was renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" – a title it has retained to date.
British people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people
British people, or Britons, are the citizens of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, and Crown dependencies, and their descendants.[28][29][30] British nationality law governs modern British citizenship and nationality, which can be acquired, for instance, by descent from British nationals. When used in a historical context, "British" or "Britons" can refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous Brittonic-Pictish Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Brittany, whose surviving members are the modern Welsh, and Bretons.[29]
Although early assertions of being British date from the Late Middle Ages, the creation of the united Kingdom of Great Britain[31][32][33][34][35] in 1707 triggered a sense of British national identity.[36] The notion of Britishness was forged during the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and the First French Empire, and developed further during the Victorian era.[36][37] The complex history of the formation of the United Kingdom created a "particular sense of nationhood and belonging" in Great Britain and Ireland;[36] Britishness became "superimposed on much older identities", of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish cultures, whose distinctiveness still resists notions of a homogenised British identity.[38] Because of longstanding ethno-sectarian divisions, British identity in Northern Ireland is controversial, but it is held with strong conviction by unionists.[39]
Modern Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic groups that settled in the British Isles in and before the 11th century: Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Normans.[40] Union[clarification needed] facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales during the late Middle Ages, Early Modern period and beyond.[41][42] Since 1922 and earlier, there has been immigration to the United Kingdom by people from what is now the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth, mainland Europe and elsewhere; they and their descendants are mostly British citizens, with some assuming a British, dual or hyphenated identity.[43]
The British are a diverse, multi-national[44][45] and multicultural society, with "strong regional accents, expressions and identities".[46][47] The social structure of the United Kingdom has changed radically since the 19th century, with a decline in religious observance, enlargement of the middle class, and particularly since the 1950s increased ethnic diversity. The population of the UK stands at around 62.5 million,[48] with a British diaspora of around 140 million concentrated in Australia, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United States and Spain.[49]
White British
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British
White British is an ethnicity classification used in the 2011 United Kingdom Census. As a result of the 2011 census the White British population was estimated 51,736,290 (81.9% of the UK total population).[1][2][3] (NB. This total includes the population estimate for Northern Ireland, where only the term 'White' is used in ethnic classification. National identity is listed separately in NI, where 40% classified themselves as British, making up a significant portion of the population, along with those specifying their national identity as Irish.[4])
Population and distribution
The White British census classification have their ages more evenly distributed in their population pyramid and have the highest percent female population of all ethnic-based classifications. About 64% percent of the White British classification are between the ages of 16 and 64 while about 19% percent are under 16 and 19% percent are over 64. All other census classifications have a higher percentage of their population under 16 and a lower percentage over 64. Of those aged 65 or over, White British are 41% percent male and 59% percent female, making them have the lowest percent male population among all census classifications defined as "ethnic" in the census.[10]
According to the 2011 Census results, White British people make up the largest percentage of the population in rural areas, such as Allerdale (99.4%) and Copeland (99.3%) in Cumbria, Ryedale (99.4%) in North Yorkshire, North Norfolk (99.2%) and North Devon (99%). Cities across the UK regions with high White British populations include Swansea (91.5%), Plymouth (92.2%), Darlington (93.7%), Belfast (96.4% - NI classification "white"),[11] Norwich (84.7%), Chelmsford (90.0%) and Lichfield (94.6%). Within London, Havering (83.3%) has the highest White British percentage, followed by Bromley (77.4%), Bexley (77.3%) and Richmond upon Thames (71.4%).[1]
As at 2011 London contains by far the lowest percentage of English and other White British people of all the UK regions, where they make up less than half of the population in 24 of the 32 boroughs, including Newham (16.7%), Brent (18.0%), Ealing (30.4%), Harrow (30.9%), Tower Hamlets (31.2%), Westminster (35.2%) and Hackney (36.2%). The city with the lowest White British population as a percentage is Leicester (45.1%). The Unitary Authority with the lowest White British percentage is Slough (34.5%), followed by Luton (44.6%).[1]
Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/article-saying-zionism/
Phil Weiss and Donald Johnson on December 20, 2016
Trump's election is having fascinating consequences. Today the New York Times ran a long piece titled, "Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump," by Omri Boehm of the New School saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction: liberal American Jews have "identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics."
Boehm's most startling point is that Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis. Hannah Arendt is happy today.
The piece will greatly increase the pressure on liberal Zionists to choose one idea or the other, and to stop denying the existence of apartheid.
Boehm says white nationalist Richard Spencer helped to blow up the liberal Zionist hypocrisy in his famous encounter with a Texas rabbi when he said he admires Israel for its ethnic purity and the rabbi had nothing to say. Some of Boehm's hammer blows:
by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right...
insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that's defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion...
Boehm never comes out and uses the term "racist," but he might as well.
Trump has changed the map.
As long as liberalism was secure back in America and the rejection of liberalism confined to the Israeli scene, this tension could be mitigated. But as it spills out into the open in the rapidly changing landscape of American politics, the double standard is becoming difficult to defend...
[T]he following years promise to present American Jewry with a decision that they have much preferred to avoid. Hold fast to their liberal tradition, as the only way to secure human, citizen and Jewish rights; or embrace the principles driving Zionism.
By the way, the denial of the right of return is racist:
Opposition to the Palestinians' "right of return" is a matter of consensus among left and right Zionists because also liberal Zionists insist that Israel has the right to ensure that Jews constitute the ethnic majority in their country. That's the reason for which Rabbi Rosenberg could not answer Spencer.
And then this verboten history: Zionists collaborated with "anti-Semitic politics." With Nazis:
The "original sin" of such alliances may be traced back to 1941, in a letter to high Nazi officials, drafted in 1941 by Avraham Stern, known as Yair, a leading early Zionist fighter and member in the 1930s of the paramilitary group Irgun, and later, the founder of another such group, Lehi. In the letter, Stern proposes to collaborate with "Herr Hitler" on "solving the Jewish question" by achieving a "Jewish free Europe." The solution can be achieved, Stern continues, only through the "settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine." To that end, he suggests collaborate with the German's "war efforts," and establish a Jewish state on a "national and totalitarian basis," which will be "bound by treaty with the German Reich."
It has been convenient to ignore the existence of this letter, just as it has been convenient to mitigate the conceptual conditions making it possible.
This is an opinion piece by an outsider, not a New York Times article. Hell and everything else would freeze if the NYT started writing news pieces which presupposed Zionism as actually practiced is racist. They won't do that yet. They might conceivably start writing articles where people with that view are treated respectfully as they express it, rather than hiding the view from readers or treating people who express it as moral lepers.
Many of Boehm's arguments have been made on the left for years, of course. The liberal Zionists chose to ignore them and talk about the two-state solution. They are losing that luxury. Though, expect some pushback from the Zionist forces inside the New York Times.
The Times would never have run this piece if Boehm were not Israeli. Just as the newspaper insisted, according to the late Tony Judt, that he identify himself as Jewish when he defended Walt and Mearsheimer in 2006. There are double standards in the press too.
Thousands of Jews and Arabs March Together Against Racism and House Demolitions in Tel Aviv
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.769634
Jack Khoury and Or Kashti Feb 05, 2017
The organizers say the protest, in which the speeches were given in both Arabic and Hebrew, is a new stage in the civil struggle of Jews and Arabs.
Thousands of people, Arabs and Jews, marched Saturday evening in Tel Aviv in a protest against the house demolitions in Kalansua and Umm al-Hiran in recent weeks, and against further steps to demolish more homes.
Organizers said some 5,000 protestors participated in the march, which began at the intersection of King George an Allenby Streets and ended in Dizengoff Square.
A number of Jewish and Arab organizations participated in organizing the demonstration, which the organizers termed a new stage in the civil struggle of Jews and Arabs. The speeches were given in Arabic and Hebrew, and marchers waved both Israeli and Palestinian flags.
Amal Abu Sa'ad, the widow of Yakub Abu al-Kiyan, who was killed during the operation to demolish illegal homes in the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in the Negev last month, addressed the protesters: "It is important to me to stand here and speak to you and pass on the message to the prime minister and ministers: Despite your wild incitement, the racism and discrimination in legislation, enforcement, infrastructure and government services - you will not succeed in dividing between the country's citizens. All of you, who are standing here today, you are proof that Jews and Arabs can and want to live together and with equality."
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/thousands-of-jews-and-arabs-march-together-against-racism-and
Trump's Foreign Policy at a Crossroads
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/
February 9, 2017
Exclusive: Recent U.S. foreign policy – driven by neocons and liberal hawks – has spread chaos and death around the globe. But can "crazy" Donald Trump bring sanity to how the U.S. approaches the world, asks Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.
Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's true sovereigns.
For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.
The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment views the Middle East.
But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.
This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's "group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.
This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.
But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.
Hope for Trump
There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not.
Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures.
But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.
Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.
The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."
In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.
So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.
What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.02.12, 07:50:12
Trump's Foreign Policy at a Crossroads
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Excellent report as Robert Parry is a truthful reporter.
Is it not strange though that in a world with 7 billion people there are so few truthful reporters? I can think of less than a dozen.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.02.12, 17:14:47
Excellent report as Robert Parry is a truthful reporter.
Is it not strange though that in a world with 7 billion people there are so few truthful reporters? I can think of less than a dozen.
These are strange times, we have the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all governed by the Israeli Government in Westminster.. labeled 'British'.
http://www.redressonline.com/2017/02/britains-sickening-infatuation-with-israel-continues/
Stuart Littlewood on Craig Murray:
Israel's 'nest of spies' in LondonI looked up one of my old reports about how Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued five years ago that British policy was being driven in an underhand fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Matthew Gould, the then British ambassador to Israel, with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questions about meetings between Gould, Liam Fox and Fox's strange friend Adam Werritty. Werritty was referred to as Fox's adviser but according to reports he was backed financially by Israel lobbyists and had no security clearance and therefore no authorised role.
Murray, with many useful contacts from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions.
In it he pointed out that
Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a Jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as "not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador". That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.02.12, 20:21:24
These are strange times, we have the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all governed by the Israeli Government in Westminster.. labeled 'British'.
We have a similar condition in Canada and the USA
"Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World's Media
The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.
"You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can't criticize Israel..." Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache"
Ron
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=2334 (http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=2334)
Adam Rothschild calls the Prime Minister of Canada a slave!
June 1, 2010 in | No comments
If you read the series of posts below, taken from Facebook, you will see several comments from Adam Rothschild. In response to the post from Eric Issac, Rothschild declares;
"CJPAC owns your country; Stephen harper is like a slave".
CJPAC is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, and Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the bottom of the screenshot Adam Rothschild makes another post:
"May Yahweh bless the CJPAC with control of the Canadian Government just like the AIPAC controls the United States
AM YISRAEL CHAI!!
Quote from: ronee on 2017.02.12, 23:32:12
Adam Rothschild calls the Prime Minister of Canada a slave!
June 1, 2010 in | No comments
If you read the series of posts below, taken from Facebook, you will see several comments from Adam Rothschild. In response to the post from Eric Issac, Rothschild declares;
"CJPAC owns your country; Stephen harper is like a slave".
CJPAC is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, and Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the bottom of the screenshot Adam Rothschild makes another post:
"May Yahweh bless the CJPAC with control of the Canadian Government just like the AIPAC controls the United States
AM YISRAEL CHAI!!
Where is the source that supports this part of the post ? I cannot find this information on the provided radicalpress link.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.02.13, 19:21:02
Where is the source that supports this part of the post ? I cannot find this information on the provided radicalpress link.
Sorry:
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2010/06/canada-is-zionist-jewish-occupied.html
Ron
a google search on Trudeau in Israel:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trudeau+israel&biw=1430&bih=769&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnysbgjY7SAhUD6GMKHUE7DvAQ_AUICSgE (https://www.google.ca/search?q=trudeau+israel&biw=1430&bih=769&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnysbgjY7SAhUD6GMKHUE7DvAQ_AUICSgE)
No worries Ron, it's important to accurately source material. This is something that the MSM struggles to do, because it peddles fiction as fact.
I was 14 (1992) when I discovered "fake news" was real, and it came about from a simple observation.
I observed that adults were lying to me when they repeated obvious fictions declared by the MSM as fact, and thus discovered the power over the mind of the "Big Lie" and the importance of critical thought in analysing all information.
I decided to search for the truth and work on solutions, not change through the use of force and deception. There is the opportunity now for Everyman who decries immorality to live together in peace. We must seize this opportunity and stand now.
To that end I have decided that as a native English Celt I must unite the Celtic Nations to restore the sovereignty of our lands. UKIP is the only political vehicle in the UK that is positioned for this transition, hence it is under severe and constant attack. The General Election campaign starts now and we all vote UKIP.
Everyman must be moral in this pursuit. There are many ethnic groups that are settled in these lands that live alongside us with respect. Their presence here must be considered a fait accompli, and how we treat them, and them us, will define us all. Racial purity is not a requirement of the Everyman principle, it is our morality that defines us, and binds us together.
Celtic nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations
The Celtic nations are territories in western Europe where Celtic languages or cultural traits have survived.[1] The term "nation" is used in its original sense to mean a people who share a common identity and culture and are identified with a traditional territory. It is not synonymous with "sovereign state".
The six territories widely considered Celtic nations are Brittany (Breizh), Cornwall (Kernow), Wales (Cymru), Scotland (Alba), Ireland (Éire), and the Isle of Man (Mannin),[1][2] commonly referred to as the "Celtic fringe". Each has a Celtic language that is either still spoken or was spoken into modern times.[3]
Before the expansions of Ancient Rome and the Germanic and Slavic tribes, a significant part of Europe was dominated by Celts, leaving behind a legacy of Celtic cultural traits.[4] Territories in north-western Iberia—particularly Galicia, northern Portugal and Asturias, historically referred to as Gallaecia, covering north-central Portugal and northern Spain—are sometimes considered Celtic nations due to their culture and history.[5] Unlike the others, however, no Celtic language has been spoken there in modern times.[5][6][7] However a study from a research team at Oxford University found that the majority of Britons are descended from a group of tribes which arrived from Iberia from around 5000 BC, prior to the spread of Celts into western Europe.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.02.16, 21:15:26
snip
To that end I have decided that as a native English Celt I must unite the Celtic Nations to restore the sovereignty of our lands. UKIP is the only political vehicle in the UK that is positioned for this transition, hence it is under severe and constant attack. The General Election campaign starts now and we all vote UKIP.
As my father was Welsh perhaps we share more than was first considered.
I have watched many of Nigel's videos. He seems to have the EU scam figured out and is not afraid to speak up.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.02.17, 15:57:31
As my father was Welsh perhaps we share more than was first considered.
I have watched many of Nigel's videos. He seems to have the EU scam figured out and is not afraid to speak up.
We must resolve to maintain our cultural diversity while remaining moral sovereign individuals. We can do this through reason, or as a last resort force, in order to restore reason.
Nigel is just as scared as I am, we stand anyway, we have no choice in this matter.
We want to have the conversation.
The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/makowjewishconspiracybritishimperialism30may04.shtml
Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.
Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.
The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.
On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)
The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.
The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964)
According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.
Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.
Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, "England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of ...the City of London...
These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium....
The City of London dominates the world's speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion's share of the world market, and exerts virtual ``choke point'' control over world industry."
Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.
Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: "The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class." (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)
As William Guy Carr points out in Pawns in the Game, both Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange were funded by Jewish bankers. The English Revolution (1649) was the first in a series of revolutions designed to give them world hegemony. The establishment of the Bank of England by William in 1694 was the next crucial step. Behind the facade, England has been a "Jewish" state for over 300 years. (pp.20-24)
The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill's mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn't intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.
According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke's Peerage , Jews "have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also." (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)
If they aren't Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendents of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendents of the Tribe of Benjamin.
In addition, many aristocrats belong to the "British Israel" Movement that believes the British soveriegn is the head of the Anglo Saxon "Lost Tribes" of Israel and that the Apocalyse will see the full reconstitution of the British Empire.
According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.
According to Barry Chamish, "there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine...Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews."
CONCLUSION
I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.
It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.
Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.
Certain elite Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their elites.
True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It's time to reaffirm our belief in God.
Henry Makow
The Migrant Invasion of Europe: Get Ready for Riots and the Abolition of the White Racehttps://www.darkmoon.me/2017/the-migrant-invasion-of-europe-get-ready-for-riots-and-the-abolition-of-the-white-race/
"Lasha Darkmoon explains why Angela Merkel has probably wrought greater damage to Germany and Europe as a whole than Hitler." (Rixon Stewart, Truthseeker)
The material presented below, based on previous articles published in The Occidental Observer, will serve as a short introduction to an electrifying video which forms the centerpiece of this article. I am told the 19-minute video could be removed from YouTube any day soon. This is because of constant complaints about it from the Usual Suspects, particularly about the shockingly damning quote by Jewish activist Barbara Spectre which forms the climax of the video.
The video link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sirj6qNLAEU
and the quote:
"Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role, but without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."Barbara Lerner Spectre,
Founder, PAIDEIA Sweden
PAIDEIA
The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden
http://www.paideia-eu.org/
Paideia - The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden is a non-denominational academic framework that was established in 2000 with funding from the Swedish government.
Dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe, Paideia educates leaders for Europe - academicians, artists and community activists - towards fluency in the Jewish textual sources that have served as the wellsprings of Jewish civilization.
In renewing interpretation of Jewish text, Paideia is reviving a European Jewish voice long silenced by Communism and post-Holocaust trauma - a voice that can contribute to a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.03.05, 11:56:53
They are now going into a multicultural mode
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.03.05, 11:56:53
a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.
Cultural pluralismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism
Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. As a sociological term, the definition and description of cultural pluralism has evolved over time. It has been described as not only a fact but a societal goal.[1] Cultural pluralism is distinct from (though often confused with) multiculturalism. Multiculturalism lacks the requirement of a dominant culture.
If the dominant culture is weakened, societies can easily pass from cultural pluralism into multiculturalism without any intentional steps being taken by that society. If communities function separately from each other, or compete with one another, they are not considered culturally pluralistic.[2]
Cultural pluralism can be practiced at varying degrees by a group or an individual.[3] A prominent example of pluralism is 20th Century United States, in which a dominant culture with strong elements of nationalism, a sporting culture, and an artistic culture contained also smaller groups with their own ethnic, religious, and cultural norms[citation needed]. In 1971, the Canadian government referred to cultural pluralism, as opposed to multiculturalism, as the "very essence" of their nation's identity[4]. In a pluralist culture, groups not only co-exist side by side, but also consider qualities of other groups as traits worth having in the dominant culture. Pluralistic societies place strong expectations of integration on members, rather than expectations of assimilation. The existence of such institutions and practices is possible if the cultural communities are accepted by the larger society in a pluralist culture and sometimes require the protection of the law. Often the acceptance of a culture may require that the new or minority culture remove some aspects of their culture which is incompatible with the laws or values of the dominant culture.
The idea of cultural pluralism in the United States has its roots in the transcendentalist movement and was developed by pragmatist philosophers such as Horace Kallen, William James and John Dewey, and later thinkers such as Randolph Bourne. One of the most famous articulations of cultural pluralistic ideas can be found in Bourne's 1916 essay "Trans-National America".[5] Philosopher Horace Kallen is widely credited as being the originator of the concept of cultural pluralism.[6][7][8] Kallen's 1915 essay in The Nation, Democracy versus the Melting Pot, was written as an argument against the concept of the "Americanization" of European immigrants.[9] He later coined the term cultural pluralism in 1924 when he published Culture and Democracy in the United States.[10] In 1976, the concept was further explored in Crawford Young's book The Politics of Cultural Pluralism. Young's work, in African studies, emphasizes the flexibility of the definition of cultural pluralism within a society.[11] More recent advocates include moral and cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. In 2014, an article in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare offered an updated definition of cultural pluralism in which it is described as a social condition in which communities of different cultures live together and function in an open system.
Israel's International Conspiracy
http://www.unz.com/article/israels-international-conspiracy/
Nearly every western country has an Israel lobby
Philip Giraldi • February 9, 2016
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom recently suggested an inquiry into a surge in Israel's reported extra-judicial killing of Palestinian demonstrators after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a harsh response and told his police and soldiers that those opposed to the continued occupation of the West Bank were "terrorists." Almost immediately, the Israeli government denounced Wallstrom as engaging in "political stupidity," banning her from travel to Israel, while one newspaper close to the government suggested that she might be assassinated, as fellow Swede Count Folke Bernadotte was by Jewish militants in 1948, because anti-Semitism appears to be in the Swedish DNA.
All of that outrage and personal ridicule is pro forma for an Israeli government that reflexively smears and denigrates any and all critics, but the more interesting epilogue was the unanticipated discovery by the Swedish and international media that Wallstrom has not been paying the full rent on the subsidized government apartment that she occupies. The revelation follows a familiar pattern, where critics of Israel suddenly find themselves being discredited for something completely unrelated to the Middle East. President George H. W. Bush (the good Bush) suffered a similar come to Jesus moment in 1991 when he went on national television to denounce the pressure tactics of the Israel lobby. The Israeli government was demanding U.S. Treasury backed loans to construct illegal settlements. President Bush, who was running for reelection and far ahead in the opinion polls, suddenly was confronted by a well-funded and organized opposition raising doubts about him and his record. And President Bush was not reelected, presumably learning along the way that one does not trifle with the Israel Lobby, to be replaced by the enthusiastically Zionist Bill Clinton.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also wondering about Israel's alleged commitment to peace. On Tuesday he said "it was human nature to react to occupation," following up with a comment on Wednesday regarding Israel's "stifling" occupation of Palestine. Netanyahu reacted with his usual over the top rhetoric, stating that Ban "was encouraging terror." One might also anticipate, as in the case of Wallstrom, a well-orchestrated media blitz questioning Ban's motives or explaining how he has always been a closet anti-Semite. It is par for the course and fully expected when one criticizes Israel.
Indeed, it is a global phenomenon. Wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded lobby ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel. Most of the organizations involved take at least some direction from officials in Tel Aviv. Many of them even cooperate fully with the Israeli government, its parastatal organizations and faux-NGOs like the lawfare center Shurat HaDin. Their goal is to spread propaganda and influence the public in their respective countries of residence to either hew to the line coming out of Tel Aviv or to confuse the narrative and stifle debate when potential Israeli crimes are being discussed.
Israel's diaspora allies are backed up by a formidable government organized machine that spews out disinformation and muddies the waters whenever critics surface. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has a corps of paid "volunteers" who monitor websites worldwide and take remedial action and there is a similar group working out of the Prime Minister's office. That is why any negative story appearing in the U.S. about Israel is immediately inundated with pro-Israel comments, many of which make exactly the same coordinated points while exhibiting the same somewhat less than perfect English. On sites like Yahoo they are actually able to suppress unwelcome comments by flooding the site with "Dislike" responses. If a comment receives a large number of dislikes, it is automatically blocked or removed.
The sayanim, local Jews in their countries of residence, are essential to this process, having been alerted by emails from the Israeli Foreign Ministry about what to do and say. The reality is that Israel has lost the war of public opinion based on its own actions, which are becoming more and more repressive and even inhumane and so are difficult to explain. That means that the narrative has to be shifted by Israel's friends through subterfuge and the corruption of the information process in each country. In some places the key media and political players who are engaged in the process can simply be bought. In other places they can be intimidated or pressured into taking positions that are neither in their own countries' interests nor morally acceptable. In large countries like the United States, Britain and France a combination of friendly suasion and coercive elements often come together.
In all cases, the objective is the same: to repress or misrepresent any criticism of Israel and to block any initiatives that might be taken that would do damage either to the Israeli economy or to the country's perceived standing in the world. In some countries Israel's advocates work right out in the open and are highly successful in implementing policies that often remain largely hidden but that can be discerned as long as one knows what to look for.
Recent Israel Lobby activity in the United States has included legislation at state levels to make illegal divestment from Israel or to promote boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will reportedly include language requiring the United States to take retaliatory action if any European country tries to boycott Israel, to include the West Bank settlements, which the empowering legislation regards as part of Israel proper.
Israel is also working to create a mechanism for global censorship of the internet to ban "incitement," which clearly is a euphemism for material that is critical of its policies. Recently Facebook has begun to delete from its site any "hate speech" and "terrorism" related material but what has not been widely noted is that the apparent restrictions also have involved sites critical of Israel including Christians United for Peace.
Many prominent critics of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) are unaware that AIPAC exists in various forms in a number of other countries. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is located in London. The French equivalent is the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF). In Canada there is a Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) , in Australia a Zionist Federation of Australia and in New Zealand a Zionist Federation of New Zealand .
While AIPAC is specifically focused on the U.S.-Israel relationship, its counterparts in Europe often deal with a whole range of issues that they define as Jewish, but protecting Israel is always part of their agenda, particularly for those groups that label themselves as Zionist. The political power and financial muscle of the groups gives them access to government far beyond the actual numbers of their supporters. In France this has led to the legislation of hate crimes that de facto exist to protect Jews that have been also been interpreted as limitations on one's ability to criticize Israel. In its most recent test, a French court declared that a peaceful protest promoting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) directed against Israel was illegal.
Many believe that France now has less free speech than any other European country. Recently, the alleged humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, ran a revolting cartoon showing the little Syrian boy Alan Kurdi who drowned in Turkey last summer as all grown up and sexually assaulting a woman in Germany. There was considerable outrage throughout the world but no sign that the French government will do anything to prosecute the magazines since it was Muslims who were being ridiculed. Charlie Hebdo frequently insults Muslims (and also Christians) but rarely lampoons Jews.
In Britain, Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police type vehicles and there have been reports of their threatening Muslims who enter the areas. Prime Minister David Cameron's government, which is responsive to a Conservative Friends of Israel lobbying group, has also done its part to create official barriers to any spread of the BDS movement. It is proposing legislation that will enable it to overrule decisions by local government councils that seek to cut business or investment ties with Israel and, more particularly, Israeli settlements, under the pretext that such action interferes with the conduct of foreign affairs. The British government is also considering its own brand of hate speech legislation, banning from social media any commentary that is considered to be anti-Semitic, which will almost certainly extend to criticism of Israel.
Canada's government has also threatened to use hate speech laws to block criticism of Israel and forbid BDS related activity. Australia meanwhile, has ceased referring to east Jerusalem as "occupied" and is apparently leaning towards similar "non-pejorative" language relating to the militarized occupation of the West Bank, preferring the neocon favored dodge "disputed." New Zealand has proposed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that specifically demands that participants "refrain from referring a situation...to the International Criminal Court," which would effectively decriminalize war crimes committed by both sides during the two recent invasions of Gaza. As a United Nations investigation determined that Israel was disproportionately responsible for what did occur, the proposal eliminates accountability and is effectively a get out of jail free card for some Israeli government officials.
And so it goes. Criticize Israel and there will be a comeuppance by virtue of a highly developed international system that relies on government direction as well as volunteer supporters who are able to shape both the media message and the political response. Accepting that as a given, I suppose one should be proud of being called an anti-Semite every time the label is misapplied to stifle dissent, but it all sadly reflects a lowering of the discussion to a dirt level. This might just be because there is no justification for Israeli behavior. The fact is that in terms of systematic human rights violations Israel is something beyond an apartheid state, frequently engaging in open racism and, in the opinion of many observers, crimes against humanity. It is furthermore a persistent source of instability in the Middle East and even beyond.
Israel is a liability to the United States and to the European nations that it has successfully manipulated into acquiescence regarding its bad behavior. When AIPAC and its overseas clones act for Israel the host nations in which these organizations exist should recognize exactly what is taking place. If Israel is truly first in their hearts and minds that is perfectly acceptable but its advocates should perhaps consider moving there and letting the rest of us be. Would that be too much to ask?
TRANSCRIPT: [Putin at] Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club [partial transcript]
http://russialist.org/transcript-putin-at-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-partial-transcript/
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen,
I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia not a geographical centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed how the elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the light of the fact that two great rivers the Volkhov and Neva acted as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.
As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing views.
You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country's development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.
Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European, Chinese and American the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.
For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.
It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.
[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.
Meanwhile, today Russia's national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating blow to our nation's cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.
After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.
Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries' experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like computer programmes has passed.
We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.
All of us so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily and even with hatred rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can't flip or even kick the country's future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.
This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.
Russia's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.
Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our country and society.
We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It's time to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.
We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.
Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.
What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values . One must respect every minority's right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one's own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.
Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.
This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.
I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia's very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia's strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia's participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.
There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.
Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of nations", not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.
Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.
Russia as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it has always evolved in "blossoming complexity" as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country's other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia's identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.
However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one's ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation's unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland's fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.
There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured politically and conceptually including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals' personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation's main goal should be to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national potential.
Unfortunately, throughout our nation's history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia's main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.
The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people's personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the same language the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.
I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on people's education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia's citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.
Local governments and self-regulated citizens' organisations serve as the best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I'm referring to non-profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and evil their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad can only grow through effective self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self-regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organisations.
Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation's citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia's territory, thereby strengthening the nation's unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories' development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.
I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbours is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.
I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global development.
Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Putin Calmly Explains Why Liberals Hate Russia
http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-calmly-explains-why-liberals-hate-russia-video/ri19147
"Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed and been developed over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity."
"AND RUSSIA THINKS IT IS RIGHT AND NATURAL TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THESE MORAL VALUES."
Those that study geopolitical military strategy over time understand that WW1 and WW2 are considered the two major battles in the recent era, of the only war, the war to define moral polarisation.
Israel: America's Mad Dog in Syria
http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/20/israel-americas-mad-dog-in-syria/
Israel has played an increasingly provocative role in the destructive conflict unfolding within and along Syria's borders since 2011. To many observers, it appears Israeli policy borders between opportunistic and unilateral aggression. In reality, Israel's role in the Syrian conflict fits a much larger and long-term pattern with Anglo-American plans not only for Syria but for the entire region.
A more recent row between Israel and Syria was the reported incursion of Israeli warplanes into Syrian airspace, including attacks near the eastern Syrian city of Palmyra. Palmyra hosts an ongoing battle between Syrian forces and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) terrorist organization. Israeli airstrikes against Syrian forces – then – would have facilitated ISIS operations in the region.
Israel is a State Sponsor of Terror, Not a Champion Against it
Israel has existed as a nation-sized, defacto forward operating base for Anglo-American interests since its creation in the 20th century. It has pursued aggressive regional policies that have intentionally pitted itself against its neighbors as a means of maintaining a Western foothold and point of leverage in North Africa and the Middle East for decades.
Ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine are fueled by an orchestrated strategy of tension between a manipulated Israeli population and controlled opposition – Hamas – politically backed, armed, and funded by Israel's own regional collaborators including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
When proxy military operations began against the Syrian state in 2011 under the cover of the US-engineered "Arab Spring," Israel along with Jordan and Turkey, played a direct role in backing militants and undermining Damascus.
While Jordan has played a more passive role, and Turkey a more direct role in facilitating proxy militant forces, Israel has played the role of "unilateral provocateur." While Turkish, US, and other "coalition" forces are unable to directly attack Syrian forces, Israel – posing as a unilateral regional player – can and has done so regularly since 2012.
CNN in its article, "Israeli jets strike inside Syria; military site near Palmyra reportedly targeted," would note:
In November 2012, Israel fired warning shots toward Syria after a mortar shell hit an Israeli military post, the first time Israel had fired on Syria across the Golan Heights since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Israeli jets have been striking targets in Syria since at least 2013, when US officials told CNN they believed IDF jets had hit targets inside Syrian territory.
CNN would also report:
Israeli strikes may have gone as far inside Syria as the capital. In 2014, the Syrian government and an opposition group both said an IDF strike had hit Damascus' suburbs and airport.
And while Israeli politicians and military officials claim their aggression seeks to stop the transfer of weapons to terrorist organizations, organizations they deem as "terrorist" are in fact the sole forces within Syria fighting actual, internationally recognized terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda, its various subsidiaries and affiliates, as well as the Islamic State itself.
Paradoxically, these genuinely terrorist organizations have existed along Israel's border enjoying defacto protection from Israeli forces from Syrian military operations.
Israel's Role as America's "Mad Dog" is No Secret
Israel's geopolitical role as "unilateral mad dog" has been a matter of stated US policy since at least the 1980s – and in specific reference to America's repeated attempts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian state amid much larger objectives aimed at Iran and the region as a whole.
A 1983 document – part of a deluge of recently declassified papers released to the public – signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, "Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" (PDF), states (their emphasis):
Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq's pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.
The report also states:
If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further.
In 2009, US corporate-financier funded policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a lengthy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran" (PDF), in which, once again, the use of Israel as an apparently "unilateral aggressor" was discussed in detail.
Of course, a US policy paper describing planned Israeli aggression as part of a larger US-driven conspiracy to attack, undermine, and ultimately overthrow the Iranian state reveals there is nothing "unilateral" at all about Israel's regional policy or its military operations.
In 2012, the Brookings Institution would publish another paper titled, ""Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" (PDF), which stated:
Some voices in Washington and Jerusalem are exploring whether Israel could contribute to coercing Syrian elites to remove Asad.
The report continues by explaining:
Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria's military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself.
Once again, the use of Israel as one of several regional provocateurs executing policy as part of a larger US-orchestrated conspiracy is openly discussed.
As each Israeli incursion into Syria unfolds – regardless of the details, claims, and counterclaims made regarding each incursion – it should be analyzed within the context of US interests, not "Israeli" interests. And regardless of the details of each incursion, the ultimate purpose is to escalate the conflict continuously until Syria and its allies react and provoke a much larger, direct military conflict the US and others amid its axis of aggression can openly participate in.
It should be noted that in Brookings' 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia?," using Israeli attacks to provoke an Iranian response and thus justify direct US military intervention involving everything from an air campaign against Tehran to a full-scale US invasion and occupation were among the centerpieces of the policy paper.
It is clear that an identical policy is now being pursued against Syria. Unveiling the true nature of Israel's incursions into Syria and resisting the temptation to escalate the conflict further is key to confounding US designs and rendering the provocations of its proxies – including Israel and Turkey – moot.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
US Jews Condemn Trump's Deportation Rules—But Back Israel's
http://newobserveronline.com/us-jews-condemn-trumps-deportation-rules-back-israels/
All the major Jewish activist groups in America—including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)—have come out in opposition to the new deportation guidelines announced by the Trump administration—but continue to back Israel's deportation rules, which are far stricter and openly racial in nature.
The new Trump administration rules, announced February 21, directed his administration to enforce the nation's immigration laws more aggressively, unleashing the full force of the federal government to find, arrest, and deport those in the country illegally, regardless of whether they have committed serious crimes.
The aim of the new orders are to publicize crimes by illegal invaders, enlist local police officers as enforcers, erect new detention facilities, discourage asylum seekers, and speed up deportations.
According to an article in the Jerusalem-based Times of Israel, titled "US Jewish organizations decry new immigration rules as 'cruel,' 'dangerous,'" the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, announced that the "new rules are extremely ill-advised and counter to our values as a nation that has always served as a beacon of hope for people around the world."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-jewish-groups-decry-cruel-dangerous-new-immigration-rules/
The ADL, for example, has a special section on its website devoted to instructing Jews how to defend Israel from criticism. Titled "Israel: A Guide for Activists," the ADL page provides detailed instructions on every aspect of the Jewish state, and how to answer accusations made against it.
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/action-guides/israel-a-guide-for-activists#.VoknehV4by0
HIAS has an office in Israel which it uses to facilitate Jews-only immigration to Israel, and proudly announces that it has a program to help Third World non-Jewish "asylum seekers" in Israel to "evaluate options for reuniting with family in other countries, including the United States, Canada, Italy, Australia, Switzerland, and Sweden"—in other words, to get non-Jewish illegal invaders out of Israel and to send them to non-Jewish countries.
As for Israel itself, the Jewish ethnostate actively deports thousands of Eritrean and other nonwhite invaders back to Africa—and has accepted just four "asylum" requests since 2009.
http://newobserveronline.com/israel-deports-invaders-africa/
Israel's deportation policy is so forthright that it even deports thousands of Africans to Uganda and Rwanda—regardless of the Africans' original country of origin.
As to treating invaders like "criminals," HIAS has also ignored the fact that in February 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his intention to "surround all of Israel with a fence" to protect the Jewish state from Arab "wild beasts."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.702318
The ADL and HIAS also ignore the fact that the Israeli government not only denies non-Jewish "refugees" asylum status—a move which bars them from obtaining work permits, healthcare, and welfare services—but also locks them up without trial in specially built concentration camps such as those found in Holot, hidden away in the Negev desert, far away from Israel's cities.
http://newobserveronline.com/asylum-seekers-not-in-israel/
A BBC article from February 2016, for example, titled "Israel's unwanted African migrants," reveals that the Jewish ethnostate offers any "refugees" who reach that nation one of three choices: go home; stay in Israel, but be imprisoned indefinitely; or accept deportation to a "third country"—which means deportation to Rwanda or Uganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35475403
From this overview, it is obvious that Israel has far more stringent invasion control policies than the Trump administration's latest plans—and it is equally clear that the ADL, HIAS, and all the other Jewish organizations who are protesting the Trump administration, are blatant hypocrites who seek to enforce one rule of conduct for the Jewish state, and another completely contrary rule for non-Jewish states.
Mark Hetfield, president of HIAS, an organization which the Times of Israel described as a "Jewish refugee rights group," said that the guidelines "treat vulnerable people, many of whom are unaccompanied children and asylum seekers, like criminals."
"This step is deeply problematic on many levels. It removes critical due process rights for new immigrants and imperils countless numbers of refugees fleeing extreme violence in Central America," the ADL statement said.
The HIAS statement said it "remains committed to fighting this and every action that endangers the lives of refugees and asylum seekers, and that jeopardizes their ability to obtain the protection they need and deserve.
"Our history and values, as Jews and as Americans, compel us to continue fighting to preserve the American traditions of welcoming and of providing refuge."
The HIAS statement added: "Prioritizing detention and removal over protection and due process is not only cruel, it is dangerous. Such detention and deportation without due process would violate US obligations under the Refugee Convention, and put the most vulnerable at risk of being summarily returned to countries where they would face persecution and torture."
Both the ADL and HIAS fanatically support the state of Israel, which openly breaks every single one of the Refugee Convention rules to which Hetfield referred.
The Deep State's Dominant Narratives and Authority Are Crumbling
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-deep-states-dominant-narratives-and.html
This is why the Deep State is fracturing: its narratives no longer align with the evidence.
As this chart from Google Trends illustrates, interest in the Deep State has increased dramatically in 2017. [see chart at link] The term/topic has clearly moved from the specialist realm to the mainstream. I've been writing about the Deep State, and specifically, the fractures in the Deep State, for years.
Amusingly, now that "Progressives" have prostituted themselves to the Security Agencies and the Neocons/Neoliberals, they are busy denying the Deep State exists. For example, There is No Deep State (The New Yorker).
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/20/there-is-no-deep-state
In this risible view, there is no Deep State "conspiracy" (the media's favorite term of dismissal/ridicule), just a bunch of "good German" bureaucrats industriously doing the Empire's essential work of undermining democracies that happen not to prostrate themselves at the feet of the Empire, murdering various civilians via drone strikes, surveilling the U.S. populace, planting bugs in new iPhones, issuing fake news while denouncing anything that questions the dominant narratives as "fake news," arranging sweetheart deals with dictators and corporations, and so on.
The New Yorker is right about one thing--the Deep State is not a "conspiracy:" it is a vast machine of control that is largely impervious to the views or demands of elected representatives or the American people. The key to understanding this social-political-economic control is to grasp that control of the narratives, expertise and authority is control of everything. Allow me to illustrate how this works.
The typical politician has a busy daily schedule of speaking at the National Motherhood and Apple Pie Day celebration, listening to the "concerns" of important corporate constituents, attending a lunch campaign fundraiser, meeting with lobbyists and party committees, being briefed by senior staff, and so on.
Senior administrators share similarly crowded schedules, minus the fundraising but adding budget meetings, reviewing employee complaints and multiple meetings with senior managers and working groups.
Both senior elected officials and senior state administrators must rely on narratives, expertise and authority because they have insufficient time and experience to do original research and assessment.
Narratives create an instant context that "makes sense" of various data points and events. Narratives distill causal factors into an explanatory story with an implicit teleology--because of this and that, the future will be thus and so.
For example: because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the future promises the terrible likelihood (more than a possibility, given Iraqi deployment of poison gas in the Iraq-Iran War) that America or its allies will be devastated by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This teleology leads to the inescapable need to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction by any means necessary, and remove the political will to use them by removing Iraq's leader from power.
Politicos and senior administrators rely on expertise and authority as the basis of deciding whether something is accurate and actionable. Professional specialists are assumed to have the highest available levels of expertise, and their position in institutions that embody the highest authority give their conclusions the additional weight of being authoritative. The experts' conclusion doesn't just carry the weight of expertise, it has been reviewed by senior officials of the institution, and so it also carries the weight of institutional authority.
So when the C.I.A. briefing by its experts claims Iraq has WMD, and the briefing includes various threads of evidence that the institution declares definitive, who is a non-expert to challenge this conclusion and teleology? On what technical basis does the skeptic reject the expertise and authority of the institution?
We can now define the Deep State with some precision. The Deep State is fundamentally the public-private centralized nodes that collect, archive and curate dominant narratives and their supporting evidence, and disseminate these narratives (and their implicit teleologies) to the public via the media and to the state agencies via formal and informal inter-departmental communication channels.
By gaining control of the narratives, evidence, curation and teleology, each node concentrates power. the power to edit out whatever bits contradict the dominant narrative is the source of power, for once the contradictory evidence is buried or expunged, it ceases to exist.
For example, the contradictory evidence in the Pentagon Papers was buried by being declared Top Secret. The bureaucratic means to bury skeptical (i.e. heretical) views or evidence are many. Sending the authors to figurative Siberia is remarkably effective, as is burying the heretical claims in a veritable mountain of data that few if any will ever survey.
Curation is a critical factor in maintaining control of the narrative and thus of control; the evidence is constantly curated to best support the chosen narrative which in turn supports the desired teleology, which then sets the agenda and the end-game.
The senior apparatchiks of the old Soviet Union were masters of curation; when a Soviet leader fell from favor, he was literally excised from the picture--his image was erased from photos.
This is how narratives are adjusted to better fit the evidence. Thus the accusation that "the Russians hacked our election" has been tabled because it simply doesn't align with any plausible evidence. That narrative has been replaced with variants, such as "the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee." Now that this claim has also been shown to be false, new variants are popping up weekly, with equally poor alignment with evidence.
The primary claim of each Deep State node is that its expertise and authority cannot be questioned. In other words, while the dominant narrative can be questioned (but only cursorily, of course), the expertise and authority of the institutional node cannot be questioned.
This is why the Deep State is fracturing: the expertise and authority of its nodes are delaminating because its narratives no longer align with the evidence. If various Security Agencies sign off on the narrative that "Russia hacked our election" (a nonsense claim from the start, given the absurd imprecision of the "hacking"--hacking into what? Voting machines? Electoral tallies?), and that narrative is evidence-free and fact-free, i.e. false, then the expertise and authority of those agencies comes into legitimate question.
Once the legitimacy of the expertise and authority is questioned, control of the narrative is imperiled. The control of the narrative is control of the teleology, the agenda and the end-game--in other words, everything. If the institution loses control of the dominant narrative, it loses its hold on power.
This is why the Deep State is in turmoil--its narratives no longer make sense, or are in direct conflict with other nodes' narratives or have been delegitimized by widening gaps between "definitive" claims and actual evidence.
There is indeed a Deep State, but its control of dominant narratives, and thus its source of control and power, is crumbling. The gap between the narratives and the evidence that supports them has widened to the point of collapse.
What is disturbing about the following article is that in the comment section there are increasing calls for Tony Blair's execution by the people, as a traitor and a mass murdering war criminal. I do not support the execution of traitors without trial, it is a slippery slope that leads to immorality. I would much prefer they have a fair and fully public trial. You also have to take into account that there are tens of thousands of traitors in the UK alone.. it would be my preference to peacefully reclaim the English government power and then drain the swamp.. the alternative is civil war which few sane people crave as an outcome.
Tony Blair was warned about results of opening borders
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/782200/tony-blair-eu-migrants-andrew-marr
IT'S easy to tell when Tony Blair's talking nonsense: his lips move.
Oh and let's not forget the paedophiles in power protected on Tony's watch:
'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html
How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
Why is Labour Peer Lord Janner not being prosecuted because he has dementia? At least 19 defendants suffering with the disease have been convicted for sex crimes... and TEN were in the past year
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/04/22/britain-lord-nazi-hunters-pedophile-cover-up/
Pedophilia is a Requirement for UK Ruling Elite
http://www.renegadetribune.com/pedophilia-requirement-uk-ruling-elite/
Case by case by case, the evidence builds that not only have psychopaths [see "Psychopathic Takeover"] populated the UK's power structure but that often enough, being a pedophile has been an additional requirement. The entire ruling hierarchy is rife with this crowd and it is a long-standing British "tradition." I believe pedophiles are put into high places not just because of their psychopathy, but because they can be compromised and controlled by the cabal. There is an element of this in the U.S. power structure as well. Whistleblowers and victims who go up against pedophile rings frequently end up dead [see the "Strange Death of Nancy Schaefer"]. Due to a change in legislation in 2009 by Jack Straw, it is now illegal for children in care to speak out if they are victims of abuse [see here].
Jimmy Savile (now dead) proved to be a very prolific pedophile. Savile was knighted by the Queen, knighted by the Vatican, was a top BBC figure (a household name), spent time with Margaret Thatcher at Chequers on several occasions (Thatcher lobbied heavily to have him knighted by the Queen), was close friends with Prince Charles (was even described as his "mentor" by Princess Diana) and spent time with him alone on at least one occasion [see here]. He also boasted that he had police pals who would protect him from child abuse claims.
Famous politician Cyril Smith (now dead) proved to be a prolific pedophile [see here]. Smith was only one of a number of alleged high profile child abusers within Westminster said to have been named in a 40-page dossier submitted to the Home Office by the late campaigning Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in 1983. Home Secretary at the time, Leon Brittan (a top ranking politician to this day) "lost" the file containing evidence of pedophiles in positions of great power — including Cyril Smith [see No. 2 above].
Kincora Boys Home-linked politician kill self after answering questions pertaining to pedophilia at the home. Ken Livingstone (the ex-Mayor of London) had said that Mi5 orchestrated pedophilia events at Kincora Boys Home in order to blackmail politicians. see here
There are a number of pedophile links to the British Royal Family. Prince Charles was not only close friends with Jimmy Savile but is close friends with a convicted pedophile priest and was also friends with alleged pedophile Arthur C. Clarke [see here].
Royal valet footman George Smith claimed to have been raped by Michael Fawcett, a top Royal servant to Prince Charles, and also claimed that he once caught Prince Charles and this same (male) servant in bed together.
A royal butler took his pedophile victims to tea with Queen Mother.
Prince Andrew was close friends with a now-convicted pedophile [see here].
Edwina Curry, a top ranking politician during and after the Thatcher era, wrote in her autobiography that Peter Morrison (the now-deceased Personal Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher) was a noted "Pederast" (aka pedophile) and admitted as much to then Conservative Party Chairman Norman Tebbit (now a British Lord) [see here].
An as-yet unnamed Labour peer is being investigated by police after 12 men made allegations of historical child abuse against him [see here].
Ben Fellows (BBC Child Actor) claims to have been groped by top UK politician Ken Clarke at age 15. He also claims Andrew Lloyd Webber put his tongue down his throat when he was 13. And he also claims he was doing drugs at a party at Esther Rantzen's house as a minor [see here].
Member of Parliament Simon Danczuk was warned by a top Conservative MP not to challenge Leon Brittan over pedophile dossier [see here].
Lord Tebbit admits to establishment coverup of child abuse [see here].
UK government admits 114 secret files on pedophile cases missing [see here].
One of Tony Blair's ministers is accused by council officials of helping a convicted pedophile foster two young boys. The convicted pedophile was running a children's home at the time [see here].
Conservative Party whip from 1970-1973 admits to covering up problems for MPs, such as "a scandal with small boys," because then the MP would "do what you want forever more" [see here].
Ex-Minister Lord Warner says children's homes were a "supply line" for pedophiles in the '80s [see here].
Former child protection manager says there are up to 20 prominent public figures in alleged pedophile ring covering Parliament and judiciary [see here].
Scotland Yard handed Leon Brittan, the former Conservative Home Secretary, a dossier naming 15 members of a notorious pedophile group. This file is currently unaccounted for (this is not the same file given to Leon Brittan by Geoffrey Dickens) [see here].
UK Prime Minister David Cameron's aide, Patrick Rock, arrested for child abuse images [see here].
Ex-police officer involved in the 1992 arrest of notorious pedophile Peter Righton claims that Righton had in his possession an enormous cache of documents that linked him to an establishment child abuse ring (including senior members of the clergy) — but it was not acted upon by the police [see here].
Former civil servant has accused the Home Office of giving tens of thousands of pounds of public money directly to the British pedophile advocacy group PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) at the request of the Metropolitan Police's special branch [see here halfway down the page].
MP who handed VIP pedophile dossier to Leon Brittan (see No. 3 above) was on triple killer's hit list [see here].
Labour MP Tom Watson has alleged that a member of a notorious pedophile group was connected to a former No. 10 aide. He said, "The evidence file used to convict Peter Righton (see No. 22 above), if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread pedophile ring [see here].
Member of the House of Lords escapes probe over 20 child sex claims because he is "suffering dementia" [see here].
The names of at least 10 prominent and former politicians plus senior police judges are being named "again and again" by people calling a child abuse hotline [see here].
The retired judge leading an inquiry into historic sex abuse said she will not quit after her brother was linked to an establishment "coverup" of the pedophile ring she will be investigating [see here].
Shadow Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman of the Labour Party was senior NCCL figure at a time that it argued "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage" and tried to lower the age of consent to 14. Harman stated that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves [see here].
David Cameron's advisor on child abuse says that a "Westminster Chumocracy" has protected itself from pedophile allegations [see here].
Margaret Thatcher "personally covered up" child abuse allegations against senior ministers, according to a source with "inside knowledge of Scotland Yard in the early 1980s" [see here].
Former Conservative activist Anthony Gilberthorpe alleges that he saw top Tories having sex with boys and told Margaret Thatcher 25 years ago [see here]. He also found "Rent Boys" (male prostitutes) for top Tory politicians [see here]. A victim tells his side of the story [see here].
Labour peer now at the centre of pedophile allegations. Letters show the politician cultivated an extremely close relationship with a teenager [see here].
Retired judge Baroness Butler-Sloss steps down as head of major inquiry into sex abuse allegations. Possible reasons: (a) Her brother Sir Michael Havers was Attorney General during the alleged cover-up of a previous pedophile scandal [see here]; (b) her Brother was seen at a pedophile party in the '80s by a seemingly credible witness [see here]; and (c) she has already covered up pedophile claims against a Bishop [see here]. Interestingly, the Bishop in question is Peter Ball, who is very close friends with Prince Charles [see here] and was given a Duchy house by him [see here].
Adopted daughter of Conservative MP Ralph Bonner Pink (now deceased) claims that he abused her as a 10 year old girl then put her into Broadmoor mental hospital, where she was abused by Jimmy Savile [see here].
Award-winning author alleges systematic abuse at the council-run Shirley Oaks care home in Surrey was covered up after the investigation turned up information that linked to a prominent Labour MP in Tony Blair's government [see here]. More victims from the same care home come forward to substantiate his claim [see here].
An adviser to the Scottish government uncovered a pedophile ring that included well-known TV personalities, lawyers and police officers. Calls for an investigation were ignored [see here].
Ex-Freemasonic leader Lord Burton in 2003 said that the inquiry into the Dunblane Massacre (a 1996 school shooting in Scotland) was a cover up and he was bullied to keep quiet. The school shooter (and suspected pedophile) Thomas Hamilton was allowed to freely roam around a primary school for children of the military services, even at night [see here].
Margaret Hodge, the one-time minister for children, was linked to a child abuse cover up in Islington while she was the council leader [see here].
Female MP "abused care-home boy aged 13 as part of paedophile network at heart of government" [see here].
Scotland Yard detective "removed from paedophile probe after naming politicians" [see here].
Labour peer Barbara Castle drew up a dossier on VIP paedophiles. File was seized by special branch "heavy mob" [see here]. Newspaper editor confirms the story [see here]. At least two senior Thatcher ministers were named in the file [see here].
Ex MI-5 Informant says that MI-5 knew about child abuse at Kincora Boys Home and did nothing about it [see here].
Kincora victim tells of sex abuse and "stream of men" [see here].
Pedophile politician Cyril Smith: Detective claims three probes were stopped [see here].
Jill Dando (a famous UK TV presenter, who was murdered in 2001) was working to expose a high-profile pedophile ring at the time [see here]. Her killer has never been found, and her ex-fiance is now a doctor to the royal family.
TV presenter and Childline Founder Esther Rantzen's ex-lover, an MP, was linked to pedophile ring [see here]. Also, a child was abused at her house [see here]. She was also accused by child abuse-victim Ben Fellows of exposing children to sex/drug parties [see number 12 above].
An UK ex-minister is being investigated for child abuse. Fifteen years ago, an investigation into the same person was mothballed and the police officer leading the case was sidelined and then disciplined as a result of his inquiries [see here].
Ex-House of Commons Speaker and former MP George Thomas (deceased) is now being investigated for abusing a boy [see here].
Home Office whistle blower alleges that Secret Services infiltrated a paedophile group (PIE) to blackmail establishment figures [see here].
The son of Conservative MP David Atkinson (now deceased) says that his father was a sexual predator, that he was linked to a Westminster pedophile ring and that he was being blackmailed by a Westminster staff member [see here].
Disgraced MI-5 double agent Anthony Blunt frequented well-known VIP pedophile hangout Elm Guest House [see here].
Department of Health fails to follow up on allegations of a pedophile ring in Westminster and Whitehall because it was a waste of time — whistle blower was told there were "too many of them over there" [see here].
Police chief removed from pedophile investigation after making several high-profile arrests [see here].
Ex-Scotland Yard commander, "We were ready to investigate Westminster paedophile ring in early 1980s" [see here].
Jersey senator arrested on data charges and dismissed from post after claiming that there had been a child-abuse coverup on the island [see here].
World's largest independent mental health NGO gave the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) a platform at a "Sexuality Conference" in the '70s [see here].
Peter Hayman, HM High Commissioner to Canada who held top posts in the Ministry of Defence and the UK delegation to NATO, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and was cautioned after his flat was searched and pornographic material pertaining to children was found [see here].
Information held by Conservative whips – including details of any sexual misdemeanours – has been shredded since 1996 [see here – sixth paragraph].
UK children in care are six times more likely to be assessed for abuse than a child in the general population [see here].
Scotland Yard detective "removed from paedophile probe after naming politicians" [see here].
Former assistant director of social services at Lambeth Council claims there was a high-level coverup to protect politicians [see here].
Dr. Phil Exposes Elite Government Pedophile Ring On Mainstream TV (Video)
https://thelastgreatstand.com/2017/03/23/dr-phil-exposes-elite-government-pedophile-ring-on-mainstream-tv-video/
Police Chief Confirms Fmr UK Prime Minister Raped Dozens of Children and Govt 'Covered it Up'
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-fmr-uk-prime-minister-heath-pedophilia/
In what will likely turn into the largest pedophile bombshell in recent history, Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has reportedly been accused by the police chief as being a pedophile. His vile crimes against children were allegedly 'covered up by the establishment.'
Now please excuse me while I go and puke up >:(
The London Terrorist Was British Born; But that Doesn't Mean Mass Immigration Was Not a Factor
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-london-terrorist-was-british-born-but-that-doesnt-mean-mass-immigration-was-not-a-factor/
The MSM are engaged in a full on operation to defend mass immigration in light of Wednesday's London terror attack. Articles about Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and others, condemning their stances on mass immigration have been rife. But if we consider the types of communities that are being reshaped and segregated by this process, we can see that for "home-grown" terrorists, this is what divides them from the society they were born into.
A quick look at demographic charts for the UK, shows that the Muslim population is growing rapidly (the 80 page report link is actually prepared by the Muslim Council of Britain, not my favourite group, but some of their insights are perceptive and it is worth a quick scan through). part of this is due to higher birth rates, but a large part also comes from immigration, and it is not evenly spread around the UK, it is confined mostly to small areas where Muslims are becoming the majority.
"The majority of Muslims (76%) live in the inner city conurbations of Greater London, West Midlands, the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. Muslims form 12.4% of London's population."
If practices such as FGM (20,000 per year in the UK and still no prosecutions), forced marriage etc... enter a reasonably stable community at too fast a rate, they become more prevalent, they become in some cases accepted (especially those practices that are felt to be part of a more traditional culture that was practiced by parents and grandparents in the past), and ultimately, they create a cognitive dissonance for the susceptible people who may be more easy to radicalize.
When this is combined with the spreading Wahabism (an extreme and dangerous interpretation of Islam that many experts believe to be the roots of global Islamic terrorism), and the multitude of Mosques being funded out of Saudi Arabia (the home of Wahabism), then troubled and susceptible people are cast along a path that at the very least leads to discontent with the wider British society, and at worst to the events we saw in London on Wednesday.
And when it is government policy (enforced by law) to assure the population that "all cultures are equal", how do misguided souls distinguish what is better or worse? The Wahabist mosques take this even further, and tell the people that their sins are caused by the decadence of the society in which they live. This further segregates communities, and to some, they are offered a path back to Allah: Jihad.
If a nation accepts that all other cultures are equal to its own, and then allows mass immigration from people and sects that seek to destroy said nation's value systems, then it is a losing fight. Britain needs to be proud of its values and culture; it needs to integrate those that are held in a state of dissonance by a dangerous and violent sect. None of this can happen while mass, unchecked immigration takes place.
Tucker Carlson: You may remember a time when terrorism wasn't inevitable in big cities. It wasn't always this way. The people in charge made it this way through reckless immigration policies that none of us were asked to endorse, much less vote on.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/tucker-carlson-you-may-remember-a-time-when-terrorism-wasnt-inevitable-in-big-cities-it-wasnt-always-this-way-the-people-in-charge-made-it-this-way-through-reckless-immigration-policies-that-no/
Cultural Marxism. Good, hard working people, paying taxes all their adult lives. Just want a nice peaceful town to live and raise a family in. But some globalist elite, Illuminati overlords decide that we have to live next door to f*cking savages. WTF!
Muslims make up only 4% of the uk population, look at the continued chaos & destruction they cause, what do u think it will be like with 20%
— Tommy Robinson (@TRobinsonNewEra) March 23, 2017
Marine Le Pen: "They kill our children, murder our policemen and slaughter our priests. Wake up!" pic.twitter.com/dmE9mfoiQ6
— Tennessee (@TEN_GOP) March 23, 2017
Weak leaders in EU-countries are political responsible for terrorattacks because they ignore islam as the cause and import more and more.
— Geert Wilders (@geertwilderspvv) March 22, 2017
The UN's moral failure on Israeli apartheid
http://www.redressonline.com/2017/03/the-uns-moral-failure-on-israeli-apartheid/
By Lawrence Davidson
Moral failure
On 15 March 2017 the United Nations' Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) published a report on Israeli practices and policies toward the Palestinians. Using international law as its comparative criterion, the report came to a "definitive conclusion" that "Israel is guilty of apartheid practices." The term apartheid was not used in the report merely in a "pejorative" way. It was used as a descriptor of fact based on the evidence and the accepted legal meaning of the term.
Such was the immediate uproar from the United States and Israel that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in a moment of moral failure, ordered the report's withdrawal. The head of ESCWA, the Jordanian diplomat Rima Khalaf, decided that she could not, in good conscience, do so and so tendered her resigation.
Reportage
The initial New York Times (NYT) coverage of the incident paid little attention to the accuracy of the report, an approach which, if pursued, would have at least educated the newspaper's readers as to the real conditions of Palestinians under Israeli domination. Instead, it called the report, and those involved in producing it, into question. For instance, the NYT told us that "the report provoked outrage from Israel and the United States". The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki R. Haley, was quoted as declaring that, "when someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the UN it is appropriate that the person resign". At no point in the NYT story was it noted that Ms Haley's charge that the report was false, was itself false. Other coverage by the NYT improved only slightly.
The NYT did pay attention to the fact that, among the authors of the report, was former UN human rights investigator Richard Falk. Falk served six years as UN spacial rapporteur for the occupied territories. According to the NYT, his presence had to "gall[ed] many Israeli supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite". There is something troubling about a newspaper that claims to represent the epitome of professional journalism reporting such slurs without properly evaluating them. Richard Falk, who is Jewish, has an impeccable record of both academic achievement and public service. His reputation for honesty and dedication to the cause of human rights exemplifies the best practice of Jewish values. Thus, he has every right to say that "I have been smeared in this effort to discredit the report" – a study which "tries its best to look at the evidence and analyse the applicable law in a professional manner".
Israel's behaviour
An objective consideration of Israel's behaviour makes it hard to escape the brutal reality of its officially condoned practices.
On 17 March 2017, at the same time as the forced withdrawal of the ESCWA report, the US State Department released a report on "grave violations against Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation". This was part of the department's annual "country reports on human rights practices". Among the problems cited were Israel's practice of unlawful detention, coerced confessions and excessive use of force, including torture and killings.
Usually these annual human rights reports are made public by the secretary of state. This year Rex Tillerson, who presently holds the office, was nowhere in sight. And, of course, President Trump failed to issue any of his characteristic tweets in reference to the Israel's barbaric behaviour.
Earlier, on 8 February 2017, it was reported that "Israel has banned anesthesia gas from entering the Gaza Strip." There is a current backlog of some 200 patients in Gaza requiring surgical care, and some will die due to Israel's ban.
A week later, on 14 February 2017, it was reported that Israeli officials were blackmailing Palestinian patients seeking permission to enter Israel for necessary medical treatment. A 17-year-old Gazan boy who suffered from congenital heart disease and needed a heart valve replacement "was explicitly told that in order to [leave the Gaza Strip and] have his operation, he would have to cooperate with the security forces and spy for Israel". He refused and subsequently died. This is not a new or unusual tactic for the Israelis.
Blackmail all around
The moral failure at the UN, represented by the withdrawal of the ESCWA report, is the result of Secretary-General Guterres's decision to acquiesce in a denial of reality – the reality of Israel's practice of apartheid.
On the other hand, it probably also stems from Guterres's acceptance of the reality of US financial leverage along with the apparent threat to bankrupt the UN. This is, of course, a form of blackmail. Significantly, US use of its financial clout at the UN mimics the same practice by the Zionist lobby in the halls of Congress.
Obviously, the UN, to say nothing of US politicians, needs alternate sources of income. My wife Janet once suggested that the UN be awarded the right to exploit and profit from all undersea resources. Not a bad idea. Likewise, US politicians should agree to, or be forced to rely upon, government-based campaign funding rather than be pressed into putting themselves up for sale.
However, such changes do not appear imminent. As it stands now, reality in Palestine is what the Americans and Israelis say it is because politicians and international leaders literally can't afford to challenge their corrupted views.
America Seeks to Destroy Syrian Civilization, Replace it With Terrorism and Ignorance
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-seeks-to-destroy-syrian-civilization-replace-it-with-terrorism-and-ignorance/5581148
NATO/GCC/Israeli proxy terrorists in Syria have committed all manner of atrocities with a view to destroying Syria's culture, history, economy, pluralism, its very essence. They want to create a blank slate. They want to destroy the country's secular institutions so that Syria devolves into a sectarian terrorist cesspool of death and ignorance. All of this is well documented.
Dr. Joseph Saadeh, a dentist and city councilor in the liberated Christian town of Maaloula, Syria, expressed similar sentiments in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oWbLZCxCZE
The well-orchestrated, genocidal terrorism, includes assaults on Syria's previously exemplary education system, with a view to replacing it with anti-Islamic Wahhabi/Takfiri-oriented teachings of hatred and violence.
Investigative reporter and Syrian resident Tom Duggan reported in a text message that the terrorists
turned these beacons of education (schools) into platforms of terror and launching the Takfiri extremist ideology which will invade the whole world if not stopped. The result is that Syria believed in producing a well-educated civilized human being, while the terrorists planned to produce a new generation of terrorists who only believe in killing people and destroying humanity, that did not conform to their strict ideas these monsters will be on the European borders and here we have a decision to make it yours to choose between the civilized education of mankind and a hideous ideology that only resembles humans in shape and form a blind obedience to create suffering and destruction of any modern society that opposes them.
In a recently-released documentary, the Sun Of Syria series, Duggan explains that in their efforts to destroy Syria's education system, terrorists targeted and destroyed modern educational infrastructure, including schools (444 schools were destroyed by terrorists since 2011), and the Ministry Of Education's main printing depot, the Eral Establishment for Printing And Textbook(s), which was under siege for 80 days.
It should be obvious that the West's on-going efforts to destroy Syria have nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with its on-going support for genocide, terror, and destruction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruBJWBnsgtM
The Collapse Of Trust In The West
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-trust-in-the-west/5580910
Just as President Putin has stated that governments and media in the West have destroyed Russia's trust in the West, the governments and media in the West have destroyed the trust of their citizens, who have been transformed into serfs to whom government no longer is accountable.
I have stressed in many columns that the absence of trust between nuclear powers is a great threat to all life on earth. Yet the Western governments and media continue to work 24/7 to worsen relations between the US and Russia and the US and China. Those of us who warn of the possible consequences are put on lists of "Russian dupes" and purveyors of "fake news." These lists show the desperation behind the orchestrated "Russian threat." A one thousand billion dollar annual military/security budget is at stake along with American financial and political hegemony.
In brief, greed for money and power are driving the world to destruction.
Greed and power have also driven Americans, indeed all of the Western world, into a more complete police state than George Orwell describes in his book, 1984.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano describes the extraordinary spy capability of the US government and the ease with which it can be used against even the President of the United States. Napolitano's article appeared on LewRockwell.com, InformationClearingHouse.info, and antiwar.com. The antiwar.com link has a link to the response from the UK's GCHQ, which has full access to NSA's digital collection of all electronic communications of Americans, to Napolitano's suggestion that Obama could have used the British to avoid leaving US fingerprints on his spying activities against Trump. (Read Napolitano's article, Did Obama Spy On Trump?, here.)
The British Government Communications Headquarters dismissed Napolitano's suggestion as "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored." In other words, the GCHQ did not deny that it has access to every electronic communication made by Americans, including the President of the US. Instead, GCHQ tried to impugn Napolitano's credibility. Keep in mind that it was British intelligence that permitted Prime Minister Tony Blair to lie to the British Parliament in behalf of the George W. Bush regime's orchestrated case for invading Iraq.
When you read Napolitano's account of the completeness with which Americans have lost all privacy, you will understand that the US Constitution is erased, like the Confederate States of America and its battle flag. Our privacy is not only erased by government but also by private corporations. Those Americans so insouciant as to respond to the fact that they are spied upon by saying, "I'm doing nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear," should read the statement below from the American Civil Liberties Union:
"Last year we won strong internet privacy rules. The Federal Communications Commission introduced protections that require companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to get your permission before they sell your private information to the highest bidder.
"Now some politicians are caving to industry pressure. The Senate introduced a resolution to overturn this important FCC rule – and if passed by Congress, the FCC would be blocked from issuing similar rules in the future.
"Add your name to tell the Senate you don't want companies selling your data without your permission.
"For years, internet service providers have been trying to find ways to collect, use, and sell the sensitive data they collect from you – every website you visit, the times you log into and out of your online accounts, and even your location. These companies collect data that can paint an intimate picture of your religious practices, sexual activities, health problems, and more.
"Who are the buyers? Advertisers, big-data brokers, and even government and law enforcement agencies.
"Protecting privacy is also about stopping discrimination. Retailers can offer different online prices based on customers' locations, sometimes giving worse deals to residents of low-income neighborhoods where there are fewer stores to compete with online prices.
"Tell the Senate to keep common sense online privacy protections in place.
"We've been on the front lines of the long fight to restrict what profiteers can do with the sensitive data they sweep up from your online activity.
"Help put the pressure on politicians to keep crucial FCC rules in place."
The ease with which the US government has been able to destroy the US Constitution in the 21st century illustrates the weakness of democracy. Unconcerned and unaware people are incapable of protecting their civil liberties. Habeas corpus, due process, and privacy have been erased. The only remaining protection is the Second Amendment, which cannot stand alone.
The peoples of the West have allowed themselves to be deceived by lies, misled by orchestrated "threats," and distracted into irrelevant matters. Consequently, they have lost their liberty. And they might lose their lives.
England bans its flag to avoid potentially offending Muslims on St George's Day
https://www.therebel.media/england_bans_its_flag_to_avoid_potentially_offending_muslims_on_st_george_s_day
Government officials in Bristol claimed that their city is too 'multicultural' to celebrate St. George's Day.
The council claimed that flying the flag could be seen as offensive and 'racist' to non-English people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTlr0707vLU
As Paul Joseph Watson points out in his newest video, England is anything but racist and intolerant. It's just the opposite.
Back a few years ago, a town straight up banned the cross because it could have offended the town's 16 (yes, just 16) Muslim residents.
Watson provides numerous examples of white middle-class leftists getting offended on the behalf of Muslims. The bigotry of low expectations is a common theme here.
And just wait until you see how a Muslim community leader reacted when asked if he found the English flag to be offensive!
Absolutely absurd.
Rural council votes to stop flying flag of St George claiming it is offensive to town's 16 Muslims because of links to CRUSADES
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324999/Rural-council-stops-flying-flag-St-George-claiming-offensive-Muslims-links-Crusades.html
Why is ISIS destroying ancient artifacts in Iraq?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0226/Why-is-ISIS-destroying-ancient-artifacts-in-Iraq
The destruction of ancient Iraqi artifacts – a tactic employed in cultural genocide – is part of the Islamic State militants' efforts to reform the region into a single, homogenous Muslim caliphate under its control.
The Islamic State – aka ISIS – continues its campaign of violence, this time attacking history itself.
A new video that surfaced Thursday purportedly shows members of the radical group taking sledgehammers, pickaxes, and even jackhammers to the ancient artifacts housed within the Mosul Museum in northern Iraq.
"The Prophet Muhammad commanded us to shatter and destroy statues," a bearded man in a white shirt and black kufi says in Arabic at the beginning of the video. "This is what his companions did later on, when they conquered lands."
"Since Allah commanded us to shatter and destroy these statues, idols and remains, it is easy for us to obey... even if this costs billions of dollars," the man says.
The camera then cuts to a series of scenes showing statues – some reportedly more than 3,000 years old – being reduced to rubble. Militants can be seen knocking down icons and destroying idols that date back to the Assyrian Empire, which ruled a large chunk of what is now the Middle East from 2500 BC to about 600 BC.
The destruction at the Mosul Museum is only the latest of the Islamic State's efforts to eradicate any hint of of Iraq's non-Muslim culture, as the militant group strives to reform the region into a single, homogenous caliphate under its control.
Part of that effort requires a rewriting of history: Earlier this week, news outlets reported that ISIS ransacked and burned the Mosul Public Library, destroying more than 8,000 ancient and rare books and manuscripts.
"This destruction marks a new phase in the cultural cleansing perpetrated in regions controlled by armed extremists in Iraq," Irina Bokova, director-general of the UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said in a statement Tuesday. "It adds to the systematic destruction of heritage and the persecution of minorities that seeks to wipe out the cultural diversity that is the soul of the Iraqi people."
The tactic is unofficially called "cultural genocide," a term that David Nersessian, assistant dean of global programs at Boston University School of Management, has used to describe attacks on an ethnic or religious group's wider institutions – including its languages, traditional practices and ways, religious institutions and objects, and clergy members, academics, and intellectuals.
The UN's "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" validates the rights of any group to maintain, observe, and protect its culture and traditions. But any human rights treaty depends on the goodwill of the participating states, and those "most likely to commit cultural genocide are least likely to participate in any voluntary human rights scheme," according to Mr. Nersessian.
Regrettably, the destruction and looting of art during times of war goes back to Greek and Roman times. More recently, during World War II, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin each envisioned a "super museum" that would showcase all of Europe's great works of art, Matthew Steen wrote in an article titled, "Collateral Damage: The Destruction and Looting of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict."
The result, Mr. Steen wrote, was that the two sides spent the war "looting, plundering, and destroying each other's cultural property from private and public collections."
The same could be said of the warring sides of the brutal conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, according to András Riedlmayer, a Harvard University expert on the region's cultural heritage. In his study, Mr. Riedlmayer wrote that while three years of war in Bosnia resulted in more than 4 million refugees and 200,000 dead, "[t]he cultural casualties were no less staggering."
He continued:
"More than one thousand of Bosnia's mosques, hundreds of Catholic churches and scores of Orthodox churches, monasteries, private and public libraries, archives, and museums were shelled, burned, and dynamited, and in many cases even the ruins were removed by nationalist extremists in order to complete the cultural and religious "cleansing" of the land they had seized."
It happened again in Afghanistan in 2001, when the Taliban set about destroying thousands of ancient Buddhist statues across the country; Al-Qaeda militants also torched a library full of historic manuscripts as they fled Timbuktu, Mali, in 2013.
Attacking a people's cultural works can be tantamount to attacking its very identity. As The Christian Science Monitor reported after the destruction of the Mosul library Sunday:
"The pain felt by Iraqis at the destruction of a national treasure is palpable."
"What a pity!" Akil Kata who left Mosul to exile years ago, told the Fiscal Times. "We used to go to the library in the 1970s. It was one of the greatest landmarks of Mosul."
Added Rayan al-Hadidi, an activist and a blogger from Mosul, "Nine hundred years ago, the books of the Arab philosopher Averroes were collected before his eyes ... and burned. One of his students started crying while witnessing the burning. Averroes told him ... the ideas have wings... but I cry today over our situation."
Cultural Marxism, Subversion, and the End of Morality
https://commonsensenotdead.com/2016/01/28/cultural-marxism-subversion-and-the-destruction-of-american-society/
Cultural Marxism is the institutionalized subversion of western culture. It is the duty of every good leftist to engage in Cultural Marxism on some level; in fact, you cannot associate with the modern left without engaging in Cultural Marxism, because their entire ideology is based upon the destruction of western culture. In Marxism there is no real vision for the future, save for acquisition of power by an intellectual elite through the demonization and destruction of traditional cultural institutions. Marxism is a completely nihilistic ideology, and it requires people with a self-destructive tendency to propagate it.
Although, Cultural Marxism is a real threat to the destruction of America, it is merely a by-product of Subversion. Subversion was a tactic used by the Soviet Union in it's heyday and it is still employed today on the American people by the Globalist Elite who have infiltrated all high places of power here in America.
What Subversion is can best be described by a simple martial arts concept: When a powerful force of your opponent is coming down upon you, rather than meet that force head on with equal force, it is better to avoid the blow and then subvert your opponent's force away from you on to the ground. Now you have the higher ground and you used your opponent's force to achieve it!
Subversion is a systematic takeover of a people and a culture, and it is achieved through the following process:
Demoralization —-> Destabilization —-> Crisis —-> Normalization
Demoralization
The culture wars begin with the demoralization of the people. Karl Marx himself called for 'Abolition of the family', because he understood that it would lead to demoralization, and this would make way for an absolute socialist state. Demoralization can be achieved a number of ways, most notably by demonizing family values and promoting immoral behavior. This is what feminism and the LBGT movement is all about – Subverting and DEMORALIZING our culture! We are so twisted now that we have derogatory words like 'homophobia' to describe people who don't want to be bombarded with homosexual messages and culture.... as if to say they are suffering from a psychological defect because they find something Taboo, which has always been Taboo.
In America, demoralization has almost completely been achieved, the last pillars standing that the leftists have failed to remove are our guns and our religious freedom. Make no mistake, they will continue to attack those fundamental rights! If they ever succeed in disarming the American people, almost immediately following that they will make it illegal to assemble and speak without special licensing. Any encroachment on our 1st and 2nd Amendments should NEVER be tolerated.
Destabilization
Destabilization is the process of destabilizing, or turning upside down, all of the accepted, traditional cultural institutions in America. It involves the radicalization of our normal relations with one another on almost every level. Destabilization is the time when the extremely radical thinkers emerge as leaders of various groups calling for change. Examples of this occurring today would be the Black Lives Matter Movement, most feminist groups (too numerous to name in one article), LBGT "rights" groups, abortion activists, and the useful idiots in high places within the media and the universities. These people work to encourage the destabilization of normal human relations: divorce for profit is encouraged, children are used as bargaining chips, lawsuits of every kind are encouraged, abortion is encouraged, racial tensions are intentionally magnified, looting and rioting and violence are encouraged. The point of all of this is to throw society into a state of crisis, with the hope that people have already been demoralized beyond repair. We won't be able to fix it ourselves, we will all be vulnerable.
Crisis
Crisis will be the state of things, after society has been demoralized and the destabilization process has gained an unstoppable momentum. This is the time when there is no rule of law, people are starving, dying from lack of medical care, and their spirits are completely broken. Perhaps, a civil war will occur, an invasion, or just simply an economic crisis; either way, a power vacuum will emerge and desperation will be the dominate political sentiment. People will be looking for their knight in shining amour to emerge – and even the most vile despot can seem like the messiah when he gives bread to the starving. This is when a Global Government controlled by the UN and the International Banking powers will emerge to bring humanity back to 'Normal'.
Normalization
Normalization will be the time when the UN tanks are patrolling the streets of America, going door-to-door with their foot soldiers making sure that the troublemakers, and citizens, don't have any guns or anti-UN propaganda (like the Bible or the Constitution). The civil war will be over and the militias will be destroyed, and so the media will say we have peace and we can start getting 'back to normal'. A new constitution will be drawn up; one based on the Globalists principles of International Law. "Equality" will be the resounding cry of the mentally enslaved masses, and equality is exactly what they will get... only the intellectual elite running the show will be a little bit more equal than everyone else..... but no one will have the means or the will to resist. This will be the new Normal.
In order to defeat the Marxist propaganda machine, there are certain things ordinary everyday Americans need to be aware of, and certain things we need to avoid.
First, accept that subversion is real and Cultural Marxism is part of the grand strategy of the left. Realize that massive amounts of money and effort has gone in to conditioning your mind to not recognize the subversion tactics. In fact, many lost souls now believe that their state of demoralization is a liberating one – they are useful idiots and will be promoted within the system in order to propagate the Culture Wars further.
Subvert Subversion
1) Disconnect from all sources of Cultural Marxist propaganda, media, and lifestyles.
2) Don't patronize the largest FED-member banks and fascist multi-national corporations.
3) Educate yourself, your Family, and your friends about the founding documents (Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights), the Founding Fathers, and the Founders' ideologies and intentions.
In order to take our Republic back, and place the powers back in the hands of the People, where it belongs, we have to disconnect from the un-Holy ways of the Leftists. Too many people have fallen for the mind tricks and they are now dependent on the system itself. Only the self-disciplined and free in Spirit, can be free in this world and govern themselves.
The answer to ideological subversion and Cultural Marxism is Faith and Religion. Renewal of moral and spiritual ideals. Strike back at this machine, not with the power of your fist (although fighting may be necessary at some point), but with the power of your Soul, and if you do not have this Power, the time to cultivate and develop it is NOW.
I encourage you to take some time out your busy schedule and watch these lectures given in the early 1980s by former KGB propagandist, Yuri Bezmenov. Yuri Bezmenov, defected from the Soviet Union to Canada in the early '60s. He spent a great deal of time trying to educate the dumbed-down American public about the subversion tactics being carried out on all of us.
Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
Feminists Are Useful Idiots, And Doomed. Must Watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
Psychological Warfare & Subversion: Cultural Marxism, Islamism and Feminism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkjNAFUgLwU
Jewish Professor of American History at Aberdeen University in UK, Prof. Nathan Abrams. He boasts that Jews were the driving force of the modern pornographic industry and that their motivation is in part to destroy Gentile morals.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t367183/
Jewish Professor Says Porn Industry is a Weapon used by Jews Against Gentiles
The following is an excerpt from one of the new additions to my book, Jewish Supremacism. It offers more powerful evidence that reveals the Jewish extremist war against Gentiles, a struggle that we Gentiles are not even allowed to know about, much less resist. The new edition of Jewish Supremacism will be available for purchase in about three weeks at www.davidduke.com
From the new 2007 Edition of Jewish Supremacism by David Duke
After learning about the inordinate Jewish involvement in organized crime, historical slavery and modern white slavery, it did not surprise me when I began to learn of their domination of pornography. Just as Jewish scholars faithfully recorded the Jewish domination of the African slave trade so they have also documented their prominent role in pornography.
In a respected and scholarly magazine of Jewish intellectuals, (The Jewish Quarterly, winter 2004) Jewish professor Nathan Abrams in an article titled, "Triple Exthnics," proudly documents the leading role of Gentile-hating Jews in pornography.
A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood's seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we'd prefer that the 'triple exthnics' didn't exist, but there's no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the 'true blue' Jews.
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. ...
In the postwar era, America's most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the 'Walt Disney of Porn'. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. ... It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. ...
Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew - he was a generous donator to Jewish charities. ...
Abrams shows how the corruption and debasement of Gentiles and Christian morality is a primary part of their motivation for intentionally infecting the Gentile community with pornography.
Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? ...
Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism." Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. ...
Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. ...
Opposition to Jewish extremist subversion of Gentile, Christian or Muslim morality is frequently defined as anti-Semitic "hatred" in the Jewish dominated media. Abrams writing in a Jewish journal for a presumably Jewish audience writes matter-of-factly about the "atavistic hatred" against us by Jewish pornographers and their motivation to "weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion."
Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having "to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an 'up yours' to these people." ...
Obviously, there are no articles in the mainstream media exposing Jewish "atavistic hatred" against Gentiles by the promoters of pornographic depravity. Abrams even goes on to talk about the roots of this revolutionary Jewish attack on European values.
Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. ...
Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich's intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx. ...
In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.
Notice that all those mentioned: Reich, Marcuse, Goodman, Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and Freud are Jews. From Freud to Goodman, all represent a Jewish revolution against traditional European values and morality.
When sick Jewish pornographers are part of the brutality of Jewish organized crime, the results can obviously be horrifically tragic for our people. In 2000, a Jewish "Russian" organized crime ring was uncovered that specialized in kidnapping Russian children, some as young as two years old, from parks and orphanages and then subjecting them to rape, torture and murder, all on video tape. These tapes were sold to thousands of Jewish and Gentile perverts all over the world. When police in Italy were frustrated by lack of action by the authorities they released some of the video footage to an Italian network which then showed some of the graphic images hoping to cause public outrage. Instead of outrage against the Jewish murderers the TV producers suffered outrage for showing the disturbing images.
In spite of the horror and obvious newsworthiness of this international Jewish child porn/murder operation, it received little coverage in the media in the United States. When Seth Bekenstein, the ring's American distributor was arrested, there was little publicity, and in spite of being a part of one of the most horrific criminal activities imaginable, he was sentenced to only 18 months on guilty plea.
Porn is no longer 1950s pictures of voluptuous nude women on a deserted beach. It has become permeated with sadism, masochism, scatology, even sexual molestation, rape and murder of young children. I am no prude. I love the beauty of the human body. But, I do think that this kind of sick criminal activity, in which there is so much exploitation, so much degradation, so much catering to the depths of human depravity, should be fought with constitutional law.
Ironically, with Jewish influence over media, societal mores, and government today, it is legal, even chic to make and sell the sickest pornography showing the sick defilement of women. But, if you have unacceptable political opinions about Jewish supremacism, you may find yourself a political and social pariah, or at worst in prison. We live in a Jewish supremacist world where often the sickest porn is legal while political incorrect opinions will land you in prison.
[Source link 404 not found] http://davidduke.com/general/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles_1811.html
but here is the Triple-exthnics article:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/porn_industry.html
Jack Sen – Radically Centrist
http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/jack-sen-radically-centrist/
Jack Sen, the author of the best selling, How to Get Suspended from the BNP and UKIP in 10 Articles and 2 Tweets, was a UKIP prospective Member of Parliament for northern England before being unceremoniously, & quite publicly, suspended by his party one week prior to the General Election for 'anti-Semitism', and attempting to broach the subjects of indigenous displacement in Britain and raising the issue of the genocide being waged against White people in South Africa.
Mr Sen's activities have been reported on by the BBC, ITV, the Independent, by Channel 4 News, Breitbart, The Guardian, The Times, Buzzfeed, and the Daily Mirror.
His scathingly sardonic writing and orations have been featured on the European Knights Project, Praag.org, at the London Forum, on the Occidental Observer, UKIP West Lancs official site, ManTalk - and countless other places our best men speak out against societal injustice.
Mr Sen has also been a frequent guest commentator on the John Wells Show, Caravan to Midnight, Rebel Radio, Red Ice radio/TV, the Pastor Manning Report among others.
His films with former Member of European Parliament, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons are widely regarded as the most important British nationalist films of 2016.
Jack's column on the EKP is entitled; Jack Sen, Radically centrist. Jack doesn't minced words so if you're easily offended please visit another site. If you are interested in truth and fancy yourself a thought criminal, then enjoy.....
https://www.europeanknightsproject.com/zionist-jewish-professor-boasts-jews-use-pornography-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/
Jack Sen, (Ukip candidate reveals he is a 'National Socialist' after anti-Semitic tweets), and I had a brilliant talk this morning about pornography-specifically interracial abuse porn, its impact on our society, and, something I am personally interested in - Jewish involvement in it.
Jack claimed that the rise of abusive interracial porn produced globally, and in South Africa in particular, "has encouraged a rise in violent rape perpetrated by black men, against non-black women." Sen believes that this "genre of porn, has glorified and legitimised behaviours that in the past were taboo and a societal rarity."
Sen continued,
"As our hypocritical censorship laws become more and more relaxed, porn is digging its dirty boots into South African society as it has done all across the west-especially in the United States & Russia, where abusive/interracial porn is most popular, and been most destructive. It impacts white and black, as evidenced by the rise of black on white rape, and recent white Capetown schoolgirl interest in animal crush porn. Rapists are even admitting their fascination with porn is fuelling their violent sexual behaviour."
And Jack has good reason to fight as hard as he does and had some choice words for the rest of us-something he discussed with Dr Kevin MacDonald of the Occidental Observer.
"My Nordic wife, English mother, and most importantly my 100% phenotypically white daughter, need someone to represent their interests and protect their wellbeing, and I have felt for some time now that I should be that person. That's what dads and real men do.
Sadly, the vast majority of White Western men inhabiting Northern Europe and North America are quite apathetic — one can say they've been emasculated beyond belief by Cultural Marxism, evidenced by the tens of thousands of grooming gang rapes and not one instance of revenge.
After what transpired in Rotherham, where White children were singled out for rape, and the White Leftist establishment and their dads did nothing to prevent it, I felt I needed to take a stand, not just against the perpetrators of the rape, but the Leftist fiends facilitating it.
Even if I am one of the few men willing to sacrifice his career to do so, I've done my part and I can certainly sleep at night."
One thing I could add to Sen's position is.. what happened to the 9pm watershed on tv ? The level of smut on tv, all day, is disgusting and subversive to our children's minds.
Watershed (broadcasting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)
In British broadcasting, the watershed is the point in time after which programmes with adult content may be broadcast. In the same way that a watershed refers to the crest dividing two drainage basins, a broadcasting watershed serves as a dividing line. It divides the day into the overnight period where family-oriented programming suitable for children may be aired and where programming aimed at or suitable for a more adult audience is permitted, though not required. It may also mean the period of time during which programmes with adult content may be broadcast. Examples of adult content include, but are not limited to, graphic violence, horror, strong language, nudity, sexual intercourse, gambling and drug use, or references to these themes without necessarily portraying them. In most countries, the same set of rules also applies to advertisements on radios and television, both for the content of the commercial and the nature of the product or service being advertised.
Parliament Attack "Staged" to Distract from Obama Wiretap Scandal (Video)
https://thelastgreatstand.com/2017/03/24/parliament-attack-staged-to-distract-from-obama-wiretap-scandal-video/
We know by now exactly how our domestic intelligence agencies circumvent that 'inconvenient' law barring them from spying on American citizens domestically. This is the true collusion that the media doesn't talk about – the collusion between the Western intelligence agencies to each monitor each other's domestic activities. As the Trump wiretapping scandal heats up, more and more of the public are now being made aware of it, and now here comes another conveniently timed terror attack.
In the following video, Right Wing News asks the inconvenient question – was the terror attack outside Westminster yet another false flag to divert the attention of the global public? The British intelligence agency, GCHQ, is after all the one that was likely colluding with our domestic intelligence agencies to spy on Trump. The timing seems a little coincidental; and that's not even taking into account the fact that this attack will no doubt be used as further justification to expand the powers of these intelligence agencies even more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIRezdDljw
"There's no question that those terrorist attacks right next to the seat of British power were conducted to quickly change the growing national conversation regarding the GCHQ's Trump affair."
— Veteran Intelligence Analyst
State of the Nation Reports:
By all insider accounts, the GCHQ scandal was blown up by President Donald Trump for very good reasons.
In fact, the only realistic way for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to "drain the swamp" — inside the Beltway — is to expose the shadow government that has run the United States of America for many decades.
Known variously as both Deep State and the World Shadow Government, the secret entity that exercises complete command and control over the U.S. Federal Government is the slowly being forced out of the shadows.
This inexorable process of uncovering Deep State began many years ago but has seen a dramatic uptick of paradigm-shattering revelations since the election of Trump. His extraordinary lack of political correctness has been quite instrumental in exposing the ongoing sedition and perfidy committed against the American Republic by the U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as law enforcement agencies like the FBI and DHS .
First among those intelligence agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency DIA. It is important to note that each of these organizations coordinates very closely with their British counterparts—MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. They also collaborate intimately with all the major MSM organs of propaganda both in the United States and Great Britain.
Key Point: Virtually all of the London-based news outlets have been virulently anti-Trump since he first declared his candidacy. The Telegraph, BBC, Independent, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Sun, Mirror, among many others have formed a veritable echo chamber of Trump bad news. Not only do these MSM organs of propaganda originate much of that bad news disseminated globally each and every daily news cycle, they are fed copious amounts of intelligence from the GCHQ which inform their "breaking" stories. Just as the C.I.A. effectively owns and operates the MSM throughout the USA, so, too, does the GCHQ closely control the output of the British media.
GCHQ PROVIDED PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY!
Given the hard evidence that now exists that proves that Donald Trump's Trump Tower headquarters has been "wiretapped" for many years, especially during the entire 2016 presidential election cycle, there is now a Congressional mandate to ferret out the facts. All of that evidence now points directly to the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
The spying on and surveillance of a U.S. presidential candidate for purposes of political gain are both illegal and unprecedented (that we know of), even when contracted out to the GCHQ. Nevertheless, the current narrative, whereby the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies worked directly with the GCHQ in order to have plausible deniability for their unlawful conduct, appears to be exactly what has happened.
Whenever a fake conspiracy gets so out of control as the purposefully fabricated "Russian election hacking" story, it's liable to ensnare every individual and/or organization that buy into it. And so it has—BIG time!
Because of the patently false accusations, which the Democratic party has been trumpeting in unison across the nation about a non-existent collusion between Trump and Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton, enormous political pressure has been exerted across Deep State to maintain the ridiculous façade of seriousness. As a matter of fact, this anti-Russia campaign has been so intense and unrelenting that it's no wonder that the GCHQ was drawn into the fiasco. What's really behind all the fake anti-Russia hysteria?
Some have even posited that it was GCHQ that was acting on behalf of those who forever prosecute the Great Game. For it's the ever-running Great Game that has predicated all of the deliberately orchestrated Russophobia by the Zionist-controlled British governments over the past 100 plus years. Now that the bigwigs in Cheltenham (location of GCHQ headquarters) have been thoroughly outed for their unparalleled complicity in the interference of a U.S. presidential election, all hell is breaking loose in London. Apparently the agents of Deep State neglected to consider the potential consequences of the Trump "wiretapping" beforehand, as they simply never get caught in the act or otherwise.
STAGED FALSE FLAG TERROR EVENT OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT:
As the specter of a transatlantic brawl began to break out in the open[1], the Brits did what they always do so well—perpetrate a shocking terrorist attack to distract the public's attention. The following mainstream media report shows just how complicit the London press is in the sensationalizing of this false flag terror operation.
The London establishment knows that the disclosures outlining the GCHQ's direct involvement in the affairs of a U.S. presidential candidate, who is now the sitting POTUS, does not bode well for Anglo-American relations. Because half the U.S. electorate enthusiastically voted for Donald Trump, the Brits know that such radioactive divulgences will profoundly alter the special relationship that the USA supposedly has with the UK. Therefore, the GCHQ did what it has never felt compelled to do in its history—TPTB went into crisp denial mode. As follows: Is the GCHQ "unprecedented denial" really an admission of guilt?
By engaging in such outright interference in a US election, the British Intelligence Community was in the spotlight like never before. The London establishment leaders certainly determined the necessity to "change the national conversation", particularly the chatter in Parliament, in a decisive manner; hence, the surprise terror attack was carried out yesterday, Wednesday, March 22, 2017.
BRITISH PM THERESA MAY WELL TRIGGER BREXIT TALKS ON MARCH 29TH.
Not only did the public discourse regarding the GCHQ scandal cease immediately, a much more conducive environment has been created for PM Theresa May to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Like all false flag operations, the Westminster Bridge terror attack has various goals which are seemingly unrelated. The fear-mongering associated with such terror events always serves to make the populace, and especially the public servants, much more compliant.
The Prime Minister knows that there is a festering discontent among the manipulated Bremain minority that wanted to stay in the European Union. Although much smaller than the Brexit majority, they have been very vocal in this dismay. In fact, only the County of London voted against Brexit throughout all of England proper (See map below.). In the wake of the London attacks, there is likely to be very little resistance going forward to finalizing Brexit. That the terror attacks were executed so close to both "Houses of Parliament" well demonstrated how very vulnerable the MPs and government officials really are.
The other goals associated with this terrorist event concern the ever-expanding national security state. Great Britain has established the most intensive nationwide security apparatus in the world–bar none. And yet those who are in charge of imposing this Orwellian model are still determined to go further. Truly, George Orwell was writing prophetically about Great Britain when he authored his dystopian novel and classic Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The global elites know full well that the Global Economic & Financial System is on the verge of collapse and that the banksters in London are the primary culprits. Hence, they feel compelled to put into place all of the controls and safeguards, laws and technology necessary to preclude a replay of the French Revolution ... ... ... in London.
A history lesson for those that need it in order to understand "The Great Game"
Once you have grasped the military maneuvers of the last century it becomes very easy to understand why the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed, and by whom.. the unexplainable rise of ISIS terror.. and like I said in a previous post, there are tens of thousands of traitors in the UK alone.. our Western leaders have betrayed Everyman.
Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East: Concepts, Definitions, and Parameters
http://acc.teachmideast.org/texts.php?module_id=4&reading_id=120&sequence=1
1] Introduction
THE END of the cold war has led to new configurations of global power relations and has changed the definition and the geostrategic parameters of the traditional Middle East. In this chapter these issues are examined to provide background for the subsequent analysis.
2] The Middle East and the Emerging International System: Conceptual Issues
3] What Is Strategic Geography?
4] The Relevance of Strategic Geography in the Middle East
5] The Dynamics of Geographic Factors
6] Defining the Middle East
7] Geographic Parameters and Access Routes
8] Peripheral Barriers
9] Internal and Local Barriers
10] Summary
11] Chapter Two: Strategic Access and Middle East Resources: Lessons from History
12] The Age of Discovery
13] The Transportation Revolution and the Middle East: Canals, Coal, Railroads, and Oil
14] British Competition with Russia and Germany: The Great Game and the Role of Railways
15] Coal versus Oil
16] Impact of World War I on Oil Supplies
17] Britain's Quest for Middle East Oil
18] World War II and Middle East Oil
19] The Cold War, Europe, and Middle East Oil
20] Western Basing in the Middle East and the Soviet Drive for Access Early in the Cold War
21] The 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Oil Crisis of the 1970s
22] The Iranian Revolution and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
23] The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88
24] The 1991 Gulf War
25] Footnotes
26] Maps
The Useful and the Useless
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/useful-and-useless
Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,
The battle lines are forming.
You're standing on the prow of an ocean liner cutting through the icy waters of the North Atlantic. A huge iceberg looms dead ahead. You've seen it for some time, but now it's too close, and the liner too big and fast, to avoid the collision. You quietly make your way to the lifeboats, knowing they're the only chance for saving yourself and your loved ones. Below decks, an orchestra plays a waltz and oblivious revelers dance.
Most people don't foresee the world's inevitable collision with the iceberg of unsustainable fantasy. When it happens, they'll respond predictably, with panic and cowardice. Those who've seen it coming and moved to the lifeboats will experience their own roiling emotions, attenuated by recognition of the logic behind the disaster. While the forewarned have dreaded impact, many will also welcome it, in the way one welcomes an unpleasant medical procedure: let's get it over with. The motive is not malice, but conviction born of experience that actions have consequences and there's no escaping them. After seemingly inexplicable and interminable delay, consequences shall arrive, amplified by the tawdry stratagems that promoted delay.
It will come as a surprise to many, but governments cannot suspend reality. Their arsenal, when things break down, comes down to their arsenal: the capacity to coerce. Violence or its threat enables governments to exact compliance. Proponents of government power invariably see themselves exercising it. Once the ship hits the iceberg, it will be obvious that governments' guns are not wands, freeing citizens from the necessity of producing as much or more than they consume. They cannot compel innovators to innovate or producers to produce. While coercive power comes from one end of a gun, none of the powers that produce progress (and the gun) magically materialize at the other end.
It is said that America is a society divided. True enough, but the important question is: along what lines? Crisis and social breakdown will provide clarification: it's governments and their beneficiaries versus producers. In other words, those who don't do useful things versus those who do.
Huge shifts in social mood and direction are presaged. President Trump's election presages the coming division. Among the analyses of the election, few noted an obvious dividing line. Trump's supporters by and large do useful things, or are angry because they're prevented from doing useful things. They build, engineer, manufacture, plant, grow, operate, maintain, repair, transport, and sell the things we find useful or essential. When we ram the iceberg, their skills, brains, and adaptability will be sorely needed.
Politicians and bureaucrats and the millions dependent on them for their fake jobs, income, food, shelter, transportation, and medical care will find little demand for their skills, such as they are. The useful may well conclude that keeping them alive is more trouble than it's worth. There will be those who are too young, old, or infirm to produce, but whom the useful will support out of friendship or kinship. However, it would be surprising if they felt anything but contempt for the faceless hordes demanding that someone, anyone, take care of them.
Take away the undeserved from the undeserving and you get a tantrum. Steal the earned from those who earned it and you get righteous rage. One's a firecracker, the other a volcano. The game has been to impress upon the useful a moral obligation to support the useless, but the volcano's about to blow, burying that obscene morality in lava and ash. Given the staggering levels of accumulated debt and promises, the useful know their talents, skills, hard work, productivity and futures have been mortgaged for the useless. This is the salient and intractable social division. No reconciliation is possible between the useful and those who believe themselves entitled to their enslavement. The Trump fissure will become a yawning chasm when the Good Ship Profligate Government collides with the iceberg.
Centralization serves the needs of government and its dependents. Honest production and exchange require little government, perhaps none at all. Those who believe current arrangements should persist have to believe that the useful who support those arrangements will provide more and more while receiving less and less. The implicit premise has to be that when it all finally breaks down, the useful can be brutally subjugated—but kept producing—while receiving nothing more than their subsistence. Slavery cannot support the police state necessary to impose it, much less a modern economy. Those who believe any outcomes other than destruction and death are possible are delusional. If those are the outcomes they anticipate and desire, they're homicidally and suicidally psychopathic.
Governments will have their surveillance apparatuses, police, militaries, prisons, torture chambers, concentration camps, killing fields, and the like. The useful will have their minds. Totalitarian accounting is daunting. All that money going out for suppression, so little coming in from a populace whose best and brightest have been imprisoned or murdered, or who produce the minimum necessary to survive. The day comes when the policeman, soldiers, and guards can't be paid with anything of value and all hell breaks loose. Or, less colloquially, centralization gives way to decentralization.
To what depths governments will descend and how long they will survive as agents of repression is unknowable, but their dissolution is foreordained. They cannot commandeer the resources necessary to sustain the current level of tyranny. The useful will vote with their feet and if that's not possible, bullets will be their ballots. They will establish enclaves and protect themselves from the tantrums, chaos, and depredations of the useless. (Useful in such a context may require nothing more than a willingness to work hard.) The useless depend on the useful, who of course don't need them at all. The useful will eventually triumph, if the species survives (not a sure thing). Tragically, the butcher's bill is likely to be exorbitant.
https://straightlinelogic.com/2017/03/23/the-useful-and-the-useless-by-robert-gore/#comments
Daesh Attacks 'Should be No Surprise to the West' as the Group is Its Creation
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201612271049041805-west-daesh-attacks/
Commenting on the recent terrorist attack in Berlin, in which 12 people died and over 40 were injured, American Geopolitical analyst of Iranian descent Alexander Azadgan explained to Radio Sputnik why the Islamic State attacks should come as no surprise to the West.
Tunisia has apparently become a breeding ground for radicals and supporters of terrorist groups like the so-called Islamic State, also known as Daesh in the Arab world.
Notably, the man suspected of perpetrating Berlin's lorry attack last week is one of a number of alleged extremists to emerge from Tunisia.
Beyond this, the terrorist who carried out a similar attack in the French city of Nice in July was also Tunisian.
According to media reports, citing security agencies, the tiny nation on the Mediterranean has spawned more than six thousand fighters who have pledged allegiance to Daesh.
In July, the International Crisis Group think-tank issued a report showing that a jihadist movement had been established in Tunisia in 2011 at the start of the Arab Spring.
Moreover, other reports suggest that Tunisia's geographic location made it easy for recruits to train at Daesh camps across the border in Libya.
Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with Alexander Azadgan, Professor, Senior Geopolitical analyst and Editor-in-Chief of MiddleEastRising.com.
"Those are very young societies from Morocco all the way to Pakistan. The birth rate there is a lot higher than in Europe. Combine high unemployment and ISIS (Islamic State/Daesh) radicalization and you get these lunatics like this Anis Amri (allegedly behind the attack in Berlin) who has been refused political asylum in Italy, an armed arsonist, who served a prison term in Italy, a drug dealer, a gun purchaser in Germany who then made a contact with an ISIS recruiter," he told Sputnik.
He further elaborated that the rich secularism which existed in Tunisia before the so-called Arab Spring of 2011 had led to a very vibrant underground Salafist movement. The Salafists and the Wahhabis share a similar fundamentalist outlook, and both have a very rigid interpretation of Islam, he said.
On the other hand, there is the collapsing neighbor Libya, where young people can easily go and be recruited for hot spots like Syria.
Lack of employment opportunities and the socio-economic breakdown have fuelled extremism in Islamic societies, he noted.
"You have religious hedonistic ideologies, core ISIS ideologies which basically say: get murdered, become a hero, go to paradise and have intercourse with 72 virgins. It applies to Tunisia, which gets its main income from tourism, which is now in decline. Hence you get a situation where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so you have a typical class struggle scenario," he explained.
"It should be no surprise to the west because we created this. The Arab Spring has always been the western concoction of the crazy neo-libs like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the puppet master of them all George Soros. We should have predicted this already back in 2010 and 2011 when it actually took place," he therefore said.
Tackling the economic situation would be a good start to fight against these ideologies, he said. But this is not enough. In order to defeat an ideology of Daesh there should be another ideology to replace it with, he said.
"Contrary to what Donald Trump has said, and that is the carpet bombing of these people, this is not a long-term solution but a political one. We need a vibrant democratic solution which will boost an economic growth creating more opportunities for the young people. And also we need the western companies to invest into these societies where the labor force is highly educated and highly motivated," he said.
On the other hand, he noted, there are very lousy assimilation programs in Europe, especially in France, where there is a large Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan immigrant population, as well as in Italy and Germany. Lots of people turn to the ISIS ideology out of protest, he said.
"You have to understand that a lot of these people were brought in at the end of the World War II as cheap labor to rebuild Europe and the idea was not for them to stay. Now we are looking at the third or even at the fourth generation who have always been social outcasts," he finally said.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.03.26, 16:13:05
"You have to understand that a lot of these people were brought in at the end of the World War II as cheap labor to rebuild Europe and the idea was not for them to stay. Now we are looking at the third or even at the fourth generation who have always been social outcasts," he finally said.
"and the idea was not for them to stay".. hmmm.. no, the idea was always for them to stay. The Zionist's captured full control over the UK during the last century and turned it into a vassal state, proceeding to use traitors groomed into the highest positions of the society to infect the native culture with an ideological cancer. The idea is to remove the very notion of individual and national sovereignty and replace it with a global multicultural third world shithole, with Israel remaining racially pure and the center of Global Government, once the genocide of the Palestinian Goy is complete. This has already been accomplished in most of the major cities in England, they are labelled 'British', and they are breeding.. fast. Tony Blair massively accelerated this process but it took the next move in "The Great Game" to really kick it up a notch, the same as it has for most of the Jewish European vassal nations, the same ones that were all in on 9/11.. which kicked off the illegal and immoral destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. This is to be followed by a Third World War (or the next Major Battle of The Only War as viewed from my position) to take out Iran, China and Russia.
Enoch Powell knew what was going on and so do a great many of the native white English:
Rivers of Blood speechhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
Enoch Powell's 20 April 1968 address to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre (commonly called "Rivers of Blood") was a speech criticising Commonwealth immigration and anti-discrimination legislation that had been proposed in the United Kingdom. Powell (1912–1998) was the Conservative Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West. He referred to the speech as "the Birmingham speech" but it is otherwise known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech, a title derived from its allusion to a line from Virgil's Aeneid.[1] The phrase "rivers of blood" does not appear in the speech; the name alludes to the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'"
The speech caused a political storm, making Powell one of the most talked about, and divisive, politicians in the country, and leading to his controversial dismissal from the Shadow Cabinet by Conservative Party leader Edward Heath.[2] According to most accounts, the popularity of Powell's perspective on immigration may have played a decisive contributory factor in the Conservatives' surprise victory in the 1970 general election, and he became one of the most persistent rebels opposing the subsequent Heath government.[2][3]
Powell recounted a conversation with one of his constituents, a middle-aged working man, a few weeks earlier. Powell said that the man told him: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country... I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas." The man finished by saying to Powell: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."[6]
Powell went on:
"Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen."
Daesh, Creature of the West
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201703241051928836-daesh-western-creature/
James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that's a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO's spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.
After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.
According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember — to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.
It didn't happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and...surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.
In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq.
Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn't allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein's army — is indeed a US-trained militia.
True to form, at the end of the debate, Shea went on to blame Russia for absolutely everything that's happening today – including Daesh terror.
Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Picot, you're dead
Now let's go back to the proclamation of the Daesh Caliphate in June 29, 2014. That was choreographed as a symbolic abolition of the Sykes-Picot border that split the Middle East a century ago. At the same time, abandoning the option of a military push to take Baghdad, Daesh chose to regionalize and internationalize the fight, creating their own transnational state and denouncing regional states as "impostors". All that coupled with the amp up of any chaos strategy capable of horrifying Western public opinion.
For large swathes of a Sunni Arab audience, this was powerful stuff. Daesh was proclaiming themselves, in a warped manner, as the sole real heir of the different Arab Springs; the only totally autonomous regional movement, depending exclusively on its own local base, made up of numerous Bedouin tribes.
But how did we get here?
Let's go back once again – now to Iraq in the 1990s, during the Clinton era. The strategic logic at the time spelled out an instrumentalization of UN resolutions — with Washington de facto controlling Iraq's oil, manipulating the price as a means of pressure over trade competitors much more dependent on Iraqi oil such as China, Japan and selected European nations.
9/11 turned this state of affairs upside down – leading to the 2003 neocon ideological stupidity and subsequent amateurism managing an occupation in total ignorance of history and the ultra-complex dynamics between the Iraqi state and society. Saddam Hussein was the de facto last avatar of a political arrangement invented by imperial Britain in 1920. With the invasion and occupation, the Iraq state collapsed. And the Cheney regime had no clue what to do with it.
There was no Sunni alternative. So Plan B, under major pressure by Shiites and Kurds, was to give voice to the majority. The problem is political parties ended up being religious and ethnic parties. The partition of power, Lebanese-style — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds – turned out to be a dysfunctional nightmare.
Between 2005 and 2008, this American attempt to rebuild the Iraqi state yielded a horrendous confessional civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis lost. And that largely explains the subsequent success of Daesh in creating a "Sunniland".
The US occupation-Arab Spring love affair
Now let's turn to the Syrian version of the Arab Spring in February/March 2011. Initial protests against Assad's iron rule were peaceful – multi-communitarian and multi-confessional. But soon anti-Alawite rancor started to radicalize a significant part of the Sunni majority.
As historian Pierre-Jean Luizard, a specialist in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon at the French CNRS reminds us, Syria was the favorite land of Hanbalism – a most conservative branch of Sunni Islam that highly influenced the emergence of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula. That implies a virulent anti-Shiism. Thus the emergence among the Syrian armed opposition of multiple Salafi-jihadi groups, most of all Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria.
Meanwhile, Assad fine-tuned a message to the West and his own Sunni bourgeoisie oscilating between allegiance and dissidence; it's me, or chaos. Chaos ensued, anyway; horrendous structural violence, all-around institutional decrepitude, total territorial fragmentation.
So it's fair to argue that both US occupation and the Syrian Arab Spring ended up producing the same result. With some differences; in Iraq, Daesh enjoys the (silent) support of a majority of Sunni Arabs. In Syria, Sunnis are divided; Daesh may rule the desert — Bedouin culture, but it's Jabhat al-Nusra that captured significant Sunni support in big urban centers such as Aleppo. In Iraq, the borders between the three large communities – Sunni, Shiite, Kurd – are more or less frozen. In Syria, it's a never-ending jigsaw puzzle.
What happens next is a mystery. The de facto independence of Iraq Kurdistan may solidify. The Baghdad government may increasingly represent only Shiites. Yet it's hard to see Daesh consolidating its control of Sunni Iraq – not with the ongoing Battle of Mosul.
Blowback rules the wilderness of mirrors
It's easy to dismiss Daesh as the apex of barbarian cultural idiosyncrasies. Even wallowing in gruesomeness, Daesh has been able to project a universalist dimension beyond its Sunni Arab Middle Eastern base. It's like the clash of civilizations playing in a wilderness of mirrors. Daesh amplifies the clash not between East and West, or the Arab world and the Atlanticist hegemon, but mostly between a certain (warped) conception of Islam and assorted infidels. Daesh "welcomes" everyone, even Catholic Europeans while persecuting Arab infidels and bad Muslims.
It's no wonder the Caliphate — a concrete utopia on the ground – finds an echo among young lone wolves living in the West. Because Daesh insists on the colonial Franco-British – and then neocolonial American — history of Muslims being trampled upon by a dominating, infidel West, they manage to channel a diffuse sentiment of injustice among the young.
Everyone – US, France, Britain, Russia, Iran — is now at war with Daesh (Turkey only half-heartedly, as well as the House of Saud and the GCC petrodollar gang; for them this not a priority.)
But this is a war without a serious political long-term perspective. No one is discussing the place for Sunni Arabs in an Iraq dominated by the Shiite majority; how to put the Syrian state back together; or whether private donors to Daesh from Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will simply disappear.
The encirclement of Raqqa and the re-conquest of Mosul will mean absolutely nothing if the causes of Daesh's initial success are not addressed. It starts with the West's mission civilisatrice as the cover story for unbounded colonial domination, and it straddles the methodical, inexorable, slow motion American destruction of Iraq. Blowback will continue to reign over the wilderness of mirrors; an attack near the British Parliament by a knife-carrying lone wolf "soldier answering "its call" killing four people mirrored by US jets bombing a school near Raqqa killing thirty-three civilians.
Petraeus may have trained them in the deserts of Al-Anbar. But most of all that rough beast, slouching towards Camp Bacca to be born, bore the touch of a Western mind.
Flashback: Petrodollar Warfare – Saddam abandons Dollar for Euro
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/06/flashback-petrodollar-warfare-saddam-abandons-dollar-for-euro/
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.
The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.
Nalliah Thayabharan said:
At the end of World War II, an agreement was reached at the Bretton Woods Conference which pegged the value of gold at US$35 per ounce and that became the international standard against which currency was measured. But in 1971, US President Richard Nixon took the US$ off the gold standard and ever since the US$ has been the most important global monetary instrument, and only the United States can produce them.
The fear of the consequences of a weaker US$, particularly higher oil prices is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of the US foreign policy, including the Iraq and Libyan War. The reality is that the value of the US$ is determined by the fact that oil is sold in US$. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell US$and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need US$ to buy oil. This would thus weaken the US$ relative to the euro.
A leading motive of the US in the Iraq war — perhaps the fundamental underlying motive, even more than the control of the oil itself — is an attempt to preserve the US$ as the leading oil trading currency. Since it is the USA that prints the US$, they control the flow of oil. Period. When oil is denominated in US$ through US state action and the US$ is the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the USA essentially owns the world's oil for free.
So long as almost three quarter of world trade is done in US$, the US$ is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack US$ in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the USA. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the USA. This is because of the US$ reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get US$ to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets US$ countries.
Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate US$ surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the USA which controls the US$ and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in US$, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize US$ surpluses from their export trade.
Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the dollar price rule. So long as the US$ was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. But November was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the USA by selling Iraq's oil-for-food not in US$, 'the enemy currency' as Iraq named it, but only in euros. The euros were on deposit in a special UN account of the leading French bank, BNP Paribas. Radio Liberty of the US State Department ran a short wire on the news and the story was quickly hushed.
This little-noted Iraq move to defy the US$ in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the US$ was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of US$ by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. An Iranian OPEC official, Javad Yarjani, delivered a detailed analysis of how OPEC at some future point might sell its oil to the EU for euros not US$. He spoke in April, 2002 in Oviedo Spain at the invitation of the EU. All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro.
Informed banking circles in the City of London and elsewhere in Europe privately confirm the significance of that little-noted Iraq move from petro-dollar to petro-euro. 'The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the US$', one senior London banker told me recently. 'As soon as it was clear that Britain and the US had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in London City banks. They said privately, "now we don't have to worry about that damn euro threat".
First Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for US$, shortly before each country was attacked.The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the US unless there were another way of protecting the US$'s world trade dominance.
Guess how USA pays for the wars? By printing US$ it is going to war to protect.
After considerable delay, Iran opened an oil bourse which does not accept US$. Many people fear that the move will give added reason for the USA to overthrow the Iranian regime as a means to close the bourse and revert Iran's oil transaction currency to US$. In 2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in euro.
6 months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, Iraq had made the move to accept Euros instead of US$ for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the US$ as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.
Muammar Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the US$ and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Muammar Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Muammar Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.
Muammar Gaddafi's recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements. The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today Iran, China, Russia, and India are stocking more and more gold rather than US$.
If Muammar Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya's currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. The plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.
– Nalliah Thayabharan
Abraham Lincoln worked valiantly to prevent the Rothschild's attempts to involve themselves in financing the Civil War. Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing. Russia intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war with Russia.
The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S. Bank Notes. Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people:
"The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. "
Lincoln continued to fight against the central bank, and some now believe that it was his anticipated success in influencing Congress to limit the life of the Bank of the United States to just the war years that was the motivating factor behind his assassination.
Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that links the following parties to the Bank of Rothschild. Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his eight co-conspirators, and over seventy government officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy. When Booth's diary was recovered by Stanton's troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out. These pages, containing the aforementioned names,were later found in the attic of one of Stanton's descendants.
From Booth's trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild. When the war ended, the key to the code was found in Benjamin's possession. The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton's troops.
"Booth" was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, three days after escaping from Washington. He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett, who fired without orders. Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance to identify himself. It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final identification. Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the real John Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton's assistance.
Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband's death, began screaming, "Oh, that dreadful house!" Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House. Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild's during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.
Another myth that all Americans live with is the charade known as the "Federal Reserve." It comes as a shock to many to discover that it is not an agency of the United States Government.
The name "Federal Reserve Bank" was designed to deceive, and it still does. It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned. It pays its own postage like any other corporation. Its employees are not in civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds, and is subject to local taxation. Government property, as you know, is not.
It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer. It controls the times, dictates business, affects homes and practically everything.
It takes powerful force to maintain an empire, and this one is no different. The concerns of the leadership of the "Federal Reserve" and its secretive international benefactors appear to go well beyond currency and interest rates.
Andrew Jackson was the first President from west of the Appalachians. He was unique for the times in being elected by the voters, without the direct support of a recognized political organization. He vetoed the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States on July 10, 1832.
In 1835, President Andrew Jackson declared his disdain for the international bankers:
"You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson's life. Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren, "The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me...."
Was this the beginning of a pattern of intrigue that would plague the White House itself over the coming decades? Was his (and Lincoln's) death related by an invisible thread to the international bankers?
President James Abram Garfield, our 20th President, had previously been Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations and was an expert on fiscal matters. President Garfield openly declared that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and activities of all the people. After only four months in office, President Garfield was shot at a railroad station on July 2, 1881.
President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System. In 1963 he signed Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110, returning to the government the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Federal Reserve System.
Shortly thereafter, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The professional, triangulated fire that executed the President of the United States is not the most shocking issue. The high- level coordination that organized the widespread coverup is manifest evidence of the incredible power of a "hidden government" behind the scenes.
In the 70′s and 80′s, U.S. congressman Lawrence McDonald from Georgia, spearheaded efforts to expose the hidden holdings and intentions of the international money interests. His efforts ended on August 31, 1983, when he was killed when Korean Airlines 007 was "accidentally" shot down in Soviet airspace. A strange coincidence, it would seem. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, and Representative Carroll J. Hubbard, Jr. of Kentucky were aboard sister flight KAL 015, which flew 15 minutes behind KAL 007; they were headed, along with McDonald on KAL 007, to Seoul, South Korea, in order to attend the ceremonies for the thirtieth anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. The Soviets contended former U.S. president Richard Nixon was to have been seated next to Larry McDonald on KAL 007 but that the CIA warned him not to go, according to the New York Post and TASS.
Senator Henry John Heinz III and former Senator John Goodwin Tower had served on powerful Senate banking and finance committees and were outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve and the Eastern Establishment.
On April 4, 1991, 52-year-old Henry John Heinz III, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, crashed in a Piper PA60 Aerostar when it collided with a Bell 412 helicopter near Philadelphia. Burning wreckage fell on the grounds of an elementary school in nearby Lower Merion Township; two of the dead were children playing outside at noon recess.
On the next day, April 5, 1991, former was also killed when twin-engine turbo-prop Atlantic Southeast Airlines plane flying from Atlanta went down in a thickly wooded area within view of motorists on Interstate 95. The coincidences seem to mount.
A commuter plane – Flight Atlantic Southeast 2311- twin-engine turbo-prop Atlantic Southeast Airlines plane flying from Atlanta carrying 23 people, including former 65-year old Republican Senator John Tower of Texas, crashed and burned in a thickly wooded area within view of motorists on Interstate 95 – a mile and a half short of the airport killing everyone on board.
Attempts to just audit the Federal Reserve continue to meet with failure. It is virtually impossible to muster support for any issue that has the benefit of a media blackout. The bizarre but tragic reality that the American people suffer from a managed and controlled media is a subject for another discussion.
For many years, numerous authors have attempted to sound the alarm that there exists a hidden "shadow government" that actually rules America. Most of us have dismissed these "conspiracy theory" views as extremist and unrealistic. The ignorance in America is overwhelming. Indeed, the contrast in general awareness of world affairs between the average American and the average European is striking. The concentration of power in America is frightening.
Gadhafi's Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar
https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar
It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from "a model" and an "important ally" to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of "genocide" as the justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other theories have been floated.
Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa's largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi's fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan.
"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks," noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. "So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."
According to Wile, Gadhafi's plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.
"The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence," Wile noted in a piece entitled "Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack" earlier this year. "Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea."
Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi's gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.
"In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the 'Gold Dinar,'" noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. "I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary."
But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported "democratic" uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from "freshly counterfeited funny-money," Mercer pointed out.
"Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large," she concluded. "A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers."
Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels' odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.
In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: "Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. "I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising," noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. "This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences," he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a "major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover" while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.
Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?" wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. "It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.
Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration's "regime change" mission.
While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi's gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity. Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi's overthrow, however, may never be known for certain — at least not publicly.
Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/are-the-middle-east-wars-really-about-forcing-the-world-into-dollars-and-private-central-banking.html
The Reason for the Wars in the Middle East and North Africa: Dollars
The Middle Eastern and North African wars – planned 20 years ago – don't necessarily have much to do with fighting terrorism. See this, this and this.
They are, in reality, about oil.
And protecting Israel (and read the section entitled "Securing the Realm" here).
But as AFP reports today, there is another major motivation for the expanding wars:
The latest round of American sanctions are aimed at shutting down Iran's central bank, a senior US official said Thursday, spelling out that intention directly for the first time.
"We do need to close down the Central Bank of Iran (CBI)," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity, while adding that the United States is moving quickly to implement the sanctions, signed into law last month.
***
Foreign central banks that deal with the Iranian central bank on oil transactions could also face similar restrictions under the new law, which has sparked fears of damage to US ties with nations like Russia and China.
"If a correspondent bank of a US bank wants to do business with us and they're doing business with CBI or other designated Iranian banks... then they're going to get in trouble with us," the US official said.
Why is the U.S. targeting Iran's central bank?
Well, multi-billionaire Hugo Salinas Price told King World News:
What happened to Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn't want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.
And as I noted in August:
Ellen Brown argues in the Asia Times that there were even deeper reasons for the war than gold, oil or middle eastern regime change.
Brown argues that Libya – like Iraq under Hussein – challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks:
Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that "six months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar."
According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar", Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.
***
And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned ... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.
Alex Newman argued in November:
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause [of the Libyan war and killing of Gadhafi]. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.
And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan.
"Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks," noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. "So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power."
According to Wile, Gadhafi's plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.
"The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence," Wile noted in a piece entitled "Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack" earlier this year. "Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea."
Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi's gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.
"In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the 'Gold Dinar,'" noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. "I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary."
But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported "democratic" uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from "freshly counterfeited funny-money," Mercer pointed out.
"Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large," she concluded. "A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers."
Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels' odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.
In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: "Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. "I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising," noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. "This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences," he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a "major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover" while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.
Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?" wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. "It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.
Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration's "regime change" mission. While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi's gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity.
And a reader comments:
No one is paying attention to the petro-dollars and the current desperation of European and US banks. Even Iran prices oil in $$$s per the treaty after WWII, but no one wants $$$s any more because it has been such a poor investment vehicle. Gold has been much better. Iraq did not want $$$s, was invaded. Libya did not want $$$s, was invaded (I believe they wanted gold). Iran does not want $$$. The dollars are deposited in US and European banks. The dollars standing as the financial reserve currency of the world was / is being threatened, and thus the Federal Reserve Banks ability to print unlimited dollars!
Islamization of the West
http://thevaticannwo.blogspot.co.uk/p/islamization.html
Due to Middle East conflict and resulting mass-migration western countries can expect Islamic numbers to increase.
Population demographics has been correctly called "the mother of all politics," the way countries are transformed. The world government uses immigration to transform one country after the next.
Roman Catholicism has had a non conversion agreement with Islam since the Crusades ended that allows them to live side by side while all others are driven out. The Muslim children often attend Catholic schools, found even in London and Washington DC. Barack Obama as a Muslim youth attended a Franciscan Catholic school.
In Afghanistan Evangelical aid groups were expelled from the country for allegedly converting two Muslims. Still other Evangelicals were murdered. The Catholics have been in the Muslim country since 1923, unaffected.
The first Catholic president John Kennedy and his brother Ted changed immigration policy towards Latin America and Islamic Asia.
Catholic Immigration in the United States
By the time of the American Revolution, 35,000 Catholics formed 1.2% of the 2.5 million white population of the thirteen seaboard colonies. The Catholic population of the United States, which had been 35,000 in 1790, increased to 195,000 in 1820 and then ballooned to about 1.6 million in 1850, by which time, Catholics had become the country's largest religion. Between 1860 and 1890 the population of Roman Catholics in the United States tripled primarily through immigration. By the end of the century, there were 12 million Catholics in the United States.
By the beginning of the 20th century, approximately one-sixth of the population of the United States was Roman Catholic. By the end of the 20th century, Catholics constituted 24% of the population. Modern Roman Catholic immigrants come to the United States from the Philippines, Poland, and Latin America, especially from Mexico.
UKIP Donor Banks Hints at 'Patriotic Alliance' Movement
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/15/ukip-donor-banks-hints-patriotic-alliance-movement/
UKIP donor and Leave.EU founder Arron Banks has hinted at setting up a new political movement called 'The Patriotic Alliance'.
Mr. Banks tweeted a logo for the organisation Wednesday afternoon with the comment: "No nonsense policies that will knock the skin off a rice pudding!"
He has previously spoken of plans to set up a movement of that name, based on Italy's populist anti-establishment Five Star Movement, to bring Brexit supporters together across party lines.
Earlier this week, Mr. Banks said he had been "suspended" from UKIP on Twitter, speculating the move was "apparently for saying current leadership couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding!"
Hinting at a new project, he added: "UKIP 2.0, the force awakens."
http://www.thepatrioticalliance.co.uk/
The Patriotic Alliance is a grassroots movement built on the success of the EU referendum. By holding the political establishment to account and introducing fresh ideas to the national policy debate, the Alliance aims to capitalise on the huge promise delivered by Brexit. Join us to make Britain fairer, more democratic and more prosperous.
I will be keeping an eye on this development and await the party position on peadophiles and subversion of the Nation State:
Nation state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state
A nation state is a type of state that joins the political entity of a state to the cultural entity of a nation, from which it aims to derive its political legitimacy to rule and potentially its status as a sovereign state.[1] A state is specifically a political and geopolitical entity, whilst a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, in that a state has chosen to adopt and endorse a specific cultural group as associated with it.
The concept of a nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the multinational state, city state,[2][3][4] empire, confederation, and other state formations with which it may overlap. The key distinction is the identification of a people with a polity in the "nation state."
Stoicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy that flourished throughout the Roman and Greek world until the 3rd century AD. Stoicism is predominantly a philosophy of personal ethics which is informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to happiness for humans is found in accepting that which we have been given in life, by not allowing ourselves to be controlled by our desire for pleasure or our fear of pain, by using our minds to understand the world around us and to do our part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others in a fair and just manner.
It was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The Stoics taught that emotions resulted in errors of judgment which were destructive, due to the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life (lex divina), and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how that person behaved.[1] To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they taught that everything was rooted in nature.[2]
Later Stoics—such as Seneca and Epictetus—emphasized that, because "virtue is sufficient for happiness", a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase "stoic calm", though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.[3]
From its founding, Stoic doctrine was popular during the Roman Empire—and its adherents included the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. It later experienced a decline after Christianity became the state religion in the 4th century. Over the centuries, it has seen revivals, notably in the Renaissance and in the modern era.
Basic tenets
The Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of formal logic, monistic physics and naturalistic ethics. Of these, they emphasized ethics as the main focus of human knowledge, though their logical theories were of more interest for later philosophers.
Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature."[4] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy,"[5] and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all men alike are products of nature."[6]
The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes."[4] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,"[5] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole". This viewpoint was later described as "Classical Pantheism" (and was adopted by Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza).[7]
Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire,[8] to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray "nearly all the successors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics."[9]
Beginning at around 301 BC, Zeno taught philosophy at the Stoa Poikile (i.e., "the painted porch"), from which his philosophy got its name.[10] Unlike the other schools of philosophy, such as the Epicureans, Zeno chose to teach his philosophy in a public space, which was a colonnade overlooking the central gathering place of Athens, the Agora.
Zeno's ideas developed from those of the Cynics, whose founding father, Antisthenes, had been a disciple of Socrates. Zeno's most influential follower was Chrysippus, who was responsible for the molding of what is now called Stoicism. Later Roman Stoics focused on promoting a life in harmony within the universe, over which one has no direct control.
Scholars usually divide the history of Stoicism into three phases:
Early Stoa, from the founding of the school by Zeno to Antipater.
Middle Stoa, including Panaetius and Posidonius.
Late Stoa, including Musonius Rufus, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.
No complete work by any Stoic philosopher survives from the first two phases of Stoicism. Only Roman texts from the Late Stoa survive.[11]
Logic
Propositional logic
Diodorus Cronus, who was one of Zeno's teachers, is considered the philosopher who first introduced and developed an approach to logic now known as propositional logic. This is an approach to logic based on statements or propositions, rather than terms, making it very different from Aristotle's term logic. Later, Chrysippus developed a system that became known as Stoic logic and included a deductive system, Stoic Syllogistic, which was considered a rival to Aristotle's Syllogistic (see Syllogism). New interest in Stoic logic came in the 20th century, when important developments in logic were based on propositional logic. Susanne Bobzien wrote, "The many close similarities between Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that of Gottlob Frege are especially striking."[12]
Bobzien also notes that "Chrysippus wrote over 300 books on logic, on virtually any topic logic today concerns itself with, including speech act theory, sentence analysis, singular and plural expressions, types of predicates, indexicals, existential propositions, sentential connectives, negations, disjunctions, conditionals, logical consequence, valid argument forms, theory of deduction, propositional logic, modal logic, tense logic, epistemic logic, logic of suppositions, logic of imperatives, ambiguity and logical paradoxes."[13]
Categories
The Stoics held that all being (ὄντα) – though not all things (τινά) – is material. They accepted the distinction between concrete bodies and abstract ones, but rejected Aristotle's belief that purely incorporeal being exists. Thus, they accepted Anaxagoras' idea (as did Aristotle) that if an object is hot, it is because some part of a universal heat body had entered the object. But, unlike Aristotle, they extended the idea to cover all accidents. Thus if an object is red, it would be because some part of a universal red body had entered the object.
They held that there were four categories.
substance (ὑποκείμενον)
The primary matter, formless substance, (ousia) that things are made of
quality (ποιόν)
The way matter is organized to form an individual object; in Stoic physics, a physical ingredient (pneuma: air or breath), which informs the matter
somehow disposed (πως ἔχον)
Particular characteristics, not present within the object, such as size, shape, action, and posture
Somehow disposed in relation to something (πρός τί πως ἔχον)
Characteristics related to other phenomena, such as the position of an object within time and space relative to other objects
Epistemology
The Stoics propounded that knowledge can be attained through the use of reason. Truth can be distinguished from fallacy—even if, in practice, only an approximation can be made. According to the Stoics, the senses constantly receive sensations: pulsations that pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave an impression in the imagination (phantasia) (an impression arising from the mind was called a phantasma).[14]
The mind has the ability to judge (συγκατάθεσις, synkatathesis)—approve or reject—an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one that is false. Some impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can only achieve varying degrees of hesitant approval, which can be labeled belief or opinion (doxa). It is only through reason that we achieve clear comprehension and conviction (katalepsis). Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgment of humankind.
Physics and cosmology
According to the Stoics, the universe is a material, reasoning substance, known as God or Nature, which the Stoics divided into two classes, the active and the passive. The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion."[15] The active substance, which can be called Fate, or Universal Reason (Logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial fire, which acts on the passive matter:
The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.
— Chrysippus, in Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i. 39
Everything is subject to the laws of Fate, for the Universe acts according to its own nature, and the nature of the passive matter it governs. The souls of people and animals are emanations from this primordial fire, and are, likewise, subject to Fate:
Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web.
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv. 40
Individual souls are perishable by nature, and can be "transmuted and diffused, assuming a fiery nature by being received into the Seminal Reason (logos spermatikos) of the Universe."[16] Since right Reason is the foundation of both humanity and the universe, it follows that the goal of life is to live according to Reason, that is, to live a life according to Nature.
Ethics and virtues
The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word "stoic" has come to mean "unemotional" or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from "passion" by following "reason". The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they sought to transform them by a resolute "askēsis" that enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm.[17] Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.
Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of "passion" was "anguish" or "suffering",[18] that is, "passively" reacting to external events, which is somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated as passion, propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g., turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings that result from correct judgment in the same way as passions result from incorrect judgment.
The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια; literally, "without passion") or peace of mind,[19] where peace of mind was understood in the ancient sense—being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.
For the Stoics, reason meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature—the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people.
The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy is a classification derived from the teachings of Plato:
wisdom (Sophia)
courage (Andreia)
justice (Dikaiosyne)
temperance (Sophrosyne).
Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason, which leads to the conclusion of kindness. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy: to examine one's own judgments and behavior and determine where they diverge from the universal reason of nature.
The Stoics accepted that suicide was permissible for the wise person in circumstances that might prevent them from living a virtuous life.[20] Plutarch held that accepting life under tyranny would have compromised Cato's self-consistency (constantia) as a Stoic and impaired his freedom to make the honorable moral choices.[21] Suicide could be justified if one fell victim to severe pain or disease,[20] but otherwise suicide would usually be seen as a rejection of one's social duty.[22]
The doctrine of "things indifferent"
In philosophical terms, things that are indifferent are outside the application of moral law, that is without tendency to either promote or obstruct moral ends. Actions neither required nor forbidden by the moral law, or that do not affect morality, are called morally indifferent. The doctrine of things indifferent (ἀδιάφορα, adiaphora) arose in the Stoic school as a corollary of its diametric opposition of virtue and vice (καθήκοντα kathekon and ἁμαρτήματα hamartemata, respectively "convenient actions," or actions in accordance with nature, and mistakes). As a result of this dichotomy, a large class of objects were left unassigned and thus regarded as indifferent.
Eventually three sub-classes of "things indifferent" developed: things to prefer because they assist life according to nature; things to avoid because they hinder it; and things indifferent in the narrower sense. The principle of adiaphora was also common to the Cynics and Sceptics. The doctrine of things indifferent was revived during the Renaissance by Philipp Melanchthon.
Spiritual exercise
Philosophy for a Stoic is not just a set of beliefs or ethical claims, it is a way of life involving constant practice and training (or askesis, see asceticism). Stoic philosophical and spiritual practices included logic, Socratic dialogue and self-dialogue, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment (similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), and daily reflection on everyday problems and possible solutions. Philosophy for a Stoic is an active process of constant practice and self-reminder.
In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius defines several such practices. For example, in Book II.I:
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of the ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together...
Prior to Aurelius, Epictetus in his Discourses, distinguished between three types of act: judgment, desire, and inclination.[23] According to French philosopher Pierre Hadot, Epictetus identifies these three acts with logic, physics, and ethics respectively.[24] Hadot writes that in the Meditations, "Each maxim develops either one of these very characteristic topoi [i.e., acts], or two of them or three of them."[25]
The practices of spiritual exercises have been described as influencing those of reflective practice by Seamus Mac Suibhne.[26] Parallels between Stoic spiritual exercises and modern cognitive-behavioral therapy have been detailed at length in Robertson's The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.[27]
Social philosophy
A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism: All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, whereof the city political is only a copy."[28] This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian, but a citizen of the world."[29]
They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Instead they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the Greco-Roman world, and produced a number of remarkable writers and personalities, such as Cato the Younger and Epictetus.
In particular, they were noted for their urging of clemency toward slaves. Seneca exhorted, "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies."[30]
Christianity
In his Introduction to the 1964 Penguin Classics edition of Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth discussed the profound impact Stoicism had on Christianity. He claimed that the author of the Fourth Gospel declared Christ to be the Logos, which "had long been one of the leading terms of Stoicism, chosen originally for the purpose of explaining how deity came into relation with the universe."[31] In St. Ambrose of Milan's Duties, "The voice is the voice of a Christian bishop, but the precepts are those of Zeno."[32][33] Regarding what he called "the Divine Spirit", Stanisforth wrote:
Cleanthes, wishing to give more explicit meaning to Zeno's 'creative fire', had been the first to hit upon the term pneuma, or 'spirit', to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent 'spirit' was imagined as a tenuous substance akin to a current of air or breath, but essentially possessing the quality of warmth; it was immanent in the universe as God, and in man as the soul and life-giving principle. Clearly it is not a long step from this to the 'Holy Spirit' of Christian theology, the 'Lord and Giver of life', visibly manifested as tongues of fire at Pentecost and ever since associated – in the Christian as in the Stoic mind – with the ideas of vital fire and beneficient warmth.[34]
Regarding the Trinity, Staniforth wrote:
Again in the doctrine of the Trinity, the ecclesiastical conception of Father, Word, and Spirit finds its germ in the different Stoic names of the Divine Unity. Thus Seneca, writing of the supreme Power which shapes the universe, states, 'This Power we sometimes call the All-ruling God, sometimes the incorporeal Wisdom, sometimes the holy Spirit, sometimes Destiny.' The Church had only to reject the last of these terms to arrive at its own acceptable definition of the Divine Nature; while the further assertion 'these three are One', which the modern mind finds paradoxical, was no more than commonplace to those familiar with Stoic notions.[34]
The apostle Paul met with Stoics during his stay in Athens, reported in Acts 17:16-18. In his letters, Paul reflected heavily from his knowledge of Stoic philosophy, using Stoic terms and metaphors to assist his new Gentile converts in their understanding of Christianity.[35] Stoic influence can also be seen in the works of St. Ambrose, Marcus Minucius Felix, and Tertullian.[36]
In Stoicism's pantheism, God is never fully transcendent but always immanent. God as the world-creating entity is personalized in Christian thought, but Stoicism equates God with the totality of the universe, which was deeply contrary to Christianity. The only incarnation in Stoicism is that each person has part of the logos within. Stoicism, unlike Christianity, does not posit a beginning or end to the universe.[37]
Stoicism was later regarded by the Fathers of the Church as a "pagan philosophy";[38][39] nonetheless, some of the central philosophical concepts of Stoicism were employed by the early Christian writers. Examples include the terms "logos", "virtue", "Spirit", and "conscience".[37] But the parallels go well beyond the sharing and borrowing of terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity assert an inner freedom in the face of the external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature or God, a sense of the innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind,[37] and the futility and temporarity of worldly possessions and attachments. Both encourage Ascesis with respect to the passions and inferior emotions such as lust, and envy, so that the higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed.
Stoic writings such as Meditations by Marcus Aurelius have been highly regarded by many Christians throughout the centuries. The Stoic ideal of dispassion is accepted to this day as the perfect moral state by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan was known for applying Stoic philosophy to his theology.
Modern usage
The word "stoic" commonly refers to someone indifferent to pain, pleasure, grief, or joy.[40] The modern usage as "person who represses feelings or endures patiently" was first cited in 1579 as a noun, and 1596 as an adjective.[41] In contrast to the term "Epicurean", the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Stoicism notes, "the sense of the English adjective 'stoical' is not utterly misleading with regard to its philosophical origins."[42]
However, Modern Stoicism also refers to the application of ancient stoic principles to modern life. Stoicism was always meant to be a practical philosophy to be applied rather than debated.
Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag
According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.
As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.
"It looks like maybe somebody didn't like that so there had to be an episode," said Paul, asking, "who benefits?"
"It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there's zero chance he would have done this deliberately," said Paul.
he former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.
"It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul.
Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.
Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.
Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?
Putin Responds: Syria Strikes "Cripple US-Russia Relations"; Deploys Missile Warship To Syria
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-07/putin-responds-syria-strikes-cripple-us-russia-relations-deploys-cruise-missile-frig
Responding to Trump's unexpected military attack on Syria in which 59 cruise missiles were launched (of which only 23 allegedly hit their target), Russian President Vladimir Putin "regards the strikes as aggression against a sovereign nation," his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, noting that the president believes the strikes were carried out "in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext."
The Kremlin spokesman insisted that "the Syrian army doesn't have chemical weapons," saying this had been "observed and confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a special UN unit."
The Russian president said he sees the US missile strikes as an attempt to distract attention from civilian casualties in Iraq, Peskov added.
"This step deals significant damage to US-Russian ties, which are already in a deplorable state," Peskov said and added that the US has been ignoring the use of chemical weapons by terrorists and this is dramatically aggravating the situation, in Putin's opinion.
"The main thing, Putin believes, is that this move [by the U.S.] doesn't draw us nearer to the end goal in the fight with international terrorism and on the contrary, deals a serious setback to the creation of an international coalition in the fight with it," Peskov said.
* * *
Other Russians took the opportunity to opine as well, led by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said the US missile attack on a Syrian airbase is an act of aggression under a far-fetched pretext and is reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Quoted by Tass, the top Russian diplomat said "It is an act of aggression under a completely far-fetched pretext. This is reminiscent of the situation in 2003, when the US and the UK, along with some of their allies, invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council and in violation of international law."
"When speaking about the military intervention in Iraq many years after it happened, Tony Blair (who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007) acknowledged that they had misled everybody," Lavrov emphasized. "Now they did not even bother to provide any facts referring only to photos," he noted. "They indulged in speculations on children's photos, on evidence provided by various non-governmental organizations, including the so-called White Helmets, which staged various 'incidents' to instigate action against the Syrian government."
Moscow will demand truth of Idlib events, Lavrov stressed. "It is regrettable that all these causes do more harm to the already damaged relations between Russia and the United States. Hope remains that these provocations will not entail irreversible effects," Lavrov said.
Russian lawmakers also took to the microphone on Friday, warning that the U.S. airstrikes in Syria could lead to an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and dash any plans for a U.S.-Russian coalition against terrorism.
"It's a new round of escalation in the Middle East. These ill-judged, irresponsible actions don't contribute to global security, security in the Middle East," Andrei Krasov, the first deputy head of the defense committee in the Russian lower house of parliament, told state news agency RIA. "Other military conflicts, an expansion of military conflicts, are entirely possible," he added.
Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev said the airstrikes meant the possibility of a broad antiterror coalition in Syria "bites the dust before it was even born."
He said the aim of the U.S. strike was to "rubber stamp" responsibility on Mr. Assad's for the chemical attack in Idlib province on Tuesday. "'The walls of Trump' are multiplying. And everything started so well. It's a real shame," said a post on the Facebook page of Mr. Kosachev, head of the international relations committee in Russia's upper house of Parliament.
Another lawmaker, Mikhail Emelyanov, warned against the risk of clashes between Russian and U.S. forces. "The U.S. is being dragged into the war in Syria in the full knowledge that Russia is supporting Syria and our troops are there, which means it's fraught with direct clashes between Russia and the U.S. and the consequences could be the most serious, even armed clashes and exchanges of strikes," Mr. Emelyanov told Interfax news agency.
* * *
In immediate response, Moscow suspended its memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the US following the missile strike, calling the attack "a demonstration of force." The Russian military has supported the Syrian government's version of the events in Idlib, saying that Damascus attacked an arms depot where chemical weapons had been stockpiled by Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front militants.
"Without bothering to investigate anything, the US went forward with a demonstration of force, a military confrontation with a country that is fighting international terrorism," the Foreign Ministry's statement reads.
"Obviously, the cruise missile attack was prepared beforehand. Any expert can tell that the decision to strike was made in Washington before the events in Idlib, which were used as a pretext for a demonstration," the statement reads.
The Memorandum on air safety was signed in October 2015, after Russia came to Syria to fight international terrorism at the invitation of the country's government. The document of understanding was designed to prevent possible mishaps between the Russian and US Air Forces operating independently in the region.
Russia's Foreign Ministry has condemned the attack as an example of the "reckless attitude" that has only worsened "existing world issues" and created a "threat to international security."
* * *
Additionally, according to Tass, in response to the strikes, the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich armed with Kalibr cruise missiles will be deployed to the Tartus naval base in Syria. The Russian Black Sea Fleet's frigate The Admiral Grigorovich, currently on a routine voyage, will enter the Mediterranean later on Friday, a military-diplomatic source in Moscow told TASS, adding that the ship would make a stop at the logistics base in Syria's port of Tartus.
"The Russian ship armed with cruise missiles Kalibr will visit the logistics base in Tartus, Syria," the source said.
Poodle Trump Runs With Dogs of War
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704071052423296-poodle-trump-runs-with-dogs-of-war/
Finian Cunningham
So the brash, big-mouth tycoon in the White House with an outsized ego has finally unleashed the dogs of war in Syria.
Invoking God and the suffering of "little babies", the supposed US Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Syria with cruise missiles launched from warships in the Mediterranean.
A Syrian airbase was destroyed, along with several casualties, and civilians reportedly among the dead.
This was while Trump was digesting a dinner of steak and carrots in his Florida beach resort on Thursday night.
Trump has styled himself as a hard-nosed and "unpredictable" American president.
The bitter irony here is that everything Trump is doing in his latest act of illegal war is actually so predictable.
The US political establishment – driven as it always is by the imperative need of waging wars to shore up its crumby capitalist economy – has been baying for all-out deployment in Syria for the past six years.
Since Washington instigated its criminal regime-change operation against the sovereign government of Syria in March 2011, the hawkish establishment was never quite satisfied with the strategy of using proxy terror groups to do the dirty work. Direct military intervention to topple the Syrian state has always been on the cards as the preferred method.
The Deep State establishment – or the War Party comprising both Republicans and Democrats in hock to the military-intelligence apparatus – thought they would get their way with the election of warmonger Hillary Clinton last November. Alas, the surprise election of Trump to the presidency temporarily upset their militarist agenda.
But the advent of Trump to the White House was only a hitch for the powers-that-be. The relentless Deep State-driven media witch-hunt against Trump over ridiculous allegations of being a Russian puppet has evidently prevailed.
Trump, the self-declared "outsider" has been forced to prove that he is an "insider", an obedient poodle to the American war Rottweiler – if he wants to stay in office and see out the next four years without being impeached.
In order to survive the pressure over "Russian stooge" allegations, Trump is throwing some meat to the US War Party by giving them their long-sought-after direct military intervention in Syria.
Trump's order to blast Syria with 59 cruise missiles is a brazen act of war that makes a mockery of international law. Russia and some other independent nations have denounced the US "act of aggression against a sovereign state".
The fact that Russian forces were stationed at the targeted airbase at Shayrat – but were reportedly unscathed – is a shocking sign of how reckless the latest American military action is. If Russian personnel had been killed, then that would potentially be cause for a full-scale war between two nuclear powers.
Mary Ellen O'Connell, a US-based law scholar at University of Notre Dame, Indiana, was quoted by the Guardian saying there was "zero legal basis" for Trump's missile attack. She said it was an unfounded act of aggression.
Even some members of the US Congress have questioned Trump's unilateral action as being unconstitutional since he did not receive authorization from Congress, as required by American law.
But these are piffling, academic concerns when it comes to how the US always behaves. International law is only a selective rhetorical device for a rogue state that considers itself above the law.
As Russian military spokesman Igor Konashenkov remarked, the US has been waging wars regardless of international law for decades based on concocted pretexts, as in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and now Syria.
Trump has finally bought into the US war agenda in Syria – despite mouthing off against such an intervention as far back as 2013 – in order to keep his seat in the Oval Office. The intense media pressure from the witch-hunt over Russia has seen to that, in part.
The next prop in the whole despicable drama was Trump's gullibility over the latest false flag involving chemical weapons in Syria earlier this week.
Anyone with a bit of wit can see that the CIA-trained and Turkish, Saudi-supplied terrorist proxies carried out the massacre of civilians from their own toxic arsenal. The CIA-trained bandits tried the same deadly stunt back in August 2013 when they gassed hundreds of children near Damascus and videoed the horror for Western media dissemination.
The same profane ploy was used again this week in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, in Syria's northern Idlib province.
The truth is simple: the Syrian army does not have chemical weapons, after they were destroyed as part of a Russian-brokered decommissioning deal back in 2013. The only party to have access to such weapons are the Western, Turkish and Saudi-backed terror groups.
Like the propaganda service they are, the Western mainstream media then dutifully blasted the "news" that the Syrian air force dropped chemical weapons on Khan Sheikhoun – willingly and unquestioningly using the images and video supplied by "activists" affiliated with the jihadist terror groups.
When US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stood up in front of the Security Council holding photographs of dying children – purportedly from poisonous gas – she was role-playing for the false flag.
As with the general Western media response, Haley's display had the unmistakable air of choreography. It was 2003 all over again, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to the Security Council about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while brandishing dud vials of "lethal chemicals".
It is not clear whether Trump or his ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley are merely gullible or something more sinister, such as willing accomplices in a charade.
But the upshot is this: Trump is acting like an obedient poodle going along with the Machiavellian American power system. Invoking God and suffering babies is just a shallow moral cover for his complicity in another US criminal act – in a countless list of such crimes down through history.
There is something fitting about Trump's background as a real estate billionaire. That business is all about shafting people, cheating to stay ahead, or selling overinflated assets.
Trump himself is one such overinflated "asset". All his past talk about "America first", "forgotten workers", "draining the swamp" and lashing out against his predecessor Barack Obama over "reckless wars in the Middle East" – is all just cheap hokum.
To save his political skin and no doubt lucrative future business opportunities for his dynasty, Trump has donned the cap of Commander-in-Chief and is groveling before the American war machine.
He is handing over an "official" license for war in Syria that the American Deep State has been craving for years.
It is a measure of how crazed and obscene the American political system is. The message is: no matter which way the electorate votes, the warmongers in the Pentagon and their corporate masters get the result they want. Which is war. Even if that risks a world war with Russia.
That's how American capitalism works. And Trump is nothing but a poodle willing to jump through the hoops, roll over and lick the boots of the criminal masters.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi's Murder
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/05/the-dreadful-chronology-of-gaddafis-murder/
Jean-Paul Pougala's April 14, 2011 piece in Pambazuka News titled "The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya" describes how Africa first developed its own transcontinental communications system by purchasing a telecommunications satellite on December 26, 2007: the African Development Bank ponied up $50 million toward the nearly $400 million cost of the orbiter and the West African Development Bank added $27 million more. Libya contributed $300 million, which made the purchase possible. Pougala writes that when it was up and running, the new system was "connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting, and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching."
After 14 years of foot-dragging by the IMF and the World Bank, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's generosity allowed for this one-time purchase that spared the nations of Africa a $500 million annual lease payment for access to a telecom satellite and euchred Western banks out of potential billions in loans and interest. At this time, Gaddafi was also seeking to establish a trans-African banking system based on gold to free the continent from its financial bondage to the IMF and the World Bank—which would gravely harm both predatory entities.
Since 2003, Gaddafi had worked hard to repair his reputation for financing terrorism by renouncing any future support for terrorist organizations and by establishing a fund to compensate victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772, each destroyed by acts of terror believed to have been financed by Libya. On December 10, 2007 Gaddafi traveled to France for a pow-wow with then-President Nicolas Sarkozy.
During their December 11, 2007 meeting at the Elysee Palace, Gaddafi and Sarkozy signed some $15 billion worth of contracts for military hardware and a nuclear power station, but matters other than trade were also on the agenda. In a March 12, 2012 report, the French investigative journalism consortium Mediapart stated: "According to information contained in a confidential report prepared by a recognised French expert on terrorism and terrorist financing, President Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 election campaign received up to 50 million euros in secret funds from the regime of the late Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi." Documents released by Mediapart on September 11, 2016 confirm that the financial relationship between Gaddafi and Sarkozy dates back to December 10, 2006.
(Upon the intial release of this information in 2012, Sarkozy denied he'd accepted Libyan money to finance his campaign—which is illegal in France and could well land him in prison—and attempted to sue Mediapart. However, an official investigation was launched into Sarkozy's conduct and when portions of the resulting secret report surfaced at Mediapart's website, the evidence pointed squarely to Sarkozy's receipt of Gaddafi's cash.)
Gaddafi recognized that because of his telecom satellite intiative and his as yet unpublicized Pan-African banking proposal (which no doubt the West was well aware of), his popularity with Western leaders was slipping and that he might soon be the target of "regime change" and likely hoped that by financing Sarkozy's election he was buying insurance against his own untimely death. Meantime he did his best to be seen as a good pro-West statesman. In August 2008 Gaddafi signed agreements with the US formalizing compensation for victims of state terror, and in September 2008 Condoleezza Rice visited Libya and declared that relations had between the two nations had entered a "new phase".
But in February 2009 Gaddafi was elected Chairman of the African Union and first made public mention of a "United States of Africa" and hinted at the possibility of a pan-African banking system. (Ominously, on March 12, 2009 Sarkozy made France a part of NATO, breaking with a tradition that went back to de Gaulle.) Then, in August of 2009, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi—convicted of participating in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing—was released from prison in Scotland and given a hero's welcome upon his return to Libya, and later that same year Libya inked a deal with Russia to purchase $1.8 billion in weapons. These developments did not enhance Gaddafi's profile in Western eyes.
Also, there was a lot of money at stake. Prior to the fall of Gaddafi, oil-rich Libya had cash reserves of $150 billion, and there were 143 tons of gold in Gaddafi's vaults. As Pougala wrote in his Pambazuka News piece: "[A large portion of this money] had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation—the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years."
In a June 7, 2016 posting at Black Opinion, Bob Fitrakis wrote:
The real reasons for the attack have been dealt with most directly by America's most famous reformed economic hitman, John Perkins.
Perkins points out that the attack on Libya, like the attack on Iraq, has to do with power and control of resources, not only oil, but gold. Libya has the highest standard of living in Africa. According to the IMF, Libya's Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults, Perkins wrote.
NATO went there like modern Barbary Coast Pirates to loot Libya's gold. The Russian media, in addition to Perkins, reported that the Pan-Africanist Qaddafi, the former President of the African Union, had been advocating that Africa use the gold so plentiful in Libya and South Africa to create an African currency based on a gold dinar.
It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the U.S. and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars, Perkins explained.
In December 2010, a revolution in Tunisia brought down the Tunisian government. Subsequently in January 2011 came a series of events hailed in the Western press as the "Arab Spring": civil uprisings in Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Morocco. While these uprisings led to substantive change in Tunisia, they were brutally suppressed in Egypt and led to civil wars in Syria and Yemen that still rage. Those in Oman and Morocco fizzled out.
In Libya things broke funny. Starting on February 15, 2011, a series of protests demanding Gaddafi's ouster erupted across Libya. By February 20, 2011 it was reported that some 300 civilians had been killed in the resulting violence, and that Gaddafi had launched warplanes against opposition groups in Tripoli. Sarkozy saw his opportunity to defend French bankers and to cover up his own illegal financial arrangement with Gaddafi. On March 10, 2011 Sarkozy officially recognized the Libyan "National Transitional Council" (NTC), the umbrella under which the "rebels" operated, and demanded the establishment of a "no-fly zone" in the event Gaddafi used chemical weapons or airstrikes against his own people.
A report in The Guardian dated March 11, 2011 noted:
Sarkozy's unilateral decision to recognise Libya's transitional council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people was seen as grossly premature. "Sarkozy is being irresponsible," one EU diplomat said.
Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, said: "I find it a crazy move by France. To jump ahead and say 'I will recognise a transitional government' in the face of any diplomatic practice, is not the solution for Libya."
On March 19, 2011 Sarkozy had French warplanes fly missions against Libya and ordered the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle into Libyan waters. But the French were not alone. Earlier that week—on March 15, 201—a US F-15 crashed in Libya. On March 29, 2011 the US confirmed that A-10 Warthogs and A-130 gunships had been employed over Libya. On April 16, 2011 Journalist Jeremy Scahill was interviewed on The Ed Show (this from Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC by Michael Arria (CounterPunch 2014)).
Scahill: . . . CIA operatives on the ground there [Libya] are sort of engaged in an eHarmony dot com or sort of you know dating service relationship with the rebels for the clandestine world. I mean, this is, as Colonel Jacobs said, standard fare. What I think is of more concern is the fact that there are certainly US special operations forces units that are deployed already, secretly, inside of Libya that are painting targets for the air strikes. But Ed, I have to say that the scenario you're laying out—when you talk about arming the quote unquote "freedom fighters", it really evokes images of the disastrous dirty wars of the 1980's, I mean, the United States getting involved in what is effectively a Libyan civil war, a thousand or so rebels . . . They don't have much military training. I mean, what you're advocating is that Americans are going to have to be totally invested in one side of the civil war.
In his June 7, 2016 Black Opinion posting, Fitrakis writes:
. . . an unclassified U.S. Department of State document emailed to Hillary on April 2, 2011, key Clinton aide Michael Blumenthal confirmed that Perkins was right and the attack on Libya had nothing to do with Qaddafi being a threat to the United States and NATO and everything to do with looting his gold.
Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011, these stocks were moved to Sabha (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli, Blumenthal reported to Clinton.
Blumenthal pointed out the purpose of Qaddafi's precious metal: This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan- African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
Blumenthal spells out the reason for NATO's attack and France's imperial plunder, French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicholas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.
There were five reasons for France's illegal war with NATO against Libya. Sarkozy sought, according to Blumenthal, a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libyan oil production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his internal situation in France, d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to assert its position in the world, e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.
It is obvious from this email that while Blumenthal understood Sarkozy's need to protect French bankers from Gaddafi's ambitious plan to launch a gold-based trans-African banking system, Blumenthal did not have a handle on Sarkozy's ulterior motive—eliminating evidence of the French President's own criminality. It should also be noted—and underscored—that none of the reasons for military action Blumenthal listed in his damning email could possibly justify an unprovoked attack on another sovereign state.
On March 30, 2011 the British government expelled five diplomats from the Libyan embassy as relations between Libya and the West continued to deteriorate. Over the ensuing months battles raged all across Libya. At one point a truce between the Libyan government and the NTC was brokered but did not hold and by August 2011 the nation was once again in a full-fledged civil war.
After March 31, 2011 the United States enforced the "no-fly" zone over Libya, ostensibly to aid a legitimate uprising and to evict from power a bloodthirsty dictator, but the resulting attacks went much further than simply bringing down Gaddafi. On July 18, 2011 NATO targeted the Great Man-Made River, a massive irrigation project that brought water to thousands of acres of arid land. The warplanes that perpetrated this heinous act not only destroyed a vital piece of Libya's infrastructure but on July 22, 2011 also destroyed a factory that according to Ellen Brown in her March 14, 2016 account for The Ecologist produced the only pipes necessary to repair it. This vicious, wanton devastation served no practical purpose whatsoever save for collectively punishing the Libyan people.
Aided and abetted by the Western powers, the "rebels" closed in on Tripoli and on August 21, 2011 the city fell to the NTC. Gaddafi and his staff and immediate family fled to Syrte. A little after 8:00 p.m. on October 20, 2011, with the "rebels" again closing in, Gaddafi attempted to flee Syrte in a convoy of 75 vehicles but his escape was discovered by RAF aircraft. A US Predator drone operated by someone sitting at a computer screen outside Las Vegas fired the first missiles into the fleeing vehicles. RAF aircraft also fired into the convoy. Ten vehicles were destroyed. Gaddafi survived the attack but was captured soon afterwards by the NTC, who found him hiding in a large drainage pipe. Gaddafi was shot several times and had a bayonet driven into his rectum.
Prior to Gaffafi's murder, Libya was a stable country if not a traditional nation-state. According to a report titled "Gaddafi's Libya Was Africa's Most Prosperous Democracy" by Garikai Chengu that appeared in the January 12, 2013 edition of Countercurrents.org, ". . . Libya was divided into several small communities that were essentially "mini-autonomous States" within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini-autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya's democracy were Local Committees, People's Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils." Chengu details how Local Committees reported to People's Congresses that in turn passed decisions up to the Executive Revolutionary councils, thus creating a broad consensus on those decisions affecting the entire population. "The Libyan direct democracy system utilized the word 'elevation' rather than 'election', and avoided the political campaigning that is a feature of traditional political parties and benefits only the bourgeoisie's well-heeled and well-to-do," Chengu writes. "Unlike the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves." Toppling Gaddafi erased a system of government that had functioned smoothly—and fairly—for nearly half a century.
Nicolas Sarkozy remains a free man. He has yet to be prosecuted for receiving illegal Libyan cash to finance his presidential campaign or for launching an illegal war to cover up his criminal relationship with Gaddafi.
Much has been written about the catastrophe visited upon Libya following the murderous attack by France and the US—400,000 people driven from their homes, an endless cycle of terror and reprisal, the creation of yet another failed state in the wake of a US foreign policy initiative. But the real damage was done to Africa itself, for had Gaddafi's proposal for a trans-African banking system reached fruition, that unhappy continent for the first time in centuries would have had true freedom and real independence within its grasp, a circumstance the Western powers could not abide. Freedom and justice were never part of the West's agenda.
On the evening of October 20, 2011 while being interviewed by CBS in the wake of breaking news that Gaddafi was dead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a joke with her staff between takes, declaring: "We came, we saw, he died." She then clapped her hands and laughed triumphantly. This remains the vilest and most degraded utterance delivered by an official of the US Government ever.
Some satire:
Blackadder How did World War I Begin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc
"George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a single sausage factory in Tanganyika."
Advanced World War I Tactics with General Melchett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblfKREj50o
"This is why we need to teach history better in school, so the students can appreciate good satire like this. Someone who knew nothing about the Great War would not get the humor of these clips."
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, KG, GCB, PC, FRS (20 October 1784 – 18 October 1865) was a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister in the mid-19th century. For most of 1830 to 1865 he dominated British foreign policy when Britain was at the height of her power. Popularly nicknamed "Pam" and "The Mongoose",[1] he was in government office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865, beginning his parliamentary career as a Tory, switching to the Whigs in 1830, and concluding it as the first Prime Minister of the newly-formed Liberal Party from 1859.
He succeeded to his father's Irish peerage in 1802. He became a Tory MP in 1807, and was made Secretary at War in 1809, responsible for the finances of the army. He held the job until 1828, entering the cabinet in 1827 when George Canning became Prime Minister. Less than a year later he resigned with other Canningites.
In opposition he switched his focus to foreign policy, and he was Foreign Secretary (1830-4, 1835–41 and 1846–51) when the Whigs were in power, dealing with a succession of crises in Europe and beyond. Some of his aggressive actions, now sometimes termed liberal interventionist, were highly controversial at the time, and remain so today. In 1852 he became Home Secretary in Aberdeen's coalition government, the Peelites having insisted on Russell getting the Foreign Office. He passed various social reforms but opposed electoral ones. When public discontent over the Crimean War brought the government down in 1855, Palmerston was found to be, despite the Queen's distrust of him, the only Prime Minister who could sustain a majority in Parliament. He had two periods in office, 1855–1858 and 1859–1865, before dying at almost 81, a few months after winning a general election with an increased majority. He remains, to date, the last Prime Minister to die in office.
Historians consider him one of the greatest foreign secretaries, for his handling of great crises, his commitment to the balance of power that made Britain the deciding voice in many controversies, his analytic skills, and his commitment to British interests. His policies regarding India, Italy, Belgium and Spain had long-term impact, while his policies toward France, the Ottoman Empire, and the United States proved more ephemeral. He was a master of public opinion, achieved by stroking British nationalism. His weaknesses include mishandling of personal relations, and long-standing disagreements with the Queen over the royal role in determining foreign policy.[2]
Palmerston built a strong popular following among the British electorate, by promoting himself, British nationalism, and a sense of patriotism. He assiduously fostered the press, which gave him very favourable coverage. Queen Victoria and most of the political leadership distrusted him, but his popular strength prevailed.
Liberal Party (UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)
The Liberal Party was a liberal political party which was one of the two major parties in the United Kingdom in the 19th and early 20th century.[2]
The party arose from an alliance of Whigs and free-trade Peelites and Radicals favourable to the ideals of the American and French Revolutions in the 1850s. By the end of the nineteenth century, it had formed four governments under William Gladstone. Despite splitting over the issue of Irish Home Rule, the party returned to power in 1906 with a landslide victory and introduced the welfare reforms that created a basic British welfare state. H. H. Asquith was Liberal Prime Minister between 1908 and 1916, followed by David Lloyd George whose premiership lasted until 1922 when the coalition the party had formed with the Conservative Party in the First World War came to an end.
By the end of the 1920s, the Labour Party had replaced the Liberals as the Conservatives' main rival. The party went into decline and by the 1950s won no more than six seats at general elections. Apart from notable by-election victories, the party's fortunes did not improve significantly until it formed the SDP–Liberal Alliance with the newly formed Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981. At the 1983 General Election, the Alliance won over a quarter of the vote, but only 23 of the 650 seats it contested. At the 1987 General Election, its vote fell below 23% and the Liberal and Social Democratic parties merged in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats. A splinter group reconstituted the Liberal Party in 1989. It was formed by party members opposed to the merger who saw the Lib Dems diluting Liberal ideals.
Prominent intellectuals associated with the Liberal Party include the philosopher John Stuart Mill, the economist John Maynard Keynes, and social planner William Beveridge.
A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences
http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/
The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail. I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences. But first, let's begin by looking at what actually happened.
The pretext:
I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:
a classical US-executed false flag
a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don't. Unless,
the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.
What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.
Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.
Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read everything about this plan here and here.
The attack:
American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.
The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target. That is a fact.
It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.
The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014. The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:
Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis below.
Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles. What I am sure of is that 36 advanced cruise missile do not "just disappear". There are two reasons why the Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles: first, it provides them "plausible deninability" (at least for the general public, there is no doubt that US signal intelligence units did detect the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it allowed them to keep their air defense missiles for the protection of their own forces. Can the Russian really do this?
Take a look at this image, taken from a Russian website, which appears to have been made by the company Kret which produces some of the key Russian electronic warfare systems. Do you notice that on the left hand side, right under the AWACs aircraft you can clearly see a Tomahawk type missile turning around and eventually exploding at sea?
How this is done is open to conjecture. All that we are told is that the missile is given a "false target" but for our purposes this really does not matter. What matters is that the Russians have basically leaked the information that they are capable of turning cruise missiles around. There are other possibilities such as an directed energy beams which basically fries or, at least, confuses the terrain following and or inertial navigation systems. Some have suggested a "kill switch" which would shut down the entire missile. Maybe. Again, this really doesn't matter for our purposes. What matters is that the Russian have the means to spoof, redirect or destroy US cruise missiles. It sure appears to be that for the first time these systems were used in anger.
I would note that those who say that the Russian air defense systems did not work don't know what they are talking about. Not only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked with the protection of the Syrian Air Space. That is a task for the Syrian air defenses. The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to protect Russian personnel and equipment. This is why the Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes. And this is hardly surprising as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel.
However, this might be changing. Now the Russians have withdrawn from their agreement with the USA and, even more importantly, have have declared that the Syrians urgently need more advanced air defense capabilities. Currently the Syrians operate very few advanced Russian air defense systems, most of their gear is old.
Legal aspects of the attack:
The US attack happened in direct violation of US law, of international law and of the UN charter. First, I would say that there is strong legal evidence that the US attack violated the US Constitution, Presidential War Powers Act and the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) resolution. But since I don't really care about this aspect of Trump's criminal behavior, I will just refer you to two pretty good analyses of this issue (see here and here) and just simply summarize the argument of those who say that what Trump did was legal. It boils down to this: "yeah, it's illegal, but all US Presidents have been doing it for so long that they have thereby created a legal precedent which, uh, makes it legal after all". I don't think this kind of "defense" is worthy of a reply or rebuttal. So now let's turn to international law.
Most people think that crimes against humanity or genocide must be the ultimate crime under international law. They are wrong. The ultimate crime is aggression. This is the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trial on this topic:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
So, following the long and prestigious list of other US Presidents before him, Donald Trump is now a war criminal. In fact, he is a "supreme war criminal". It only took him 77 days to achieve this status, probably some kind of a record.
As for the UN Charter, at least for articles (1, 2, 33, 39) ban the kind of aggression the USA took against Syria.
I think that there is no need to dwell on the total illegality of this attack. I would just underscore the supreme irony of a country basically built by and run by lawyers (just see how many of them there are in Congress) whose general population seems to be totally indifferent to the fact that their elected representatives act in a completely illegal manner. All that most American people care about is whether the illegal action brings victory or not. But if it does, absolutely nobody cares. You disagree? Tell me, how many peace demonstrations were there in the USA about the totally illegal US aggression on Yugoslavia? Exactly. QED.
Political consequences (internal)
My son perfectly summed up what Trump's actions have resulted in: "those who hated him still hate him while those who supported him now also hate him". Wow! How did Trump and his advisors fail to predict that? Instead of fulfilling his numerous campaign promises (and his own Twitter statements) Trump decided to suddenly make a 180 and totally betray everything he stood for. I can't think of a dumber action, I really can't. I have to say that Trump now appears to make Dubya look smart. But there is much, much worse.
The worst aspect of this clusterf**k is how utterly immoral this makes Trump appear. Think of it – first Trump abjectly betrayed Flynn. Then he betrayed Bannon.
[Sidebar: I mostly liked Flynn. I had no use for Bannon at all. But the fact is that they were not my best friends, they were Trump's best friends. And instead of standing up for them, he sacrificed them to the always bloodthirsty Neocons in the hope of appeasing them. This is what I wrote about this stupid and deeply immoral betrayal the day it happened:
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.
The worst aspect of that is that by betraying people left and right Trump has now shown that you cannot trust him, that he will backstab you with no hesitation whatsoever. Would you ever take a risk for a guy like that? Contrast that with Putin who is "notorious" for standing by his friends and allies even when they do something really wrong! There is a reason why the AngloZionists could not break Putin and why it only took them one month to neuter Trump: Putin is made of titanium, Trump is just an overcooked noodle]
And now Trump has betrayed HIMSELF by turning against everything he, himself, stood for. This is almost Shakespearean in its pathetic and tragic aspects!
During his campaign Trump made a lot of excellent promises and he did inspire millions of Americans to support him. I personally believe that he was sincere in his intentions, and I don't buy the "it was all an act" theory at all. Just look at the total panic of the Neocons at the prospects of a Trump victory and tell me this was all fake. No, I think that Trump was sincere. But when confronted with the ruthless opposition of the Neocons and the US deep state, Trump snapped and instantly broke because he is clearly completely spineless and has the ethics and morals of a trailer park prostitute.
So what we really have is a sad and pathetic version of Obama. A kind of Obama 2.0 if you want. The man inspired millions, he promised change you can believe in, and he delivered absolutely nothing except for an abject subservience to the real masters and owners of the United States: the Neocons and the deep state.
Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising him. And nobody is calling him a "Putin agent" any more. None of which will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way. He chose a quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days. How totally stupid of him. He apparently also chose the option of an "attack for show" to begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history, probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show? A few flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters. Pathetic if you ask me.
Ever since he got into the White House, Trump has been acting like your prototypical appeaser (it makes me wonder if his father was an alcoholic). How a guy like him ever made in business is a mystery to me, but what is now clear is that the Neocons totally submitted him and that they will now turn him into political roadkill.
I am afraid that the next four years (or less!) will turn into a neverending Purim celebration...
Political consequences (external)
Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US collaboration with Russia of any kind. Worse, he has also destroyed any hopes of being able to defeat Daesh. Why? Because if you really believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want to sell you bridges all over the world. It ain't happening. What is much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton. Let me explain.
The following are the measures with Russia has taken following the US attack on Syria:
Denunciation at UN (to be expected, no big deal)
Decision to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)
Decision to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)
Decision to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won't be able to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something)
The combination of decisions 2, 3 and 4 does not mean that the Russians will shoot the next time, not by itself. The Russians will still be restricted by their own rules of engagement and by political decisions. But this will dramatically affect the US decision-making since from now on there will be no guarantee that the Russians will not shoot either. The Russians basically own the Syrian airspace already. What they want to do next is to give a similar capability to the Syrians. Not only will that allow the Syrians to defend themselves against any future US or Israeli attacks, it will provide the Russians plausible deniabilty the day they decide to shoot down a US aircraft or drone. Finally, the Russians are rushing back some of their most advanced ships towards the Syrian coast. So after giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, the Russians are now returning to a Obama-times like posture in Syria. Bravo Trump, well done!
Yes, I know, Tillerson is expected to meet Lavrov this week. This was discussed ad nauseam on Russian TV and the consensus is that the only reason why the Russians did not cancel this meeting is because they don't want, on general principle, to be the ones to refuse to speak to the other side. Fine. Considering that we are talking about a potential international thermonuclear war, I can see the point. Still, I would have preferred to say Lavrov telling Tillerson to go and get lost. Why? Because I have come to the conclusion that any and all types of dialog with the United States are simply a meaningless and useless waste of time. For one thing, there is no US policy on anything. Over the past week or so we saw both Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson completely contradict themselves over and over again: "no we don't want to overthrow Assad. Yes we do want to overthrow Assad. Yes we do. No we don't". This is almost painful and embarrassing to watch. This just goes to show that just like the Obama Administration, the Trump people are "недоговороспособны" or "not agreement capable". I explain this term in this analysis (written about Obama! Not Trump):
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were "недоговороспособны". What that word means is literally "not-agreement-capable" or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is "not-agreement-capable", and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is "not-agreement-capable" is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as "not-agreement-capable". That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.
This is bad. Really bad. This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with. What this also means is that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States.
That applies only to the official Kremlin. Independent Russian analysts are not shy about expressing their total contempt and disgust for Trump. Some of them are suggesting that Trump decided to show how "tough" he is in preparation for the Tillerson trip to Moscow. If that is the case, then he is badly miscalculating. For one thing, a lot of them as saying that what Trump has engaged in is "показуха" – a totally fake shows of force which really shows nothing. What is certain is that demonstrations of force are very much frowned upon on the Russian culture which strongly believes that a really tough guy does not have to look the part.
Personally I don't think that impressing the Russians was Trump's plan. Nor do I believe, like some, that launching that attack during the visit of Chinese Premier Xi was a deliberate affront or some kind of "message". In fact, I don't think that there was much of a plan at all beyond showing that Trump is "tough" and no friend of Putin. That's it. I think that the so-called "elites" in charge running the USA are infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible. I don't buy the "managed chaos" theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their dis-order. Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it's not part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant.
I have already explained in my previous analysis why Trump's plan to defeat ISIS is a non-starter and I won't bother repeating it all here. What I will say is that Erdogan's endorsement of Trump's attack is equally stupid and self-defeating. I really wonder what Erdogan is hoping to achieve. Not only did the Americans almost kill him in a coup attempt, they are now working on creating a semi-independent Kurdistan right on the border with Turkey. Yes, I know, Erdogan wants to get rid of Assad, fair enough, but does he really believe that Trump will be able to remove Assad from power? And what if Assad is removed, will Turkey really be better off once the Emirate of Takfiristan is declared in Syria? I very much hope that after the referendum Erdogan will recover some sense of reality.
What about the Israelis, do they really believe that dealing with Assad is worse than dealing with this Caliphate of Takfiristan?! But then, we can expect anything from folks with such a long history of making really bad decisions.
Still, it really looks like the all have gone completely insane!
Then there is the embarrassing standing ovation coming out of Europe and the Ukraine. I really am embarrassed for them. They are rejoicing at the attempted removal of one of the last mentally sane and secular regimes in the Middle-East. Don't these European "leaders" realize that if Syria is replaced by a Caliphate of Takfiristan all hell will really brake loose for Europe? I am amazed at how blind these people are...
Now let's look at what happened from the point of view of China and the DPRK. First, as I mentioned, I don't think that Xi felt that the attack during his visit to the USA was a slap or an affront. From another civilized country, maybe. But not from the USA. The Chinese are absolutely under no illusion of the total lack of sophistication and even basic manners of US Presidents. That is not to say that they were not outraged and very concerned. It goes without saying that they also noticed the "coincidence" that The USN has canceled planned port calls in Australia for the USS Carl Vinson and is instead sending the aircraft carrier and attached group towards the Korean Peninsula. They also noticed that this move has been given maximal visibility in the US propaganda machine. One "show of force" in Syria is now followed by another "show of force" in East Asia.
Typical, isn't it?
If anything, this move will only strengthen the informal but very strong and deep partnership between China and Russia. Just like the Russians, the Chinese will keep on smiling and make very nice statements about international peace and security, negotiations, etc. But everybody who matters in China will understand that the real message of out Washington DC is simple: "now it's Assad – but you could be next".
Which leaves the DPRK. I am no mind-reader and no psychologist, but I ask myself the following question: what is worse – if the Americans fail to really scare Kim Jong-un or if they successfully do? I don't have the answer, but considering the past behavior of the DPRK leaders I would strongly suggest that both scaring them and failing to scare them are very dangerous options. The notion of "scare" should not be included in any policies dealing with the DPRK. But instead of that, the dummies in DC are now leaking a story (whether true or not) that the US intelligence agencies have finalized plans to, I kid you not, "eliminate Kim Jong-un". And just to make sure that the message gets through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC threatens the DPRK with war.
Have they all really gone totally insane in Washington DC?
Do I really need to explain here why war with the DPRK is a terrible idea, even if it had no nuclear weapons?
Conclusion: what happens next?
Simply reply: I don't know. But let me explain why I don't know. In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As where the Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions. You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)? I don't know. To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types.
Some readers might think that this is hyperbole. I assure you that this is not. I am dead serious. Not only do I find the Trump administration "not agreement capable", I find it completely detached from reality. Delusional in other words. You think Kim Jong-un with nukes is bad? What about Obama or Trump with nukes? Ain't they much, much scarier?
So what can the world do?
First, the easy answer: the Europeans. They can do nothing. They are irrelevant. They don't even exist. At least not in the political sense.
Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:
And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.
What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble. But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors). This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh. If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. So here is my central thesis:
You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors. Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be. I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and Russia in record time. So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups. What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers? Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group? Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind Russia. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians
The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems. As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world" as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now, in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth! There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts! Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing. Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON/FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
The next four years will be terrible, I am sorry to say. Our next hope – however thin – for somebody sane in the White House might be for 2020. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will run on a campaign promise of peace and truly draining the swamp? Maybe "America first" will mean something if Gabbard says it? Right now she seems to be pretty much the only one refusing the accept the "Assad did it" nonsense. So maybe she can provide the mix of peace and progressive social policies so many Americans really want? Maybe she could become the first woman President for all the right, rather then wrong, reasons. I don't know. 2020 is still very, very far away, let's just hope we all make it to that date before some imbecile in DC decides that war with Russia is a good idea.
What is certain is that the Democrat vs. Republican and Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy only serves to perpetuate a system which manages to betray the values of BOTH the Left and the Right. This is paradoxical because it is pretty darn clear that most Americans want their country to be at peace, to stop being constantly at war, and with civilized social and labor standards. Sure, the hardcore libertarians still believe that laisser-faire is a great solution, even if that hands all the power to corporations and even if that leaves the individual citizen defenseless against the oligarchy. But bet you that even hardcore libertarians would prefer "statism" (as they would say) with peace than "statism" with war. Likewise, many hardcore progressives want to severely limit the freedoms of many Americans (small business entrepreneurs, gun owners), but even they would prefer peace without rules and regulations than war without rules and regulations. So I think that the possibly unifying platform could be expressed in the notion of "peace and civil rights". That is something which the vast majority of Americans can agree upon. Even the Black Lives Matter folks should agree to that kind of "peace and civil rights platform". That, I think, ought to be the priority of the Federal government – dismantle the war machine and dismantle the state repression machine: a full pull-out of US forces deployed worldwide combined with a full restoration of civil and human rights as they were before the 9/11 false flag. And let the States deal with all the other issues.
Alas, I am afraid that the plutocracy in power will never allow that. The way the crushed Trump in one month tells me that they will do that to anybody who is not one of their own. So while hope is always a good thing, and while I like dreaming of a better future, I am not holding my breath. I find a sudden and brutal collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire followed by a break-up of the USA (as described here) far more likely.
We better prepare ourselves for some very tough times ahead.
Our only consolation is that all the dramatic events taking place right now in the USA are signs of weakness. The US elites are turning on each other and while the Neocons have broken Trump, this will not stop the fratricidal war inside the US plutocracy. Look at the big picture, at how the empire is cracking at every seam and remember that all this is taking place because we are winning.
Imperialism will die, discredited and hated by all those who will have to live through the upcoming collapse of the US-based AngloZionist Empire. Hopefully this time it will be the last empire in history and mankind will have learned its lesson (it would be about time!).
The Saker
Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation. The Risk of Nuclear War. Former Intelligence Officials Urge Trump to Rethink Blaming Syrian Government
http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation-the-risk-of-nuclear-war-former-intelligence-officials-urge-trump-to-rethink-blaming-syrian-government/5584656
More than two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really "A Chemical Weapons Attack"?
1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a "chemical weapons attack" on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.
2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian "chemical weapons attack." Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.
4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?
5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the U.S. Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria's CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.'s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the U.N. inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The U.N. inspectors' findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia's leaders cannot be overstated.
6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said:
"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this."
Détente Nipped in the Bud
7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of "absolute mistrust," which he characterized as "sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists." Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.
8 – With Moscow's cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. U.S. Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.
9 – On Sept 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented:
"My good friend John Kerry ... is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, "after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. ... It is difficult to work with such partners. ..."
10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned,
"If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region."
11 – On Oct 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses "will not have time to identify the origin" of the aircraft.
12 – On Oct 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results," and complained about "people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises."
13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from "growing trust" to "absolute mistrust." To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.
14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson's visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.
15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from "social media," for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.
* Background on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a list of whose issuances can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to "justify" an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.
We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell's ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is "irrefutable" or "undeniable" [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion ... beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.
***
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret), DIA (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Milosevic the Balkans Butcher overthrown by his own people
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1369189/Milosevic-the-Balkans-Butcher-overthrown-by-his-own-people.html
Saddam Hussein
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Butcher+of+Baghdad
Libya's Butcher
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23wed2.html
No Reconciliation With the Butcher of Damascus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/no-reconciliation-with-th_b_1677436.html
Donald Trump Is NOT Bluffing – So What Happens If Kim Jong-Un Is Not Bluffing Either?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/donald-trump-is-not-bluffing-so-what-happens-if-kim-jong-un-is-not-bluffing-either/
Korean War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
The Korean War (in South Korean Hangul: 한국전쟁; Hanja: 韓國戰爭; RR: Hanguk Jeonjaeng, "Korean War"; in North Korean Chosŏn'gŭl: 조국해방전쟁; Hancha: 祖國解放戰爭; MR: Choguk haebang chǒnjaeng, "Fatherland Liberation War"; 25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953)[36][38] began when North Korea invaded South Korea.[39][40] The United Nations, with the United States as the principal force, came to the aid of South Korea. China came to the aid of North Korea, and the Soviet Union gave some assistance.
Korea was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the closing days of World War II. In August 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as a result of an agreement with the United States, and liberated Korea north of the 38th parallel. U.S. forces subsequently moved into the south. By 1948, as a product of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, Korea was split into two regions, with separate governments. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea, and neither side accepted the border as permanent. The conflict escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces—supported by the Soviet Union and China—moved into the south on 25 June 1950.[41] On that day, the United Nations Security Council recognized this North Korean act as invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire.[42] On 27 June, the Security Council adopted S/RES/83: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea and decided the formation and dispatch of the UN Forces in Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the UN force, with the United States providing 88% of the UN's military personnel.
After the first two months of war, South Korean forces were on the point of defeat, forced back to the Pusan Perimeter. In September 1950, an amphibious UN counter-offensive was launched at Inchon, and cut off many North Korean troops. Those who escaped envelopment and capture were rapidly forced back north all the way to the border with China at the Yalu River, or into the mountainous interior. At this point, in October 1950, Chinese forces crossed the Yalu and entered the war.[41] Chinese intervention triggered a retreat of UN forces which continued until mid-1951.
After these reversals of fortune, which saw Seoul change hands four times, the last two years of fighting became a war of attrition, with the front line close to the 38th parallel. The war in the air, however, was never a stalemate. North Korea was subject to a massive bombing campaign. Jet fighters confronted each other in air-to-air combat for the first time in history, and Soviet pilots covertly flew in defense of their communist allies.
The fighting ended on 27 July 1953, when an armistice was signed. The agreement created the Korean Demilitarized Zone to separate North and South Korea, and allowed the return of prisoners. However, no peace treaty has been signed, and the two Koreas are technically still at war.[43][44] Periodic clashes, many of which are deadly, continue to the present.
Kim Jong-Un ain't bluffin', that carrier strike group is toast if it goes hot kinetic. Poor nD chess players are destroying the world before our eyes.. children can do such wicked things.. please stop aggressively killing them, Donald.
The whole of the official US & UK Foreign Policy narrative is a complete fabrication and lie. The politicians and the media have to tell major lies to keep the False Narrative going
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-whole-of-the-official-us-uk-foreign-policy-narrative-is-a-complete-fabrication-and-lie-the-politicians-and-the-media-have-to-tell-major-lies-to-keep-the-false-narrative-going/
Trump on Assad: 'That's a butcher'
Updated 0345 GMT (1145 HKT) April 13, 2017
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/donald-trump-bashar-al-assad-butcher/
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.13, 16:17:59
.Kim Jong-Un ain't bluffin', that carrier strike group is toast if it goes hot kinetic. Poor nD chess players are destroying the world before our eyes.. children can do such wicked things.. please stop aggressively killing them, Donald
Five Eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries, all Anglophone and ruled by a common law legal system, are bound by the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[1][2][3]
The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to the post-World War II period, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world. During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor billions of private communications worldwide.[4][5]
In the late 1990s, the existence of ECHELON was disclosed to the public, triggering a major debate in the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the United States Congress. As part of efforts in the ongoing War on Terror since 2001, the FVEY further expanded their surveillance capabilities, with much emphasis placed on monitoring the World Wide Web. The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the known laws of its own countries".[6] Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.[7][8][9][10]
Despite the impact of Snowden's disclosures, some experts in the intelligence community believe that no amount of global concern or outrage will affect the Five Eyes relationship, which to this day remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history.[11]
War on Terror (2001–present)
See also: Global surveillance
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the surveillance capabilities of the Five Eyes were greatly increased as part of the global War on Terror.
During the run-up to the Iraq War, the communications of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix were monitored by the Five Eyes.[42][43] The office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was bugged by British agents.[44][45] An NSA memo detailed plans of the Five Eyes to boost eavesdropping on UN delegations of six countries as part of a "dirty tricks" campaign to apply pressure on these six countries to vote in favour of using force against Iraq.[44][46][47]
SIS and the CIA forged a surveillance partnership with Libya's ruler Muammar Gaddafi to spy on Libyan dissidents in the West, in exchange for permission to use Libya as a base for extraordinary renditions.[48][49][50][51][52]
As of 2010, the Five Eyes also have access to SIPRNet, the U.S. government's classified version of the Internet.[53]
In 2013, documents leaked by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the existence of numerous surveillance programs jointly operated by the Five Eyes. The following list includes several notable examples reported in the media:
PRISM – Operated by the NSA together with the GCHQ and the ASD[54][55]
XKeyscore – Operated by the NSA with contributions from the ASD and the GCSB[56]
Tempora – Operated by the GCHQ with contributions from the NSA[57][58]
MUSCULAR – Operated by the GCHQ and the NSA[59]
STATEROOM – Operated by the ASD, CIA, CSE, GCHQ, and NSA[60]
In March 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Australia to stop spying on East Timor. This marks the first time that such restrictions are imposed on a member of the FVEY.[61]
Canada and Israel — best friends forever?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/canada-and-israel-best-friends-forever/
Canadian officials like to explain their government's diehard friendship to Israel by pointing out that the two countries share many common values.
"I would characterize the position as one of moral clarity," Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver told The Times of Israel earlier this month in Jerusalem. "If there's a conflict between a democratic ally and terrorist groups that want to destroy it, we don't see grays. The moral relativism that is sometimes a big factor is not what guides us. We think it's important for countries to walk the walk as well as talking the talk."
But other Western countries also don't love terrorism but still criticize Israel, for example over settlement expansions. "We have said that unilateral action on either side isn't particularly helpful," the minister responded, emphasizing that Canada doesn't support the settlements. "I don't know what else to say in this regard. There's willingness on our part to demonstrate moral leadership."
International Israel support initiative launched
https://www.thejc.com/news/world/international-israel-support-initiative-launched-1.16988
An unprecedented show of support for Israel has come from a group of almost entirely non-Jewish European and American politicians, statesmen and women and theologians.
Led by former Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, they have formed the Friends of Israel Initiative, to oppose the rising tide of criticism and delegitimisation that has questioned Israel's right to exist and act in self-defence.
The FII launched its British branch in the House of Commons on Monday, hosted by the new Tory MP Robert Halfon. A standing-room only audience of 300 people was given a grim warning by Mr Aznar: "If Israel goes down, we all go down."
He said halting the process of eroding Israel's rights was "not only important, but vital: to Israel, of course, but to all Western countries".
Fellow founders include former American permanent UN representative John Bolton, former Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo, former Italian Senate president Marcello Pera, fellow Italian politician and journalist Fiamma Nirenstein and British historian Andrew Roberts.
'If Israel goes down, we all go down' — Aznar
North Korea: The Grand Deception Revealed
http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/13/north-korea-the-grand-deception-revealed/
13.03.2017 Author: Christopher Black
In 2003 I had, along with some American lawyers, members of the National Lawyers Guild, the good fortune to be able to travel to North Korea, that is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, in order to experience first hand that nation, its socialist system and its people. The joint report issued on our return was titled "The Grand Deception Revealed." That title was chosen because we discovered that the negative western propaganda myth about North Korea is a grand deception designed to blind the peoples of the world to the accomplishments of the Korean people in the north who have successfully created their own circumstances, their own independent socio-economic system, based on socialist principles, free of the domination of the western powers.
At one of our first dinners in Pyongyang our host, Ri Myong Kuk, a lawyer, stated, on behalf of the government, and in passionate terms, that the DPRK's Nuclear Deterrent Force was necessary in light of US world actions and threats against the DPRK. He stated, and this was repeated to me in a high level meeting with DPRK government officials later on in the trip, that if the Americans would sign a peace treaty and non-aggression agreement with the DPRK, it would de-legitimize the American occupation and lead to reunification. Consequently there would be no need for nuclear weapons. He stated sincerely that, "It's important that lawyers are gathering to talk about this as lawyers regulate the social interactions within society and within the world," and added just as sincerely that, "the path to peace requires an open heart."
It appeared to us then and it is apparent now, in absolute contradiction to the claims of the western media, that the people of the DPRK want peace more than anything else so they can get on with their lives and endeavours without the constant threat of nuclear annihilation by the United States. But annihilation is what they in fact face and whose fault is that? Not theirs.
We were shown American documents captured in the Korean War that are compelling evidence that the US planned an attack on North Korea in 1950. The attack was carried out using American and south Korean forces with the assistance of Japanese Army officers who had invaded and occupied Korea decades before. The North Korean defence and counter-attack was then claimed by the US to be "aggression" which the United States manipulated in the media to get the UN to support a "police operation," the euphemism they chose to use to carry on what was in fact their war of aggression against North Korea. Three years of war and 3.5 million Korean deaths followed and the US has threatened them with imminent war and annihilation ever since.
The UN vote in favour of a "police action" in 1950 was itself illegal since Russia was absent for the vote in the Security Council. The quorum required for the Security Council under its Rules of Procedure, is all member delegations so that all members must be present or a session cannot proceed. The Americans used a Russian boycott of the Security Council as their opportunity. The Russian boycott took place in defence of the position of the Peoples Republic of China that it should have the China seat at the Security Council table, not the defeated Kuomintang government. The Americans refused to do the right thing, so the Russians refused to sit at the table until the legitimate Chinese government could.
The Americans used this opportunity to carry out a type of coup in the UN, to take over its machinery for its own interests by arranging with the British, French and Kuomintang Chinese to back their actions in Korea by a vote in the absence of the Russians. The allies did as the Americans asked and voted for war with Korea, but the vote was invalid, and the "police action" was not a peace-keeping operation nor justified under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, since article 51states that all nations have the right of self defence against an armed attack, which is what the North Koreans faced and had reacted to. But the Americans have never cared much about legalities and they did not then for the American plan in its entirety was to conquer and occupy North Korea as a step towards the invasions of Manchuria and Siberia and the law was not going to get in their way.
Many in the west have little idea of the destruction carried out in Korea by the Americans and their allies; that Pyongyang was carpet bombed into oblivion, that civilians fleeing the carnage were strafed by American planes. The New York Times stated at the time that 17,000,000 pounds of napalm were used in Korea just in the first 20 months of the war. More bomb tonnage was dropped on Korea by the US than the US dropped on Japan in World War Two. American forces hunted down and murdered not only communist party members but also their families. At Sinchon we saw the evidence that American soldiers forced 500 civilians into a ditch, doused them with gasoline and set them on fire. We stood in an air raid shelter with walls still blackened with the burnt flesh of 900 civilians, including women and children who had sought safety during an American attack. American soldiers were seen pouring gasoline down the air vents of the shelter and burning them all to death. This is the reality of the American occupation for Koreans. This is the reality they fear still and never want to repeat. Can we blame them?
But even with this history, Koreans are willing to open their hearts to former enemies. Major Kim Myong Hwan, who was then the main negotiator at Panmunjom on the DMZ line, told us that his dream was to be a writer, a poet, a journalist, but said in sombre tones, that he and his five brothers "walk the line" at the DMZ as soldiers because of what happened to his family. He said their struggle was not against the American people but their government. He was lonely for his family lost at Sinchon; his grandfather strung up a pole and tortured, his grandmother bayoneted in the stomach and left to die. He said, "You see, we have to do it. We have to defend ourselves. We do not oppose the American people. We oppose the American policy of hostility and its efforts to exercise control over the whole world and inflict calamity on people."
It was the opinion of the delegation that by maintaining instability in Asia, the U.S. can maintain a massive military presence and keep China at bay in its relations with South and North Korea and Japan and use it as a lever against China and Russia.
With the continuing pressure within Japan to remove the U.S. bases in Okinawa, the Korean military operations and war exercises remain a central point of American efforts to dominate the region
The question is not whether the DPRK has nuclear weapons which it is legally entitled to have, but whether the United States, which has nuclear arms capability on the Korean peninsula, and which is now installing its THADD missile defence system there, a system that threatens the security of Russia and China, is willing to work with the North toward a peace treaty. We found North Koreans avid for peace and not attached to having nuclear weapons if peace can be established. But the American position remains as arrogant, aggressive threatening and dangerous as ever. In this age of American "regime change," "pre-emptive war" doctrines, and American efforts to develop low yield nuclear weapons as well as their abandonment and manipulation of international law it was not surprising that the DPRK plays the nuclear card. What choice do the Koreans have since United States threatens nuclear war on a daily basis and the two countries that logic dictates would support them against American aggression, Russia and China, join with the Americans in condemning the Koreans for arming themselves with the only weapon that can act as a deterrent against attack.
The reason for this is unclear since the Russians and Chinese have nuclear weapons and built them to act as a deterrent to an attack by the United States just as North Korea is doing. Some of their government statements indicate that they fear not being in control of the situation and that if North Korea's acts of defence draw a US attack, they will be attacked as well. One can understand that anxiety. But it begs the question why they cannot support North Korea's right to self-defence and put more pressure on the Americans to conclude a peace treaty, a non-aggression agreement, and to withdraw their nuclear and armed forces from the Korean peninsula. But the great tragedy is the clear inability of the American people to think for themselves, in the face of continual deceptions, and to demand that their leaders exhaust all avenues of dialogue and peacemaking before even contemplating aggression on the Korean Peninsula.
The fundamental foundation of North Korean policy is to achieve a non-aggression pact and peace treaty with the United States. The North Koreans repeatedly stated that they did not want to attack anyone, hurt anyone or be at war with anyone. But they have seen what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and countless other countries and they have no intention of having that happen to them. It is clear that any U.S. invasion would be defended vigorously and that the nation can endure a long, arduous struggle.
At another location on the DMZ we met a Colonel who set up field glasses through which we could see across the divide between north and south. We could see a concrete wall built on the South side, a violation of truce agreements. The major described such a permanent structure as a "disgrace for the Korean people who are a homogenous people." A loud speaker continuously blared propaganda and music from speakers on the south side. The irritating noise goes on for 22 hours a day, he said. Suddenly, in another surreal moment, the bunker's loudspeakers began belting out the William Tell overture, better known in America as the theme from the Lone Ranger. The Colonel urged us to help people see what is really going on in the DPRK, instead of basing their opinions on misinformation. He told us "We know that like us the peace loving people in America have children, parents and families." We told him of our mission to return with a message for peace and that we hope to return someday and "walk with him together freely in these beautiful hills." He paused and said, "I too believe it is possible."
So while the people of the DPRK hope for peace and security the United States and its puppet regime in the south of the Korean peninsular wage war, carrying out for the next three months the largest war games ever conducted there, involving air craft carriers, nuclear armed submarines and stealth bombers, aircraft and large numbers of troops, artillery and armour.
The propaganda campaign has been taken to dangerous levels in the media with accusations that the North murdered a relative of the leader of the DPRK in Malaysia, though there is no proof of this, and no motive for the north to do it. The only ones to benefit from the murder are the Americans and their controlled media using it to whip up hysteria about the North and now allegations of the North having chemical weapons of mass destruction. Yes, friends, they think we were all born yesterday and that we haven't learned a thing or two about the character of the American leadership and the nature of their propaganda. Is it any wonder that the North Koreans fear that any day these on going war "games" can be switched to the real thing, that these "games" are just a cover for an attack, and in the meantime to create an atmosphere of terror for the Korean people?
There is a lot than can be said about the real nature of the DPRK, its people and socio-economic system, its culture. But there is no space for that here. I hope people can visit as our group did and experience for them selves what we experienced. Instead I will close with the concluding paragraph of the joint report made on our return from the DPRK and hope that people take it in, think about it, and act to bring on its call for peace.
"The people of the world have to be told the complete story about Korea and our government's role in fostering imbalance and conflict. Action must be taken by lawyers, community groups, peace activists, and all citizens of the planet, to prevent the U.S. government from successfully generating a propaganda campaign to support aggression in North Korea. The American people have been subjected to a grand deception. There is too much at stake to get fooled again. This peace delegation learned in the DPRK a significant piece of truth essential in international relations. It's how broader communication, negotiation followed by maintained promises, and a deep commitment to peace can save the world – literally – from a dark nuclear future. Experience and truth free us from the threat of war. Our foray into North Korea, this report and our on-going project are small efforts to make and set us free."
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Made in Britain, Tested on Yemenis: The Reality of Working for the "Bomb-makers"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/weapons-of-mass-destruction-wmd-made-in-britain-tested-on-yemenis-the-reality-of-working-for-the-bomb-makers/5578706
Jack sits down with his pint in the Fielden Arms in Mellor, and contemplates his latest shift making Typhoon warplanes for the Saudi air force.
Tucking into steak and chips, the 25-year-old talks of moving in with his girlfriend, his good pay at the nearby BAE factory – £40,000, almost twice the local average – and the security it brings.
And then he thinks of the people those planes will be sent to kill.
"You see the children in Yemen starving on the 10 o'clock news," he tells Middle East Eye. "But you try to not pay attention and just get on with it."
His friend, Harry, interjects: "It's really weird and there is no way to describe it, because you are in essence building a weapon of mass destruction."
So why don't they quit? "Good pay and job security," Jack responds, taking another sip of his beer. "If the military contracts go, 7,000 people go with them."
Jack is like thousands of others who works at the BAE Systems factory in nearby Samlesbury, outside Preston in Lancashire, making parts that will be assembled in nearby Warton to create Typhoons, the most advanced jet fighters operated by the Saudis over Yemen.
There, the Saudis have contributed to a civil war with the most terrible violence: bombing civilians, blowing up hospitals, and imposing a siege that has condemned millions of Yemenis to slow starvation and poverty.
And Britain, in its wisdom, has sold the Saudis the hardware to do it. Since the war began in 2015, the UK has approved arms sales to Riyadh worth more than $3.3bn. Many of those weapons have come from BAE factories like Samlesbury, built by workers like Jack.
This prompted anti-arms trade campaigners to launch a judicial review in February to stop arms exports to the Saudi government until it stops committing human rights atrocities in Yemen. The decision on that review is due in the coming months.
All the while, BAE continues to expand its operations in the north-west of England, and the contracts keep coming. It is building a solar farm the size of nine football fields, creating hundreds of new apprenticeships, and is already Preston's largest employer with 9,000 staff. Under the £40bn al-Salam deal, signed in 2007 to a 25,000-strong celebration in Preston, BAE has delivered 68 of 72 Typhoons ordered, and another 48 may soon be agreed.
And in the surrounding villages, where the quiet life is punctuated by the sonic booms of jets and the rumble of lorries on narrow roads, the business is welcomed, even venerated. BAE is woven into the fabric of a local life, where generations have manned BAE's machine rooms.
There is pride in what they do. "Lancashire has a strong history of building fighter jets, and we are proud to be building them," said Mike Harris, who has worked as an electric fitter in Samlesbury. "We produce the best in the world."
"We can't build washing machines because we have a history of building fighter planes," Harris said. "That's what we do and want to carry on doing."
And a block on that expertise would be devastating.
Audrey Charnley sits in the old church opposite BAE's Warton factory, the main assembly site for Typhoon jets, and speaks of the "problem" for locals if it was to close or lose business due to the efforts of anti-war activists.
Many villagers like Audrey have family who have worked for there. She doesn't like the "idea" of Warton building fighter jets – "but somebody would be building the jets if Warton wasn't".
As to the war in Yemen, "we want peace, just like the peace we feel in this church", she says.
The same thought is echoed across the way at the local village hall, which Lynn Shuttleworth helps run. "If they didn't do it here they would do it somewhere else," she says, before commenting on a more pressing local issue: "Does cause a lot of traffic I must admit."
And at the Clifton Arms, next to Warton's factory, Taylor James pulls pints for the workers emerging from their shifts. He knows that victory for the judicial review will hit him and his family's pub hard.
He's never really heard of Yemen, or its current catastrophe, and neither – he says – have many people in the area.
"Because it's not personally affecting me, I don't really get involved or have an interest in what the planes are used for."
Politics by other means
Politics may not be the concern of some locals, but it plays a central part in the world in which they live. What is made by BAE has local, national and international repercussions, and has turned parties and traditional allies against each other.
Many in Samlesbury and Warton are members of Unite, the union that helped propel anti-war activist Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party. Twice.
He is opposed to Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia and its bombing campaign in Yemen. Union representatives say opposition to Saudi exports is "misguided".
Simon Brown, who represents thousands at Warton, rationalises that position. He says maintaining trade with Saudi Arabia ensures Britain has a say in what it does.
"Trading gives us influence to talk about the things we're not happy about in these regimes," he said at a discussion at the Unite HQ in Salford. "If we left them on their own, we won't have influence."
Another senior Unite official, who spoke to MEE anonymously, skips the platitudes for a more succinct answer: it's about the jobs.
"Of course our members don't agree with what Saudi are doing in Yemen, it's barbaric," says the official.
However, he absolves his members of responsibility: "The government's created a situation where people can do nothing but work for BAE."
Andy Clough, a Unite union spokesman at Warton and worker since 1979, agrees: "I've seen whole families work there," he says. "It's still like that now. There are fathers and sons. That's the sort of culture that we have."
Nigel Evans, the local Conservative MP for the Samlesbury factory, has been a staunch defender of BAE systems in parliament.
His last appearance in parliament described the presence of BAE systems in Lancashire as "important" and providing "thousands of jobs for the Ribble Valley and Lancashire" area.
Their loss, he said, would be devastating.
But Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade disagrees. He says that the arms trade is, in fact, a very small part of the British economy.
"Arms companies enjoy a huge influence in the corridors of power, which has bought them a lot of power," he says.
"We want to see an industrial strategy that puts the skills of industry workers to good use and focuses on positive, substantive jobs and not those dependent on war and conflict."
According to the Oxford Economics group, BAE in 2013 exported £3.8bn worth of weapons, including missiles, naval systems and jets – 69 per cent of which was sent to countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
But that £3.8bn represents just one percent of all the British economy's exports.
Smith's group has another option – last year it launched its "arms to renewables" campaign, which argues skilled engineers could be moved into industries that can build a new future, rather than destroy it.
Skilled engineers will always be in demand, it says.
Back in Samlesbury, such high-minded thinking is just that.
When the shifts change, workers file in and out of the steel gates of the 700-acre site, guarded by a life-sized model of a Lightning, a famous cold war fighters built by English Electric, a forerunner of BAE.
A real one used to stand here – in active service, it was flown by the Saudis in the 1970s.
Workers who take a moment to speak to MEE have the unmistakable pride of decades of excellence, while conceding their concerns about where their jets end up.
But that's just the way it is.
And the BAE of the future will continue to build expert killing machines: The company has recently signed a multi-million contract to develop a new generation of armed drones, another weapon common in the skies of Yemen, and beyond.
Jack, in the pub in Mellor, is aware this is where his future may lie: building robots for foreign states to kill foreign people in foreign lands.
"There's nothing we can do," he says. "We're caved in, making it impossible to work anywhere else, because we've all got specific skills."
US Military Spending and National Debt
http://warisacrime.org/node/40917
By Hassan A. El-Najjar
US Military Spending and National Debt By Hassan A El-Najjar Dalton State College Abstract When President George W Bush Jr. took Office at the beginning of 2001, the US national debt was about $5.6 trillion. By the end of 2006, the Bush administration added about $3 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion. In this paper, I argue that the US national debt is closely related to military spending and war. Military spending and national debt will be compared particularly since the Reagan administration, when both of them started to increase dramatically. I argue that both military spending and the national debt are beneficiary to the power elite who rule the United States, which enhances their material gains and tightens their grip on power. The paper draws on the power elite theory of C. Write Mills, who argued of an alliance between top business, military, and political leaders to the detriment of society. Militarism and War When President George W Bush Jr. took Office at the beginning of 2001, the US national debt was about $5.6 trillion. By the end of 2006, the Bush administration added about $3 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion.
In this paper, I argue that the US national debt is closely related to military spending and war. Military spending and national debt will be compared particularly since the Reagan administration, when both of them started to increase dramatically. I argue that both military spending and the national debt are beneficiary to the power elite who rule the United States, which enhances their material gains and tightens their grip on power. The paper draws on the power elite theory of C. Write Mills, who argued of an alliance between top business, military, and political leaders to the detriment of society. The US military spending started to increase dramatically during the Reagan terms of office in the 1980s. The justification was winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union through arms race. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US power elite started looking for another front to justify the continuation of the highest military spending in the world. They chose the Middle East as the new frontier because of two factors which would help recruit supporters for the continuation of military spending, namely oil interests and defending Israel.
Iraqi was chosen as a target by Israeli leaders as early as 1988 because it was portrayed as a threat to the Israeli hegemony in oil-rich region. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was the golden opportunity the US power elite were waiting for to justify the US invasion of the Middle East, and consequently the continuation of the highest military spending in history. The US forces did not withdraw from Kuwait and the Arabian Peninsula after the eviction of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Instead, they have stayed there ever since.
A sanctions regime was imposed on Iraq to soften it for the invasion, which was launched in 2003. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have cost the US $359 billion, so far, in addition to the annual military spending (Table 1). The 1991 Gulf War The 1991 Gulf War was mainly a Western campaign to destroy the military machine that Iraq had bought and built during the preceding fifteen years. The military and industrial equipment that Iraq used in developing its conventional and strategic weapon systems was legally purchased from more than 445 Western companies. i
Indeed, during the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988, Western governments promoted the carnage by encouraging business arms deals. When the war was over in 1988, however, the Western policy makers were a bit uncomfortable with all these weapon systems in Iraq. They were perceived as a potential threat to the security of Israel and to the Western interests in the Middle East. The Gulf War has represented a striking example of the historical hegemonic pattern of action that the "core" Western societies have been conducting towards Third World "peripheral" societies.
Moreover, the world military industry has been exceedingly aggressive in promoting its products in the region. Western governments have become the official protectors of the region's autocratic and dictatorial regimes. These are easily persuaded to buy weapons to protect themselves from their internal and external opponents. Stockpiling of weapons and expanding military budgets have led to more influence for the military in society (militarism) in the West and the Middle East alike.
A major negative consequence of militarism is that the process of militarization deprives underdeveloped societies of the financial resources that are badly needed for development. Even in such developed societies as the United States, the federal government sinks in debt while the military-industrial complex is allotted huge amounts of money as a result of military spending.
In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower warned that the combination of a large permanent military establishment and an immense military-industrial complex may threaten democratic government and the pursuit of world peace. The military-industrial complex may become an independent power in setting priorities in domestic and foreign relations. Funds may be diverted from social programs in order to support the arms build up. With billions of dollars in profits and thousands of jobs at stake, the complex would have a vested interest in world conflict rather than peace.
Eisenhower's fears became reality. ii Even in 1992, when the Cold War was over, about 44 percent of the federal tax revenues were spent on the military establishment. This amounted to about $419 billion out of the $944 billion of taxes collected by the federal government. iii Although direct military spending has started to decrease, it is still claiming the highest percentage of the federal budget. In 1996, out of a total U.S. budget of 1.5 trillion dollars, over 17 percent, or 261 billion dollars, was earmarked for military spending. In comparison, roughly 1.5 percent is allotted for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and another 14 percent is paid as interest on the national debt. iv
The previously bought weapons are destroyed or become outdated when new weapons are developed and manufactured. This opens the door for buying new generations of weapon systems. The purchasing policies of the Pentagon inspired Chuck Spinney to write a Department of Defense brochure titled, "Welcome to the Pentagon." Chuck revealed that the amount of mismatch between President Reagan's spending plans and funding from Congress was about $500 billion. The proposed Reagan defense buildup was going to cost about $500 billion more than Congress and the public had been told. One explanation of these huge extra costs was that: "Weapon developers, when given a choice, always go for the complex, elaborate solution at the expense of the simple one. Complexity leads to higher costs--purchase costs, operations costs, and maintenance costs." v
Higher military costs ultimately lead to more national debt. Before President Reagan had taken office, the U.S. national debt was about $900 billion. During his two terms, he increased it to more than $3 trillion. That is why Reagan is adorned by the military-industrial complex. vi
Adopting the same borrow-and-spend policies, President Bush Sr. added about $1.2 trillion more to the debt. vii The U.S. direct military spending during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations (1981-1993) amounted to about $3.95 trillion, which demonstrates the close relationship between military spending and the national debt. The U.S. military spending to win the Cold War (1945-1991) cost the American people about $12.8 trillion (Table 1). It represented about 46.2 percent of the personal income of the American taxpayers during these years. viii
While the Cold War and its national debt offspring have been a bonanza for the wealthy and the powerful in the military-industrial complex, they represented a huge burden on taxpayers and meant less spending on the poor. Between 1977 and 1992, the top 1 percent of Americans received 91 percent more income. The top one-fifth of the population increased their income by 28 percent. However, the bottom 40 percent of Americans suffered a decrease of their income. There was actually a 17 percent decrease in the income of the poorest 20 percent of American families. The next poorest fifth of families experienced a 7 percent decrease in their income, during the same period. ix President Eisenhower summarized it all, on April 18, 1953, when he said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities." x
During the ten-year period extending between 1984 and 1993, the U.S. spent about $3.1 trillion on the military. At the same time, the U.S. other two major Western allies spent about $825 billion for the same purpose (the U.K. about $408 billion and France about $417 billion). Thus, the U.S. spent about 3.7 times more on the military than did Britain and France together. xi
US Military Spending and the National Debt
The state of war has been a golden opportunity for the US military industry and its beneficiaries to argue for a new Cold War, in which Muslim fundamentalists would replace defeated communists as the new enemies.
The Gulf War and Democracy in America
The state of war has reinforced the interests of the US ruling. In fact, the Gulf War boosted American militarism, which was expected to decline in importance at the end of the Cold War. Thus, opting for war reflected the continuation of the influence of the military establishment and the military industry on political decision-making. The military budget continued to claim huge amounts of money even without a threat of any enemies, denying the poor the services and the assistance they need and deserve. It is true that the direct annual military spending in the U.S. began to decline after the Cold and Gulf Wars. However, it remains the highest in the world (Table 1). It was still about $276 billion, in 1997, $268.3 billion in 1998, $270.6 billion in 1999, $280.8 billion in 2000, and expected to be $305.4 billion in 2001. Other military outlays made total military spending more than half a trillion dollars a year. Outlays for the military and defense functions of the Department of Energy reached about $265.5 billion in 1999, $274.1 billion in 2000, and expected to be $277.5 billion in 2001.
Finally, the budget authority for 2001-2005 was expected to exceed $1.6 trillion. xii Actually, the United States still spends more money on its military establishment than do all the other seven major industrial societies combined. In 1997, the total military spending in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the U.K., together, amounted to about $223 billion. Thus, the United States spent 1.2 times more on its military than did all these seven countries combined. This is despite the fact that these seven countries outnumber the United States by more than 2:1. While there were about 560 million people living in these countries in 1997, the U.S. population was about 268 millions in the same year. xiii The huge military spending in the U.S. becomes clearer when it is compared with military spending in China. In 1997, the Chinese population reached about 1.23 billion people with military spending of about $75 billion. Thus, military spending that year cost every Chinese about $61. In contrast, the U.S. population reached about 268 million with military spending of about $276 billion.
This means that military spending in the U.S. cost every American about $1,030, that is about seventeen times more than that of China although the U.S. population is about 4.5 times less than that of China (Table 2). xiv
Thus, there is no doubt that there was military over-spending in the United States, even a decade after the end of the Cold War. What was surprising was that it was not protested or criticized by the general public or by Congress despite the huge national debt problem that is mostly attributed to the excessive military spending.
In fact, the five major wars that the United States fought throughout the 20th century, in addition to the Reagan's escalation of the Cold War, were reflected in the five major hikes in the national debt.
In 1900, there was a relatively small national debt of about $2.13 billion that slowly grew until it reached about $5.71 billion in 1917. Then, it jumped to about $14.59 billion in 1918, in response to World War I military spending. In 1942, the year America entered World War II, the national debt was $72.42 billion. But it jumped to about $136.69 billion in the following year and continued to increase until it reached about $269.42 billion, in 1946. While the third war, in Korea, did not lead to a large increase in the national debt, it kept it at a higher level than during World War II. In 1954, a year following the end of the Korean War, the national debt reached about $278.74 billion despite the post-war economic prosperity. The fourth war, in Vietnam, contributed to doubling the national debt. In 1975, the year the war ended, the national debt reached about $576.64 billion (Table3). Despite these steady increases, the national debt was very little in comparison to the unbelievable increases during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations. By the end of the Carter administration, in 1980, the national debt reached $930.21 billion. However, by the end of the Reagan administration, in 1988, the national debt increased to about $2.602 trillion.
The trend continued during the Bush administration so that in 1992, the year Bush left the White House, the national debt reached about $4.064 trillion. It is obvious that the 1980-1992 drastic Cold War arms race, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, was the prime factor that led to the outrageous increase of the national debt from less than $1 trillion at the end of the Carter's administration to more than $4 trillion at the end of the Bush administration. The continuous high military spending during the Clinton administration caused the national debt to reach about $5.724 trillion by March 2000 (Table 3).
Actually, the Clinton administration increased the national debt to even higher levels than those reached during the previous Republican administrations. While the debt was increased by 35.7 percent during the Reagan administration and by 64 percent during the Bush administration, it was increased by 70.9 percent during the Clinton administration.
In addition to that, President Clinton competed with his Republican predecessors in surrounding himself with war hawks who favor more military spending, and consequently more national debt. He selected Al Gore as his Vice President, after his pro-war vote in the Senate. He even appointed a Republican Senator, William Cohen, as a Secretary of Defense as if there are no Democrats who can perform the functions of that position. Crippled by his successive scandals during his two terms in office, he conceded foreign policy to the pro-Israel "experts" in his administration. The highest ranking among these were Dennis Ross and Madeleine Albright in the State Department, Sandy Berger in the NSC, and William Cohen in the Department of Defense.
Moreover, when Al Gore had his chance in 2000, he selected Joseph Lieberman, as his Vice President. Like Gore, Lieberman was one of the few Democrats in the Senate who broke the Party line and supported the Bush administration by voting for war.
With the advent of George W Bush Jr., military spending has reached unprecedented stage in history. The seven military budgets of his administration (2001-2007) have totaled more than $3 trillion ($3.007 trillion), with no reason to believe that it'll be declining (Table 1). The US national debt for the period extending from the end of 2000 to the end of 2006 (2007 not included yet) also totaled more than $3 trillion ($3.006), which is clearly pointing to the relationship between military spending and the national debt.
Other sectors of the federal budget have nothing to do with the US national debt simply because they are so small compared to the military spending. In 2003, for example, US military spending was $425 billion, while the other seventeen sectors of the federal budget together totaled $435 billion. This means that US military spending represented 49.4% of these eighteen federal budget sectors (www.cdi.org).
Thus, as predicted by President Eisenhower, the expanding influence of the military establishment has dominated political decision-making and ultimately compromised democracy. This has been facilitated by the powers given to the president.
During the Gulf crisis, President Bush Sr. demonstrated his ability to make the war decision without first consulting with Congress. All what the Congress did was giving him support, but he could go to war without Congressional approval anyway. This means that unnecessary wars, like the 1991 Gulf War, can be prevented in the future only if the War Power Act is revised.
This should reduce the powers of the president so that Congressional approval becomes necessary before a president can send troops into hostilities. In absence of such revision, the status quo will continue and the U.S. will be involved in more and more wars. The evidence has demonstrated that once troops are sent to war, Congress had no choice but to support them.
As far as democracy is concerned, Congress should have the ultimate authority in launching wars. xv That serious matter should not be left to presidents alone because they usually delegate decision-making to non-elected bureaucrats in their administrations. These are mainly war hawks, who look for excuses to keep the military spending as high as possible. Therefore, they counsel war instead of peaceful solutions for conflicts. This was what they did in the 1990s even after the Cold War had been over. They have been relentlessly trying to install new enemies for America, selected Muslim countries and groups, this time. In addition, militarism has a direct influence on the democratic process in the United States, as President Eisenhower predicted. The two political parties that alternate power in America follow the same foreign policy. More specifically, American administrations, whether Republican or Democratic, do not have an independent foreign policy for the Middle East. Rather, they blindly follow the Israeli aggressive and expansionist policies in the region.
US should use ISIS as a proxy - New plan for Syria published in New York Times
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384780-friedman-nyt-isis-support-us/
Why is Trump fighting ISIS in Syria
Thomas Friedman appears to become aroused by the prospect of war. It'd be more appropriate for The New York Times to let him manage this affliction from the safety of his private space than on the pages of the newspaper.
Especially when the Pulitzer Prize winner is calling for America to effectively ally itself with ISIS in Syria.
The definition of a "chicken hawk" is relatively straightforward. It's a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict."
For years, many Europeans have been equally fascinated and appalled by how the American media is jam-packed with these jokers. Because in a country where the military is so omnipresent, you'd imagine it'd be easy to find people from an armed forces background to comment on conflict? After all, they are the experts. And I'd certainly take them more seriously than some dweeb, who'd probably be afraid of his own shadow, fighting from the safety of a Macbook Pro.
That said, every soldier I have ever met has always hated war. Now, this isn't to say there aren't military men who love and embrace combat. It's just I've never encountered them. Maybe it's because they are the ones who don't last too long on the battlefield? Who knows? However, on the Russia beat, I'm subjected to the ramblings of chicken hawks on a daily basis, and I think I'm reasonably qualified to rank them when it comes to turpitude, immorality, depravity and downright baseness. Let's call it the 'iniquity index,' for want of a better term.
Some are clearly doing it for money because the war business rewards its supporters and there are valuable 'fellowships' to be had. Others for the notoriety, as it seems the easiest way to fast track your frown onto CNN or Fox these days. And here's the sinister, ominous and black-hearted part; a significant amount of chicken hawks do it because they seem to get off on war. Watching it, not participating in it, of course. Like Apocalypse Now's Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore without the inconvenience of actual napalm in the morning.
The Milksop's Lair
One of the worst offenders is Friedman. A poltroon I first suffered during the 1999 NATO assault on Yugoslavia.
Back then, he wrote "Like it or not; we are at war with the Serbian nation... every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too."
Tough words, verging on the sadistic, from a man I imagined must be as hard as nails. Until I saw him on CNN where he seemed more double chin than chiseled jaw.
Living in Europe, I didn't have to endure the chump for another four years. When he reappeared as a leading cheerleader for George Bush and Tony Blair's illegal invasion of Iraq. He described the transgression as "one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad." And that was when he wasn't mocking France for having the temerity to oppose the bloodlust. "Vote France Off The Island," was his rejoinder.
Now he's back beating the drums of war. This time in Syria. His proposal is so frightfully fetid and poisonously putrid that it's best described as inscribed anthrax. Because Friedman has taken to the pages of The New York Times to propose how America should essentially manipulate ISIS to do its bidding by proxy. Yes, the same ISIS which is trying to return the Middle East to a time around 1389, in a strange symbiosis with his prescription for the Serbs. "In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahideen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan," he writes.
Sure to rebound
Nevermind how that policy eventually led to the 9/11 attacks on New York, this morose and wicked diatribe also glosses over a sect which has committed genocide and keeps Yazidi women as sex slaves. Not to mention other policies, such as flinging alleged homosexuals off rooftops, destroying world heritage sites and mutilating mothers for breastfeeding in public. And, of course, the brutal beheadings of US citizens like James Foley and Peter Kassig.
Friedman's suggestion is unhinged and frankly psychotic. But the real transgressor here is The New York Times, which is adding its imprimatur to the ravings of a clearly unwell writer. And further diluting its once-respectable brand in the process. Although the falsehoods it published in support of the Iraq War have already probably done irreversible damage in that regard.
The moral compass is wildly askew here. For instance, "we could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us," Friedman claims. "Make them fight a two-front war — the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them."
Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... https://t.co/ugm8LBxCrV
— Seth Frantzman (@sfrantzman) April 12, 2017
As Seth Frantzman of the Jerusalem Post has correctly pointed out, this is "tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding" back in the 1940's. And it's unlikely that sort of pitch would impress the Times' editors. For reasons one hopes are obvious.
P.S. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, it's no wonder.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.15, 11:08:27
US should use ISIS as a proxy - New plan for Syria published in New York Times
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384780-friedman-nyt-isis-support-us/
Why is Trump fighting ISIS in Syria
Thomas Friedman appears to become aroused by the prospect of war. It'd be more appropriate for The New York Times to let him manage this affliction from the safety of his private space than on the pages of the newspaper.
Especially when the Pulitzer Prize winner is calling for America to effectively ally itself with ISIS in Syria.
snip
P.S. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, it's no wonder.
"Friedman is Jewish He attended Hebrew school five days a week until his Bar Mitzva then St Louis Park High School, where he wrote articles for his school's newspaper. He became enamored with IsraeI after a visit there in December 1968, and he spent all three of his high school summers living on KibbutzHaHortrim, near Haifa He has characterized his high school years as "one big celebration of Israel's victory in the Six Day War."
Nothing new here with Israel's fascination with Nuclear destruction,,, 9-11 mini nukes, Chernobyl, Fukushima
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2012/04/was-chernobyl-1986-nuclear-plant.html (http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2012/04/was-chernobyl-1986-nuclear-plant.html)
https://www.henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html (https://www.henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html)
Ron
The establishment mouthpiece:
https://guardian.ng/news/russia-decries-new-cold-war-as-east-west-tensions-cloud-talks/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/russia-fake-news-trump-press-conference-michael-flynn
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/donald-trump-leaks-michael-flynn-russia-call
https://guardian.ng/news/minister-decries-abandoned-water-irrigation-projects/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/09/russia-responds-uk-boris-johnson-cancelled-moscow-visit-syria-tensions
How long do you think I have before they take me out ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.15, 18:10:55
The establishment mouthpiece:
https://guardian.ng/news/russia-decries-new-cold-war-as-east-west-tensions-cloud-talks/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/russia-fake-news-trump-press-conference-michael-flynn
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/donald-trump-leaks-michael-flynn-russia-call
https://guardian.ng/news/minister-decries-abandoned-water-irrigation-projects/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/09/russia-responds-uk-boris-johnson-cancelled-moscow-visit-syria-tensions
How long do you think I have before they take me out ?
I don't know, there are so many of us now I think you have to queue up.
R
A very well researched and presented article by Gregor Flock
Fake News, Propaganda and "False Flags": Syria's Gas Attacks and Washington's Fake Intelligence Narrative
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news-propaganda-and-false-flags-syrias-gas-attacks-and-washingtons-fake-intelligence-narrative/5585299
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.16, 20:16:46
A very well researched and presented article by Gregor Flock
Fake News, Propaganda and "False Flags": Syria's Gas Attacks and Washington's Fake Intelligence Narrative
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news-propaganda-and-false-flags-syrias-gas-attacks-and-washingtons-fake-intelligence-narrative/5585299
Exactly, and to lend even more credence to the false flag nature of the attack... the "White Helmets" have no public phone number, so how is it possible that they should be on site, cameras rolling for this occasion? It is said that the resultant missile attack had to have been preplanned, well include the White Helmets were likely preplanned to have been on site.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/23/exclusive-the-real-syria-civil-defence-expose-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/ (http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/23/exclusive-the-real-syria-civil-defence-expose-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/)
Ron
Check this out:
https://www.rt.com/uk/384940-johnson-russia-syria-coalition/
"Assad has been clinging on. With the help of Russians and Iranians, and by dint of unrelenting savagery, he has not only recaptured Aleppo. He has also won back most of 'operational' Syria," Johnson wrote in a column penned for The Telegraph. While Johnson called for gathering "all evidence at Khan Sheikhoun," citing the "painful" lessons of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the British FM seems to have already drawn his conclusions.
"It is in some ways bizarre that Bashar al-Assad should be so reckless," Johnson writes, adding that "it seems mystifying that he should now raise the stakes by so blatantly murdering so many of his own people with chemical weapons."
Its not mystifying if your not stupid.. Assad had defeated the western proxy infantry and this false flag was cooked up and acted on immediately before evidence could derail the propaganda justification trumpeted by the media for committing the supreme crime of aggression.
The Donald has entered the history books as an international war criminal.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.16, 23:14:05
Check this out:
https://www.rt.com/uk/384940-johnson-russia-syria-coalition/
"Assad has been clinging on. With the help of Russians and Iranians, and by dint of unrelenting savagery, he has not only recaptured Aleppo. He has also won back most of 'operational' Syria," Johnson wrote in a column penned for The Telegraph. While Johnson called for gathering "all evidence at Khan Sheikhoun," citing the "painful" lessons of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the British FM seems to have already drawn his conclusions.
"It is in some ways bizarre that Bashar al-Assad should be so reckless," Johnson writes, adding that "it seems mystifying that he should now raise the stakes by so blatantly murdering so many of his own people with chemical weapons."
Its not mystifying if your not stupid.. Assad had defeated the western proxy infantry and this false flag was cooked up and acted on immediately before evidence could derail the propaganda justification trumpeted by the media for committing the supreme crime of aggression.
The Donald has entered the history books as an international war criminal.
Johnson has shown that he is a lying idiot.
Problem is... where is there a decent press to report this?
Same story here in the Colonies...
http://globalnews.ca/news/3375146/trudeau-trump-syria-chemical-attack/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3375146/trudeau-trump-syria-chemical-attack/)
Ron
PS: Johnson, the English version of JOHN McCain
Boris is a total embarassment, a self proclaimed passionate Zionist, known liar and war criminal..
I am tempted to try and get him promoted.. a re-run of the Hague-Hammond switcheroo!
How to bring down the elephant in the room
http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/
First, a painful, but needed, clarification:
Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial "elephant in the room". For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic. I won't. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.
First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article "Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important". Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon's article "Jews, Judaism & Jewishness" (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wondering Who). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion. He writes "I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity. I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)". I very much include them in my discussion. However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that "Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist" (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand's excellent book "The Invention of the Jewish People"). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my "moderation policies":
Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all "brothers in Adam", that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).
To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity).
Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).
Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or "sensitivity" – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31). So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.
Now let's come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that "Jews by birth only", what Alain Soral in France calls "the everyday Jews", are not included in this list. Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression.
[Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].
——-
The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress, most of academia, etc. These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the "nationalist" or "patriotic" wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically staged a color revolution against Trump. There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist. Maybe. Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet.
Making sense of the crazies
Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of "logic" in this case) of self-deluded racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the "basement crazies" (reminder: the term from from here) are basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the "new" Trump policies using two examples: Syria and Russia.
Syria. I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. And that, in plain English, means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long, bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to. Finally, and last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out. For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even today) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.
Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. Particularly the ex-Trotskyists turned Neocons. I have explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won't repeat it all here. You just need to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the fist Bolshevik government (which was 80%-85% Jews; don't believe me? Then listen to Putin himself). I have already discussed "The ancient spiritual roots of russophobia" in a past article and I have also explain what rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called "Judaism" nowadays) is little more than an "anti-Christianity"(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you). The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little else than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide Nazis (isn't this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today. In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate Jews. While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly expressed in the media (in fact, 'hate speech' is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country (those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion here). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies.
Making sense of Trump
I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli, but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies. Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution. The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: "Putin is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let's join forces". The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to "drain the swamp" but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along (I still don't believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood. I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and "ass-kissing little chickenshits" à la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) "three letter agencies soup", it appears that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.
Living with ZOG :-)
ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG I will reply this: believe me, I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don't care for racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is an extremely important exercise all by itself. Hence, today I ZOG-away :-)
Some might argue with the "occupation" part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars. It is true that most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5. Lastly, most Americans do believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time, they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the money spent aboard on "defending democracy" (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions of Americans in need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville, Florida) once put it in their songs "Things goin' on":
Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon
Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things got worse, much worse.
Houston, we got a problem
ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform, is now sending a "very powerful armada" to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul. Why? Because the DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict, that's why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces. Wikipedia says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two days ago a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20'000 artillery pieces. Whatever thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is "a lot".
The DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities. Of special importance here are the roughly 200'000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200'000 are not US Green Beret or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10'000+ artillery pieces and 200'000 special forces? Exactly, nothing at all.
And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?
No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there. One neat trick would be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these ships would be total. To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don't think that the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know, necessity is the mother of invention, as the British like to say.
I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the block? Could he decide to "punish" the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un's reaction be?
To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do.
Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.
So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons?
Everything.
They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. And yet now is is playing a crazy game of "nuclear chicken" with the DPRK. Does that sound like the "real Trump" to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to "play empire", to show that, as Obama liked to say, the USA is the "indispensable nation". God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier strike groups involved in the "solving" of this problem!
[Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable nation therefore "invited itself" by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and, having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]
So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.
I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses. As with all the other forms of crimethink, I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream "the emperor has no clothes". Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological "sacred cows" to roam around your intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations, not human ideological constructs.
Where do we go from here?
Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. The good news is that those who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal. From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan, many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives. What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality.
The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought? I think that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:
1. Peace/pacifism
2. International law
3. Human and civil rights
4. Democracy
5. Pluralism
6. Anti-racism
7. Ethics and morality
Sounds harmless? It ain't, I assure you. ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law. As for human and civil rights, one quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues. More proof? How about the entire "fake news" canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google? Don't you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?! What about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further militarization of police forces? To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a joke! Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein). Heck, just read what ultra-liberal super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President Jimmy Carter writes about Israel! Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. It it pretty clear that these guys not only don't give a damn about human or civil right, but that they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.
What about democracy? How can that be a intellectual weapon? Simple – you show that every time the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y. Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won. That is a clear lack of democracy. So if you say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped into a "good" ideological wrapper. Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic. Show it!
Pluralism? Same deal. All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a "mono-ideological" society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely absent from the public discourse. Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control. Then ask them to compare. This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see here if you are interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic. Again, show it!
Anti-racism. Should be obvious to the reader by now. Denounce, reject and attack any idea which gives any group any special status. Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they really want when they claim to struggle for "equality" is a special status for their single-issue minority. Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy is about defending the minority against the majority. In reality, minorities are always much more driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to power. What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against the minorities. Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don't let accusations of crimethink freeze you in terror).
Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality. The modern western society has been built on a categorical rejection of ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say. Hollywood movies proclaimed that "greed is good". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. All I will say that that rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire. Ditto for sexual morality and family. There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order. Likewise, there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia and other sexual scandals. One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased the old communist slogan and declared "naturals of all countries – come to Russia" [in modern Russian "naturals" is the antonym of "homosexual"). He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon's hatred of Russia).
[Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. I don't think that this is sustainable for too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values]
You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. And look at the alternatives: Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome. "Direct action" does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists. Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet. Running for office does not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience. Even running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives at even a modicum of true sovereignty. The only other option is "internal exile", when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual and intellectual freedom and you basically "live there" with no external signs of you having "fled" the Empire's ugly reality. But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of "internal exile" will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.
Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable. However, the Fathers also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world. I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys, and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally better. And even if all my efforts are vain, it least I know that I resisted with everything I got. At the very least, I hope that it will inspire them to fight for their own children. I also believe that I have to resist this Empire because of all the good, decent and kind people I met in my life, including the Americans I have been living next to for so many years now. I don't want any of them to die in a useless and stupid war triggered by the demented minds of a tiny demonic minority of mankind-hating psychopaths who, driven by their apparently infinite capacity for evil and self-delusion, apparently have convinced themselves that either they will own the planet or they will destroy it.
Saint Paul very accurately explained that "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). As for Ernesto Che Guevara, he wrote that "the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love" (Love of living humanity). Today is Holy Paskha, the most joyful and sacred day in the Orthodox year, the day which marks the victory of Christ even against death itself! In the beautiful words of Saint John Chrysostomos:
O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
These words and this promise should give us the courage to resist no matter how ugly, evil and insane the world around us can become. Because we do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against wickedness in high places, and because we are not moved by hatred, but by the love for our fellow human being. Finally, the following words written by a true Jew several millennia ago will, I hope, give us all the courage to struggle until our victory: "I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, who beset me round about. Arise, Lord; deliver me, my God: for thou hast smitten all who were without cause mine enemies; thou hast broken the teeth of sinners. Deliverance is the Lord's, and thy blessing is upon thy people" (Ps. 3).
I greet you all with the ancient Christian greeting of Christ is Risen!
The Saker
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.17, 15:34:32
How to bring down the elephant in the room
http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/
snip
The Saker
A truly great philosopher, he can express my feelings so precisely, thanks for the post, I had missed that one.
Ron
Australian medics treated Iraqis hit by Islamic State chemical attack, Defence says
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/australian-medics-treated-iraqis-hit-by-is-chemical-attack/8452144
"The failed gas attack highlights Daesh's [Islamic State's] desperation as Iraqi ground forces continue operations to liberate Mosul."
Compare and contrast this position to the unfounded accusations against Assad in the recent false flag gas attack in Syria, used as a cassus belli by the NATO terrorist organisation, for illegal aggression against a sovereign nation defending itself from foreign sponsored mercenary infantry.. a mercenary army he had defeated on the ground with the assistance of Russian air support.
Assad is not desperate, he has won, which is why the use of Chemical Weapons (CW) at this stage in the Syrian proxy war by the legitimate government.. is ridiculous.. not to mention he does not even have CW anymore, government stockpiles were all destroyed as confirmed by the UN.. only the NATO backed proxy terrorist mercenaries have them..
A bit thick are you not Prime Minister Turnbull.. ;D
Quote from: ronee on 2017.04.17, 18:38:13
A truly great philosopher, he can express my feelings so precisely, thanks for the post, I had missed that one.
Yes I like the Saker, got a lot of time for his position. I consider him one of the Everymen, whether he does or not, I do not know.
The Hasty Trump Syria Attack Game – It Doesn't Add Up
By F. William Engdahl
14 April 2017
http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO14Apr2017.php
Trump Is Unmasked: 14 Reasons Why the Syria Airstrikes Were a Really Bad Idea
https://jamesperloff.com/2017/04/19/trump-is-unmasked-14-reasons-why-the-syria-airstrikes-were-a-really-bad-idea/
Behind the "Crisis:" Jewish Lobby vs. North Korea
http://www.newobserveronline.com/2017/04/behind-crisis-jewish-lobby-vs-north.html
Heres one for you Ron, it is certainly a scenario worth considering:
The US Navy Aims To Sink Its Radioactive Warships Off Korea
http://rense.com/general96/USnavysink.html
The silver lining to the fog of war is that hostile acts of destruction enable the military to order new weapons systems. The self-inflicted sabotage of the battleship Maine rallied the American public to build new steamships to capture Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spanish control. The sinking of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor sparked the biggest naval expansion in world history. Human lives are merely a part of the price. As put by the Beat poet Allen Ginzberg: "War is good for business. Invest your son."
Today, the greatest threat confronting the U.S. Navy does not come from Russia, China or even the outlands of North Korea, but arose from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in spring 2011. Six years of continuous radioactive releases into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean have seriously contaminated dozens of American naval vessels and their personnel, at least 16 warships and 70,000 servicemen by the Navy's own count. Based on closer examination of naval records of voyages, the total number is at least double that rather low official estimate.
The Pentagon is now facing a hard choice: to scrap its radioactive fleet and dump the mess at Hanford nuclear site and inside veterans hospitals, or arrange a naval war to sink the lethal vessels and their human cargo in foreign waters.
Considering the rising cost of health care and burden of student loans, American taxpayers are in no mood to finance the scrapping of supercarriers and missile destroyers or paying to build replacement vessels. The only way to rally the public to trade in their paltry savings accounts for armaments procurement is the outbreak of war with a supremely evil enemy.
With Syria now relegated to a minor-league battlefield for jihadists, and the Mediterranean shore with its luxury hotels on Israeli beaches being unsuitable for naval warfare, the Pentagon has found a distant villain in North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, who talks tough and fires short-range rockets in the general direction of the USA. Therefore, its one-reactor nuclear program is being promoted as the casus belli for a coming war. Never mind that the North Koreans are merely trying to build a minimal deterrence capability against the vastly bigger nuclear programs of Japan and South Korea, which go secretly approved by Washington DC. The logic goes: If only Tokyo had dropped its nuclear load on Pyongyang instead of dumping it into the Pacific, none of this would be happening.
Ducks in a Shooting Gallery
Three USN supercarrier strike groups are now heading for the Sea of Japan, a narrow (1,000 kilometers at the widest point) enclosed body of water. There in its calm dark waters, a dozen big ships along with some 130 naval jets and dozens of helicopters will be parked like ducks in a row inside a shooting gallery.
If the North Koreans hesitate to open fire, for obvious reasons of national survival and common sense, there is a back-up team of shooters, namely the Maritime Self-Defense Force of Japan. A volley of Mitsubishi anti-ship missiles should do the job of sinking the U.S. Seventh Fleet and drowning the American sailors. The news media will assign the blame on Pyongyang for the dastardly deed. The Second Korean War will ensue, leaving millions dead from explosions and smoke, and in the chaos and fright nobody will notice the treacherous charade that sparked the brutal massacres of friends and foes alike.
Donald Trump has promised a huge increase in defense spending for new equipment so the Navy will not be rendered toothless. Half of its carriers and destroyers are now dangerously radioactive but, if current policy holds, these damaged goods will soon be sold off as scrap metal to South Korean and Taiwanese shipyards, eliminating any residual evidence of high treason. Shinzo Abe and Trump will emerge as victors over totalitarianism, much like Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta. Since the media applause will be thunderous, drowning out any and all critics, I am compelled to quietly write this near-term history in advance.
Paying back the US by killing Americans
The Japanese government is eager to oblige in the elimination of the seaborne evidence, since it was its reactors at Fukushima that hold liability for irradiating dozens of American warships and their crews. Tokyo has been obligated to the American side to sink the USS Ronald Reagan ever since the Japanese authorities failed to issue a warning about the weapons-grade plutonium released during the Reactor 3 meltdown in mid-March 2011. The unrepentant revanchist Abe, in any case, will relish the coming spectacle with a hearty "banzai" to avenge the Imperial fleets lost at the Battle of Midway and in the Coral Sea.
The Shock of Fukushima
The retreat of the USS Reagan from the coast of Sendai was a memorable event worthy of a disaster movie, as helicopters delivering aid to the tsunami survivors raced back to the carrier after weapons-grade plutonium in the air set off their isotope-detecting geiger counters. At the time, the U.S. commanders were not clued into the fact that the mixed-oxide fuel at Fukushima was involved in plutonium production for secret underground warhead facilities in nearby Hirono and Haramachi. Their understandable assumption was that a foreign power had exploded a hydrogen bomb over Fukushima, and so the good ship Reagan made a U-turn and fled to the open sea, but sadly too late since its air vents were by then heavily irradiated.
Unbeknownst to captain and crew was that the carrier's desalination system was filling up with radioactive seawater flushed out of the Fukushima No.1 plant's cooling system. Every cup of coffee, shower and any food boiled in water was lethal for crew members. A consequent flurry of odd cancers, miscarriages and defects in newborns motivated many of the crew members to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Navy for failing to alert them to the radioactivity threat and not decontaminating the ship. Instead of admitting the mistakes, the Pentagon has stonewalled the victims.
After its return to San Diego, the USS Reagan was towed to the Bremerton Naval Shipyard in Puget Sound where all its innards, from venting and pipes to electronics and computers, were stripped out, piled aboard a train and dumped at the Hanford Nuclear Site. The hulk was then towed back to San Diego where it idled until its internal systems were patched together into a semblance of battle-readiness. Built a a cost of $6 billion, the USS Reagan is overdue for scuttling, and unfortunately the crew with it.
Clueless Admirals
The carrier USS George Washington, which retreated before reaching Fukushima for the Operation Tomodachi (Friend) relief effort, was pulled out of its home port of Yokosuka and is now sitting in a Virginia dockyard, supposedly for nuclear fuel replacement.
The clueless admirals, left out of the loop by the Department of Energy (DOE) about the continuing threat gushing from Fukushima, unwisely allowed the supercarrier USS Nimitz to patrol off the China coast and then sail home along the North Pacific Current, the conveyor belt for radioactive releases from Fukushima to the American coastline. It, too, ended up at Bremerton shipyard for a year, and has since been parked in Everett, Washington State, under showers of radioactive rainfall.
Meanwhile, the carrier Carl Vinson was in the Arabian Sea where the body double of "Osama Bin Laden" was laid on its flattop deck and unceremoniously tossed overboard in a supposed "Islamic burial". Under Muslim custom, believers' bodies are laid in proper graves in expectation of the Second Coming. Presumably Osama, version 2, knows how to snorkel and swim on the Day of Reckoning. Then, the Navy made the fatal decision to the send the Vinson to the Philippines, just in time to be hit by high-level nuclear waste aboard barges sunk by the Japanese in to the Philippine Trench.
An Easter Blasphemy
At the time of writing, Easter Sunday 2017, the three aircraft carriers are plying their ways from Australia, San Diego and Hawaii toward Davy Jones' Locker. The American sailors will soon reenact the destruction of the Russian Tsar's Baltic Fleet at the entrance of the Japan Sea in the Battle of Tsushima. My grandfather in his youth celebrated that stunning victory, so why am I already mourning the coming slaughter at sea when the sailors, pilots and Marines are already doomed by radioactive exposure? I suppose it is more heroic to die from friendly fire than to waste away inside a veteran's hospital. And better for the bottom line and big investors, just ask the shrewd Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs.
In eulogy before the shooting in the back begins, let us sing the U.S. Navy song:
"Stand Navy out to sea, fight our battle cry!
We'll never change our course so vicious foes steer shy-y-y-y!
Roll out the TNT, anchors aweigh!
Sail on to victory, and sink their bones to Davy Jones, hooray!
"Anchors Aweigh, my boys, Anchors Aweigh!
Farewell,to Foreign Shores we sail at break of day-ay-ay-ay;
Through our last night ashore, drink to the foam,
Until we meet once more."
Yoichi Shimatsu, former editor with The Japan Times group, is a science journalist based in Hong Kong
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.20, 06:05:02
Heres one for you Ron, it is certainly a scenario worth considering:
Dastardly, but yes, believable.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.04.20, 16:00:06
Dastardly, but yes, believable.
Ron
Scary to say the least
Regards
Mike (not so cool)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.04.20, 18:03:49
Scary to say the least
Worse than scary:
https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics
As of November 2016, 30 countries worldwide are operating 450 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 60 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries.
The Death Of The Pacific Ocean Fukushima Debris Soon To Hit American ShoresBy Yoichi Shimatsu
http://rense.com/general95/death.htm
Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/fukushima-radiation-has-contaminated-entire-pacific-ocean-and-its-going-get-worse
Map reveals status of Japan's 54 nuclear reactorshttps://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/map-reveals-status-of-japans-54-nuclear-reactors/
Any major conflict kicks off on the planet between nuclear bomb armed powers and domestic nuclear reactors become primary targets, and we
ALL die.. go tell your children what those war criminals of NATO are deliberately provoking.. while ZOG hide in their luxury bunkers..
The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-20/reason-behind-sales-surge-nuclear-proof-bunkers
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
On April 15th, Zero Hedge bannered «Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes», but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.
This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine's two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed «Svoboda» meaning «Freedom» so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of «second homes».
Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America's current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable — and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.
No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the «military-industrial complex» including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a «limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan» was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and «the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years», which «could trigger a global nuclear famine». But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.
But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience 'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.
After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it — so, nothing can yet be said about it.
The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site «The Saker,» headlined «Trump has lost control over the Pentagon», and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.
April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan
On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists
April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border
April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.
April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO
April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe
On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)
April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people
April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea
April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe
April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a «unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region».
April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively
On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.
Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in «The Daily Beast» a year ago, on 8 April 2016, «CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn't necessarily want to be president—but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there». Though none of the alleged «billionaires» were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the «regime-change in Iraq» idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those «billionaires» were, they've now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.
As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent for global empire — to include Russia.)
Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course — as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation of Vietnam.
However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons — and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war.
Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as «Republicans» and as «Democrats»). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought — safety in such a world as that. It won't exist.
US has no moral authority to declare other states as terrorists: Analyst
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/20/518829/US-has-no-moral-authority-to-declare-other-states-as-terrorists
The United States is engaged in acts of aggression against sovereign countries and it has no moral authority to declare other states as terrorists, says Walt Peretto, a writer and researcher based in Washington, DC.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Wednesday his country is considering putting North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism in order to "bring pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to re-engage with us."
When asked from where does the US get moral authority to declare other states as terrorists, Peretto said that "because of the long track record of the United States and its intelligence apparatus in engaging in acts of aggression that includes destabilization of countries through proxy mercenaries, assassinations of heads of state, dropping bombs on civilians, etc. -- the US has no moral authority to engage in these forms of aggression."
"The US and its political and intelligence allies are quick to label certain countries as terrorist states if they are being targeted for regime change and eventual absorption into the Western trilateral bloc of regimes committed to the establishment of a one world government to be controlled by an oligarchy of psychopaths with complete power over a sharply reduced world population of docile workers with a management/enforcement class in-between. At least this is similar to the stated goals of some of the globalists who wield great power today in international banking and other corporate adventures," he said.
"The people who do have the moral authority to change the world for the better are the emphatic people who understand with clarity that the world portrayed by the Western mass media is a false paradigm that reflects the ambitions of the globalist psychopaths. Only through this awareness of reality can the common people come together to achieve a higher consciousness, not together under one political entity, but together in the common goal of undermining the New World Order and creating a new more decentralized patchwork of free people able to manage their own affairs without the rule of a corrupt and self-serving authority," he stated.
"Instead we have been divided under many forms of division that includes belligerent nationalism, race, religion, political ideologies, economic inequalities, and more. With the common people divided and demoralized the New World Order makes its progressions," he noted.
"To think they have any moral standing to declare other countries as sponsors of terrorism is ridiculous. However I do find the North Korean government to be a unique case," he further said.
"Unlike countries like Libya, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, that have recently fallen into Western globalist control with Syria and Yemen now in the process---North Korea represents an experiment in the management of people that I believe the globalists see as useful," Peretto said.
"I don't believe that the West is interested in regime change there in the near future because they are not seen as expansionist and they don't have an abundance of resources that multinational corporations can exploit to any significant degree. Yet they have a unique totalitarian quality that I'm sure the globalists find interesting and worthy of study," the analyst pointed out.
"The only way I see of stopping a New World Order dystopia from eventually engulfing the planet is for the common people of the world to stop looking to government to solve its problems," he said.
"We need more localization, not increased political globalization. We all need to wake up to reality by education untainted by official sources and by the teaching of others, engaging in the teaching of others," he said.
"We must also reject the Western corporate mass media as a source of reliable and trustful information. We must also work on deprogramming people whose psychology is deeply entrenched into believing the only way to improve society is by working within its established parameters. Lastly, we need a new way of thinking that is based on emphatic moral structures---not established immoral globalist systems of human management," he concluded.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky asks a very pertinent question, "Who is the Butcher, Mr. Trump?"
Foreign Policy and "False Flags": Trump's "War and Chocolate" Reality Show
http://www.globalresearch.ca/foreign-policy-and-false-flags-trumps-war-and-chocolate-reality-show/5585599
What kind of president do we have?
Cynical and diabolical? The plush dinner event with China's president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago on the evening of April 6 was carefully planned to coincide with Trump's missile strikes against Syria.
Xi and Trump were accompanied by their wives; guests, family members and high-level officials from both countries were in attendance at the Palm Beach Mar-a Lago "replicate" of Rome's Palazzo Chigi 16th Century dining room.
Later that evening on Thursday April 6, it was dessert time: The Donald was at the dinner table eating a delicious chocolate cake together with Xi Jinping, while also ordering Tomahawk missile strikes against Syria, in the presence of China's president and his entourage:
"I was sitting at the table. We had finished dinner. We're now having dessert. And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it," (TV interview Fox News, see below)
Precedent in the conduct of US foreign policy? Trump ran it as a "war and chocolate" reality show: A shift in the mode of decision-making pertaining to US aggression?
The dinner event was also part of "publications relations" operation with the intent to boost a "pro-American sentiment" by president Xi Jinping and the PRC delegation.
Trump's order to strike Syria had been carefully timed to coincide with the final "dessert stage" of the official dinner event with president Xi:
"And I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded. [ready to go]
What do you do? And we made a determination to do it. So the missiles were on the way."
... "And I said: 'Mr President, let me explain something to you ...this is during dessert... we've just fired 59 missiles – all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from, you know hundreds of miles away, all of which hit, it's so incredible, it's brilliant, it's genius, our technology is better than anybody's by a factor of five ..."
"So what happens is, I said [to Xi] we've just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq, [sic] ...
The 59 missiles had been launched, "heading to Iraq" according to Trump, ...
Oops, he rectifies: "heading towards Syria", got his countries mixed up.
"I didn't want him to finish his dessert and go home ... and then they say: 'You know the guy you just had dinner with just attacked [Syria].'"
And then Trump invites the Chinese president to finish his dessert.
"And he was eating his cake. And he was silent."
And then Trump intimates (in his interview with Fox News) that president Xi had endorsed his punitive airstrikes via his interpreter. Xi said, according to Trump's recount:
"anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that [to] young children and babies, it's OK". (emphasis added)
"He agreed... He [Xi] was ok with me" said Trump.
China is with us.
Who is Anybody?
Visibly Trump hasn't the foggiest idea of the workings of international diplomacy.
Nor does he understand that Chinese politicians never reveal their game at an official dinner venue. What they say is invariably intended to hide their real intentions.
Xi's spontaneous response –while finishing his chocolate desert– was not an "endorsement" of the People's Republic of China, which a few days earlier politely abstained in the vote of the UN Security Council Resolution directed against Bashar al Assad. China also joined the Russian initiative calling for an independent investigation into the chemical weapons issue.
But Mr. President. There no evidence.
The United Nations in a 2013 report confirms that Syrian opposition "rebels" (supported by Washington) "may have used chemical weapons against [Syrian] government forces."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320223/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-carrying-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html
The UN report refutes Trump's accusations that Bashar al Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people.
What the UN mission findings confirm is that the US sponsored opposition "rebels" largely composed of Al Qaeda affiliated groups, financed and supported by the Western military alliance were responsible for these 2013 chemical weapons attacks.
Moreover, as confirmed in an earlier report, the Al Qaeda rebels were being trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon. From the horse's mouth: CNN
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/09/sources-defense-contractors-training-syrian-rebels-in-chemical-weapons/
Atrocities were committed and Trump ordered airstrikes which have resulted in further deaths of innocent civilians including children.
US intelligence is often based on the art of deceit, i.e. the fabrication of evidence.
But in this case there was "no art of deceit". The White House report which Trump used to justify his airstrikes constitutes fake evidence and "sloppy intelligence". Did it have the endorsement of the intelligence community?
There is ample evidence of a US coverup contained in this scanty White House "intelligence report" which has been refuted.
see Dr. Theodore Postol's incisive report:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/assessment-of-white-house-intelligence-report-about-nerve-agent-attack-in-khan-shaykhun-syria/5584867
No credible evidence that the Syrian president is killing his own people has been provided.
The false flag does not hold up to scrutiny, yet this "sloppy intelligence" seems to have convinced the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America, who's eating a chocolate cake with the president of China...
And the Chinese president knows that the intelligence is fake.
Washington (which supported the opposition rebels in the use of chemical weapons) rather than Damascus is responsible for extensive crimes against humanity.
Who is the Butcher, Mr. Trump?
Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force'
http://thehill.com/policy/international/319037-kucinich-syria-strike-will-turn-us-into-al-qaedas-air-force
Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into "al Qaeda's air force," former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.
The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.
"So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?" Kucinich said. "This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with."
The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.
Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn't get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria.
U.S.-NATO Should Not Be "Al Qaeda's Air Force"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-nato-should-not-be-al-qaedas-air-force/5348178
Kerry's Claim that Syrian Rebels Are Not Associated with Al Qaeda Has Been Thoroughly Debunked
Politico notes:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/ted-cruz-syria-update-096244#ixzz2dwnAUpcA
"We certainly don't have a dog in the fight," [Senator Ted] Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. "We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That's why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda's air force."
U.S. Admits Airstrike in Syria, Meant to Hit ISIS, Killed Syrian Troops
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/world/middleeast/us-airstrike-syrian-troops-isis-russia.html?_r=0
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The United States acknowledged on Saturday that its warplanes had carried out an airstrike in Syria that resulted in the deaths of Syrian government troops. American military officials said the pilots in the attack, in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, believed they were targeting the Islamic State.
Russia's defense ministry said the United States attack had killed 62 Syrian troops, wounded 100 more and opened the way for an Islamic State offensive.
The episode comes at a time of escalating tensions in Syria. A partial cease-fire that started on Monday continues to steadily unravel after it was declared with much fanfare by the United States and Russia.
A statement by United States Central Command said that the planes stopped the attack after a warning from Russia that the strikes could be hitting Syrian troops.
A senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the strike was still being investigated, said the United States had relayed its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the "unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces" fighting the Islamic State.
Russia, the Syrian government's main ally, said it would call an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the strikes.
The Syrian government insisted that the strike was not a mistake. Instead, the government said it was "a very serious and flagrant aggression" that aided the Islamic State and proved its long-held assertion that the United States supports the jihadist group as part of an effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
"These attacks confirmed that the U.S. clearly supports the terrorism of Daesh," SAMA television, a state-run news outlet, said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. The channel quoted a statement issued by the Syrian military's general command, which said the attack exposed "false claims of fighting terrorism" by the United States.
Central Command, known as Centcom, denied it would carry out such an airstrike on purpose.
"Coalition forces would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit," the statement said, offering at an unexpected moment one of the clearest signs yet of how far the United States has moved from three years ago.
In 2013, President Obama threatened to strike Mr. Assad's forces in retaliation for chemical attacks on rebel-held suburbs that killed more than 1,000 people. He instead struck a deal with Russia to dismantle Mr. Assad's chemical weapons program.
ISIS swoops after Donald Trump Syria missile strike with attack 20 miles away
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/788988/ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-ISIL-daesh-Donald-Trump-Syria-Missile-Strike-USA
ISIS jihadis have reportedly launched an attack on a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) base just 20 miles away from the air base targeted by US president Donald Trump.
Trump's strikes saw 59 Tomahawk missiles rain down on the airbase – believed to have been used for chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian government which killed at least 80 people.
ISIS, also known as Daesh, has attempted to take advantage of the chaos caused by the President's strikes, launching a powerful offensive on a military base in Al Furqlus, pro-Syrian news site Al-Masdar claimed.
Homs governor Talal Barazi claimed the airbase was used to support operations against ISIS.
Breaking: Israeli Air Force Missile Strikes Syrian Army Positions, Israel Comes to the Rescue of Al Qaeda Terrorists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-israeli-air-force-missile-strikes-syrian-army-positions-israel-comes-to-the-rescue-of-al-qaeda-terrorists/5586445
The details of the Israeli Air Force attack on the position of the Syrian Arab army (SAA) in the in Quneitra Governorate have been disclosed.
As it turned out, Israeli aviation attacked Syrian government troops with unmanned aerial vehicles. The soldiers of SAA's 90th Infantry Brigade were under fire.
The Israeli Air Force planes struck a missile attack at the positions of the Syrian army in the Khan Arnabeh district of Quneitra Governorate. It was also reported earlier the blow was carried out to the east of the village of Ein Ayshaa.
Two missiles were fired at 06.45 p.m. when government forces were repulsing Al-Qaeda's attacks in the vicinity of the city of Quneitra.
The incident led to heavy losses of equipment and material in the Syrian Arab Army.
There are reports that Al-Qaeda terrorists infiltrated Quneitra from the Golan Heights occupied by Israel with the aim to strengthen the front in Madinat al-Ba'ath.
Apparently, Israel had prepared and launched a missile strike in order to provide artillery support to Al-Qaeda terrorists. The Israeli drones recorded in the province of Quneitra make it possible to conclude that Al-Qaeda is provided with reconnaissance information from the battlefields with Israel help too.
Sophie Mangal is a co-editor at Inside Syria Media Center.
Anyone see a pattern ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern
A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "Template", is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design.
David Cameron 'badly let down' by Theresa May during Brexit campaign amid claims she was 'enemy agent'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-badly-let-down-by-theresa-may-during-brexit-campaign-amid-claims-she-was-enemy-agent-a7328606.html
Is Theresa May An EU Operative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMLmrNXai9U
Theresa May is a Zionist Operative and the EU is a Zionist project, so yes, she is.
Paul Craig Roberts claims the EU is a CIA project, I disagree, The CIA is a Zionist outfit which runs the EU.
I am posting this 'old news' for the benefit of the zerohedge members who were engaged in a discussion in the comments section of a recent story, but could not remember the source(s). The general theme of which was that the 59 cruise missiles launched by President Trump in an act of aggression against a sovereign nation, constituting a war crime under international law, and based on an obviously unsound pretext (manufactured media intelligence false-flag sarin gas attack) were payback for the Syrians shooting at and downing one of the Israelis American made jet's. Interestingly the attack by Israel on Syria the other day is suspected to have been missiles launched by drones.. draw your own conclusions after performing due diligence!
Syria shoots down one of four Israeli warplanes in its airspace
17.03.2017
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/asia/syria/17-03-2017/137125-syria_israel-0/
The Syrian army shot down one of four military aircraft of the Israeli Air Force that entered Syrian airspace.
"Our anti-aircraft systems have shot down one of the planes in the occupied territories. Another aircraft was hit too, the rest flew away," the statement from the command of the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) says.
The statement notes that the Israeli aircraft were targeting objects of the Syrian army in the area of Palmyra.
In turn, the press service of the army of Israel stated that there were no losses incurred on the part of Israel.
Earlier, an Israeli TV channel reported that aircraft of the Israeli Air Force struck targets in Syria, but were attacked by Syrian Soviet-made S-200 anti-aircraft systems, RIA Novosti reports.
The incident occurred on the night of March 17 after pilots attacked several targets in Syria. According to the channel, Israel's missile defense systems were able to intercept one of the missiles.
Previously, Israeli aircraft were attacked in September of 2016 when striking positions of Syrian artillery troops in response to a shell launched in the direction of Israel.
Britain To Become A One Party, Authoritarian Surveillance State
http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-to-become-a-one-party-authoritarian-surveillance-state/5586577
Since Tony Blair took a reinvigorated Labour Party in 1997 to reform the country for the better after Margaret Thatcher introduced the American model of 'individualism' and extreme capitalism where a corporate feeding frenzy got underway, there was considerable hope that Britain would rise to the real challenges of the 21st Century. Instead, Blair, in his infinite wisdom, trashed not just the Labour party but damaged trust in politics like no other scandal in British history. And here we are.
Before becoming an MP and as it turned out, the longest serving (6 years) Home Secretary in 60 years, Mrs May's CV includes working at the Bank of England and in financial services.
Mrs May has a somewhat dubious voting record when considering her vow just last July to look after the interests of the many rather than just 'the privileged few' when accepting the role of unelected PM. She voted for the Iraq invasion in 2003, abstained from the smoking ban in both 2006 and 2014, she voted in favour of destroying Libya in 2011, voted for the bedroom tax and against scrapping it in 2014, voted for attacking Syria and backed the Remain campaign. May is a supporter of privatising Britain's public services.
May has voted both for and against equal gay rights and voted more often against equal rights and human rights and voted against terminally ill people to be given assistance at the end of their life. Nice.
In her role as Home secretary Theresa May resided over the Yarl's Wood detention centre scandal, failed to identify the child rape rings of Rotherham, Rochdale, Sheffield, Bradford and Oxford and subsequent cover-ups involving the police, politicians and several 'establishment' judges, all of whom resigned or who kept shtum.
British policing became worse under her leadership. The Spectator reported in July last year:
"The nadir of this phenomenon was Operation Midland, one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of modern British policing. Millions of pounds were spent investigating allegations that various former ministers, intelligence chiefs and other top officials had been part of a pedophile ring that raped and murdered young boys. The fact that that both Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald, the senior officer on this case and his boss, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, emerged from this sinister debacle with their jobs, was rather more illustrative of Mrs May's real attitude to the policing establishment than her famous speech to the Police Federation in 2014."
May left the Home Office with a fully demoralised police force and saw net migration promises of the 'tens of thousands' reach a third of a million a year, hardly surprising given her well documented chaotic management of the Britain's border arrangements. The number of people refused entry to the UK fell by 50 percent whilst illegal immigration soared.
Then she was involved in the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham's school's and the firing of the Education Secretary amongst a few more rather dubious ducking and diving events that has kept her image intact.
But it should not be forgotten that Theresa May has a seriously authoritarianism streak and that does not bode well for the rest of us. She doesn't like bad press or the truth as you and I would call it. An article by Jonathan Foreman from the Telegraph headlined "Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary" was pulled and withdrawn from the internet after pressure from her campaign team. This has even happened with criticism directed at her by the BBC as you can see HERE.
Theresa May has real authoritarian form. She has been involved in the censoring of over 1,000 pages of information on the internet each week, introduced secret courts, proposed the scrapping of the Humans Rights Act, classified non-violent activism as terrorism, allowed ministers and government agencies to veto Freedom of Information requests, condoned the arrest of journalists under the anti-terrorism act, forced schools to hand over private pupil information and even threatened a 7 year-old with deportation. Tom Pride's excellent piece provides all the links for the above and quite rightly states that "Britain is fast becoming a civil liberty free zone."
No sooner had our new prime Minster arrived at No10, she ordered a clampdown on her own ministers speaking, or even making contact with journalists without gaining explicit prior permission from her office.
The Observer and Guardian headlined "Ministers Alarmed Over No10 clampdown on Media Links "and went on to say
"three government ministers separately told the Observer that they found the level of control alarming, and that they believed it had been introduced to ensure the government spoke with one mind and consistently on all policy matters. One said: "Any media bid now has to be approved, any quote has to be approved, even if it is with a local television or a radio station on a local issue. It is very frustrating and there is a lot of irritation. It means nothing can be done spontaneously even if it is on subjects that are entirely uncontroversial and show the minister and government in a good light." They were highlighting what they termed 'control freakery" at the heart of the new government.
Another article reports that:
"The slide towards authoritarianism was clear in recent assertions that much of the EU legislation currently regulating our society will be changed, not by an act of parliament, but by undiscussed ministerial orders."
Even the rabidly right-wing Telegraph complains about Theresa May "In Britain there's an authoritarian trend" which quotes arch-enemy No2 (behind illegally imprisoned Julian Assange in London) Edward Snowden.
Vice UK describes May as "Blandly Authoritarian," and across the pond CNN reports that Theresa May's "extension of near-total power has become a cause for serious concern" and that's from a country with an orange Ceasar.
A whole host of mass spying and surveillance systems introduced by our now PM is described by many commentators as; totally out of control, extreme, beyond Orwell's worst fears, worse than scary, the most intrusive in Western history, the most spied on in the world and the worst surveillance offender in the modern world. The UN has valid concerns as well by saying "that the impact of this extreme legislation (Snoopers Charter) will be felt around the world, and copied by other countries."
As Home Secretary Theresa May presided over the completely illegal practices and antics of MI5 and their accomplices at MI6 along with the lawlessness of America's NSA and CIA involving all sorts of projects and missions too numerous to mention, but some of the most notable; involvement in the illegal extra-judicial assassination's of British citizens, citizenship stripping, spying on friendly nations and leaders, not to mention knowledge of kidnap, complicity in forms of torture and doing little to stop executions of political dissidents and opponents.
TechDirt summed it up two years ago
"We've written a few times about Theresa May, who seems to have scarily authoritarian, anti-democratic and anti-free speech views."
The fact is this; we have a leader about to ascend to the throne of absolute power with no opposition who clearly harbours authoritarian views at the centre of the worlds biggest and largely illegal surveillance system who views civil liberties and human rights as little more than an inconvenience. Make your own mind up as to where you think this is going.
UKIP is the only viable choice at this time to avoid the fate described in this article, if everyone who voted for BREXIT votes UKIP we can stop the Zionist coup and descent into total authoritarianism.
Looking forward to the televised UK General Election debates!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/24/1586118/-Dave-Brat-The-Biggest-Loser-in-the-Trump-Train-Wreck
General election 2017: TV debates could STILL go ahead without Theresa May
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/793892/Theresa-May-General-election-2017-TV-debates-Jeremy-Corbyn-Tim-Farron
TELEVISED debates between party leaders could go ahead in spite of Theresa May's refusal to take part, broadcasters said today.
ITV confirmed plans for a live clash during the campaign whether the prime minister is involved or not.
BBC bosses said the issue of possible leaders' debates was still under discussion.
The plans mean Mrs May could be represented by an "empty chair" while other leaders including Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and Lib Dem chief Tim Farron spar in front of the cameras.
Mrs May yesterday insisted she would not take part in television debates against her rivals and planned to concentrate on campaigning across the country.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We won't be doing television debates."
Mrs May added: "I believe in campaigns where politicians actually get out and about and meet with voters.
"That's what I have always believed in, it's what I still believe and I still do it - as Prime Minister, as a constituency MP, I still go out and knock on doors in my constituency.
"That's what I believe in doing, that's what I'm going to be doing around this campaign."
Later at Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons, she dismissed claims from Labour and the Scottish National Party that she was frightened of debate.
Mrs May told Mr Corbyn: "I have been answering his questions and debating these matters every Wednesday that Parliament has been sitting since I became Prime Minister.
"I will be taking out to the country in this campaign a proud record of a Conservative Government: a stronger economy, with the deficit nearly two thirds down, a tax cut for 30 million people, with four million people taken out of income tax altogether, record levels of employment, and £1,250 more a year for pensioners. That is a record we can proud of."
No details of format or date have yet been released about ITV's debate plans, but it is expected that Julie Etchingham will host a programme, as she did in 2015, when seven leaders including David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg took part in a two-hour showdown.
"If Theresa May is so proud of her record, why won't she debate it?
"She cannot be allowed to run away from her duty to democracy and refuse to let the British people hear the arguments directly."
Responding to ITV's announcement, Mr Corbyn said: "I welcome ITV's decision to attempt to hold a TV debate with the Prime Minister.
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said: "The British people deserve to hear party leaders set out their plans and debate them publicly. But the Prime Minister has refused to take part in televised leaders' debates.
"Why will she not publicly debate these issues now - what is she scared of?"
A Sky Data opinion poll yesterday showed that 64 per cent of voters quizzed wanted televised debates between party leaders during the campaign.
Only 31% of those surveyed thought no such events should take place between now and 8 June - while 5 per cent said they were unsure.
BBC And ITV To Defy Theresa May And Hold General Election 2017 TV Debates Anyway
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-itv-general-election-debate-2017-theresa-may_uk_58f772afe4b029063d35a543
Let's not get carried away. The Conservatives only won over a quarter of all potential voters.
http://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2015/05/lets-not-get-carried-away-the-conservatives-only-won-over-a-quarter-of-all-potential-voters.html
A reminder. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a To The Point post on the "real vote shares" achieved by the winning parties at general elections. Its point was that, if you count all registered voters and not just those who actually vote, support for the victors has almost halved over the past 60-odd years. In 1951, over 40 per cent of all registered voters backed the Conservative Party into government. In 2005, only 21.6 per cent did likewise for Labour. This is the consequence of declining turnout and less support for the two main parties.
An update. I've now updated the graph that I produced for that post to include last week's results. You can see it above. It shows that the Conservatives won only 24.3 per cent of all registered voters to gain their majority. Around 15.7 million of these registered voters didn't vote. 30.7 million did vote. And 11.3 million gave their votes to the Tories. Do the maths, and you arrive at that 24.3 per cent figure.
It's worse in Scotland, obvs. 24.3 per cent is, of course, for the nation as a whole. If you perform similar calculations on the results from Scotland, only 10.6 per cent of registered voters support the Conservatives north of the border. This gap may be unsurprising, but it still ought to be sobering. In 1951, the equivalent number was 39.4 per cent.
Three-quarters to fight for. Why bother with non-voters when the final election count doesn't? Because it better captures the public's enthusiasm for those in power. As it stands, only about a quarter of all potential voters are sold on the Conservative government – and much lower in some regions. As Paul suggested yesterday, Britain may be conservative, but it isn't necessarily Conservative. The fight continues.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.23, 20:35:17
Let's not get carried away. The Conservatives only won over a quarter of all potential voters.
snip
Don't vote, it only encourages themBilly Connolly, Mark Twain et al
Unfortunately the vote is just an illusion to make one think they have a choice. There is no choice as all UK parties have Tavistock/Zionist roots.(see link)
The only reason to vote is to block the Islamic take over. But it is already to late for this as one sees more and more Muslins being voted in, the mayor of London, yeesh you don't even have to speak English as for example the Urdu speech by the nominee for mayor of Manchester. They will make full use of the voting system to further their end
However, see Common Purpose:
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/common-purpose-exposed-illuminati-front-organisation/ (https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/common-purpose-exposed-illuminati-front-organisation/)
QuoteWhat we can see is that Tavistock and Common Purpose share the same pod. Both want to develop 'leaders' and they do it in the same way by manufactured consensus that then stamps out all diversity by using those who have conceded their right to free thought to the group psyche. Mind manipulation techniques like Neuro-linguistic programming or NLP are also employed in the language employed to engineer consensus. NLP is a technique of using words to re-programme the body computer to accept another perception of reality – in this case the consensus agreed by the manipulators before their victims even register for the 'course'.
Ron
I have always held that view Ron, and I have only changed it as the pace is accelerating and the end times are upon us. I have never voted in my life (I am 38) for the simple reason that I do not vote for liars, thieves, war criminals, paedophiles, or accessories to those crimes (I could carry on listing the immoral establishments crimes all night.. but you get the picture).
I registered to vote for the EU referendum because it was extremely important! We were deceived into joining the EU around the time I was born and at the first opportunity to have a say Britain spoke. Now I use the term 'Britain' very loosely here, it is a false construct. There is only the native English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish in the United Kingdom on these islands. All others are viewed by the natives as ethnically foreign, which they are. Second, third or fourth etc. generation ethnic foreigners can culturally adapt, and many have. My current doctors for example are both around my age and are the sons of my childhood doctors. These men worked hard to become doctors, funded a surgery on a poor white council estate and looked after me handsomely, as there children now do. The surgery on my estate is now a flat complex because they had to abandon it because it was constantly vandalised by the 'native white locals'. It is a low IQ area of social housing.. so for the last 20 years or so all the mums with sick kids have to go into town to visit a doctor because there are none locally.. I do not live in the catchment area for my doctors surgery but I am still welcome there, and when my children needed a doctor I signed them up and was accepted because of the history between us when by rights I would have been refused.
Nobody has ever called me a racist because I am not a racist so they don't go there, what I do is speak up with the truth of the matter. I am very concerned about what the future holds for my doctors because of their colour, and for their young sons who we chat about on my visits there because they are the same age as mine. We have history and a lot in common, they have earned the right to be here and built bonds with the community based on mutual respect. If it all kicks off.. which it will one day if we don't stand and decry it, I fear for them as the low IQ people will react emotionally with violence and not stoically. I suspect many cannot even spell stoic let alone grasp the concepts, but anyway I digress..
This was a big deal a while back:
http://www.heritage.org/europe/report/the-eu-lisbon-treaty-gordon-brown-surrenders-britains-sovereignty
Gordon Brown was an unelected Prime Minister, because in this country you vote for the party not the leader of the party. When the war crimes heat got too much for the establishment Blair was dumped and Brown slipped into the seat. Now we have the situation where PM May acknowledges she is unelected and has no mandate from the people.. see how this works ?
So if we fast forward to the general election the Conservatives are probably going to win and do this (is one option amongst many) as a vassal patsy to kick it all off:
https://www.rt.com/uk/385959-corbyn-fallon-strike-nuclear/
If Labour get in because of the revulsion of a pre-emptive nuclear strike ideology (quite right, it is a revolting ideology) then we have bought time.. the end times get pushed a little further into the future. This is what happened with Trump, some might have been foolish enough to 'believe in him' but I did not, he was the best of two bad choices and did to his credit bring subjects into the mainstream narrative that are marginalised, which was a plus! If the Clintons had got in we would now be much worse off, and most people could see that so they got off their arses and voted for a few more moments of life.
Should Labour achieve a shock victory the establishment has it covered because the Labour deputy leader Tom Watson is a Zionist:
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/tom-watson-am-yisrael-chai/
In that scenario I would give Corbyn a maximum of 6 months before he is removed and 'Friends of Israel' is right back in the driving seat, same goes for the Liberal Democrats, a controlled party like you say.
UKIP is the_last_chance on the establishments timetable for a peaceful resolution to the crisis and we might kick the can down the road a bit longer before all hell breaks loose.. but each moment that passes is a chance for reason to prevail. People are waking up at quite a rate of knots, they are seeing how their cultures have been subverted and enslaved over the centuries and although the hour is late there is still hope to avoid a total war event, which none of us will survive.
I support Robert David Steeles position that a truth and reconciliation process should replace jail time for the establishment criminals, this is because the immoral backed into a corner can cause an extinction level event for the human race. I am not saying let them off the hook, I would much rather build them a hhophouse.
http://robertdavidsteele.com/
Some of my friends are right wing 'conservatives' if you like, professionals who have worked all there life and are respected members of their communities. Not the bastardised definition of conservative as debased by the political party of the same name. They 'don't want immigrants here at all' because they are old enough to remember what this country once was like, when it was quite safe. It is therefore very difficult for me to occupy the political center with all the provocations from 'radicalised refugees' who like Le Pen says, and Tommy Robinson quite rightly states:
https://www.infowars.com/tommy-robinson-tears-into-laughing-islamapologists-at-london-terror-site/
I am one of the last of the so called Generation X born in the late 70's, I am old enough to know what the UK used to be like.. There was very little tech around, no internet and I loved to read.. I read thousands of books and educated myself. My father also put a huge amount of time into my education, his passion was history, military history in particular and lectured me endlessly even when I didn't want to learn. I thank him for that, it became very useful when I realised the establishment was planning to murder me, and the plan had been hatched before I was even born, so it helped me choose a direction based upon reason not an emotional reaction of force. So i stood.. and I studied, and I worked hard for no money and no recognition. Most people who knew me considered I had wasted my life, my talent, threw it all away.. they did not understand what I was doing.
Now we come to a sticky subject, when I was a young man I assessed the human species and decided that they should all be wiped out, a plague on the planet. An understanding of the horrors committed throughout history surely helped shape that opinion. I decided to help and I studied and eventually I had hhop. I did not give it to humanity though, I sat on it, because I didn't think humans deserved it. I was not about to unleash humanity on the rest of the universe while they demonstrated the preference to destroy everything. I even had an argument with a member on this forum when they 'demanded' I give them what they suspected I was sitting on, and I told them where to go, it was my work and I would do with it what I wanted. I had earned that right of ownership over it.
It may or may not surprise you to know that I was raised as an atheist, my father was one after all.. but he did a wonderful thing.. he supported me in religious choice. I was given the freedom to explore any religion I wished and I did, I studied many as a young boy and none of them sat right with me, they seemed to be the word of man and not the word of God. If there is a God then the universe is the Book, and I have been privileged to decipher a chapter, which is hhop, a new fundamental principle. I had a good chuckle when they tried to David Icke an atheist.. someone has a loose mouth or the communications were intercepted and attempted to be used against me.. either way I chuckled BIGLY!
Now do you understand why I founded the Everymen ? A movement, philosophy if you like based upon morality. It transcends politics, skin colour, religion and everything and allows all souls to stand under one banner, nurture and support each other and defeat Lucifer in the moment. Even immoral souls can choose to become Everymen, to vow to act morally from this moment forward, all sins forgiven. Can we not find the courage to try and move forward as one, exploring our reality and the universe together forever. I truly do hope so.
I hate to type and this was very personal but from my choice to share this position with you I hope you appreciate how late I consider the hour to be. Stand now, let your voice be heard.
Hi Rob.
Thank you.
One of the few articles here that I felt compelled to read. From the heart, that's what matters. O0
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.04.24, 23:00:30
snip
Now do you understand why I founded the Everymen ? A movement, philosophy if you like based upon morality. It transcends politics, skin colour, religion and everything and allows all souls to stand under one banner, nurture and support each other and defeat Lucifer in the moment. Even immoral souls can choose to become Everymen, to vow to act morally from this moment forward, all sins forgiven. Can we not find the courage to try and move forward as one, exploring our reality and the universe together forever. I truly do hope so.
I hate to type and this was very personal but from my choice to share this position with you I hope you appreciate how late I consider the hour to be. Stand now, let your voice be heard.
I didn't know that you had. However, thank you for the very heart felt post, it explains a lot.
I always had a desire to know how things work, mostly mechanical and electrical but of later years how society itself works (or doesn't) it has been a shocking revelation to uncover the monstrosity of it all. Some points (many points) are just unbelievable.
I have attempted to become more spiritual. I work with David Lowrance...
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/HealTheWorld595/conversations/messages (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/HealTheWorld595/conversations/messages)
If this subject interests you?
Ron
Quote from: Ronee
...but of later years how society itself works (or doesn't) it has been a shocking revelation to uncover the monstrosity of it all.
The ugliness and depravity of the "monstrosity" is
nearly beyond belief:
Insider confirms nature of the beastWatch the video if convenient - it is powerful
Quote from: muDped on 2017.04.27, 05:50:49
The ugliness and depravity of the "monstrosity" is
nearly beyond belief:
Insider confirms nature of the beast (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=150691)
Watch the video if convenient - it is powerful
Excellent, thank you
I have reposted it on HTW 595
Ron
Triumvirate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumvirate
A triumvirate (Latin: triumvirātus) is a political regime ruled or dominated by three powerful individuals known as triumvirs (Latin: triumviri). The arrangement can be formal or informal. Though the three are notionally equal, this is rarely the case in reality. The term can also be used to describe a state with three different military leaders who all claim to be the sole leader.
In the context of the Soviet Union and Russia, the term troika (Russian for "group of three") is used for "triumvirate". Another synonym is triarchy.
Roman triumvirates
Originally, triumviri were special commissions of three men appointed for specific administrative tasks apart from the regular duties of Roman magistrates. The triumviri capitales, for instance, oversaw prisons and executions, along with other functions that, as Andrew Lintott notes, show them to have been "a mixture of police superintendents and justices of the peace."[1] The capitales were first established around 290–287 BCE.[2] They were supervised by the praetor urbanus. These triumviri, or the tresviri nocturni,[3] may also have taken some responsibility for fire control. [4] The triumviri or tresviri aere argento auro flando feriundo (for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold) supervised the issuing of Roman coins.
Three-man commissions were also appointed for purposes such as establishing colonies (triumviri coloniae deducendae) or distributing land.[5] Triumviri mensarii served as public bankers;[6] the full range of their financial functions in 216 BCE, when the commission included two men of consular rank, has been the subject of debate.[7] Another form of three-man commission was the tresviri epulones, who were in charge of organizing public feasts on holidays. This commission was created in 196 BCE by a tribunician law on behalf of the people, and their number was later increased to seven (septemviri epulones).[8]
In the late Republic, two three-man political alliances are called triumvirates by modern scholars, though only for the second was the term triumviri used at the time to evoke constitutional precedents:
The so-called First Triumvirate was an informal political alliance of Julius Caesar, Pompeius Magnus ("Pompey the Great") and Marcus Crassus.[9] The arrangement had no legal status, and its purpose was to consolidate the political power of the three and their supporters against the senatorial elite. After the death of Crassus in 53 BCE, the two survivors fought a civil war, during which Pompey was killed and Caesar established his sole rule as perpetual dictator.
The Second Triumvirate was recognized as a triumvirate at the time. A Lex Titia formalized the rule of Octavian, Mark Antony, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. The legal language makes reference to the traditional tresviri. This "three-man commission for restoring the constitution of the republic" (tresviri rei publicae constituendae) in fact was given the power to make or annul law without approval from either the Senate or the people; their judicial decisions were not subject to appeal, and they named magistrates at will. Although the constitutional machinery of the Republic was not irrevocably dismantled by the Lex Titia, in the event it never recovered.[10] Lepidus was sidelined early in the triumvirate, and Antony was eliminated in civil war, leaving Octavian the sole leader.
In various municipalities under the Principate, the chief magistracy was a college of three, styled triumviri.
Biblical triumvirates
In the Bible triumvirates occurred at some notable events in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Book of Exodus Moses, his brother Aaron and, according to some views their nephew or brother-in-law, Hur acted this way during Battle of Rephidim against the Amalekites.[Exodus 17:10][11] In the Gospels as a leading trio among the Twelve Apostles at three particular occasions during public ministry of Jesus acted Peter, James, son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were the only apostles present at the Raising of Jairus' daughter[Mark 5:37], Transfiguration of Jesus [Matthew 17:1] and Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane[Matthew 26:37]. Later, at the time of the Early Christian Church this triumvirate of the leading apostles changed slightly, as it became composed of Peter, John and James, brother of Jesus.[Galatians 2:9][12]
The genocidal Kalergi plan to destroy the indigenous nations and peoples of Europe
https://sovereignwales.com/2016/09/20/the-genocidal-kalergi-plan-to-destroy-the-indigenous-nations-and-peoples-of-europe/
The hot potato of immigration – a perfectly reasonable debate for citizens of any country to have but one that many from all political persuasions are often unable to have without resorting to hysteria and polarisation.
Natural and sustainable immigration happens organically. Economic immigrants, whether legal or not, can't be blamed or demonised for looking for a better quality of life. And genuine asylum seekers who escape war zones and civil wars created by any aggressor including western/Nato countries should expect our sympathy and help and be given refuge in the nearest safe country or countries as set out in international law.
But it isn't that simple. Sadly there are political leaders and planners who seek to create and use mass immigration and the forced movement of people for their own nefarious purposes. Not many people have heard of the The Kalergi Pan European plan for Europe. In the 1920s, Free Mason Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote a book titled "Praktischer Idealismus," (Practical Idealism) which set out his views on how he believed the abolition of the right of self-determination and the elimination of European nations should be accomplished with the formation of an European Union.
After publishing the book, Kalergi received help from Baron Louis de Rothschild who put him in touch with one of his friends, banker Max Warburg. Warburg then supported Kalergi with considerable funds to help form his European movement. The main problem lays with the fact that what Kalergi called for was not only the destruction of European nation states but also the deliberate ethnocide of the indigenous, mostly Caucasian race of the European continent. This he proposed should be done through enforced mass migration to create an undifferentiated homogeneous mass of serfs to be dominated by a wealthy self electing elite.
Kalergi in his own words:
"The (European) man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space (nations), time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals"
QuoteNatural and sustainable immigration happens organically. Economic immigrants, whether legal or not, can't be blamed or demonised for looking for a better quality of life.
Nonsense, we can run from the problems we have created only to re-create them in another place or we can grow a set of balls and solve the problems at hand. Obviously always running away from our problems is not a solution to anything nor will it ever be. Personally I like a good fight, maybe it's a Canadian thing?.
QuoteAnd genuine asylum seekers who escape war zones and civil wars created by any aggressor including western/Nato countries should expect our sympathy and help and be given refuge in the nearest safe country or countries as set out in international law.
Sympathy is defined as feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune and Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. As such I do have feelings of sympathy for others however empathy tells me we cannot keep running from problems or we will always be running. It's like that kid who's parents were not much sharper than a bag of marbles and destitute and yet they became a Nobel winning physicist. We should understand their parents had every opportunity to progress but remained stupid by choice where their child did not.
My point is that at some point we must take responsibility for our circumstance concerning where we find ourselves and what we do. If we want to accept our plight or continuously run like cowards then we we always be running. If we want to plant our feet and take on the problems we face as men then there is no need to run anywhere. Their is no refuge from our own fear, inaction or stupidity... we own it.
United Nations Genocide Conventions
http://whitegenocideproject.com/united-nations-genocide-conventions/
The crime of genocide is defined in international law in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
The law protects four groups – national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.
A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.04.26, 23:43:21
I didn't know that you had
The Everymen were activated in late 2013 with the issuance of ESO: 01 in response to the threat made by the Jewish media in the UK that ISIS will attack us here if we don't allow the bombing of Assad. This crossed the line, I was not about to sit idly by while a fake proxy army was used abroad to terrorise the Syrian sovereign nation and be dual tasked to terrorise the host nations population back home in the UK. As is evidenced in this thread they quickly realised they had gone too far and sought urgent damage limitation with a Blackberry.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.04.26, 23:43:21
I have attempted to become more spiritual. I work with David Lowrance...
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/HealTheWorld595/conversations/messages (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/HealTheWorld595/conversations/messages)
If this subject interests you?
David Lowrance ? Yes I have heard of him, even studied his position a bit many years ago but found spirituality to be more logical when combined with a study of the sciences. Science is based on facts we know (or think we know until proven false), religion and spirituality are based on faith. I prefer to make my own mind up based upon the evidence rather than a blind faith in what other men tell me is true, hence atheism as a God given right! O0
P.S. linking to a Yahoo group only works for people who can log into Yahoo, and I don't use it.
How to Reverse the Tide of War. A Global People's Movement. Say No to Nuclear War
http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to question their legitimacy and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.
"Throughout the history of mankind there have been murderers and tyrants; and while it may seem momentarily that they have the upper hand, they have always fallen." (Mahatma Gandhi)
"The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok." (William Rockler, Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor)
Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would be an unprecedented human catastrophe. ...
Quote from: ronee on 2017.04.24, 20:16:44
Don't vote, it only encourages them
UKIP has blown it big time Ron. Everymen do not support international war criminals in the Genocide of the people of Yemen.
BOJO'S FREEBIE Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson given free run by Ukip in safe Uxbridge seathttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3486469/foreign-secretary-boris-johnson-given-free-run-by-ukip-in-safe-uxbridge-seat/
The Tories have been in talks with Ukip on a series of electoral pactsTHE pact between anti-EU Tories and Ukip deepened today as it emerged the Brexit party would not field a candidate against Leave campaign champion Boris Johnson.
The chief-Brexiteer turned Foreign Secretary will be given a free run in his safe West London seat of Uxbridge.
One Year of Bloodshed in Yemen: US and UK are Accomplices in Saudi Coalition War Crimeshttps://thewallwillfall.org/2016/03/27/one-year-of-bloodshed-in-yemen-us-and-uk-are-accomplices-in-saudi-coalition-war-crimes/
27th March 2016"Almost one year has passed since Operation Decisive Storm was launched. The appalling level of human suffering, combined with a mounting sense of hopelessness, is exacerbating internal divisions and sectarian animosity. Status quo is clearly not sustainable. The resilience of people in Yemen has been stretched beyond human limits." ~ Ms Kate Gilmore, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights On the 26th March 2015, one year ago today, the Saudi led coalition launched its 'Operation Decisive Storm' against the Yemeni people. One year on, the intensity of the attacks has not subsided and the wholesale slaughter of civilians and deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure continues unabated. Aided and abetted primarily by the US and the UK, the Saudi regime is destroying Yemen's cultural heritage, bombing masjids, schools, hospitals, market places, wedding parties, fishing boats, telecommunication centres, electrical power plants, factories, agricultural lands and livestock.
The Saudi regime is doing everything in its power to ensure the Yemeni people have no means of survival or sustenance under a crippling blockade that has been in place since the inception of the war of aggression against Yemen. A blockade that is "lamented, decried and condemned" by an international community that hides behind familiar rhetoric while ensuring the flow of arms continues unhindered into Saudi weapons depots.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.07, 14:21:08
UKIP has blown it big time Ron. Everymen do not support international war criminals in the Genocide of the people of Yemen.
snip
It seems to me to be quite predictable, how any "reasonable party" can not stay on track but as soon as it emerges into the light is taken over and subverted.
Thus we end up with a self perpetuating system of loose cannons such as Boris Johnson and John McCain at the top of the heap.
Trump's swamp cabinet is a shining example of this theory...McMaster ... oh the list is just too long for here, LOL
I wonder how "the" French election will do today? Not much hope if Macron is "elected"
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.05.07, 16:09:26
I wonder how "the" French election will do today? Not much hope if Macron is "elected"
The polls just closed so we will know soon enough, and if what is found in the Macrongate emails is true.. well see for yourself:
http://12160.info/page/french-presidential-election-second-final-round-live-results
https://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/macron-leaks-contain-secret-plans-for.html
The Macron leaks contain secret proposals that would lead to the islamisation of France and Europe. These are shown in a Powerpoint presentation which appears to have come from the Institut Montaigne. Harmonising education between countries on different sides of the Mediterranean is one of the key objectives.
Create a common history textbook with Italy, Spain, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia (3) in order to put in historical perspective the mutual contributions and religious convergences between the two shores of the Mediterranean.
Within the 3+3 framework, we recommend the creation of a commission of historians responsible for drawing up a common history textbook. The aim of this work will be:
-to create a common base of objective historical knowledge founded on the logic of a historical "draw" [stalemate]
- to develop a sense of belonging to a common history
- to reduce the fantasies of victimisation on one side as well as civilisational superiority on the other
The document also recommends the introduction of Arabic teaching to French schools, including bi-lingual classes. This is justified by with the claim that Muslims are currently getting their "Arabic fix" from mosques, where they risk being radicalised. I previously noted that "soft islamisation" is being advocated as the remedy for "hard islamisation" and that this represents a kind of de facto reward being offered to jihad violence. Jihad gets results. It leads to societies being islamised, one way or the other.
Other plans for measures to islamise France include facilitating mosque construction by making it easier to arrange finance for it and providing reserved Muslim areas in municipal cemeteries. Again this is justified by claiming that it will lead to the emergence of a "French Islam".
UPDATE:
For those expressing scepticism about this, here is more information. The exact email is called "Fwd: Notes à date (1) : REGALIEN", sent by quentin.lafay@gmail.com to sarah.gallitre@gmail.com and amiel.dvd@gmail.com on 31 August 2016. It can be found in the quentin.lafay archive within the set of Macron Leaks files. Here is a magnet link if you want to download it and have a torrent client installed (link).
As this Figaro article (link) shows, some references to these proposals have already been made in the mainstream press so it is not even that far-out in terms of the thinking of the left-wing intelligentsia in France. What wasn't known was that Macron's people were on board with it.
Jews accused of 'blackmailing' Sweden with help of Barbara Spectre
https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/jews-accused-of-blackmailing-sweden-with-help-of-barbara-spectre/
"When they were negotiating with the Swedish government, they told the government: 'If you don't give us this money, behind us we have the World Jewish Congress, and we will tell all the world that Sweden is an anti-Semitic country.'" — Ingrid Carlqvist, Swedish journalist.
I don't believe in making libellous allegations and I don't intend to start now. It's possible that Barbara Spectre is a paragon of virtue. What strikes me as rather odd are three questions which this unpopular and potentially dangerous Jewish agitator makes no attempt to address:
QUESTION 1. Why should Jews place themselves in the forefront of the movement to rescue Europe from certain extinction, given that Jews have never shown the slightest inclination for altruism throughout their history?—always striving to advance Jewish interests at the expense of everyone else's interests, and above all, always doing what is "good for the Jews".
QUESTION 2. How is it possible to sing the praises of mass immigration to Europe, maintaining that this is necessary for European "survival", when such mass immigration is bound to produce miscegenation and mongrelizaton of the indigenous white Europeans, leading to white genocide in 50-60 years? In short, how can white genocide be good for whites?
QUESTION 3. Why is multiculturalism such a good idea for Europe and America and other white homelands but such a bad idea for Israel? Why are endless swarms of immigrants to be seen as blessings in Europe and America but as curses in Israel? (See video at end of article where Israeli officials and rabbis refer openly to all refugees as "infiltrators".)
Results are in for the French election and Rothschild wins:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/emmanuel-macron-wins-french-presidency-marine-le-pen
Demographics of France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France
Lord Rothschild Discusses How His Family Created Israel!
http://investmentwatchblog.com/lord-rothschild-discusses-how-his-family-created-israel/
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.07, 19:36:50
Results are in for the French election and Rothschild wins:
snip
Even allowing for a certain amount of election fraud that still must mean that this is a majority French vote.
With only 4.7 million Muslims to a total population of nearly 67 million they couldn't of have influenced the vote that much?
Did they, the French, not realize that this is the end of France as a nation. It is truly pathetic.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.05.07, 23:15:27
Even allowing for a certain amount of election fraud that still must mean that this is a majority French vote.
With only 4.7 million Muslims to a total population of nearly 67 million they couldn't of have influenced the vote that much?
Did they, the French, not realize that this is the end of France as a nation. It is truly pathetic.
You are making an assumption that it is only Muslim's that would vote against a sovereign France. Freedom of movement has meant that many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds have settled in France over the decades and the majority of them vote in their own interest, which is not an empowered native sovereign French people. Additionally media brainwashing via control of the narrative is a very strong propaganda tool and they vote the way the TV and Newspapers tell them is in their interest. Factor in a low IQ, brain damage and an inherent laziness and love of "free stuff" and you are closer to the answer. For any people to vote for their own genocide deserves a collective Darwin Award!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
The Schengen Agreement (English pronunciation: /ˈʃɛŋən/) is a treaty which led to the creation of Europe's Schengen Area, in which internal border checks have largely been abolished. It was signed on 14 June 1985, near the town of Schengen, Luxembourg, by five of the ten member states of the then European Economic Community. It proposed measures intended to gradually abolish border checks at the signatories' common borders, including reduced speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints, and the harmonisation of visa policies.[1]
In 1990, the Agreement was supplemented by the Schengen Convention which proposed the complete abolition of systematic internal border controls and a common visa policy. The Schengen Area operates very much like a single state for international travel purposes with external border controls for travellers entering and exiting the area, and common visas, but with no internal border controls. It currently consists of 26 European countries covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 4,312,099 square kilometres (1,664,911 sq mi).[2]
Originally, the Schengen treaties and the rules adopted under them operated independently from the European Union. However, in 1999 they were incorporated into European Union law by the Amsterdam Treaty, while providing opt-outs for the only two EU member states that had remained outside the Area: Ireland and the United Kingdom. Schengen is now a core part of EU law, and all EU member states without an opt-out which have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. Several non-EU countries are included in the area.[3]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.08, 16:38:00
You are making an assumption that it is only Muslim's that would vote against a sovereign France. Freedom of movement has meant that many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds have settled in France over the decades and the majority of them vote in their own interest, which is not an empowered native sovereign French people. Additionally media brainwashing via control of the narrative is a very strong propaganda tool and they vote the way the TV and Newspapers tell them is in their interest. Factor in a low IQ, brain damage and an inherent laziness and love of "free stuff" and you are closer to the answer. For any people to vote for their own genocide deserves a collective Darwin Award!
snip
Not really, I was merely exploring that as one possibility. That is a real possibility however if you examine the Muslim agenda.
Quote:
"The confrontation is inevitable," Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France's seven million Muslims, "whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street."
These Salafists openly challenge France's way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists' threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.
There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles, "the quiet conquest". It is "moderate" Islam's sinuous project of producing submission. "Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely".
That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq's novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the "moderate" Muslim who becomes France's president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.
In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with "anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad... "
Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France," the report states, "it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions."
In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this "moderate Islam." The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l'Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan's first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader's husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: "It is a historical mistake, a scam", he wrote on Facebook. His solution? "Ctrl + Alt + Delete".
Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy's Democratic Party in an open letter: "The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard".
Take two "stars" of this French "moderate Islam." The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy's former prime minister, Massimo D'Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: "Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam".
Ramadan's project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.
The second French "star" is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to "double" the number of mosques in France."
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8637/islam-europe-conquest (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8637/islam-europe-conquest)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.05.08, 19:56:24
Not really, I was merely exploring that as one possibility. That is a real possibility however if you examine the Muslim agenda.
I agree, the Muslim agenda is quite obvious in conquering Europe and the West in general. Erdogan has said we will have a holy war in Europe and urged Muslims to outbreed us as they are the future of Europe..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/780050/Holy-war-Turkey-EU-Netherlands-Rutte-Erdogan-Cavusoglu-Juncker
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/europe/erdogan-turkey-future-of-europe.html?_r=0
This plan would not succeed without a modern day version of the Triumvirate.
In this case it consists of "The Tribe, The Islamists, and The Traitors".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/09/jakarta-governor-ahok-found-guilty-of-blasphemy-jailed-for-two-years
It is so fubar it boggles the mind.
Indonesia just went on my !@#$ list along with many other regions/countries and I will not buy their products. We all have a choice and many small actions can have large effects. Other people do have the right to act on their beliefs however I also have the right to judge them and base my choices on their actions.
Someday's I swear most people are still living in the dark ages and it just boggles the mind what in the hell they could possibly be thinking.
QuoteAnother judge, Abdul Rosyad, said reasons for the stiff sentence included that "the defendant did not feel guilt, the defendant's act has caused anxiety and hurt Muslims".
The satirical reply by Steve Hughes: "I was offended.. nothing happened!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
The satirical reply by Steve Hughes: "I was offended.. nothing happened!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
Thank you... I needed that
A Slap In The Face Of Democracy: Canada's "Anti-Islamophobia" Motion
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-09/slap-face-democracy-canadas-anti-islamophobia-motion
Motion 103 would "lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada."
Nigel Farage criticises FGM and sharia courts in UK
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/14/nigel-farage-fgm-sharia-courts-interculturalism
Ukip leader calls for more 'interculturalism' and says some Muslims failing to fit in with UK's Judeo-Christian culture
Nigel Farage has hit out at sharia courts, female genital mutilation and sexual grooming gangs following the Paris terror attacks, suggesting they are further evidence that some Muslims are failing to fit in with the UK's "Judeo-Christian culture".
He made the comments after previously saying there were "no-go areas" for non-Muslims in France and ghettos of immigrants from which the police had withdrawn in the UK. The Ukip leader has been accused by some of his rivals of trying to exploit the Paris attacks, carried out by Islamist extremists, to make a political argument against multiculturalism.
In an interview from Strasbourg with BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Farage claimed there were 80 sharia courts operating in the UK. He also highlighted the issue of FGM, which is carried out by some Muslim communities but is not exclusively linked to one faith nor required by Islam, and the sexual grooming of girls in parts of South Yorkshire by men mainly of Pakistani heritage.
"I've got no problem with different religions and different groups having their own private observance, but the law should be the law," he said.
"And I think we've seen two very glaring examples of where this has gone horribly wrong. The first is – I know it's early in the morning – but female genital mutilation, where there have been tens of thousands of cases of this in the United Kingdom and there's not yet been a single prosecution.
"What we've seen, particularly in Rotherham and in parts of Rochdale, and Denis MacShane [former Labour MP for Rotherham] in his book on the issue was perfectly clear that the politically correct view was not to look too closely for fear of causing offence, and it's that culture that we've got to reverse."
He clarified that he had not suggested there were any no-go areas in Britain but argued there needed to be more "interculturalism" rather than "multiculturalism".
"There is some evidence that within some parts of the Muslim community that is not happening and there are some small sections of that community who are becoming ever further away from what we would call the Judeo-Christian culture of the United Kingdom and that is the problem.
"And I do think we need to be honest and open about this and to say we've made some terrible mistakes in the past and to make things better, we must recognise first what we've got wrong."
Rabbi: Jews are fighting alongside their Muslim brothers against Old Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsJYGoRHA-U
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.04.25, 11:49:20
Hi Rob.
Thank you.
One of the few articles here that I felt compelled to read. From the heart, that's what matters. O0
Cheers Graham.
No worries mate. It is my belief that those that are able to make a difference in this world must do so, no matter the cost, or evil will prevail.
I chose the example of the doctor from one of hundreds I could have chosen, the reason being it is easier to imagine an immigrant of high intelligence as being an asset to England. The question however is "does it make a difference" ? The English have had enough of rule by the triumvirate and want to protect their culture and claim their country back from the occupiers. If this problem of white genocide is not discussed pronto I see a hell of a lot of trouble in this country just over the horizon. The same situation is what Wales faces and it's obvious you want your country back too, and not see it deteriorate into an Islamic caliphate where failure to submit to one world religion is punishable by death. Do we really want to become a race of European-Negroids as planned by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi and his followers ? The Scots, well.. they have voted for their own genocide along with the Irish.. the union is truly broken and Britain is no more, in fact it never was anything more than a deception.
Brexit Britain on the Brinkhttp://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/05/brexit-britain-on-brink.html
"No one in England (outside of the political, media, diplomatic and business elites) rarely calls the country by its formal title - the United Kingdom or even Britain – it is simply England for many people and most describe themselves as English rather than British. So one side effect of Brexit will probably be the end of the artificial construct known to only a few as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain is well and truly on the Brink and Theresa May is totally the wrong leader for this perilous moment."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.09, 21:45:52
Ukip leader calls for more 'interculturalism' and says some Muslims failing to fit in with UK's Judeo-Christian culture
Judeo-Christianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
The term Judeo-Christian groups Judaism and Christianity, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism or due to perceived parallels or commonalities shared between those two religions.
History of the termThe term is used, as "Judæo Christian", at least as far back as in a letter from Alexander M'Caul dated October 17, 1821.[1] The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.[2] The term is used similarly by Joseph Wolff in 1829, referring to a style of church that would keep with some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews.[3]
Use of the German term Judenchristlich ("Jewish-Christian"), in a decidedly negative sense, can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche's argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.
The concept of "Judeo-Christian values" in an ethical (rather than theological or liturgical) sense was used by George Orwell in 1939, with the phrase "the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals."[4] It has become part of the "American civil religion" since the 1940s, and is now the most common usage of the term "Judeo-Christian", at least in the United States.
Theology and religious lawChristianity inherits the notion of a "covenant" from Second Temple Judaism, in the form of the Old Testament. Two major views of the relationship exist, namely New Covenant theology and Dual-covenant theology. In addition, although the order of the books in the Protestant Old Testament (excluding the Biblical apocrypha) and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) differ, the contents of the books are very similar.[5]
The Christian Old Testament is, thus, Jewish scripture, and it is used as moral and spiritual teaching material throughout the Christian world.
The prophets, patriarchs, and heroes of the Jewish scripture are also known in Christianity, which uses the Jewish text as the basis for its understanding of biblical figures such as Abraham, Elijah, and Moses. As a result, a substantial amount of Jewish and Christian teachings are based on a common sacred text.
Through soul-searching in the aftermath of the Holocaust, "there was a revolution in Christian theology in America. [...] The greatest shift in Christian attitudes toward the Jewish people since Constantine converted the Roman Empire."[6] The rise of Christian Zionism—that is, religiously motivated Christian interest and support for the state of Israel—along with a growth of philo-Semitism (love of the Jewish people) has increased interest among American Evangelicals in Judaism, especially areas of commonality with their own beliefs (see also Jerusalem in Christianity). During the late 1940s, Evangelical proponents of the new Judeo-Christian approach lobbied Washington for diplomatic support of the new state of Israel. The Evangelicals have never wavered in their support for Israel. On the other hand, by the late 1960s Mainline Protestant denominations and the National Council of Churches were showing more support for the Palestinians than for the Israelis.[7] Interest in and a positive attitude towards America's Judeo-Christian tradition has become mainstream among Evangelicals.[8]
The scriptural basis for this new positive attitude towards Jews among Evangelicals is Genesis 12:3, in which God promises that He will bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants, and curse those who curse them (see also "Abrahamic Covenant"). Other factors in the new philo-Semitism include gratitude to the Jews for contributing to the theological foundations of Christianity and for being the source of the prophets and Jesus; remorse for the Church's history of anti-Semitism; and fear that God will judge the nations at the end of time on the basis of how they treated the Jewish people. Moreover, for many Evangelicals Israel is seen as the instrument through which prophecies of the end times are fulfilled.[9] Great numbers of Christian pilgrims visit Israel, especially in times of trouble for the Jewish state, to offer moral support, and return with an even greater sense of a shared Judeo-Christian heritage.
Was the Pope Wrong to Compare Refugee Centers to Concentration Camps?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/pope-francis-compares-refugee-centers-to-concentration-camps.html?_r=0
Until last weekend, Pope Francis earned nothing but praise from the American Jewish Committee. But when the pope, speaking off the cuff, likened European migrant and refugee holding centers to concentration camps, the advocacy group's response was swift and sharp.
"The conditions in which migrants are currently living in some European countries may well be difficult and deserve still greater international attention, but concentration camps they certainly are not," said David Harris, the committee's chief executive. "The Nazis and their allies erected and used concentration camps for slave labor and the extermination of millions of people during World War II. There is no comparison to the magnitude of that tragedy."
As a Jewish convert to Catholicism, I sympathize with the committee's desire to guard against comparisons that would risk minimizing the Nazis' appalling crimes. Even so, it seems to me that Mr. Harris, in urging the pope to use "precision of language," could use some precision himself.
Calling the living conditions at sites such as Moria, the place on the Greek island of Lesbos that Francis called a "concentration camp," merely "difficult" diminishes the gravely inhumane treatment that men, women and children are suffering for no other crime than wanting freedom and a better life. It fails to acknowledge the hopelessness at places like Australia's island prisons for migrants where, as Roger Cohen wrote in The New York Times, "human beings have been left to fester, crack up and die."
And to be honest, are parallels between Europe's treatment of migrants and the Nazis' treatment of Jews and other persecuted populations during World War II really such a stretch? In late 2015, The Times reported that, while the migrant crisis "is no genocide," not since the "Jews were rounded up by Nazi Germany have there been as many images coming out of Europe of people locked into trains, babies handed over barbed wire, men in military gear herding large crowds of bedraggled men, women and children."
The situation today is no less distressing. In January, Moria saw a spate of deaths as tents collapsed under heavy snowfall at the overcrowded camp.
To be fair, it's not as though Mr. Harris is unaware of the plight of refugees. The American Jewish Committee is among the leading supporters of IsraAID, which brings together Israeli Jews and Arabs to provide volunteers and medical help to migrants and refugees, including those at Moria. And when President Trump signed executive orders in January authorizing construction of the wall on the Mexican border and blocking the admission of refugees from countries of terror concern, Mr. Harris joined other leaders of faith groups — including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — in condemning the move.
No serious observer can question Pope Francis' sensitivity to Jewish concerns. Indeed, in the words of Rabbi David Rosen, the committee's international director of religious affairs, "There has never been a pope with as deep an understanding of Jews as Pope Francis." Certainly the pope is not above criticism, and the committee has the duty to defend Jewish values. But the context of Francis' remarks make it clear that the pope — who last year met with Holocaust survivors at Auschwitz — had no intention of minimizing Nazi atrocities. He was simply doing what he has been doing for as long as we have known him: urging not only Catholics but the world at large to open their eyes to the needs of the suffering.
In a letter written as archbishop of Buenos Aires, one year before he became pope, Francis warned that "one of the greatest dangers we face is a feeling of complacency, of becoming desensitized to the world around us." On the other hand, he added, "there are moments that shock us out of our unhealthy complacency and set us on the brink of reality, which always challenges us a bit more."
Francis' remarks on refugee camps are indeed shocking, but they are shocking for a purpose: to challenge the world, and every one of us personally, to take action for the good of souls and bodies. The American Jewish Committee, and all people of good will, should rise to the pope's challenge with collaboration, not condemnation.
Dawn Eden Goldstein is a resident lecturer in dogmatic theology at St. Mary's College, Oscott, in Birmingham, England, and the author of "Remembering God's Mercy: Redeem the Past and Free Yourself from Painful Memories."
Brexit was Rigged
Quote:
"You would think the electorate and its representatives in parliament would be 'up in arms' to think that a small clique of American billionaires had changed the course of history in Britain. That a new referendum might be considered, inquiries demanded, that individuals warrants would be issued to those deliberately usurping British democracy and its future prospects. But nothing will happen. We now have a government that has just called a snap election specifically to shore up its power base. It has only just been conveniently let off the hook by 29 police forces for financial irregularities with regards to the 2015 election. And as Cadwalladre says it's about an election
"designed to set us into permanent alignment with Trump's America."
In short, Cadwalladre has echoed what I said a month earlier – America has just highjacked Britain."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/brexit-proof-that-britains-eu-referendum-was-rigged/5589813 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/brexit-proof-that-britains-eu-referendum-was-rigged/5589813)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.05.13, 03:57:02
Brexit was Rigged
This headline is true for both leave and remain factions. The result was what it was.
As for me, I am just an Englishman, nurturing and defending his home, family, and what remains of the culture of his country.
Who controls the frame of reference(s) narrative(s) that define observable reality ?
What frame of reference are the controllers observing and then acting from ?
Situational Irony https://www.thoughtco.com/situational-irony-1692521
Dr. Katherine L. Turner characterizes
situational irony as "a long con––a ruse taking place over time. Participants and onlookers do not recognize the irony because its revelation comes at a later moment in time, the unexpected 'twist.' In situational irony, the anticipated outcome contrasts with the end result" (
This Is the Sound of Irony, 2015).
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.13, 22:03:29
This headline is true for both leave and remain factions. The result was what it was.
As for me, I am just an Englishman, nurturing and defending his home, family, and what remains of the culture of his country.
Who controls the frame of reference(s) narrative(s) that define observable reality ?
What frame of reference are the controllers observing and then acting from ?
Situational Irony
https://www.thoughtco.com/situational-irony-1692521
Dr. Katherine L. Turner characterizes situational irony as "a long con––a ruse taking place over time. Participants and onlookers do not recognize the irony because its revelation comes at a later moment in time, the unexpected 'twist.' In situational irony, the anticipated outcome contrasts with the end result" (This Is the Sound of Irony, 2015).
Good one, as the situational Irony here is that the "European Union" was the work of the CIA/US Corp to begin with.
Now they want "England" (deliberate word choice) to exit.
Ron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/)
British Nuclear Submarines, Microsoft and That Ransomware Attack
QuoteDon't think anything could possibly go wrong when a British Trident submarine, fitted with American manufactured (and maintained) nuclear warheads – managed via American developed software infected with American hacking tools when the red button is pushed? Think again.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-nuclear-submarines-microsoft-and-that-ransomware-attack/5590236 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-nuclear-submarines-microsoft-and-that-ransomware-attack/5590236)
Ron
Here's why Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in all but name
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Here%E2%80%99s_why_Saudi_Arabia_and_Israel_are_allies_in_all_but_name/58590/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Those who claim that Israel is opposed to Donald Trump's now openly warm relations with Saudi Arabia are missing the actual point. On the surface, many assume that Israel and Saudi Arabia have poor relations. Neither country has diplomatic relations with one another, one is a self-styled Jewish state while the other is a Wahhabi Sunni monarchy.
But they both have the same regional goals, they both have the same enemies and both are intellectual anachronisms in a 20th century that has seen the fall of multiple monarchies, the end of traditional European colonialism and the fall of segregated regimes in Africa (Apartheid South Africa and UDI Rhodesia for example).
Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroy such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. In the case of the Syrian Arab Republic, such things still apply.
Such things still have wide appeal not just in the Arab world but universally. The very charter of the UN subtly implies that such goals are the way forward.
Secular Arab governments have therefore not fallen due to their lack of popularity but they have fallen due to political and military aggression from Israel, monetary blackmail and terrorism funded from and by Saudi Arabia and a combination of all of the above from the United States and her European allies. Useful idiots in the west who claim that groups like the obscurantist and terroristic Muslim Brotherhood represent majoritarian public opinion in secular Arab states are simply worse than useful idiots: they are lying, dangerous idiots.
This is why Syria is a country that Israel and Saudi Arabia are both interested in destroying. Both countries have indeed invested time and money into destroying Syria and thus far they have not been successful.
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish.
Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights). Syria has also been a true ally of the oppressed Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
Likewise, Syria has hurt Saudi Arabia and fellow backward Gulf state Qatar's ambitions to expand their petro-empires. Qatar remains desirous to construct a pipeline running through Syria, something Qatar wants done on its terms and its terms alone.
Furthermore, since Saudi Arabia has little to offer the world in terms of culture, Saudi attempts to control and colonise their more educated and worldly Levantine Arabs is done through a combination of bribery and through the use of Salafist terrorist proxies such as ISIS and al-Qaeda.
There is also a psychological element to the mutual warfare which Saudi Arabia and Israel have waged on secular states like Syria.
So long as Syria exists, Saudi Arabia cannot say that there is no alternative to its backward style of government in the Arab world. Of course, others like Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt are secular states (Iraq less so now than at any time since independence), but these states have been wholly compromised through war and in the case of Egypt through political malaise.
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
Both countries also seek to destroy Iran. Iran unlike Saudi Arabia and Israel, practices an ethical foreign policy. Far from wanting to export its Islamic Revolution, Iran has been a staunch ally to secular Syria and has been at the forefront of the fight against Salafist terrorism like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Iran has also taken a principle stance on Palestine, whilst most Arab states with the exception of Syria, have long ago given up on the Palestinian cause.
Israel and Saudi Arabia have superficial differences in foreign policy, but their main goals are exactly the same. Both seek to retard the progress of the Arab world and to taint Islam as something it is not.
Saudi Arabia and Israel both want non-Muslims to think of Islam as something representing bombs, female enslavement, physical mutilation and barbarity. Syria has shown the world that real Islam looks a lot like Christianity and frankly a lot more like Christianity than atheistic Europe does in 2017.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades.
Proxy war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
A proxy war is a conflict between two states or non-state actors where neither entity directly engages the other. While this can encompass a breadth of armed confrontation, its core definition hinges on two separate powers utilizing external strife to somehow attack the interests or territorial holdings of the other. This frequently involves both countries fighting their opponent's allies, or assisting their allies in fighting their opponent.
Proxy wars have been especially common since the close of World War II and the rise of the Cold War, and were a defining aspect of global conflict during the latter half of the 20th century. Much of this was motivated by fears that direct conflict between the United States and Soviet Union would result in nuclear holocaust, rendering proxy wars a safer way of exercising hostilities.[1] There were also more immediate reasons for the emergence of proxy war on the global stage. During its later years, the USSR often found it less expensive to arm or otherwise prop up NATO-antagonistic parties in lieu of direct engagement.[2] In addition, the proliferation of televised media and its impact on public perception made the U.S. public especially susceptible to war-weariness and skeptical of risking American life abroad.[3] This led to the practice of arming insurgent forces, such as the funneling of supplies to the Mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War.[4]
Proxy wars can also emerge from independent conflicts escalating due to the intervention of external powers. For example, the Spanish Civil War began as a civil war between the pro-fascist revolutionary Nationalists, and the supporters of the Spanish Republic, called Republicans. However, it evolved into a proxy war as Nazi Germany and its allies began supporting the Nationalists, while the USSR, Mexico and various international volunteers supported the Republicans.[5]
Conquest (military)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_(military)
Conquest is the occupying of a country that is in need of rebuilding and it can involve the act of military as well as subjugation of an enemy by force of arms.[1][2] The Norman conquest of England provides an example: it led to the subjugation of the Kingdom of England to Norman control and brought William the Conqueror to the English throne in 1066. Military history provides many other examples of conquest: the Roman conquest of Britain, the Mauryan conquest of Afghanistan and of the entire Indian subcontinent, the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire and various Muslim conquests, to mention just a few.
Ancient conquests
The ancient civilized peoples conducted wars on a large scale that were, in effect, conquests.[3] In Egypt the effects of invasion and conquest are to be seen in different racial types represented in paintings and sculptures.[4]
Improved agriculture production was not conducive to peace, it allowed for specialization including the formation of ever larger militaries and improved weapon technology. This combined with growth of population and political control, war became more widespread and destructive.[5] Thus, the Aztecs, Incas, African Kingdoms Dahomey and Benin and the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Persia all stand out as more militaristic than the less civilized tribes about them. Military adventures were on a larger scale and effective conquest now for the first time became feasible.
Moral relativism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day, in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion.
Descriptive
Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[2] It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.
Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement; that is to say, they are not necessarily normative relativists. Likewise, they do not necessarily make any commitments to the semantics, ontology, or epistemology of moral judgement; that is, not all descriptive relativists are meta-ethical relativists.
Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology, which simply admit that it is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in play in all historical and cultural circumstances.
Meta-ethical
Meta-ethical moral relativism is unpopular among philosophers, many are quite critical of it. Though there are several contemporary philosophers who support it.[3]
Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[4] The American anthropologist William Graham Sumner was an influential advocate of this view. He argues in his 1906 work Folkways that what people consider right and wrong is shaped entirely - not primarily - by the traditions, customs, and practices of their culture. Moreover, since in his analysis of human understanding there cannot be any higher moral standard than that provided by the local morals of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's morals could possibly be justified.
Meta-ethical relativists are, first, descriptive relativists: they believe that, given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what a person ought to do or prefer (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using any available independent standard of evaluation—any appeal to a relevant standard would always be merely personal or at best societal.
This view contrasts with moral universalism, which argues that, even though well-intentioned persons disagree, and some may even remain unpersuadable (e.g. someone who is closed-minded), there is still a meaningful sense in which an action could be more "moral" (morally preferable) than another; that is, they believe there are objective standards of evaluation that seem worth calling "moral facts"—regardless of whether they are universally accepted.
Normative
Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. They argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises.[5] Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral". Philosophers like Russell Blackford even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As he puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary."[6] That is, it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality. We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even their own goals effectively.
The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it's wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y".[5]
Moral universalists argue further that their system often does justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly not aggressive interference.[5] For example, the utilitarian might call another society's practice 'ignorant' or 'less moral', but there would still be much debate about courses of action (e.g. whether to focus on providing better education, or technology, etc.)
History
Moral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years. For example, the ancient Jaina Anekantavada principle of Mahavira (c. 599–527 BC) states that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth;[7][8] and the Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 481–420 BC) famously asserted that "man is the measure of all things". The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–420 BC) observed that each society regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than all others. Various other ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an objective standard of morality.
In the early modern era Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil.[9] The 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) serves in several important respects as the father both of modern emotivism and of moral relativism, though Hume himself did not espouse relativism. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts obtained in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions. But Hume regarded some of our sentiments as universal. He famously denied that morality has any objective standard, and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) believed that we have to assess the value of our values since values are relative to one's goals and one's self. He emphasized the need to analyze our moral values and how much impact they may have on us. The problem with morality, according to Nietzsche, is that those who were considered "good" were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank. Thus, what is considered good is relative. A "good man" is not questioned on whether or not there is a "bad", such as temptations, lingering inside him and he is considered to be more important than a man who is considered "bad" who is considered useless to making the human race better because of the morals we have subjected ourselves to. But since what is considered good and bad is relative, the importance and value we place on them should also be relative. He proposed that morality itself could be a danger.[10] Nietzsche believed that morals should be constructed actively, making them relative to who we are and what we, as individuals, consider to be true, equal, good and bad, etc. instead of reacting to moral laws made by a certain group of individuals in power.[11]
One scholar, supporting an anti-realist interpretation, concludes that "Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory: moral facts don't figure in the 'best explanation' of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be 'explained away.' "[12]
It is certain that Nietzsche criticizes Plato's prioritization of transcendence as the Forms. The Platonist view holds that what is 'true', or most real, is something which is other-worldly while the (real) world of experience is like a mere 'shadow' of the Forms, most famously expressed in Plato's allegory of the cave. Nietzsche believes that this transcendence also had a parallel growth in Christianity, which prioritized life-denying moral qualities such as humility and obedience through the church. (See Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, etc.)
Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887–1948) have cautioned observers against ethnocentricism—using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that transcendent morals do not exist—only socially constructed customs do (see cultural relativism); and that in comparing customs, the anthropologist "insofar as he remains an anthropologist . . . is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other". To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values could exist. This led some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist Edward Westermarck (1862–1939) ranks as one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He portrayed all moral ideas as subjective judgments that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (1873–1958) ethical intuitionism—in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of intuition—because of the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power.
Quote from: Wiki Article from Prior Posting
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17)[a] was a scheduled international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that crashed on 17 July 2014 after being shot down, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.[2] The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact about 50 km (31 mi) from the Ukraine–Russia border and crashed near Torez in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, 40 km (25 mi) from the border.[3]
The crash occurred during the battle in Shakhtarsk Raion, part of the ongoing war in Donbass, in an area controlled by the Donbass People's Militia.[4] According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian insurgents using a Buk surface-to-air missile (SA-11) fired from the territory which they controlled.[5] The Russian government blamed the Ukrainian government.[6] The Dutch Safety Board is currently leading an investigation into the incident and issued a preliminary report on 9 September 2014; a final accident report will be released October 2015.[7]
...
Prior PostingIt appears that new "information" regarding the
MH-17 tragedy may be forthcoming.
See attachment.
"Blowback" only applies to an "'unintended' frame of reference".. if it is an intended frame then blowback is not the correct term.. in this case treason, or an act of war, is correct.. dependent on whether the accused is a native traitor or a foreign enemy actor.
Prediction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
A prediction (Latin præ-, "before," and dicere, "to say"), or forecast, is a statement about an uncertain event. It is often, but not always, based upon experience or knowledge. There is no universal agreement about the exact difference between the two terms; different authors and disciplines ascribe different connotations.
Although guaranteed accurate information about the future is in many cases impossible, prediction can be useful to assist in making plans about possible developments; Howard H. Stevenson writes that prediction in business "... is at least two things: Important and hard."[1]
Frame of reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements.
In n dimensions, n+1 reference points are sufficient to fully define a reference frame. Using rectangular (Cartesian) coordinates, a reference frame may be defined with a reference point at the origin and a reference point at one unit distance along each of the n coordinate axes.
In Einsteinian relativity, reference frames are used to specify the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon or phenomena under observation. In this context, the phrase often becomes "observational frame of reference" (or "observational reference frame"), which implies that the observer is at rest in the frame, although not necessarily located at its origin. A relativistic reference frame includes (or implies) the coordinate time, which does not correspond across different frames moving relatively to each other. The situation thus differs from Galilean relativity, where all possible coordinate times are essentially equivalent.
Blowback (intelligence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
Blowback is a term originating from within the American Intelligence community, denoting the unintended consequences, unwanted side-effects, or suffered repercussions of a covert operation that fall back on those responsible for the aforementioned operations. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as "random" acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are unaware of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1]
Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan
A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with timing and resources, used to achieve an objective to do something. See also strategy. It is commonly understood as a temporal set of intended actions through which one expects to achieve a goal. For spatial or planar topologic or topographic sets see map.
Plans can be formal or informal:
Structured and formal plans, used by multiple people, are more likely to occur in projects, diplomacy, careers, economic development, military campaigns, combat, sports, games, or in the conduct of other business. In most cases, the absence of a well-laid plan can have adverse effects: for example, a non-robust project plan can cost the organization time and money.[1][2]
Informal or ad hoc plans are created by individuals in all of their pursuits.
The most popular ways to describe plans are by their breadth, time frame, and specificity; however, these planning classifications are not independent of one another. For instance, there is a close relationship between the short- and long-term categories and the strategic and operational categories.
It is common for less formal plans to be created as abstract ideas, and remain in that form as they are maintained and put to use. More formal plans as used for business and military purposes, while initially created with and as an abstract thought, are likely to be written down, drawn up or otherwise stored in a form that is accessible to multiple people across time and space. This allows more reliable collaboration in the execution of the plan.
How the British deep state turned Manchester into al-Qaeda Town UK
http://www.blacklistednews.com/How_the_British_deep_state_turned_Manchester_into_al-Qaeda_Town_UK/58681/0/38/38/Y/M.html
"It is important to remember that in 2011, the British Home Secretary, the cabinet level position responsible for fighting crime and terrorism was none other than current UK Prime Minister Theresa May who faces a General Election on the 8th of June.
The level of responsible that the UK government bears for turning a once great British city into a kind of jihadist fortress is in a word: monumental.
Gaddafi warned of this danger, but Britain at the time not only did not listen, they did the opposite.
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: As Mrs May unveils her manifesto, at last, we have a PM who is not afraid to be honest.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4520986/At-PM-not-afraid-honest.html
"The Tories' manifesto is an extraordinary document. Detailed, deadly serious, utterly candid and unashamedly moral" EXCUSE ME ? you are monsters
U.N. experts warn Saudi-led coalition allies over war crimes in Yemen
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-un-idUSKBN15D0SB
A Saudi Arabia-led military coalition has carried out attacks in Yemen that "may amount to war crimes," U.N. sanctions monitors reported to the world body's Security Council, warning coalition allies including the United States, Britain and France that they are obligated to respect international humanitarian law.
The annual report by the experts who monitor sanctions and the conflict in Yemen, seen by Reuters on Saturday, investigated 10 coalition air strikes between March and October that killed at least 292 civilians, including some 100 women and children.
"In eight of the 10 investigations, the panel found no evidence that the air strikes had targeted legitimate military objectives," the experts wrote in a 63-page report presented to the Security Council on Friday.
"For all 10 investigations, the panel considers it almost certain that the coalition did not meet international humanitarian law requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack," the report said. "The panel considers that some of the attacks may amount to war crimes."
The experts said Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Sudan.
U.S. and U.K. Continue to Actively Participate in Saudi War Crimes, Targeting of Yemeni Civilians
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/u-s-and-u-k-continue-to-actively-participate-in-saudi-war-crimes-targeting-of-yemeni-civilians/
From the start of the hideous Saudi bombing campaign against Yemen 18 months ago, two countries have played active, vital roles in enabling the carnage: the U.S. and U.K. The atrocities committed by the Saudis would have been impossible without their steadfast, aggressive support.
The Obama administration "has offered to sell $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous U.S. administration," as The Guardian reported this week, and also provides extensive surveillance technology. As The Intercept documented in April, "In his first five years as president, Obama sold $30 billion more in weapons than President Bush did during his entire eight years as commander in chief."
Most important, according to the Saudi foreign minister, although it is the Saudis who have ultimate authority to choose targets, "British and American military officials are in the command and control center for Saudi airstrikes on Yemen" and "have access to lists of targets." In sum, while this bombing campaign is invariably described in Western media outlets as "Saudi-led," the U.S. and U.K. are both central, indispensable participants. As the New York Times editorial page put it in August: "The United States is complicit in this carnage," while The Guardian editorialized that "Britain bears much responsibility for this suffering."
From the start, the U.S.- and U.K.-backed Saudis have indiscriminately and at times deliberately bombed civilians, killing thousands of innocent people. From Yemen, Iona Craig and Alex Potter have reported extensively for The Intercept on the widespread civilian deaths caused by this bombing campaign. As the Saudis continued to recklessly and intentionally bomb civilians, the American and British weapons kept pouring into Riyadh, ensuring that the civilian massacres continued. Every once and awhile, when a particularly gruesome mass killing made its way into the news, Obama and various British officials would issue cursory, obligatory statements expressing "concern," then go right back to fueling the attacks.
This weekend, as American attention was devoted almost exclusively to Donald Trump, one of the most revolting massacres took place. On Saturday, warplanes attacked a funeral gathering in Sana, repeatedly bombing the hall where it took place, killing over 100 people and wounding more than 500 (see photo above). Video shows just some of the destruction and carnage:
Video shows double tap Saudi airstrike on funeral hall in Sanaa, #Yemen, today. Hundreds killed or wounded. Saudis deny, no word from US. pic.twitter.com/6TYlQWPrCN
— Samuel Oakford (@samueloakford) October 8, 2016
Saudi officials first lied by trying to blame "other causes" but have since walked that back. The next time someone who identifies with the Muslim world attacks American or British citizens, and those countries' leading political voices answer the question "why, oh why, do they hate us?" by assuring everyone that "they hate us for our freedoms," it would be instructive to watch that video.
The Obama White House, through its spokesperson Ned Price, condemned what it called "the troubling series of attacks striking Yemeni civilians" — attacks, it did not note, it has repeatedly supported — and lamely warned that "U.S. security cooperation with Saudi Arabia is not a blank check." That is exactly what it is. The 18 months of bombing supported by the U.S. and U.K. has, as the NYT put it this morning, "largely failed, while reports of civilian deaths have grown common, and much of the country is on the brink of famine."
It has been known from the start that the Saudi bombing campaign has been indiscriminate and reckless, and yet Obama and the U.K. government continued to play central roles. A U.N. report obtained in January by The Guardian "uncovered 'widespread and systematic' attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law"; the report found that "the coalition had conducted airstrikes targeting civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law, including camps for internally displaced persons and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses; and other essential civilian infrastructure."
But what was not known, until an excellent Reuters report by Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay this morning, is that Obama was explicitly warned not only that the Saudis were committing war crimes, but that the U.S. itself could be legally regarded as complicit in them:
The Obama administration went ahead with a $1.3 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia last year despite warnings from some officials that the United States could be implicated in war crimes for supporting a Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians, according to government documents and the accounts of current and former officials.
State Department officials also were privately skeptical of the Saudi military's ability to target Houthi militants without killing civilians and destroying "critical infrastructure" needed for Yemen to recover, according to the emails and other records obtained by Reuters and interviews with nearly a dozen officials with knowledge of those discussions.
In other words, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner was explicitly advised that he might be a collaborator in war crimes by arming a campaign that deliberately targets civilians, and continued to provide record-breaking amounts of arms to aid their prosecution. None of that should be surprising: It would be difficult for Obama to condemn "double-tap" strikes of the kind the Saudis just perpetrated — where first responders or mourners are targeted — given that he himself has used that tactic, commonly described as a hallmark of "terrorism." For their part, the British blocked EU inquiries into whether war crimes were being committed in Yemen, while key MPs have blocked reports proving that U.K. weapons were being used in the commission of war crimes and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
The U.S. and U.K. are the two leading countries when it comes to cynically exploiting human rights concerns and the laws of war to attack their adversaries. They and their leading columnists love to issue pretty, self-righteous speeches about how other nations — those primitive, evil ones over there — target civilians and commit war crimes. Yet here they both are, standing firmly behind one of the planet's most brutal and repressive regimes, arming it to the teeth with the full and undeniable knowledge that they are enabling massacres that recklessly, and in many cases, deliberately, target civilians.
And these 18 months of atrocities have barely merited a mention in the U.S. election, despite the key role the leading candidate, Hillary Clinton, has played in arming the Saudis, to say nothing of the millions of dollars her family's foundation has received from its regime (her opponent, Donald Trump, has barely uttered a word about the issue, and himself has received millions in profits from various Saudi oligarchs).
One reason American and British political and media elites love to wax eloquently when condemning the brutality of the enemies of their own government is because doing so advances tribal, nationalistic ends: It's a strategy for weakening adversaries while strengthening their own governments. But at least as significant a motive is that issuing such condemnations distracts attention from their own war crimes and massacres, the ones they are enabling and supporting.
There are some nations on the planet with credibility to condemn war crimes and the deliberate targeting of civilians. The two countries who have spent close to two years arming Saudi Arabia in its ongoing slaughter of Yemeni civilians are most certainly not among them.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.05.13, 23:47:16
Now they want "England" (deliberate word choice) to exit.
Shall we talk about the English ?
Lot's of ink, paper and respect.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.05.25, 21:45:58
Lot's of ink, paper and respect.
Dare I say it? When I click on that it Downloads. When I click on the download it puts up two parallel black bars with the word on the left that says "Guest"
while the words on the right say "Printing subject'
Being that both my mother and father were from England and spoke English I thought this an interesting subject??? How do I get to it?
Ron
Hi Ron.
I think what Rob was referring to was the fact that a guest was printing off the topic !! :o It's massive !! :D
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.05.26, 16:28:14
Hi Ron.
I think what Rob was referring to was the fact that a guest was printing off the topic !! :o It's massive !! :D
Cheers Graham.
OK, thanks, being thick I missed that!
Ron
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.05.26, 16:28:14
I think what Rob was referring to was the fact that a guest was printing off the topic !! :o It's massive !! :D
Yes, it's a massive thread and very important, so it's good to see people saving the material in a hard copy format for offline study. Probably need at least a couple of ring binders to hold it all, easily over a thousand A4 pages at a guesstimate.
This thread provides a timeline allowing people to study the past and contrast it with the lies of the present mainstream narrative.
This is the reason I cut and paste entire articles from independent journalists which are typically heavily researched and sourced themselves, to make it easy on the end user. I only have to do the work once and the core material is available to them without having to access it via hyperlinks. The sources are all there, but sometimes the material disappears and that aids revisionist history for the immoral.
Printing this thread is a fairly common thing and has been going on for years.. people are studying and learning.. and thats good!
Here is an excellent article from Gilad Atzmon, a British Jew who I consider one of the Everymen:
The Balfour Declaration – A Century of Jewish Power
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/5/17/the-balfour-declaration-a-century-of-jewish-power
By Gilad Atzmon
This year, Palestinians and their supporters mark the 100th anniversary of The Balfour Declaration, a written statement from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in favour of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
For Palestinians, The Balfour Declaration was the beginning of their plight: a century of ethnic cleansing at the hands of European newcomers who claim Palestine as their historic home. Yet, for some reason, supporters of the Palestinians are desperate to suppress discussion of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration - how and why did it come about?
The Balfour Declaration provides solid evidence that the dominance of Jewish political lobbies in world affairs is not really a 'new development.' In 1917, at the peak of WWI, it was up to a few Jewish financiers and lobbyists to decide the fate of countries, continents and the outcome of global conflicts.
In his invaluable book, The Pity of it All, Israeli historian Amos Elon suggests that the 1917 Balfour Declaration was at least partially motivated by the British government's desire to win the support of pro-German American Jews so that they would help to pull the USA into the war.
Elon argues that at the beginning of the war, German- American Jewish financiers sided with the Germans and would reject any possible alliance between the USA and England. "Jacob H. Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb—at the time the largest private bank in the United States after J. P. Morgan—declared that he could no more disavow his loyalty to Germany than he could renounce his own parents. Schiff prayed for Germany's victory. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22, 1914, he charged the British and the French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade." (The Pity Of It All, pg. 455)
And German-American Jews were not alone in the Jewish community. Russian-American Jews also supported Germany in the war. "Eastern European Jews in the United States, repelled by the anti-Semitism of czarist Russia, were equally pro-German. In Russia itself, Jews of the Pale greeted German troops advancing into Poland, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine as liberators. In a sense, they were." (ibid)
According to Elon, the Brits encountered an American Jewish problem. "The British government took these developments very seriously. In a fit of paranoia, the British ambassador in Washington even suspected the existence of a veritable German Jewish conspiracy in the United States directed at Britain." (Ibid)
Elon's conclusion is clear. "The 1917 Balfour Declaration, calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, was at least partly motivated by the British government's desire to win support among pro-German American Jews." (ibid)
Elon's reading of the circumstances that led to the Balfour Declaration is pretty much the same as Benjamin Freedman's in his notorious 1961 address.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8
Freedman states that Zionists offered Britain their support in pulling the USA into the war in return for a British commitment to make Palestine into a Jewish homeland in the future. Freedman believed that Germany's post-WW I animosity towards Jews stemmed from what they regarded as the betrayal and complicity of German-Jewish financiers in their defeat.
100 years after the Balfour Declaration, Palestinian solidarity enthusiasts choose to avoid discussion on the global Judeo-centric politics that led to the declaration, even though it was arguably the most significant event that shaped the Middle East and present day Palestinian reality. This reluctance suggests that the solidarity movement is itself an occupied territory. Once again, we observe that the discourse of the oppressed is controlled by the sensitivities of the oppressor.
To learn more:
Nakba History and the Origins of the Jewish State : the Role of the Balfour Declaration
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nakba-history-and-the-origins-of-the-jewish-state-the-role-of-the-balfour-declaration/5338365
The Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, committed Britain to set up Palestine — then part of the Ottoman Empire — as a Jewish homeland; it was an extraordinary letter from the Government of Britain to a member of the banking house of Rothschild.
As Arthur Koestler noted, " One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third" — a country that then belonged to a fourth country, namely Turkey!
The reason for the creation of this document — the British obligation to perform such a service to Zionists — has not been well understood.
Robert John's booklet "Behind the Balfour Declaration" uses sources provided by the late US activist Benjamin Freedman to provide the fascinating background for this history.
Freedman's passionate 1961 address has the benefit of firsthand observations but some of his perspectives were not borne out by John's evidence. According to Freedman, Zionists approached Britain at a crucial point of World War I with the offer of badly needed financial help in exchange for a commitment to secure Palestine as a future Zionist state; the deal required the entry of the United States to give Britain the ability to deliver Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. Freedman claimed that Germany's post-WW I resentment against the Jewish community stemmed from what they regarded as the betrayal and complicity of German-Jewish financiers in their defeat.
The following excerpts of John's booklet attempt to make his information more accessible; the full document has been made available by the 2013 Institute for Historical Review at URL: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html Footnotes embedded in the excerpts can be referenced in the original document.
The early Zionists who wanted to establish a Jewish homeland faced what looked like an impossible task at the turn of the 20th century. Most Jews were unsympathetic to the establishment of a "homeland", and the Zionist community itself was divided between those — like founder Theodore Hertzl — who believed that a pragmatic choice in Africa would be adequate and those determined to obtain Palestine. The Ottoman Empire refused to release Palestine to the Zionists and European leaders were — while often sympathetic– unhelpful. Hertzl claimed prophetically that they would obtain Palestine "not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers." [112]
The conflicts gripping Europe in 1916-1917 created the fertile ground for Zionist aims in Palestine.
The start of World War I saw the Allies of Britain, France, Italy and Czarist Russia facing off against the Entente: Germany, Austria- Hungary and the Ottoman Empire of Turkey. The human losses were staggering, and by 1916 the Allies were running short of money and credit.
To quote excerpts of John's description of the situation and a key encounter:
1916 was a disastrous year for the Allies. "In the story of the war" wrote Lloyd George, "the end of 1916 found the fortunes of the Allies at their lowest ebb. In the offensives on the western front we had lost three men for every two of the Germans we had put out of action. ..."
As for paying for the war, the Allies at first had used the huge American debts in Europe to pay for war supplies, but by 1916 the resources of J.P. Morgan and Company, the Allies' financial and purchasing agents in the United States, were said to be nearly exhausted by increased Allied demands for American credit. [91] ...
[And, given the uncertainly of the outcome of this conflict, funding was not forthcoming.]
Into this gloomy winter of 1916 walked a [well-connected] new figure. He was James Malcolm, [S ] an Oxford educated Armenian [T] who, at the beginning of 1916, with the sanction of the British and Russian Governments, had been appointed ... to take charge of Armenian interests during and after the war. .... He was passionately devoted to an Allied victory which he hoped would guarantee the national freedom of the Armenians then under Turkish and Russian rule.
Sir Mark Sykes, with whom he was on terms of family friendship, told him that the Cabinet was looking anxiously for United States intervention in the war on the side of the Allies, but when asked what progress was being made in that direction, Sykes shook his head glumly, "Precious little," he replied.
James Malcolm now suggested to Mark Sykes that the reason why previous overtures to American Jewry to support the Allies had received no attention was because the approach had been made to the wrong people. It was to the Zionist Jews that the British and French Governments should address their parleys.
"You are going the wrong way about it," said Mr. Malcolm. "You can win the sympathy of certain politically-minded Jews everywhere, and especially in the United States, in one way only, and that is, by offering to try and secure Palestine for them." [96]
What really weighed most heavily now with Sykes were the terms of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement. [Not to mention Britain's 1915 promise to the Arabs!] He told Malcolm that to offer to secure Palestine for the Jews was impossible. "Malcolm insisted that there was no other way and urged a Cabinet discussion. ... Malcolm pointed out the influence of Judge Brandeis of the American Supreme Court, and his strong Zionist sympathies." [97]
In the United States, the President's adviser, Louis D. Brandeis, a leading advocate of Zionism, had been inducted as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on 5 June 1916. That Wilson was vulnerable was evident, in that as early as 1911, he had made known his profound interest in the Zionist idea and in Jewry. [98] ... Wilson had been blackmailed for $40,000 for some hot love letters he had written to his neighbor's wife when he was President of Princeton. He did not have the money, and the go-between, Samuel Untermeyer, of the law firm of Guggenheim, Untermeyer & Marshall, said he would provide it if Wilson would appoint to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court a nominee selected by Mr. Untermeyer. The money was paid, the letters returned, and Brandeis had been the nominee. [Wilson was also surrounded by the pro-Zionist Col. E. M. House, who he had made his effective Secretary of State, and Brandeis's nephew, Felix Frankfurter.]
In December 1916, Lloyd George, formerly counsel to the Zionists, was named Prime Minister of Britain, with Arthur Balfour his Foreign Minister. Lloyd George planned to pursue the war more aggressively than had the preceding Asquith government. Germany, so far the winner in the conflict, offered generous peace terms in January 1917, according to Freedman, which were "status quo ante," giving Germany no benefit for its lead in the conflict.
But Britain had other ideas at that point, and the situation in Russia, with the approaching success of the revolution in March of 1917, was a positive development. Lloyd George's memoirs noted that:
Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.
It was believed, also, that [an agreement to obtain Palestine for a Jewish homeland] would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. [189] ...
John noted that:
The reports reaching England of impending dissolution of the Russian state practically removed the need for Russian endorsement of Zionist aims, but made French and Italian acceptance even more urgent. This at any rate was the belief of Sykes, Balfour, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, who, as claimed in their subsequent statements, were convinced that proclaimed Allied support for Zionist aims would especially influence the United States. Events in Russia made the cooperation of Jewish groups with the Allies much easier. ....
On 22 March 1917 Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., wrote to Mortimer Schiff, "... because of recent action of Germany (the declaration of unlimited U-boat warfare) and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied Governments financing when opportunity offers." .... [emphasis added]
[Thus:] In London, the War Cabinet led by Lloyd George lost no time committing British forces first to the capture of Jerusalem, and then to the total expulsion of the Turks from Palestine. The attack on Egypt, launched on 26 March 1917, attempting to take Gaza, ended in failure. By the end of April a second attack on Gaza had been driven back and it had become clear that there was no prospect of a quick success on this Front. ...
In March of 1917 Wilson had unsuccessfully tried to get Congressional agreement to an undeclared naval war against Germany. On April 2, 1917 — within six months of James Malcolm's suggestion to Sykes — Wilson called a special session of Congress to declare war. John describes it:
He asked for a declaration of war with a mission: for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.
That night crowds filled the streets, marching, shouting, singing "Dixie" or "The Star Spangled Banner." Wilson turned to his secretary, Tumulty: "Think what that means, the applause. My message tonight was a message of death, How strange to applaud that!" ...
In July of 1917, Woodrow Wilson sent a delegation to Turkey to examine the possibility of peace negotiations with the Allies; Wilson was concerned about the Armenian genocide which was then taking place. The mission, which consisted of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and Justice Brandeis's nephew Felix Frankfurter, was intercepted by Chaim Weizmann and persuaded to return home [147] An Allied peace with Turkey would have spelled the end of Zionist intentions for Palestine.
The drafting of the documents to enable the British obligations in Palestine took place in the summer of 1917. They were not drafted entirely in Britain. According to John:
Brandeis ... busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them. [149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.
Brandeis cabled Weizmann on September 23, 1917, that Wilson would be sympathetic to the Declaration [165] although how he had induced Wilson to change his mind was unclear [166].
The letter known as the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917:
Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour. [1]
It was decided by Lord Allenby that the "Declaration" should not then be published in Palestine where his forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba. Although leaflets containing its message were reportedly dropped over Germany, Austria and "the Jewish belt from Poland to the Baltic ", the German government was not aware of the Balfour Declaration until 1920. (A German-Jewish society, the V.lJ.O.D. [HH] had approached Turkey in January of 1918 to get support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but had to be satisfied with an Ottoman promise of legislation by means of which: "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfilment.")
When Winston Churchill asked the House of Commons on July 4th 1922 to keep the British pledge of the Balfour Declaration, a member of Parliament noted that "The House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing it." American Congressman Hamilton Fish, who had authored a 1922 resolution modelled on the Balfour Declaration, was horrified at where it led. He claimed: "As author of the first Zionist Resolution patterned n the Balfour Resolution, I denounce and repudiate the Ben Gurion statements as irreconcilable with my Resolution as adopted by Congress, and if they represent the Government of Israel and public opinion there, then I shall disavow publicly my support of my own Resolution, as I do not want to be associated with such un-American doctrines." [180]
Why did Wilson involve the US in WW I?
In examining Woodrow Wilson's motives for entering WW I, John noted that the 1937 study of Prof. Alex M. Arnett indicated that Wilson had decided to enter WW I on the side of the Allies "many months" before the March 1917 German resumption of U-boat warfare. [182] Given that Brandeis joined the Supreme Court in June 1916, and the British approaches to Zionist leaders would have taken place in the fall of 1916, Wilson's decision could have reflected those influences. Wilson's peace delegation to Turkey in July 1917, however, indicated that the cause of the Armenian genocide took precedence over Zionist ambitions in Palestine.
Some observations can be made from this study relating to responsibility for WW I and its tragic consequences:
1. Germany, which was forced to accept responsibility for WW I as part of the Treaty of Versailles terms, was the one country that tried to obtain peace in January of 1917 and was recognized by the Allies as the source of "peace propaganda". Also, as an ally of Turkey, Germany was not able to offer any part of the Ottoman Empire to attract support. [Turkey was dismissive of all proposals for a Jewish Palestine; the response to a German approach in 1918 was a promise of legislation through which: "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfilment."]
2. While Jewish financial power and the Zionist agenda were attractive to WW I belligerents, the responsibility for those with the power to make use of them was not attributable to the Jewish community. Zionist leadership demonstrated callous disregard for the fate of the Armenians and Greeks being slaughtered by Turkey when they waylaid the American delegation sent to work for a peace with Turkey — an effort presumably designed to stop the ongoing Armenian genocide.
3. The overthrow of the Czar in March of 1917 and the Jewish contributions to the Russian Revolution were significant factors for the subsequent Jewish financial support of the Allies.
4. The involvement of Justice Brandeis in drafting the Balfour Declaration (as well as the British Mandate for Palestine) along with early Congressional support indicate an American responsibility for the resulting deprivation of Palestinian self-determination that is rarely acknowledged.
5. The various promises and assurances that Palestinian rights would be respected — from Chaim Weizmann [140], from the Balfour Declaration, from the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1947 recommending the partition of Palestine, and from dozens of "legally-binding" UN resolutions and conventions– have all proven to be worthless in protecting Palestinian human or civil rights.
To conclude with Robert John's (and Benjamin Freedman's) observations: "We should not allow ourselves to be made pawns in the games of others."
The_Manchester_bombing_is_not_blowback! Blowback is an unintended consequence, the refugee flood into the west and the radicalisation by smart bomb is by design.. it has been planned!
The removal of borders of sovereign countries, the total financial support of "refugees" paid for by austerity and deeper debt to Jewish banks, which impoverishes the working and middle classes and leads to subversion of the nation state and transforms the native white ethnic culture over generations into a homogenised European Negroid race.. IS BY DESIGN.
Western bombs won't defeat Isis. Only a wider peace deal can draw its poison
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/09/west-isis-peace-military-action-syria-war-refugee
Seumas Milne
If MPs authorise military action in Syria, they will be voting to escalate both the war and refugee crisis
There is no disaster in the Arab and Muslim world, it seems, for which the west's answer is not to drop bombs on it. As the refugee crisis in Europe has driven home the horror of Syria's civil war, that has been exactly the response of the leaders of Britain and France. David Cameron has long been pressing for a new vote in parliament to authorise a British bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria.
Now he has been joined by the former archbishop of Canterbury and a gung-ho Murdoch press, while George Osborne has signalled he also wants attacks on the "evil Assad regime" to deal with the refugee exodus "at source". The French president, François Hollande, has announced he too wants to extend air attacks from Iraq to Syria, using the terrorist threat at home to justify the escalation.
On both sides of the Atlantic, neoconservatives and liberal interventionists are back in full cry with demands for no-fly zones and troops on the ground. The Sun has even badged its coverage "For Aylan" – after the drowned three-year-old whose image dramatised the suffering of Syrian refugees – while demanding an intensification of the war and denouncing Labour's leadership candidates as "cowards" for refusing to sign up for immediate attacks.
So keen has the British prime minister been to get on with bombing Syria, he revealed British drones had already incinerated two British Isis members in the city of Raqqa last month. Cameron pleaded self-defence on the grounds that one of the jihadis had been plotting to carry out "imminent" terror attacks in Britain. Since the events targeted for these alleged attacks had already taken place by the time the man was killed, the claim was clearly nonsense. But Britain has now followed the US and Israel down the road of lawless extra-judicial killings that has become a hallmark of the 14-year-old "war on terror".
In the case of the US, it's a road that has already led to thousands of deaths, including those of many civilians, as dodgy intelligence and "signature strikes" have killed and maimed huge numbers of innocents along with targeted fighters. From Pakistan to Yemen, US drone attacks have been a major recruiter for al-Qaida and the Taliban.
After a dozen years of drone attacks, the Taliban is again rampant in Afghanistan and al-Qaida is thriving in Yemen. Britain's drone attack also made a mockery of the decision by parliament in August 2013 to oppose military action in Syria – in that case targeted at the Damascus government rather than at the rebels fighting it.
But then, British pilots have also been taking part in US bombing raids on Syria. So evidently the democratic niceties didn't count for a lot. Nor do the legal ones, since there is no legitimate basis for attacks on Syrian territory without authorisation from Damascus or the (nonexistent) threat of imminent attack.
Most bizarre is the insistence that the west hasn't actually intervened in Syria
In any case, the US-led bombing campaign against Isis in Iraq and Syria clearly isn't working. Thousands of Isis fighters have reportedly been killed, along with hundreds of civilians. But a year after the raids began, the terror group has actually expanded the territory it controls.
Without troops on the ground, air attacks cannot win a war. In the case of Syria, the only forces available are the Syrian army or radical Islamist rebel militias, from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front to the Gulf regime-backed Islamist Jaish al-Fatah. So which do the western governments have in mind? Their own sponsored rebel groups are entirely marginal.
As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, the alternative of western troops would lead to a full-scale anti-occupation war. After one disastrous western military intervention in the Arab and Muslim world after another, it's mind-boggling that demands for yet more bombing keep on coming. You only have to consider the failed-state maelstrom that is post-Nato intervention Libya – the other main transit route for refugees into Europe – to see what it means in practice. But the problem, hawks insist, is that there wasn't enough intervention: Nato "walked away" from Libya, and if only the US and its allies had invaded Syria in 2011 or bombed in 2013, the war would have been over by Christmas.
In reality, the death toll in Syria – where defences are much stronger than they were in Iraq – would certainly have been far greater. The same goes for any attempt to enforce no-fly zones or safe havens now. But most bizarre is the insistence that the west hasn't actually intervened in Syria.
In fact, the US, Britain, France and their regional allies have intervened continuously, funding, training and arming rebel forces – well aware, as recent US leaked intelligence documents underline, that they were dominated by extreme sectarian groups. The result today is de facto partition, with the government in control of less than half the country but the majority of the population, including large numbers of refugees from rebel-held areas.
If Cameron had won the vote in parliament two years ago, the main beneficiary in Syria would very probably have been Isis. Next month, he plans to try again, hoping to trade on revulsion at the terror group's vicious sectarian violence. Ministers know British bombing won't defeat Isis or add anything of significance to the US campaign. Instead it will be an exercise in cynical political posturing, aimed at splitting Labour, and reclaiming the mantle of chief imperial subaltern in the US-led war without end across the Middle East. If MPs do authorise bombing in Syria, they will be voting to intensify the war and the refugee crisis.
The only way to wind down the conflict is through a negotiated settlement involving all the regional powers. Syria has long been a proxy war, pitting the Assad regime's Russian and Iranian backers against the Gulf dictatorships, Turkey and the western powers that stand behind the myriad rebel groups. Talks between the main players have picked up in recent months, aimed at such a deal.
But the pressure is always to use the battlefield to increase leverage at the negotiating table. Isis thrives on war and sectarian conflict across the region. It will be marginalised and eventually defeated when that conflict is brought to an end. That will need pressure from the west on its Gulf clients, not a new bombing campaign. It's true the refugee crisis can be solved only in Syria – but it will be by peacemaking, not more western war.
5 reasons some British Jews support Labour, despite charges of anti-Semitism
http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-reasons-some-british-jews-support-labour-despite-charges-of-anti-semitism/
Relations between British Jewry and the country's Labour Party, which used to be their political home, appear to be at a historic lowpoint.
Incoming British PM Theresa May seen as warm supporter of Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/incoming-british-pm-theresa-may-seen-as-warm-supporter-of-israel/
Home Secretary Theresa May, set to succeed David Cameron as Britain's prime minister this week, is widely regarded as a good friend of the Jewish community, and of Israel
Theresa May writes exclusively for Jewish News: 'I'll be your community's champion'
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/theresa-may-writes-exclusively-for-jewish-news-ill-be-your-communitys-champion/
The Jewish community has made an immense contribution to British life, whether it's in business, the arts or the charitable sector – Jewish people in Britain today set an example to us all. We have some fantastic Jewish candidates standing for the Conservatives at this election, and many more like me who are not Jewish, but understand and support both the Jewish community and Israel. I'm proud we're a party which has representatives from every community in Britain, from council members right through to government ministers.
'Without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain,' warns Theresa May over fears of an exodus in wake of anti-Semitic attacks
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915480/Without-Jews-Britain-not-Britain-warns-Theresa-fears-exodus-wake-anti-Semitic-attacks.html
Theresa May has pleaded with Jews not to leave Britain as she vowed to step up efforts to tackle anti-Semitism.
The Home Secretary said she never thought she would see the day when Jews in the UK were frightened to stay here.
Scotland Yard have promised extra patrols in Jewish areas in the wake of the gun attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris which left four people dead.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.03, 06:57:08
'Without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain,' warns Theresa May over fears of an exodus in wake of anti-Semitic attacks
Hold on a minute.. what has that got to do with the definition of the artificial construct known as Britain ?
A quick history lesson:
Great Britainhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
Great Britain, also known as Britain, is a large island in the north Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe. With an area of 209,331 km2 (80,823 sq mi), Great Britain is the largest of the British Isles, the largest European island, and the ninth-largest island in the world.[5][note 1] In 2011 the island had a population of about 61 million people, making it the world's third-most populous island after Java in Indonesia and Honshu in Japan.[7][8] The island of Ireland is situated to the west of it, and together these islands, along with over 1,000 smaller surrounding islands, comprise the British Isles archipelago.[9]
The island is dominated by a maritime climate with quite narrow temperature differences between seasons. Politically, the island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and constitutes most of its territory.[10] Most of England, Scotland, and Wales are on the island. The term "Great Britain" often extends to include surrounding islands that form part of England, Scotland, and Wales, and is also sometimes loosely applied to the UK as a whole.
A single Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the Kingdom of England (which had already comprised the present-day countries of England and Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland by the 1707 Acts of Union. More than a hundred years before, in 1603, King James VI, King of Scots, had inherited the throne of England, but it was not until 1707 that the two countries' parliaments agreed to form a political union. In 1801, Great Britain united with the neighbouring Kingdom of Ireland, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" after the Irish Free State seceded in 1922.
Political definitionPolitically, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in combination,[29] but not Northern Ireland; it includes islands, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, that are part of England, Wales, or Scotland. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are self-governing dependent territories.[29][30]
The political union that joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland happened in 1707 when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of the two nations, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island. Before this, a personal union had existed between these two countries since the 1603 Union of the Crowns under James VI of Scotland and I of England.
Hmm..
'Without its Scot's, Britain would not be Britain' ? Just native England, Wales and Scotland again.Scottish parliament votes for second independence referendum https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/scottish-parliament-votes-for-second-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon
MSPs pass motion to give Nicola Sturgeon the authority to begin negotiations with UK parliament on breakaway vote
The English and the Welsh want a vote on this Nicola!#AVATAR ''Gathering the Clans for Battle'' Scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttR-FQBnFgM
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.03, 06:57:08
.
'Without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain,' warns Theresa May over fears of an exodus in wake of anti-Semitic attacks
Well Britain was Britain from 1260, when the Jews were expelled, to the time of Cromwell's killing and destruction when the Jews were again officially recognised in 1655.
The question is, what part of being a Goy... what part of being an infidel, do the people not understand?
Why is it then if the Jews control the governments of Germany, the UK, Canada and the United States Corporation, have we been in a continual state of war for the past say, 350 years?
Ron
Quite right Ron, let's have a look at what happened:
Edict of Expulsion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion
The Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. The edict was not an isolated incident, but the culmination of over 200 years of increased persecution. The edict was overturned during the Protectorate more than three centuries later, when Oliver Cromwell permitted Jews to return to England in 1657.
Background
The first Jewish communities of significant size came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066.[1] On the conquest of England, William instituted a feudal system in the country, whereby all estates formally belonged to the Crown; the king then appointed lords over these vast estates, but they were subject to duties and obligations (financial and military) to the king. Under the lords were further subjects such as serfs, who were bound and obliged to their lords, and their lords' obligations. Merchants had a special status in the system, as did Jews. Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the king,[2] unlike the rest of the population. That was an ambivalent legal position for the Jewish population, in that they were not tied to any particular lord but were subject to the whims of the king. That could be either advantageous or disadvantageous. Every successive king formally reviewed a royal charter, granting Jews the right to remain in England. Jews did not enjoy any of the guarantees of the Magna Carta[3] of 1215.
Economically, Jews played a key role in the country. The church then strictly forbade the lending of money for profit. That created a vacuum in the economy of Europe that Jews filled because of extreme discrimination in every other economic area. Canon law was not considered applicable to Jews, and Judaism does not forbid loans with interest between Jews and non-Jews.[4] In consequence, some Jews made large amounts of money. Taking advantage of their unique status as his direct subjects, the King could appropriate Jewish assets in the form of taxation. He levied heavy taxes on Jews at will, without having to summon Parliament.[5]
Jews acquired a reputation as extortionate moneylenders, which made them extremely unpopular with both the church and the general public. While an anti-Jewish attitude was widespread in Europe, medieval England was particularly anti-Jewish.[3] An image of the Jew as a diabolical figure who hated Christ started to become widespread, and myths such as the tale of the Wandering Jew and allegations of ritual murders originated and spread throughout England as well as in Scotland and Wales.[6]
In frequent cases of blood libel, Jews were said to hunt for children to murder before Passover so that they could use their blood to make the unleavened matzah.[7] Anti-Jewish attitudes sparked numerous riots in which many Jews were murdered, most notably in 1190, when over 100 Jews were massacred in York.[7]
Expulsion
The situation only got worse for Jews as the 13th century progressed. In 1218, Henry III of England proclaimed the Edict of the Badge, making England the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge.[8] Taxation grew increasingly intense. Between 1219-72, 49 levies were imposed on Jews for a total of 200,000 marks, a vast sum of money.[5] The first major step towards expulsion took place in 1275, with the Statute of the Jewry. The statute outlawed all lending at interest and gave Jews fifteen years to readjust.[9]
In the duchy of Gascony in 1287, King Edward ordered the local Jews expelled.[10] All their property was seized by the crown and all outstanding debts payable to Jews were transferred to the King's name.[11] By the time he returned to England in 1289, King Edward was deeply in debt.[12] The next summer he summoned his knights to impose a steep tax. To make the tax more palatable, Edward, in exchange, essentially offered to expel all Jews.[13] The heavy tax was passed, and three days later, on 18 July,[14] the Edict of Expulsion was issued. One official reason for the expulsion was that Jews had declined to follow the Statute of Jewry. The edict of expulsion was widely popular and met with little resistance, and the expulsion was quickly carried out.[citation needed]
The Jewish population in England at the time was relatively small, perhaps 2,000 people, although estimates vary.[15] The expulsion process appears to have been relatively non-violent, although there were some accounts to the contrary. One perhaps apocryphal story told of a captain taking a ship full of Jews to the Thames, en route to France, while the tide was low, and convincing them to go out for a walk with him. He then lost them and made it back to his ship quickly before the tide came back in, leaving them all to drown.[11]
Many Jews emigrated, to Scotland, France and the Netherlands, and as far as Poland, which, at that time, protected them (see Statute of Kalisz).
Intermediate period
Between the expulsion of Jews in 1290 and their formal return in 1655, there is no official trace of Jews as such on English soil except in connection with the Domus Conversorum, which kept a number of them within its precincts up to 1551 and even later. An attempt was made to obtain a revocation of the edict of expulsion as early as 1310, but in vain. Notwithstanding, a certain number of Jews appeared to have returned; for complaints were made to the king in 1376 that some of those trading as Lombards were actually Jews ("Rot. Parl." ii. 332a).
Occasionally permits were given to individuals to visit England, as in the case of Dr Elias Sabot (an eminent physician from Bologna summoned to attend Henry IV) in 1410, but it was not until the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and Portugal in 1497 that any considerable number of Sephardic Jews found refuge in England. One of these as early as 1493 attempted to recover no less a sum than 428,000 maravedis which the refugees from Spain had entrusted to Diego de Soria.[citation needed] In 1542 many were arrested on the suspicion of being Jews, and throughout the sixteenth century a number of persons named Lopez, possibly all of the same family, took refuge in England, the best known of them being Rodrigo López, physician to Queen Elizabeth I, and who is said to have been the origin of Shylock.[16]
Aside from certain distinguished converts like Immanuel Tremellius and Philip Ferdinand, the most remarkable visitor was Joachim Gaunse, who introduced new methods of mining into England. Occasional visitors, like Alonzo de Herrera and Simon Palache in 1614, are recorded. The writings of John Weemes provided a positive view of the resettlement of Jews in England.[17]
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.03, 15:50:55
Why is it then if the Jews control the governments of Germany, the UK, Canada and the United States Corporation, have we been in a continual state of war for the past say, 350 years?
War is good for business (usurious debt) and control of the goy (ongoing genocide). I have attached Michael Rivero's excellent pdf "All Wars are Bankers Wars!".
"I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this."
"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." -- Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons
Europe's Demographic Suicide
http://dcdave.com/article5/170601.htm
The title above is as it appeared atop the main opinion piece in the May 25-31 Arlington Catholic Herald, the weekly newspaper of the Arlington, Virginia, diocese. The Denver Catholic had a slightly different title, but it's the same article that was also doubtless in Roman Catholic newspapers around the country. The article delivered a good deal less than its title promised, and because of that and because of some other shortcomings in the piece, I had a strong urge to write a letter to the editor. Then I thought of my experience 17 years ago when I wrote a letter to the same newspaper about an article by the same author and they didn't see fit to publish it. I had to resort to putting it on my own web site, which some years later I reposted with the title, "The Brazen Duplicity of George Weigel." Well, here we go again.
Anyone following world events knows that most of the countries of Europe are staring a major demographic problem in the face. Most have low and declining birth rates and they are being swamped by immigrants, a large percentage of whom are refugees from wars and chaos in the Middle East and North Africa, which, in turn resulted from the military action of the United States and its European allies. This war-induced immigration and Europe's low birth rate are the twin elements of what one might call Europe's looming demographic disaster, and because the war policies have by-and-large been supported by Europe's leaders and because many of those same leaders, with Germany's Angela Merkel in the forefront, have welcomed the resulting refugees with open arms, the "demographic suicide" charge might well apply to both elements. Because the largely Muslim immigrants typically have a much higher birth rate than do the natives of Europe and because they are particularly hard to assimilate, the immigration element might well be the stronger of the contributors to Europe's "demographic suicide." With that fact in mind, let's have a look at how Weigel, with his usual lofty tone, begins his article:
Ten years ago, after my meditation on Europe, The Cube and the Cathedral, had appeared in several languages, I was invited to speak to members of the European Parliament in Brussels. There, I pointed out what seemed three rather obvious points.
(1) Europe is committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself in what British historian Niall Ferguson has called "the greatest sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death in the 14th century."
(2) This unwillingness to create the future in the most elemental sense, by creating new generations, is at the root of many of Europe's problems, including its difficulties assimilating immigrants and its fiscal distress.
(3) When an entire continent—healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before—deliberately chooses sterility, the most basic cause for that must lie in the realm of the human spirit, in a certain souring about the very mystery of being.
First, he makes it apparent that he's just going to address the low-birth-rate side of the problem, although we can't see at this point how poorly he is going to do even that.
Second, of all the people who might speak to Europeans about their demographic problem, I can hardly think of a person with less moral authority than Weigel. The extremely pro-Israel U.S. war policies that he has been a cheerleader for, after all, are a major cause of the wave of immigration that is overwhelming Europe.
Third, I don't see how he can use the word "obvious" in describing his points two and three, considering the muddiness of the exposition. What could Europe's low birth rate have to do with its problem in assimilating immigrants? Isn't the basic problem simply that Europe increasingly has too many immigrants and that these immigrants are hard to assimilate because they don't want to be assimilated? And anyone capable of spinning out the words, "a certain souring about the very mystery of being," to my mind, is simply best ignored (although I must admit to having written the expression "mystery of being" once in a poem). It's that sort of murky prose, along with his apparent complete lack of anything resembling a sense of humor, however, that affords him the opportunity to bask so much in the adjective, "intellectual."
Later in the article he makes one brief nod of recognition of the Muslim-immigration elephant in the room, only to dismiss it in the larger scheme of things "[as] a Catholic."
The members of the American commentariat most attuned to this plague of Euro-childlessness tend to discuss its impacts in terms of the rapidly growing Muslim population in Europe and the difficulties so many European states seem to have in assimilating immigrants from a different civilizational orbit. Those problems are real enough. But for a Catholic, Europe's demographic winter bespeaks, first and foremost, a colossal evangelical failure. Acknowledging that also sheds light on the contemporary Catholic situation in Europe.
Once again, please note, the only immigration problem that Weigelacknowledges is the puzzling inability of European countries to assimilate the immigrants rather than with the wave of virtually inassimilable migrants that is inundating them. His primary focus, though, is on the failure of Catholic values as exhibited by people not having children.
Real Evidence of Eroding Christian Values
If this "Catholic intellectual" had wanted to make some cogent observations about the decline of Catholic values, he could have found a number of better indicators. For starters, take a look at Table 4 on births to unmarried women as a percentage of all live births for 12 countries over the period 1980-2000 in the Monthly Labor Review (MLR) article "Families and Work in Transition in 12 Countries." The increases are stunning. In the Netherlands it went from 4.1% to 24.9%, in France itrose from 11.4% to 42.6%, and in the United Kingdom from 11.5% to 39.5%. And in what used to be three very Catholic countries, this indicator shows which of them seems to be losing its Catholic values most rapidly. In Italy, births to unwed mothers grew over the period from 4.3% to 9.6%, in Spain from 3.9% to 17.0%, and in Ireland from 5.0% to a whopping 31.8%, and that's just over a 20-year period.
One can't take comfort that these are births to people who are in a consensual union, essentially informally married and acting as proper parents. In Table 6 we see that single-parent households as a percent of all households with children rose in the Netherlands from 9.6 in 1988 to 13.0 in 2000, in France 11.9 to 17.1 over the same short period, while in the UK it rose from 13.9 in 1981 to 20.7 in 2001. Once again, the biggest jump up was in Ireland, where single parent households made up 7.2% of households with children in 1981 and 16.7 % of households with children in 2002.
In contrast to these truly disturbing trends, Table 5 shows that there is hardly any trend at all toward what Weigel calls "the plague of Euro-childlessness," as we can see reflected in the percentage of total households made up by married couple households without children. In France, in fact, there was even a slight decline in that percentage from 1982 to 2001. Weigel's entire basis for assuming that there is such a plague is that at this moment in time several European leaders for one reason or another happen to be childless. From that he jumps to general "Euro-childlessness," and thence to demographic suicide. If that's the scholarship of an intellectual, I'd prefer not to be called one.
Seeing Population Decline More Clearly
He could have made his demographic point much better by simply referencing fertility statistics, but then he couldn't wring his hands so much over the "certain souring about the very mystery of being." Table 1 of the MLR article shows that of the 12 countries covered only the United States had a fertility rate as of 2001 that would lead to a natural rate of population increase. To hold steady, the fertility rate would have to be at 2.1 per female of childbearing age. Italy was at 1.24, Spain at 1.25, and Germany at 1.29. There, in a nutshell, is the depopulation of Europe that the historian Ferguson was talking about.
Referencing the fertility rate tables of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to bring the numbers up to date, we can detect in many instances either an arrest in the rate of fertility decline or a small reversal in the downward direction in the rate. But, as explained in the text of the MLR article, the main reason at that time for the U.S. fertility rate being higher was that its immigration rate was higher and immigrant women, with their higher fertility rate, had bumped the national fertility rate up. Now, no doubt, we see that same phenomenon beginning to show in Europe. From a social cohesion standpoint and from a "demographic suicide" standpoint native Europeans can take cold comfort in whatever small rise there might be now in the gross fertility statistics.
Homicide, Not Suicide
My strongest charge against Weigel in my previous abortive letter to the editor of the Arlington Catholic Herald was that he was deceitful. Now I think he's at it again. What's really going on demographically—and particularly culturally—with respect to old Europe is more like a homicide than a suicide, and the Jewish dominated neocon crowd to which Weigel belongs is the primary guilty party. Weigel focuses upon the population decline of Europe and couches it in censorious moral tones, in effect blaming the victim. In reality, what we see going on is the result of quite rational economic decisions by the majority of married couples to limit their number of children to no more than two. There's no good reason to describe this development in demographic-winter, apocalyptical terms. The continent could probably use a little less crowding and could get along quite well with fewer people, what with the growing use of automation. And one really has to question the long-term implications of the implicit Weigel economic model, requiring as it does endless population growth.
Concerning Weigel's personal guilt for the cultural-demographic homicide of Europe, see this quote from my earlier article:
In 1997, Weigel and a host of prominent neoconservatives and hardline foreign policy wonks added their names to the founding statement of principles of PNAC, a group that helped champion a new post-Cold War agenda guided by a "Reaganite" foreign policy and served as a key rallying point for supporters of an Iraq war in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Weigel endeavored to develop a Christian justification for the invasion of Iraq and for the use of preemptive military force. In opposition to the arguments of many leading Catholics, Weigelstated that the Catholic just-war tradition "lives more vigorously ... at the higher levels of the Pentagon than ... in certain offices at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops."
That quote was taken from the web site, Right Web: Tracking militarists' efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy. Their Weigel page has since been updated, and, as they document with numerous references, a greater warmonger than Weigel is hard to imagine. But for the fact that he presumably takes regular communion, he might as well be WilliamKristol, with perhaps an admixture of Professor Irwin Corey thrown in.
Premeditated Murder
There is some evidence that the attempted cultural homicide of Europe is premeditated, and that it is the work of the same people for whomWeigel is an evident hireling, and not just an incidental byproduct of the bloody-minded foreign policy that he so eagerly champions. Here we have it in the words of Barbara Lerner Spectre, the American-born founding director of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden:
"I think there's a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we're going be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place.
Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies [sic] that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make.
They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role."
Indeed, and why shouldn't they be? The larger question, though, is why this transformation to multiculturalism is something that "must take place" and why Jews would want to be at the center of it. It is certainly not what she would advocate for Israel, quite the opposite I would imagine. One can't help but suspect that it is part of a larger, longstanding campaign against Christianity and is of a piece with the ongoing propaganda campaign to vilify the most monolithically Christian region of the United States, the American South.
Another question that needs to be asked is why someone like George Weigel would have a regular platform in American Catholic publications to promote his poisonous views in his devious manner.
David Martin
June 1, 2017
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.03, 22:42:52
Another question that needs to be asked is why someone like George Weigel would have a regular platform in American Catholic publications to promote his poisonous views in his devious manner.
David Martin
June 1, 2017
Perhaps he is just carrying on the work of the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church?
After all they do not have clean hands, take for example that Vietnam was know as Cardinal Spellman's War
http://www.reformation.org/vietnam.html (http://www.reformation.org/vietnam.html)
Ron
PS: an excellent series of posts, good work!
At 22:08 yesterday I was on the approach to a bridge in London over the Thames, about a mile out I reckon. In the ten minutes that followed there was relative chaos as multiple police and ambulance vehicles fought there way through the light traffic. It was obviously an all cars notified situation and something big had happened, but I had no idea what. The driving standard was exemplary in my assessment, preferring to get to the incident and respond in the timeliest manner than risk a crash. Good professional job the emergency services. I thought nothing more of it, not unusual in London on a Saturday night, I am used to it.
The traffic like I said was light, very light. The sun on my back for a few hours had put me in a good mood and at half ten I completed my journey, and after "Hello, I Love You" I heard the terrible news. I quickly ran the temporal calculations and calculated my chance of being involved, pretty close as these things go.. a different bridge, no ten minute traffic jam earlier on and it's game on in that moment, not of your choosing obviously.
Shortly after that I was informed my wife and children were walking across London Bridge at 20:30, just 90 minutes or so before the terrorist attack. I had forgot that was a possibility and so I ran some more temporal calculations.. any change in the timing or the location to bring the variables into correlation would have resulted in devastating emotional damage to me. In the first example I would probably have survived being locked inside a large self propelled mass that had the three terrorists massively outgunned. They would have to hide behind human shields or be defeated. In the second example I would definitely have survived, but my family might not, resulting in an emotionally distraught state that may have lead to my eventual radicalisation.
The third frame of reference was the one I actually experienced, and for me all turned out good this time. For those closer to the event it must be immeasurably painful and I attempt to empathise.
The MSM has been running the story on a loop.. aka 9/11 model with the occasional update. Theresa May has made a statement, I need to review it again later still a bit out of it. The key points they wanted me to take away were that "Terrorism breeds Terrorism", and I am thinking Hague, Clinton and the small arms and logistics rat line feeding the Syrian proxy war, and "Pluralistic Society" so I am thinking BLS (Barbara Lerner Spectre).
Be back later when my stoic mindset has sufficiently recovered to analyse the situation. I tell ya, there's so much depth to all this at times it almost makes you wanna cry.
Theresa May as Conservative Home Secretary created the environment which we are now experiencing. As the current Prime Minister she is tasked with solving the problems she created. Continued arms sales to SA and complicity in the war crimes of Yemen, the growth of radical mosques and the militarisation of force and information.. scares me. The situation being thus I favour a vote of no confidence in the current leadership. I vote Corbyn.
I am only voting Corbyn, because Corbyn is Corbyn, and he is way better than May. Trump was a better choice than Clinton, same thing. If Labour deep state coup him out, what they do then is not in my name. I endorse the candidate leader, not the party. He is correct on Trident, the UK can only piss in a big pond, start a nuclear conflict not finish one. Trident is an expensive provocateur, we need friends not enemies.
@Evo
QuoteBe back later when my stoic mindset has sufficiently recovered to analyse the situation. I tell ya, there's so much depth to all this at times it almost makes you wanna cry.
Perspective and facts help. For instance the latest London attack killed 7 and injured 48 however the statistics say 3 people are killed every day with knives in London. Thus the chances of someone you know being killed with a knife by a white person are probably 1000 times greater.
Are you afraid of terrorists?, I'm not because some white man with a !@#$ing attitude who had one too many beers and decided to drive drunk is millions of times more likely to kill someone I know. Or that beatch in her minivan blowing through the school zone at 60 Kph because she may be 3 minutes late for work. So you may take comfort in the fact that someone you know is millions of times more likely to be affected by stupid people than any so called terrorist. Not to mention the fact that pollution kills more people that all other diseases combined. So that twit who likes to drive his black jacked chipped 400 hp dodge turbo diesel blowing clouds of black smoke is more likely to kill someone you know than any terrorist as well. It's all about perspective and facts.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.05, 04:38:41
@Evo
Perspective and facts help.
Yes, good idea, here is a quote:
"In 2016, London's mayor said Islamic terror attacks are just part of living in a big city.
There's just one major problem with that.
The biggest city in the world hasn't even had a single terrorist attack from a radical Muslim...Tokyo"
"In heavily Islamic areas terror is depressingly common. Elsewhere it is vanishably rare."http://www.calebparke.com/2017/03/23/zero-islamic-terror-attacks-what-london-and-america-need-to-learn-from-japan/ (http://www.calebparke.com/2017/03/23/zero-islamic-terror-attacks-what-london-and-america-need-to-learn-from-japan/)
Ron
@fauxAC
John Pilger: What Did Theresa May Know About Manchester Terrorists?
https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/john-pilger-what-did-theresa-may-know-about-manchester-terrorists/
Now for a very serious question, amid all the hilarity surrounding Theresa May's craven cowardice at the Leaders' Debate yesterday. Earlier that day, veteran human rights journalist, John Pilger, had written a piece on the Counterpunch site asking what May knew about the Manchester bomber and his fellow terrorists.
He pointed out that Salman Abedi and his family had been members of a Salafist (Muslim fundamentalist) terrorist group, the LIFG. These people were such a threat, that they had all been subject to control orders. When demonstrations broke out in the Libya against the dictator, those control orders had been lifted so that the terrorists could travel to Libya to overthrow Gaddafy, just as other Salafist groups, trained and supplied by Britain, and reinforced with the SAS, rose up against him. Britain and America also began a bombing campaign in support of the rebels.
Britain gave its military support because of a spurious claim by the Salafists that Gaddafy was about to start a massacre of his opponents on a scale comparable to the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s.
Parliament subsequently held an inquiry, which concluded that David Cameron, the Tory prime minister, had led this country into a war on 'erroneous pretences'.
Pilger places the actions of the security and intelligence services using the Manchester terrorists and others like them to overthrow Gaddafy in the context of western imperialism. Britain and the West had allied with the Salafists and intolerant Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia as a way of combating secular Arab nationalism. Gaddafy was deemed a threat because he wanted to abandon the petrodollar, substituting instead an unified African currency based on gold. He also wanted a common African bank and work towards economic union between poor nations with valuable natural resources.
And additionally, Libya possessed valuable oil fields.
The Manchester boys were no strangers to attempting to overthrow Gaddafy. In the 1990s they had made a series of attempts to assassinate him with covert British support.
After overthrowing Gaddafy, the Salafists moved south to attack Mali. Obama, who was the principle force behind the western support for the rebels, took the opportunity to send US forces into Uganda, South Sudan, the Congo and the Central African Republic. The London Chamber of Commerce staged a massive arms fair, at which British merchants of death boasted about the market for their wares in the Middle East. And last month Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia again, trying to sell them British arms, arms that have been and are being used to kill innocents, including children, in Yemen.
He makes the point that the Manchester bombing was another case of imperial blowback, in which the terrorists the West have trained and used to overthrow secular and progressive Middle Eastern regimes then return to attack and kill America, Britain and the other western countries.
Just like Blair was warned would happen prior to the disastrous, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Pilger also makes the point that Abedi's connection to western backed Salafist terrorism is being denied. The official line is that he was a 'lone wolf' and petty criminal.
And critically, the FBI warned Britain that the terror cell of which he was a part was looking for a 'political target' in Britain.
Pilger writes
'The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.
Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".
The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.
The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".
The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.
Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?
These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack – thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology.'
'In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.
Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.'
'In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies."'
'The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not.
Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain?'
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/31/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know/
Abedi's attack in Manchester was made easier by May's decimation of the police, armed forces, border guards and emergency services. She warned that this would harm intelligence gathering and damage national security. She airily dismissed these criticisms as 'scaremongering'.
But if May was told by MI5 that Abedi's terror group were looking for a target in Britain, then this makes May, in my opinion, culpably negligent for not placing him and his gang under greater scrutiny. Quite apart from using them as part of another imperialist war of aggression.
Jeremy Corbyn has made it very clear that imperialist aggression in the Middle East does not justify Islamist terrorism. But he has pledged to restore Britain's police and armed forces, border guards and emergency service, so that they can give us better protection.
And he does recognise that the western invasions of the Middle East are not solving the problems of global terrorism, and that another approach is needed.
We need Corbyn's wisdom. We won't see any such insights from Theresa May, who will just bring more wars, and more domestic terrorism created by these wars. All so that she and her paymasters in the arms industries can sell more of that 'wonderful kit' Cameron lauded when he visited an armaments factory in Lancashire.
Vote Labour on June 8th, and do something to stop more deaths.
Would a competent Home Secretary have left such inviting opportunities for extremists to commit mass murder ?
The part of Tower Bridge you cannot see in the picture has a long stretch with no barriers, next to the Tower of London. It is absolutely packed at the height of summer with hundreds of tourists and is protected by a 4 inch high curb and the occasional illegally parked ice cream van..
Nato Summit 2014: Cardiff 'ring of steel' widened with new barriers
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nato-summit-2014-cardiff-ring-7646044
premeditated
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premeditated
To form an intent to carry out (an action, such as a crime); intend to carry out: premeditate a killing.
To premeditate an action, especially a crime.
blowback
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blowback
1. The backpressure in an internal-combustion engine or a boiler.
2. Powder residue that is released upon automatic ejection of a spent cartridge or shell from a firearm.
3. Negative repercussions affecting a country whose government has undertaken a usually clandestine intelligence operation in another country.
Quotepremeditated
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/premeditated
To form an intent to carry out (an action, such as a crime); intend to carry out: premeditate a killing.
To premeditate an action, especially a crime.
blowback
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blowback
1. The backpressure in an internal-combustion engine or a boiler.
2. Powder residue that is released upon automatic ejection of a spent cartridge or shell from a firearm.
3. Negative repercussions affecting a country whose government has undertaken a usually clandestine intelligence operation in another country.
Let's run with those terms and I will refresh your memory.
First the US/UK corrupted middle east governments so they could plunder/steal there resources while the people lived in squalor, the people got mad which led to the 9/11 attack. Then the US/UK illegally invaded Afghanistan under the false pretense it was harboring Osama bin laden and friends which was complete BS. Then the US/UK illegally invaded Iraq under the false pretense there were thousands of terrorists and WMD which was also complete BS. All the while the US/UK committed war crimes and carpet bombed MILLIONS of innocent men, women and children out of existence.
Your country and the US premeditated this BS and now your dealing with the blowback. You made your bed and now your whining because you have too lie in it?.
How would you feel if all your resources were being stolen while you live in squalor?. How would you feel if your country was carpet bombed into oblivion killing millions of innocent men, women and children for profit?. Your whining and getting all snow-flaky because of a few attacks but can you even imagine what has been done to the people in Afghanistan and Iraq?. You illegally invaded their country, stole their resources and killed their people under a false pretense for profit... what did you expect?. Really... what did you think was going to happen?.
Look I'm not agreeing in any sense of the word with what the terrorist have done or what they are doing but understand you brought this on yourself and you own it. You cannot expect anyone to just roll over while someone steals your future and carpet bombs your loved ones. No real man would let this slide and I expect most of you would do the same... so why would you think they wouldn't?.
I feel pretty good living in Canada because we called BS early on and did our best to stay out of your BS war mongering. Our new prime minister basically told the orange skinned wonder to go !@#$ himself and we are sticking to peace keeping missions. Keep the peace or that war you started is bound to end up on your own doorstep. What goes around always comes around... natural law.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.05, 23:49:56
Let's run with those terms and I will refresh your memory.
First the US/UK corrupted middle east governments so they could plunder/steal there resources while the people lived in squalor, the people got mad which led to the 9/11 attack. Then the US/UK illegally invaded Afghanistan under the false pretense it was harboring Osama bin laden and friends which was complete BS. Then the US/UK illegally invaded Iraq under the false pretense there were thousands of terrorists and WMD which was also complete BS. All the while the US/UK committed war crimes and carpet bombed MILLIONS of innocent men, women and children out of existence.
Your country and the US premeditated this BS and now your dealing with the blowback. You made your bed and now your whining because you have too lie in it?.
How would you feel if all your resources were being stolen while you live in squalor?. How would you feel if your country was carpet bombed into oblivion killing millions of innocent men, women and children for profit?. Your whining and getting all snow-flaky because of a few attacks but can you even imagine what has been done to the people in Afghanistan and Iraq?. You illegally invaded their country, stole their resources and killed their people under a false pretense for profit... what did you expect?. Really... what did you think was going to happen?.
Look I'm not agreeing in any sense of the word with what the terrorist have done or what they are doing but understand you brought this on yourself and you own it. You cannot expect anyone to just roll over while someone steals your future and carpet bombs your loved ones. No real man would let this slide and I expect most of you would do the same... so why would you think they wouldn't?.
I feel pretty good living in Canada because we called BS early on and did our best to stay out of your BS war mongering. Our new prime minister basically told the orange skinned wonder to go !@#$ himself and we are sticking to peace keeping missions. Keep the peace or that war you started is bound to end up on your own doorstep. What goes around always comes around... natural law.
All Canadian, I hope you don't mind another Canadian voice?
9/11 had nothing to do with blow back and was a US neocon run operation... with the help of "other" secret services, UK, Mossad, Saudi.
Canada is an American run banana republic, run from Jewyork. Had you not noticed "our" participation in the bombing of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya,Angola?
Just a puppy dog approach.
Did you not notice the American Corps of Engineers take over of Canadian waters with Site C? The takeover of out oil, gas, pipelines?
Sad to say but Canada is all but extinguished under the onslaught.
Nothing to be proud about here.
Canada died as an independent country in 1959, with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.
If you want to know who runs the Country listen to Trudeau's subservient speech to the Knesset.
Ron
Design Fault: Counterterrorism's Egregious Failures Don't Trouble Our Leaders at All
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/05/design-fault-counterterrorisms-egregious-failures-dont-trouble-our-leaders-at-all/
I think anyone who takes an objective view of the abysmal record of failure on the part of the official who as Home Secretary and Prime Minister has been in charge of UK counterterrorism policy for many years must agree with the declaration of Theresa May following the London attacks: "enough is enough." Well said, Mrs. May. We must repudiate these failed policies and all those who have pushed them, of whatever party or ideological stripe.
On both the micro level of singular acts of terrorism by individuals and the macro level of geopolitical strategy — such as the close alliance with the sectarian Saudi tyrants who have been the primary purveyors of Islamic extremism around the world for decades — the UK's "counterterrorism" policies have been egregious, atrocious failures. This includes the decisions by May and other government officials to run "ratlines" of radicalized Britons in and out of Libya and Syria — and back — in order to carry out cynical geopolitical agendas of regime change and dominance. (Among these UK backed agents of destabilization, of course, was the recent suicide bomber in Manchester.)
I certainly agree that we have had "enough" of these wretchedly counterproductive policies, and the inhumane, ruthless power gaming that lies behind them. To continue with these policies — or even worse, to "double down" on them in some witless, blunderbuss way — guarantees there will be an unending series of incidents such as the one in London Saturday night. This might suit the military-industrial-surveillance complex that is devouring the societies of the UK and the US, where war and terror and fear have become vast engines of profit and power for private companies and governments alike. But it will be, as it has been, ruinous and deadly for the peace and prosperity of the citizens these governments purport to serve.
In this century alone, the US and UK have helped destroy two largely secular, multicultural regimes that had stood as bulwarks against the kind of Islamic extremism peddled by our allies, Saudi Arabia: Iraq and Libya. A third such country, Syria, has been the target of an ongoing regime change war in which the West and Saudis are openly backing al Qaeda allies and other extremists. This bipartisan policy of fostering extremism for geopolitical ends was also used in Afghanistan, where a thoroughly secular regime was overthrown by Islamic extremists armed, paid and organized by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
This is not to praise those regimes, but to speak in the terms our leaders themselves have adopted: that Islamic terrorism is the primary threat to our civilization and thus counterterrorism is an overarching priority. If countering Islamic extremism is your priority, then supporting Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is, to put it mildly, the wrong policy. If it is your priority to combat Islamic extremism which threatens to radicalize citizens of your own country, then giving massive, continuous, unquestioning support to the brutal tyrants who have exported extremist Islam all over the world for decades is, to put it mildly, the wrong policy. If it is your priority to defend your civilization from radical Islamic extremism, then launching war after war after war in Islamic countries with secular governments — and aiding extremist militias in those countries, like al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS, and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, founded in the 1990s with support from the West to launch terrorist attacks against the Gadafy regime — are, to put it mildly, the wrong policies. If it is your overarching priority to prevent the spread of hatred, radicalization and revenge, then committing mass murder in drone strikes on villages, weddings, farmers and children is, to put it mildly, the wrong policy.
Viewing all this history, and viewing the actual, visible record of officials like Theresa May (and her bipartisan UK predecessors and US counterparts) on counterterrorism, we are left with only two possible conclusions. One, that all of these highly educated, accomplished and successful individuals — across the range of party affiliations — are dithering, blithering idiots, incapable of recognizing the clear, manifest, repeated failure of their counterterrorism policies, year after year after year. Or two, that quelling and countering terrorism is NOT actually an overarching priority for our leaders; that they know full well these policies lead to more extremism, more terrorism — as their own intelligence services have repeatedly told them — but carry on with them just the same.
Therefore we are left with a further conclusion, which I've noted before, but which becomes clearer and clearer with each new terrorist attack and each new doubling-down on the same failed policies by the West: for our leaders, for those on the commanding heights of our bipartisan power structures, the game is worth the candle. The pursuit of their geopolitical power-game agendas means more to them — much, much more — than the lives and well-being and security of their own citizens. If there is no change in these broader policies, no change in the inhuman, inhumane agenda of domination, then no amount of tinkering with "Prevent" programs on the local level — much less even more authoritarian repression on the national level — will stop the outbreak of sickening evils like the London killings.
Until more people recognize the fact that our own governments have been absolutely crucial to the rise and spread of violent Islamic extremism — both directly, in their alliance with Saudi Arabia, and in the many, many instances of their arming and abetting Islamic terrorists; and indirectly, in carrying out policies which they KNOW will produce radicalized extremists — then we will not even begin to address the problem, much less start to solve it. And this includes recognizing —and questioning — the agendas of our elites as well, to ask why their barbaric quest for dominance and control over others is worth the lives of our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers, our brothers and sisters, as well as the lives of the countless innocents they kill, year after year, in foreign lands.
This is the world our leaders have created with their deliberately chosen policies, in full knowledge of the consequences. Until we recognize this — until we say "enough is enough" to these policies and alliances and covert collusions and brutal agendas that stoke the fires of extremism — there will be no end to this madness. It will only grow worse.
Religious terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
Religious terrorism is terrorism carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influence.
In the modern age, after the decline of ideas such as the divine right of kings and with the rise of nationalism, terrorism has more often been based on anarchism, and revolutionary politics. Since 1980, however, there has been an increase in terrorist activity motivated by religion.[1]:2[2]:185–199
Former United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher has said that terrorist acts in the name of religion and ethnic identity have become "one of the most important security challenges we face in the wake of the Cold War."[3]:6 However, the political scientists Robert Pape and Terry Nardin,[4] the social psychologists M. Brooke Rogers and colleagues,[5] and the sociologist and religious studies scholar Mark Juergensmeyer have all argued that religion should be considered only one incidental factor and that such terrorism is primarily geopolitical.
Islamic terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism
Islamic terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism, is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.[1] Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through the interpretation of Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions.[2][3]
The highest numbers of incidents and fatalities caused by Islamic terrorism occur in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.[4] In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016.[5] In recent decades, such incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority states in Africa and Asia, but also Europe, Russia, Australia, Canada, India and the United States. Such attacks have targeted Muslims and non-Muslims.[6] In a number of the worst-affected Muslim-majority regions, these terrorists have been met by armed, independent resistance groups,[7] state actors and their proxies, and elsewhere by condemnation coming from prominent Islamic figures.[8][9][10]
The literal use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is disputed. Such use in Western political speech has variously been called "counter-productive," "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations."[11] However, others have referred to the refusal to use the term as an act of "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty".
Christian terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who profess Christian motivations or goals.
Jewish religious terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
Jewish religious terrorism is religious terrorism committed by extremists within Judaism motivated by religious rather than ethnic or nationalistic beliefs.
@Evo
The problem I see is that you have written endless pages on 9/11 and terrorism but not once to my knowledge have you addressed the actual cause of 9/11. What caused 9/11?... well the US/UK were corrupting foreign governments to steal their natural resources and someone finally decided to take matters into their own hands. Yes 9/11 was a terrorist attack and yes there is no justification for it and yes the terrorism continues to this day however that does not change the fact that your country and the US created this mess and you are responsible.
Do you honestly think 9/11 would have happened if the US/UK would not have been meddling in others affairs?. Well no, the Middle East countries would have continued to fight among themselves as they have always done and we would be none of their concern. So we should be clear you own this, you created the wars and terrorism through your own actions and now your paying the price.
The concept is in itself pretty easy to understand... you mind your own business and I will mind mine. The fact remains that people do not commit acts of terrorism for no apparent reason and you created the conditions through interference in their affairs and unjustified wars killing millions of innocent people. You wouldn't want me meddling in your affairs affecting your livelihood would you?, so why do you think you can?. What's your problem?.
The fact is your arguments have no justification because you have not addressed the true cause of the problem. It's like your walking in circles complaining your feet stink but do not want to address the fact you have been shitting in your own back yard.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.06, 19:59:05
Religious terrorism
"ISIS Was "Allegedly" Behind the London Bridge Attacks, Who Is Behind ISIS?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-was-allegedly-behind-the-london-bridge-attacks-who-is-behind-the-isis/5593524
London's tabloids have gone into high gear with vivid descriptions of the attacks and the tragic loss of life. Seven killed and 48 wounded.
"ISIS has claimed responsibility for the depraved attack in London Bridge as chilling video shows three jihadis calmly strolling past a pub while in the midst of the van and knife rampage that killed seven and critically injured 21." ( The Sun, June 5, 2017)
ISIS has claimed responsibility, Is there a pattern?
Without exception, Al Qaeda or ISIS were allegedly behind the Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester and London Bridge terror attacks, which served to spearhead a wave of Islamophobia across Western Europe, while also providing a pretext for the introduction of drastic police state measures:
"The twisted killers are seen calmly walking through Borough Market moments before they launched a stabbing attack on pubgoers while shouting "this is for Allah", having already driven a van into crowds." The Sun, June 5, 2017)
The statement of Prime Minister May (three days before the UK elections) points in the direction of an organized hate campaign against Muslims:
[The Manchester and London attacks] ...are bound together by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.
... It will only be defeated when we turn people's minds away from this violence – and make them understand that our values – pluralistic, British values – are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate. (emphasis added),
"Perversion of the Truth"? Lies, fabrications, omissions. What the British media in chorus fails to mention is that both ISIS and Al Qaeda are creations of US intelligence, recruited, trained and financed by the US and its allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel and Jordan.
The Islamic State (ISIS) was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity created by US intelligence with the support of Britain's MI6, Israel's Mossad, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri'āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-'Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة).
The origins of Al Qaeda date back to the Soviet-Afghan war. The Koranic schools in Afghanistan used to train Al Qaeda recruits were financed by the CIA, using textbooks published by the University of Nebraska. That's where the "evil ideology of Islamist extremism" referred to by PM May originated: The "Global War on Terrorism" is a lie, "Islamic terrorism" is a product of US foreign policy which claims to be spreading "Western civilization":
... the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..
Picture above is translated as follows: "Jihad – Often many different wars and conflicts arise among people, which cause material damages and loss of human life. If these wars and disputes occur among people for the sake of community, nation, territory, or even because of verbal differences, and for the sake of progress..."
This page is from a third-grade language arts textbook dating from the mujahidin period. A copy of the book was purchased new in Kabul in May 2000.
... Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994." (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
The ISIS is a terrorist paramilitary entity created by US intelligence. It has nothing to do with the tenets of Islam. The ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance in Syria who are fighting a secular government. While America claims to be targeting the ISIS, in reality it is protecting the ISIS.
Britain's Role in the "War on Terrorism"
There is evidence that British SAS Special Forces were dispatched to Syria in 2011 to integrate the ranks of the so-called moderate Al Qaeda rebels. Special Forces often hired through a private mercenary company on contract to NATO or the Pentagon were embedded within most paramilitary rebel formations, According to Elite UK Forces (the website of the SAS)
Reports from late November last year [2011] state that British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces' strength and to pave the way for any future training operations.
More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels".
Ron
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.07, 14:47:25
@Evo
The problem I see is that you have written endless pages on 9/11 and terrorism but not once to my knowledge have you addressed the actual cause of 9/11. What caused 9/11?... well the US/UK were corrupting foreign governments to steal their natural resources and someone finally decided to take matters into their own hands. Yes 9/11 was a terrorist attack and yes there is no justification for it and yes the terrorism continues to this day however that does not change the fact that your country and the US created this mess and you are responsible.
Do you honestly think 9/11 would have happened if the US/UK would not have been meddling in others affairs?. Well no, the Middle East countries would have continued to fight among themselves as they have always done and we would be none of their concern. So we should be clear you own this, you created the wars and terrorism through your own actions and now your paying the price.
The concept is in itself pretty easy to understand... you mind your own business and I will mind mine. The fact remains that people do not commit acts of terrorism for no apparent reason and you created the conditions through interference in their affairs and unjustified wars killing millions of innocent people. You wouldn't want me meddling in your affairs affecting your livelihood would you?, so why do you think you can?. What's your problem?.
The fact is your arguments have no justification because you have not addressed the true cause of the problem. It's like your walking in circles complaining your feet stink but do not want to address the fact you have been shitting in your own back yard.
AC, please... 9/11 had nothing to do with foreign terrorists. It was strictly an in house planned deal
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/fact-11-pnac-new-pearl-harbor/ (https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/fact-11-pnac-new-pearl-harbor/)
Ron
@ronee
QuoteAC, please... 9/11 had nothing to do with foreign terrorists. It was strictly an in house planned deal
I have heard many theories however I tend to believe the simplest most reasonable answer is probably the correct one. I think it's much more likely everyone is playing the blame game based on their own personal biases which is human nature. The government conspiracy people think it was the government, the racist thinks it was a specific group they dislike and the person in a bad marriage blames their mother in law. Hell anyone can seem to justify anything given a strong enough bias in one direction or another.
The trick is taking one step back and applying a little critical thinking. I know what I tend to think but why do I think it?, what is my own personal motivation or bias which leads me to believe one thing versus another?. It's all too easy to jump into the rabbit hole head first like many others do but it's quite another thing to see it for what it is and simply walk around it. Should we be led to believe something?, led implying we must always follow or should we find our own way?. I choose not to follow I choose the road less traveled.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.06, 15:05:12
All Canadian, I hope you don't mind another Canadian voice?
9/11 had nothing to do with blow back and was a US neocon run operation... with the help of "other" secret services, UK, Mossad, Saudi.
FauxAC knows that Ron, let's have some fun! ;D
Mike Tyson's Shifting Punches & D'Amato's Peekaboo Style Explained - Technique Breakdownhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGNV2RKcFFI
On This Day: Muhammad Ali toys with poor Floyd Patterson
http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/on-this-day-muhammad-ali-toys-with-poor-floyd-patterson/
Floyd Patterson regretted getting under Muhammad Ali's skin, writes Matt Christie
WITH the world tired of the Muhammad Ali-Sonny Liston saga, it was time for the new champion to move on. On November 22, 1965 he accepted the challenge of former champion Floyd Patterson, whom Sonny had dethroned via two equally savage first round knockouts. The despair of those defeats had forced Patterson into hiding. He would don fake beards and moustaches when he went out to the shop. Floyd was the youngest man to ever win the title – aged just 21 back in 1956 – and had been the first in history to regain it. But the losses to Liston had hurt him bad, and he knew defeating Ali would restore some pride.
Patterson had first met Ali – then Cassius Clay – in 1960 when the young man was en-route to winning Olympic Gold. Clay screamed at the then-champion that he was coming for him. Five years later, that collision was set.
Patterson had won five in a row since the Liston drubbings, proving he belonged among the elite with victories over Eddie Machen and George Chuvalo. And he'd been studying Ali's progress, both inside the ring and out. He was not impressed.
"The image of a Black Muslim as the world heavyweight champion disgraces the sport and the nation," Patterson before the fight. He refused to call his opponent by his name, instead referring to him as 'Clay'. Ali was furious.
"Patterson says he's gonna bring the title back to America. If you don't believe the title is already in America, just see who I pay taxes to," he said. "This will be a mismatch. Floyd Patterson will be no match. He's too short, he's too slow, he don't have the reach, he can't take a punch, he don't hit hard and he don't have the footwork. This will be a mismatch. I'll hit him about six times to every miss that he throws."
Patterson came into the bout with a back injury that he kept secret. Fearful of damaging his reputation further, Floyd was determined to fight. But his problems soon became clear as Ali toyed with him. The challenger's corner desperately massaged his back between rounds, and tried to persuade him to quit. But Patterson stubbornly, and unsteadily, fought on, rising from a sixth round knockdown before the referee halted the slaughter in the 12th.
Ali was widely criticised for suspending the beating.
"He could have knocked Patterson out whenever he wanted, but let's face it, Clay is selfish and cruel," said the legendary Joe Louis
"Yes [I carried him for six rounds]," Ali admitted. "I am showing you good boxing. You'd be the first to condemn me for killing him cruelly. He has got beautiful children and I wouldn't want to hurt him just for the pleasure of the audience. I beat him with my creative and scientific ability and not by punching him too hard."
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.07, 15:40:16
@ronee
I have heard many theories however I tend to believe the simplest most reasonable answer is probably the correct one. I think it's much more likely everyone is playing the blame game based on their own personal biases which is human nature. The government conspiracy people think it was the government, the racist thinks it was a specific group they dislike and the person in a bad marriage blames their mother in law. Hell anyone can seem to justify anything given a strong enough bias in one direction or another.
The trick is taking one step back and applying a little critical thinking. I know what I tend to think but why do I think it?, what is my own personal motivation or bias which leads me to believe one thing versus another?. It's all too easy to jump into the rabbit hole head first like many others do but it's quite another thing to see it for what it is and simply walk around it. Should we be led to believe something?, led implying we must always follow or should we find our own way?. I choose not to follow I choose the road less traveled.
AC, Were your remarks only true. However the one two punch...
QuoteBut it is not my intention here to detail all the facts of the case that still scream out for justice, as do the linked assassinations of JFK and MLK. In fact, referring to the Kennedy assassination is a misnomer; we should speak of the Kennedy assassinations, since JFK wasn't the only one.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/questions-hints-and-allegations-about-the-assassination-of-senator-robert-f-kennedy/5593628 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/questions-hints-and-allegations-about-the-assassination-of-senator-robert-f-kennedy/5593628)
I just picked one at random but if you were to study these "happenings" from the Titanic, to the present day London attacks, you might see that they all bear the imprint of a Secret Service operation.
Ron
May Imposes Censorship on Internet After London Attack – Instead of Repairing the Devil
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960315000976
TEHRAN (FNA)- It takes guts and humility to admit mistakes. Admitting we're wrong is courage, not weakness.
Tell that to British Prime Minister Theresa May. She still believes her country has never made a mistake in Syria or in the region; at least, never one that she couldn't explain away. She refuses to yield when she knows her government's course to collude with terrorists is wrong. She refuses to own her mistakes, let alone end the unnecessary war on Syria and repair the devil.
Instead, PM May wasted no time after Saturday's London Bridge attack in announcing that she will be pushing some irrelevant international agreements aimed at global regulation of speech on the Internet, claiming that extremists have been using "safe spaces online" in their terror attacks.
While this is being couched today as a reaction to the London terror attack, the reality is that a permanent war on Islam in general and on Syria in particular is a long-standing goal of the British government, with the current manifesto vowing efforts to arm regional client states like Saudi Arabia, contain Iran, and maintain the status quo.
This goes well beyond just colonialism and state-sponsored terrorism:
1- Both the United States and Britain have been killing a lot of civilians in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya for quite some time now, yet these crimes against humanity are rarely admitted by the coalition of regime changers and there is almost no interest from the United Nations or "fakestream" media to investigate. The criminal hordes simply claim "the killing of innocent people is unavoidable in some circumstances."
2- If Western governments do not change course, more terrorism will occur. They need to change the policy and stop the evils of terrorism in Syria to feel safe at home. The British government is funding, arming and aiding terrorism of one kind or another and experiencing the phenomenon of blowback in places like Manchester and London.
3- The anti-terrorist coalition of Iran, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah have proved that it is possible to beat Salafist-Wahhabi terrorism. Syria is not fully free yet, but the anti-terrorist coalition is objectively winning the war on many fronts and as per International Law. They are also working from the ground up, rather than top-down politics, for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Western governments likewise should not pursue policies which put their citizens in danger whether it be arming terrorists or wasting domestic resources fighting "hate speech" online, when these resources should be used to fight terrorism and those that fund ISIL and Al-Qaeda.
4- British foreign policy must change. Foreign policy does prevent terrorism and inversely it can also cause it. The recent attacks in Manchester and London were conducted by British citizens who were members of Al-Qaeda and ISIL in Libya and Syria - initially funded by the West and regional associates in order to overthrow the governments in Tripoli and Damascus.
5- "Fakestream" media blames everything from Iran to Russia and even North Korea for the woes of the West. Others yet blame the religion of Islam, even though it is Muslims who are the first and most numerous victims of the US-led regime-change wars. The enemy is Salafism and Wahhabism which is born, funded and disseminated by Saudi Arabia. The marriage between Western corporate, arms manufacturers, political leaders and the House of Saud has to end before anything else.
6- A secret memo written by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in August 2014 (which appeared on the WikiLeaks website in 2016) noted that the Saudi and Qatari governments "are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region". As maintained by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the West cannot fight terrorism anywhere if it funds terrorism and supports its associates almost everywhere, even at the United Nations. Under International Law, Western countries should join Syria's real anti-terrorist coalition with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah, which is the only place that any responsible nation ought to be if it is going to militarily engage terrorism at all.
Russia likewise has called on Western countries to form a real partnership against terrorism. All of this has fallen on deaf ears in Washington and London. At any rate, PM May has two options in respect of terrorism, either get out of the Middle East at any level other than that of non-military business deals or else join a meaningful international coalition against terrorism. She and other Western leaders need to swallow their pride and stand on the right side of history.
In summary, the condemnable London attacks is a case of blowback on British citizens arising from the overt and covert actions of British governments in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. A combination of Anglo-American policies and actions, in partnership with regional despots and terror proxies, has had the effect of increasing terror attacks in the West. Based on the evidence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that without these actions those behind the Manchester and London attacks might well not have had the opportunity to use "safe spaces online" and become radicalized in the way they did.
Exit polls are predicting a hung parliament:
CON 314
LAB 266
LB 14
SNP 34
OTHERS 22
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results
CON 318
LAB 262
LB 12
SNP 35
OTHERS 22
The result is a hung parliament with two coalitions of chaos forming.
Theresa May has strategically weakened her own position, a mistake she will not recover from. The fruits of her tenure as Home Secretary, and her planned five year authoritarian rule, will be a bitter pill to endure for every man.
Anyone catch Frankie Boyle's "New World Order" show last night ? Hilarious.. ;D
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08tpkc4/frankie-boyles-new-world-order-series-1-episode-1
The Facts Proving Corbyn's Election Triumph
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/09/the-facts-proving-corbyns-election-triumph/
by Jonathan Cook
Watching the BBC's coverage of the election, you could be excused for taking away two main impressions of last night's results. First, that Theresa May had a terrible, self-sabotaging campaign; and second that, while Jeremy Corbyn may be celebrating, he decisively lost the election.
Those are the conclusions we would expect a pundit class to draw that has spent two years slandering Corbyn, calling him "unelectable", warning that he appealed to little more than a niche group of radical leftists, and claiming that Labour was about to face the worst electoral defeat in living memory – if not ever. Corbyn's social justice message was supposedly alienating the heartlands of the UK.
So let's stand back, look at the voting figures and see how a Corbyn-led Labour party actually did.
Corbyn received 41 per cent of the vote, against May's 44 per cent. Given the UK's inherently flawed, first-past-the-post electoral system, he won some 50 fewer seats than the Conservatives, but that was still a big improvement on Labour's share of seats in the last election, under Ed Miliband. There is now a hung parliament, and to survive May will need to depend on the votes of a small group of Northern Irish Ulster unionists, creating a deeply unstable government.
But how did Corbyn do in terms of the Labour vote compared to his recent predecessors? He won many more votes than Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown and Neil Kinnock, who were among those that, sometimes noisily, opposed his leadership of the party.
They lost their elections. But what about Corbyn's share of the vote compared to Tony Blair, his most high-profile critic, whose many allies in the parliamentary Labour party sought relentlessly to subvert Corbyn's leadership over the past two years and tried to bring him down, including by staging a leadership challenge last year.
Here are the figures for Blair's three wins. He got a 36 per cent share of the vote in 2005 – much less than Corbyn. He received a 41 per cent of the vote – about the same as Corbyn – in 2001. And Blair's landslide victory in 1997 was secured on 43 per cent of the vote, just two percentage points ahead of Corbyn last night.
In short, Corbyn has proved himself the most popular Labour leader with the electorate in more than 40 years, apart from Blair's landslide victory in 1997. But let's recall the price Blair paid for that very small margin of improvement over Corbyn's vote. Behind the scenes, he sold Labour's soul to the City, the corporations and their lobbyists. That Faustian pact secured Blair the backing of most of the British media, including Rupert Murdoch's stable of papers and TV channel. The corporations mobilised their entire propaganda machine to get Blair into power. And yet he managed it with only 2 percentage points more than Corbyn, who had that same propaganda machine railing against him.
Also, unlike Corbyn, Blair did not have to endure a large section of his own party trying to destroy him from within.
And in addition, Blair was able to rely on a strong Scottish vote for the party that no longer existed by the time Corbyn became leader. Most of that vote now goes to the Scottish National Party (SNP) over the issue of independence for Scotland.
All of this indicates the extent of Corbyn's achievement.
Another point. Blair's 1997 landslide was the peak of his success. As Labour members realised what he had done to achieve victory, support ebbed away relentlessly until he was forced to step down and hand over a profoundly damaged party to Gordon Brown.
With Corbyn, the election campaign proved that there is a huge appetite for his honesty, his passion, his commitment to social justice – at least when audiences got a chance to hear from him directly, rather than having his policies and personality mediated and distorted by a biased and self-serving corporate media. Unlike Blair, who destroyed Labour to turn it into a Thatcher-lite party, Corbyn is rebuilding Labour into a social movement for progressive politics.
Here is a graph that offers another measure of the extent of Corbyn's achievement last night.
It shows that he has just won the largest increase in the share of the Labour vote over the party's previous general election performance since Clement Attlee in 1945. In short, he's turned around the electoral fortunes of the Labour party more than any other party leader in 70 years.
And unlike Blair, he's done it without making back-room deals with big business to eviscerate his party's economic and social programmes.
London Terror to Complete Brexit Coup d'Etat
http://www.globalresearch.ca/london-terror-to-complete-brexit-coup-detat/5593600
Overthrowing the Rule of EU Law
Within hours of completing an analysis of how the June 8 UK General Election is a fix to lock in a phony one-off referendum to leave the European Union unsupported by a vast majority of British voters, the Saturday night London terror struck on cue.
The 24-point lead for new PM Theresa May and the Tories over grass-roots Labour and Jeremy Corbyn had free fallen to less three points.
The public was awaking to the lavishly dressed mock-up of Maggie Thatcher as a phony, and the rising Jeremy Corbyn as a near unique leader in British politics, an honest man.
He was not only trustworthy, which none denied. He showed himself over a year capable of standing up to a non-stop corporate media barrage of officious loathing in which war-criminal Tony Blair and his 'New Labour' ilk led – barking out front, ostentatiously resigning from cabinet, tearing apart the new up-from-the-ground reclamation of the Labour Party from the corporate boardrooms where it had become Blair's Murdoch-press lap-dog and a neo-liberal shell.
The reason Corbyn was and remains an official enemy is that he unapologetically stands for traditional socialist values. His program is not contaminated as elsewhere by trendy post-modern cultural collapse into saucy relativism and politically correct diversions from economic life substance.
Even worse to official media-and-political culture and its submergence in capitalist globalization with no alternative, Corbyn and his politically grounded movement actually stands for British workers' interests, the public sector, social services, and environmental safeguards – all of which are on the chopping block across the world.
The problem is that majority of citizens in the world support these long-developed and popular social infrastructures and standards. So the only way of continuing to defund, privatize and erase them is by pretending there are much more modern and flexible marketable versions for corporate and bank profit.
One way or another, and there are many ways, this process of historical reversal and laying waste to over a century of social evolution and life standards is the sum and substance of all establishment political parties in power.
It is the Great Coup d'Etat of Globalization which has increasingly spread and ruled the world. All the degenerate trends of extreme inequality, private money power over all, rising youth unemployment, pervasive state corruptions, massive dispossessions, override of long-established workers' rights, and multiplying ecocidal production and products – the list is a vast profile of one-way degeneration of social systems across borders – are put on fast-forward by corporate and bank globalization. And all remain unconnected in the mass media and avoided by governing political parties.
So it may seem that the erupting new 'nationalist' movements in US and Britain, Eastern Europe and Russia, and so on, are the great swing back against corporate and bank globalization. This is the Great Illusion of our time.
What is hardly yet seen is that, in fact, these 'nationalist' movements, as in Trump US and Tory Britain racing ahead today, do nothing to connect or to solve any of these life-and-death social system problems and the cumulative pollutions and razzings of organic, social and ecological life organization across the globe.
They are only a speed up of the global ecogenocidal proceses under the pretexts of new national recovery and freedom.
One can always tell this by whether or not the ecocidal processes and products are effectively ruled out rather than accelerated in fact, and whether or not societies are so governed that more citizens become better off in life work security and free development rather than the opposite in fact.
This is where the facts as opposed to pervasive system rhetoric and claims show only systemic degeneration and dispossession in human and ecological life terms. Seek exception in scientific fact. Seek anywhere that Tory or Republican rule recognises or meets even one of these problems rather than diverting from them in endless ways led by Islamic terrorists as the ever-recurring Enemy to be waged war against – and typically during election campaigns when the popularity of the ruling party is dangerously low.
London Terror Spectacle 5 Days before Election as Brexit-Tory Polls Collapse
The June 3 massacre of innocent and unarmed Saturday revellers on iconic London Bridge and Borough Market came just in time.
PM Theresa May and Tory party polls for the snap June 8 national election were in free fall as Corbyn Labour support unexpectedly and dramatically rose by over 20 points from the surprise Spring date that the new and secretively advised PM May had called against all prior commitment and earlier schedule of May 7 2020.
Although only 7 people died – in Moscow at the same 9 people were murdered without much notice – the absolute panic of the central city of London and Europe was unprecedented.
A white van ran over people on London Bridge's festive and pub-crowded Saturday night, and many were seriously injured – though fewer than in US drone or air strikes happening in Arab countries on a regular basis.
Tthe modus operandi was quintessentially monstrous in action. It could have come from an ISIS video – of which there has been many with no evident interruption by the immense counter-terrorist operations, advanced electronic capabilities, and ever-rising budgets for war upon ISIS terrorists.
The three soon-dead men were maniacal as if drugged, but no drug tests were ever reported. They not only viciously ran over s many people as they could with the signature white ISIS van in the 10 PM Saturday night happy hour, but they leapt out of this careening kill van with long Arab stabbing, cutting, slitting throats, multiply stabbing one young women, and- in short embodying the most murderous nightmare conceivable on all in London and around the world soon watching the globally televised aftermath including the dead bodies.
Strangely, the suicide murderers wore fake suicide vests, never explained, but perhaps it was theatrical to fit the stereotype of terror in complete perfection for both side. No-one in all the total coverage everywhere ever mentioned the abundant evidence of US-led funding, arming and orchestration of ISIS – although the mystery still remained of how their original appearance in spanking-new white vans lined to the horizon waving machine guns could have escaped the notice over the endless parade in a highly surveilled open desert area not far from Israel's borders.
In any case, the horrific downstream event and mysterious origins and orchestrated funding, training and arming of the very same terrorist organization perpetrating one atrocity after another with uninterrupted e-video broadcasts and propaganda over years were all unmentioned in all the allied analysis from the major networks across the globe. Only the international outrage and absolute denunciation pouring in and out from every quarter continued around the clock for days all the way to the two days left before the election.
Since the main question was and remains how to stop these horrible terrorist spectacles, there was no time for causal analysis. Somehow the evidentiary matters of including who funded, armed, trained and orchestrated them – especially when their propaganda, columns of ferocious operatives, video killings, and never mentioned strange coincidence of attacks with falling popularity of state leaders – kept happening in full view of television and internet audiences around the highly militarized Western world.
It did not seem to help undertanding when the murderous terrorists were known and identified immediately afterwards, from the 9-11 bombings on. How they were and are identified very quickly, even after such an historic surprise attack as 9-11 and even when the bodies of the alleged terrorists have been completely incinerated, how and why are these issues never raised?
Cui bono? – the first question of forensic justice – is never posed of anyone after the murderous terrorist spectacles. Failing parties and leaders who benefit enormously from such show-stopping distractions which put them in far more command of popular support and power than before the attacks, are never exposed even slightly to this question.
It is taboo. Not even opposing politicians dare to ask it. This gives us the clue to why all the other issues are not raised. No such basic forensic question is ever posed because it cannot be asked without public opprobrium from every 'media of record' and 'loyal citizen' accusing the questioner of folly or menace, thus perfectly diverting the issue again from the ruling taboo subject.
There is no evident way through this closed circle. It is foolproof. So it follows that this is well known in ruling circles as well as by those interested in truth. Why would it not be used by a national regime whose public support is falling just before an election?
Free-Falling Tory and PM May Polls and the London Terrorist Attack
Scientific hypothesis looks for disconfirming evidence more than confirming evidence in order to test it. This is why science works when it does. It takes all the relevant facts into account, forms an hypothesis, and tests it against the best possible counter-evidence. (Corporate science and regime propaganda do the opposite. They look only for what confirms their claims to profit them.)
So coming just 5 days before the snap British general election which her regime called when it was 24 points ahead in the polls – now continuously falling days before election – this regime has very good cui bono reason to re-set the polls upwards.
The known best way to do this with no questions asked is for a terrorist attack to occur on the regime. A terrorist attack usually guarantees a spike of citizen solidarity with national government, from France to Turkey to 9-11 Bush US.
No-one dare pose the cui bono? Question in any case. It is known that a grisly terrorist attack, and a strong condemnation of it from the regime in power, along with allied regimes in unanimity, will produce a significant rise in the next poll.
In this case, the poll of the June 8 British general election comes less than 5 days later.
This does not mean that the front political leader, now- PM Theresa May, the longest Home Affairs minister in memory, plans the terrorist attack, or even knows about it.
It would be better that she did not, so as to carry through without compromise or leak. But she knows the territory of Home Affairs very well and the dark state's capabilities, as well as British public opinion over many years as a cabinet minister.
If her polls are suddenly collapsing, as the polls of the long-belittled Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn rise just as fast, it makes very good sense for her regime to find a terrorist attack incomparably useful just before the election.
She can stand tall and resolute as the lead warrior of the British people, like Margaret Thatcher against the Generals of Argentina over the Falklands. But here the enemy is far more immediate, visibly evil and mass murderous before our eyes – the archetypal enemy of Islamic terrorism, threatening and murdering Britons inside the very celebrating centre of their most populous and globally popular city, spreading mass panic to thousands in a barbarously brutal killing and wounding rampage that no-one will ever forget.
It also provides the ideal opportunity to excoriate the poll-closing Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, who can be insinuated into the terrorist menace by his connection of terrorism to past government actions.
PM May Leaps to Attack Democracy as the Unseen Brexit Coup Closes In
PM May has all the credentials and image to rise to this occasion, and to pull off what no-one has really yet seen –the greatest reverse of British social and environmental standards and law in history that is about to be locked in by the June 8 election. The half century of evolved EU workers' rights, life-protective laws, and scientific environmental norms is about to be overthrown.
The London terror massacre occurs on June 3 as Tory and PM May polls relentlessly slide down and the turning-point snap election is just hours away.
State authority is restored in a blinding flash of action. Police command people "to run for your lives and hide". They command people to lie down in the areas they control, and to hold their hands over their heads as they are herded in large obedient numbers. Loud explosions are heard all over the place where there are no terrorists, and it is only 8 minutes before the terrorists are all dead for all to see on TV.
Dead men cannot speak. PM May is strict and aggressive to rally the masses against the Enemy – – and to reverse the Labour opposition's rising polls. Election campaigning is suspended. PM May accuses those who sought have causal understanding of the terrorist attacks as showing "far too much tolerance".
She warns that there is "a new trend in the threat we face" – – although there is none evident, except raising the indisputable facts of its causation, as Corbyn had done just before his polls began to overtake her.
PM May scolds,
"Enough is Enough".
The same old circle of blame-the-enemy while doing nothing effective to stop it is redrawn deeper than before. But she darkly warns others that things "cannot continue as they are". She suggests that "pluralistic British values" are at fault.
She leaves the cause of the endless terrorist spectacles behind to accuse the free internet itself, demanding once again the new Tory policy of sweeping new state regulations across citizens and borders, rather than honing in on ISIS and other long scot-free channels.
"There is", she says, "to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country".
"So we need to become far more robust in identifying it", she proclaims in police-state code, "and stamping it out across the public sector and across society".
Public sector? Across society? Is this a declaration of war against those in the public sector who dissent from the program? Is this a foreshadowing of the social- sector stripping to come with the Brexit coup d'etat? Where does the attack end?
It does not. There are no definitions, no criteria, no evidence. There only more insinuations of who must be labelled and stamped out as 'too tolerant'. There are only more demands for more state powers diverting completely from every issue involved not only in terrorist killing, but in the end of EU rights and laws in Britain.
Most of all and most profoundly, every word and position of PM May, the Tory party and the forces behind them have distracted from the ultimate geostrategic game afoot that the London terrorist spectacle has diverted from and covered up.
What could the huge and unexamined stakes be here that none discuss? Who alone stands to benefit from every step since PM May was promoted?
Why Brexit?
There has been endless commentary on Britain's "Stay or Leave the EU" referendum and the narrow victory of the 'Leave' side after 44 years of partnership in which Britain's GDP, human and workers' rights, and environmental protections have only increased, and by far more than the US.
Even in gross market money terms, the record is clear in fact. In a letter to the London Times one year ago, Oxford researchers Professor Sir David Hendry, Professor Doyne Farmer, and Dr Max Roser refuted with no reply the Leave EU campaign led by financial and political playboy Boris Johnson.
"Since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU, the per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%). The UK's growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008".
Yet Leave the EU still narrowly won the UK referendum a year ago with nothing to go on except propaganda, and its very dubious result is about to be cemented into British government and history by the June 8 election in 3 days.
On every level on which we analyse this decision now being led by PM May and the Tory state, it is a fails every smell test. But the real motive force and private money-party interests behind it are all but invisible to the public – not only in Britain, but around the world.
There is virtually no recognition that the snap June 8 election in three days is going to reverse every life-serving law and regulation that has lifted Britain up over half a century from the doldrums of the early 1970's when Britain was regarded as 'the sick man of Europe' in economic performance.
How could this happen?
To begin with the referendum itself, the original wording of the 'Brexit' referendum was (italics added) "Britain should remain in the EU – Yes or No". Few observed that this framing of the Tory question appeals directly to the tidal wave of popular resentments that have built up against transnational trade treaties and mass immigration everywhere, Britain included.
"Should remain" is re-set to "Leave" as the dominant choice in this negative social context with, in fact, no connection to life co-ordinates.
On the surface, the visible movement of foreign-speaking cultures into everyday rural Britain for new benefits and low-wage competition with British workers has widely inflamed anti-passions, as anyone familiar with British culture knows. The near daily featuring of Islamic 'terrorist attacks' has stigmatized the EU system along with such continuous disorders as the torturous financial ruin of Greece.
Leave on the ballot in a mysteriously well-funded and media-captivated campaign triggered enough of a primordial anti-EU sentiment that a very slim majority was won. It did not matter that false claims and demagogic showmen were given immense publicity in the Leave campaign in which the most important issues were completely out of the discussion.
Nor did it not matter that the Leave vote was mainly rural England, nor that remaining Scotland was thereby propelled into breaking up Great Britain itself. There were no editorials exposing the facts that the new-PM Theresa May had herself warned UK voters that Brexit was "dangerous" and could have seriously damaging effects on the economy, the security, and the survival of the United Kingdom. There was no media memory that she had said that leaving the EU would be "fatal for the Union with Scotland" and that she had formerly proclaimed "as Home Secretary [that] remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism".
Nothing seemed to matter except the new fait accompli of Britain ending its half-century partnership in the European Union on the flimsy basis of a referendum for which the overwhelming majority of citizens did not vote or approve.
Minority Brexit Vote = Massive De-Regulation of Finance and Food
No-one seemed to report that this Leave vote itself (17, 410,742) represented only 37% of the total electorate (46,500, 001) as enumerated by the Electoral Commission. No mainstream media featured the 12, 948,018 voters left out of the count, over two-thirds the number of those who voted Leave. Only one source clearly reported that those whose votes were not cast in the single June 23 event voted 2:1 against leaving once the results were known http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/.
Most deeply and unspeakably, there was no hint of media attention to the first question of forensic inquiry, cui bono or who stands to gain most from British government leaving the European Union all its common regulation? Even up to June 2, no-one has joined the dots that show the Leave EU referendum and vote has been an ideal political bludgeon to force Britain's departure from the historical European Union just as its long-evolved Directives are in the process of enforcing policies and regulations on all-powerful London private banks and finance, and on industrial Big Agriculture and GMO-contaminating crops and fake foods.
What no-one has evidently understood is that Brexit ensures that the very same dominant financialization forces that have hollowed out Britain's working people, the productive economy and its green environment since 1979 are now freed from any EU regulation or accountability just as effective new financial oversight mechanisms as well as organic agricultural and food policies are due to be further implemented, monitored and enforced.
This is the undertow historical meaning of the near-hate campaign that has been waged for endless months on the 'EU bureaucracy' larded in selective anecdotes without principled substance.
Such is the standard method of big-money campaigns against public regulation for the public life good. If more private profit is not fixed into the new regime, it is relentlessly attacked and denounced as 'suffocating red tape' and a 'ruinous burden on business'. This is the signature demand and condition of transnational corporate rule.
Cui Bono? Remembering the Past to Now
The rootless global money party centred in London has long run Britain with flagrant Thatcherite governance for transnational banks and corporations, overthrowing the post-War labour-capital settlement in Britain.
Big London money backed by the Murdoch press was then consolidated in Blair's 'New Labour' capitulation to corporate power through Gordon Brown Labour-light to the election of financier-scion David Cameron. PM Cameron then took the Brexit spectacle as the occasion to resign to avoid, insiders say, the outing of his unexposed financial fraud as PM.
Now the government of Great Britain is in the hands of a secretively advised Theresa May. Although as Home Secretary she was unequivocally anti-Brexit, something happened. Despite the very dubious results of the leave-the-EU referendum, she reversed field from support of the EU once in the PM office, and was instantly re-branded as full-square behind Leave as "Brexit is Brexit" and "the irreversible decision of the British people".
Now-PM May has led official erasure of the fact that the winning vote was only by (official Electoral Commission tally) 37 % minority of voters. In the same vein of memory-hole command, PM May and her backers ignored the LSE scientific survey reporting that non-voters polled 2-to-1 against Leave once they learned the outcome. The reigning protocol, as with Trump with whom she became bonded in 'the special relationship' of the US and the UK that runs British politics, is to annihilate life-protective regulations as new freedom, and enforce follow a bigger corporate tax-cut than Reagan or Trump to a 10% level.
Where did the mandate come from for such radical hollowing out of government capacities to govern on behalf of the common interests of society, citizens and their environment? There has been no mandate, but only a one-off 37% popular referendum result with no legally binding force until it is locked into the 'Great Repeal Act' and June 8 UK election to legitimate it with no public understanding of the meaning.
The die had been cast behind the scenes. A 37% vote against the considered will of the majority to stay in the EU was going to be used as a no-alternative mandate for massive deregulation and de-taxation of big money powers across the UK without public debate on these issues or even recognition of them. An Orwellian erasure of facts and totalitarian silencing beneath conscious choice continued right up to the election without anyone evidently knowing it.
The PR cover-up since the ever-more lavishly suited Theresa May became PM has been to brand her office in Maggie-2 resonance as a resolute and honourable defender of the democratic will of the British people and an anchor of stability to steer Britain's new future.
PM May and advisers have accordingly changed the 2017 general election –she had committed to 2020 before her behind-the-scenes management took over – to an ad hominem vote over her character as PM, not about the radical de-regulation of finance, the environment and the tax code to, in essence, serve the rich while dispossessing the great majority of their labour, social and environmental protections and rights.
It is the sort of action from the top that the original Magna Carta stopped by regulating an out-of-control King, only now the unaccountable ruler is bank and corporate money profit seeking even more unequal and total rights over the soon- to-be rump England. The money party cares nothing for nation including Great Britain except as it fits their divide-and-rule agenda over the trillions of dollars they control daily in play for more asset control over the world.
Now firmly in the supreme office with cabinet and media support, PM May's office has masterfully managed transition to doing the opposite of what she formerly stood for. The Brexit program for private money control over public forces and rules of how society is to live has remained unflagged by even the Opposition and radical left voices. None see through to the ultimate ruling party behind political scenes, nor to the ultimate fact that it is not economically efficient or even productively capitalist.
Its hidden financialization forces and anti-labour-and-ecological agenda of radical de-regulation are, in principle, counter-productive, parasitic and self-multiplying against the common interest of its social and environmental life hosts.
The Unasked Question: Who Wins Now?
On the PR face of it, Theresa May is the clergyman's daughter soundly risen to PM office. But she is, more deeply, the perfect foil behind which to sneak a Brexit end to the threat of EU regulation of the most life-destructive private money powers of Britain.
Brexit is in sinister parallel with the life-blind deregulatory forces of the Trump/Republican forces letting the ruling money party run free to become multiply richer while stripping scientific environmental regulations, monitoring and prevention of cumulatively ecocidal externalities of global financialization and environmental toxification.
The difference is that the English financial and factory-food lords are far stealthier and unseen in their demonstrable strategic plan to Leave the EU because it leads the world in scientific method, life-protective regulation and implementation. No-one seems yet to recognise this in the UK, unlike the rising US awareness of at least the Trump-Republican threat to the US and global environment and – more specifically – the Environmental Protection Agency and even the century-evolved and world-leading US national parks.
"Making America great again" excludes the life ground.
When PM Theresa May now hard-presses Leave the EU even when formerly opposed to it – most of all because of its weakening of Britain's defences against terrorism – who can doubt something has re-motivated her to reverse the agenda.
The tell-tale avoidance of truth is seen when she lashes Jeremy Corbyn for even connecting the terrorist operation of Manchester back to the facts of Britain's war-waging in poor foreign nations from which the suicide bombers come.
"Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services," Labour leader Corbyn observes, "have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home".
Joining the dots is taboo.
In such closure to facts, PM May implicitly justifies government actions on the basis of the legitimacy of past state actions which are war-criminal under international law, and – beneath notice again – stopped Libya specifically from its gold-dinar Bank of Africa plan based on oil revenues to lend to other African countries without the debt enslavement long coveted by London-connected private financing of states (including the British government itself).
Who do these actions of repression of war-criminal facts and seizure of other people's assets serve?
In this light, consider PM May's capacity to carry Leave the EU as PM compared to its most charismatic leader on the ground, Boris Johnson. Although he has long been London finance's man as Mayor as well as leader of the Brexit campaign, the master plan cannot go forward with him any further because, as a known liar and bounder, he is completely unfit as a credible finisher in PM office.
Those who lead here know very well how to rule behind effective public relations to keep their control acceptable on the public stage– as Wall Street has done with one elected US president after another. This is why the known libertine and shameless US-born self-promoter Boris Johnson was – however charming and useful – stopped for the job of 'Prime Minister of Great Britain'. He might indeed provoke cross-party reaction against pushing a onetime minority poll into a reversal of modern British history which took away the EU passports and future opportunities of England's young professional classes.
There is much to cover up here that needs a steady woman ruler with a better manner and more socially just in bearing. So Prime Minister Theresa May it was. Thus the sole regulatory powers in place keeping the private financial superpower of London in check against another 2008 emptying of the public treasury and pensioners' incomes – not to mention the deregulation de-greening of England by an industrial factory frankenfood system – escaped the public's attention.
To credibly cover up what nobody knows while believing in her mission is made-to- order for PM May, and so the Trump-like mega de-regulation and de-tax agenda has gone all the way to days before the June 8 British general election with far less fuss.
Boris was meanwhile made Foreign Minister to insult the EU onto their heels in England's revolution backwards for the unproductively and villainously rich. Few noticed that all these political shenanigans served a unifying function. The new EU financial regulations on London's big banks could not be implemented, monitored or enforced with Brexit stopping it all in its tracks. EU Organic Agriculture Regulations protecting the environment and natural ecosystems from genetic contaminations and industrial clearances of green life was simultaneously terminated with hardly any notice.
That foods themselves are released from safe and scientific EU standards has remained a non-issue. For poignant household example, British demands for hygiene standards to be changed to US rules so as to permit chicken meat sanitized only by chlorinated water, to allow beef raised with growth hormones, and to free genetically engineered substitute foods or GMO's from production and label restrictions have all been stopped dead by Brexit.
With London finance as well as industrial agriculture and false foods freed from codified norms of responsibility to the common life interest long evolved, tested and instituted within Britain and the European Union, the most predatory and counter-productive forces in Britain are allowed to run free with no public notice before the June 8 general election.
EU labour rights (eg., 48-hour week), human rights (e.g., employees' and prisoners' rights), financial oversight of any independent kind (as we have seen), and virtually all environmental standards developed beyond the US model, all are discontinued by the Great Repeal Act.
With no evolved EU standards of economic, social or environmental protection legally obligatory and enforceable any more, the June 8 election will lock it all into the future with no way back that can be reasonably relied on without electoral reversal.
With all the historical bearings and force of precedent, independent adjudication and law left behind by Leave, a US-UK deregulation and de-taxation orgy can proceed as 'democratic' if PM May wins the election. This is why PM Theresa May as the first head of state to visit the White House came out of their private meeting holding hands with Donald Trump.
Demonstrating its confidence in the liberated financial rule of Britain as the Great Repeal Bill proceeded, Goldman-Sachs simultaneously committed to a $500-million headquarters in central London.
London Finance with Goldman-Sachs Escapes All EU Financial Regulation
The very definition of the EU Central Bank's mandate to investigate and supervise "the business model, risk management, and capital, liquidity and funding" of private-profit bank and financial institutions including London (via a rigorous Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process by elite teams of professional accountants) is anathema to the long unregulated US-UK financial system.
London finance like Wall Street is very used to increasingly devouring public treasuries, pensions and savings to become 40% and rising of the entire economy. They have done this through the global financial meltdown they have caused to multiply their money-demand control of the planet in a myriad of algebraically concealed ways with no oversight supervision, no independently verifiable standards, and no real reforms.
The European Central Bank has finally moved to institute common standards across the Union – what was done after the Great Depression but has been reversed since. Private London-Wall Street banks and finance will do anything to stop this regulatory reform to protect their many trillions of assets and liabilities running free to continue unimpeded in the greatest unearned and still rising transfer of wealth to the rich in history.
The economic stakes are unprecedentedly high, and so the silencing of any notice of the reforms to regulate them has in the UK been total in the mass media and even in Labour policy recognition. Consider the vast treasure involved. "Existing financial rules" in London banks have been officially judged by independent experts as "woefully inadequate", and all of London's foreign currency trading (globally dominant and largest in Euros) remains unregulated and untaxed.
Vast investment banking, cross-border sales of securities, Euro liquidity to clearing houses, non-performing loan recognition, coverage and write-offs also escape independent regulation by Brexit and the Great Repeal Act.
Revenue-cap norms on skyrocketed financial pay to executives, standards of internal audit, deferred tax assets and credits masked as capital, capital adequacy, liquidity requirements and ability to pay liabilities are all also blocked by post-referendum laws.
Unnoticed too are overdue binding norms on regulating the competence of new members of management and key function holders (say, Boris Johnson) and oversight of collective investments in transferable securities by captive states and unilateral tax advantages gained by their public issue and sale for profit.
In sum, the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulations are set on fire by the Great Repeal of European Union obligations, now to be locked in by the June 8 election.
What are boasted as 'elegant and sophisticated innovations of investment instruments' and so on, are in fact systemic methods of fraudulent diversion with no qualified, independent accounting authority allowed into check their schemes fixed to maximally profit powerful private financial dealers against transparency and liability, elected government accountability, and the common interests of everyone else.
The Great Silencing
This whole joining of fateful dots has been covered in silence. Big London bank and finance has so far got away with veiled abolition of all the overdue EU financial rules, monitoring and enforcement to regulate them after the 2008 financial meltdown in which an estimated $26 trillion of public money has been swallowed by the transnational private banking system led by Wall Street and London.
In faint contrast, there has been a slight exposure of the Brexit reverse of evolved EU environment protections, monitoring sciences, directive laws, and feed-back enforcement processes.
But here too any information has occurred only in fragments, with no connections to the EU's life-protective binding rules on industrial farming, GMO products, and industrial chemical pollutions and toxins.
For example, you will not see in any government press release or corporate mass media any mention of the European Union's world-leading environmental protection by its Organic Agriculture Regulations setting out "the principles, aims and rules of food production and labelling". No-one mentions in the media or government that these regulations are precisely what are eliminated from monitoring, feedback and enforcement in Britain once the Great Repeal Act is legitimated by the June 8 election.
In similar vein, there is a white-out of pre-and-post-Brexit reference to EU's historic and definitive Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). It is by far the most advanced environmental and human health protection system scientifically validated in existing government and the world. But it too is made invisible in the ruling discussions and debates.
Such jam-it-through strategy with no public understanding and almost all the primary life-protective common legislation effectively concealed has been shrouded throughout in the pervasive media image of PM May vs. hapless Corbyn Labour. This is the only issue raised for voters in the June 8 election.
The global media too have consciously or unconsciously collaborated in making this most important election in British history in financial and environmental terms, a non-issue.
Yet even all this has not been enough for the great cover-up still in motion. There has been a Lobbying Act to stop informed NGO's – but not any of the London-based big transnational banks and corporations – from lobbying before the June 8 election, a new law which has frightened them into silence with Greenpeace already convicted and fined.
What Does Not Fit the Life-Blind Program?
One underlying principle governs beneath the political scenes, speeches and choral commentaries on stage. It also governs the UK-US 'special relationship' and Wall Street-London axis at the same time, in different ways:
De-fund and de-regulate all life-protective laws, agencies and enforcements that cost public and corporate money, and subsidize instead the unproductive or counter-productive private money party's multiplying growth.
The method is the same at base. Private Wall-Street and London banks behind the scenes print the world's money by debt issue for maximum profit to the top while producing nothing but multiplying their private money demand over all that exists.
Transnational corporate money sequences funded by the banks, in turn, strip and pollute life bases on all levels to produce and sell profit ever more commodities priced for maximum private profit with few or no life standards to govern their extractions, productive processes, products, wastes and life-destructive externalities.
For all its faults, the European Union has gone much further than any other unified jurisdiction in human and ecological regulations of these material phases, and the financial drivers behind them. This is ultimately why the UK private money party, especially its non-productive and counter-productive investors, have repudiated EU regulations of them on other pretexts.
In general, the connected global forces of life and life means destruction are screened out by the established framework of meaning which is in principle life-blind. In consequence, private financial and corporate forces are released from what modest public regulation has developed to protect organic, social and ecological life systems, and the systemic despoliation of global life-organisation continues to run down biodiverse energy capacities on all levels.
The UN Paris Agreement on 'climate change' is intended to meet the most dangerous consequences of this system. But it is selective, and 'climate change' euphemises hydrological-cycle destabilization and pollution that is the baseline force of world life and life means destruction. Again unifying principles and concepts are screened out of public discussion as well as silo disciplines.
Jeremy Corbyn's back-to-the basics Labour movement is hopeful in that it is not bound like Tony Blair's 'New Labour' to the dominant Murdoch media and big corporations controlling the agenda via government committees and PFI's. And this is why Corbyn's grass-roots leadership is pervasively belittled in the dominant media, and also why the while historic stakes of the June 8 election have been systematically blinkered out.
The ruling framework of meaning presupposes the life-blind system, rules out what does not conform to its money-value logic, and attacks what seeks to reform it.
So as the stakes keep getting higher as June 8 approaches, they are kept out of the discussion. There has been a systemic blocking out of all the momentous issues in the campaign before 'Brexit' and after it to today. The meta program is mind-locked, and compulsively proceeds even when its political leaders have no legitimate ground to proceed, but only a transient minority vote for Leave the EU in a largely apathetic and cynical referendum with no binding force.
The Great Repeal Act of EU regulations follows in lockstep fulfilment of the meta program, and an unscheduled snap election while Tory polls are still far ahead is set to cement it all in before the public wakes up to the meaning.
Thus proceeds the greatest system-wide reverse and financial boondoggle in modern English-speaking economic history and social-ecological evolution.
There is No Alternative
The re-grounded Labour movement does the best it can for the working people and dispossessed across Great Britain, the only organised institution to do so in the country. But this too is ridiculed and condescended to in the corporate press. And still the deeper and historic issues remain completely out of view.
In recent days, nonetheless, Labour has stood for returning the looted national railway system and other privatized utilities to a productive public direction, for taxing the rich more to fund falling public services, and for connecting Britain's terrorist problem to its armed-force actions in other countries.
This has given a spike in the polls to Corbyn labour. Yet still the profound major issues of 'Brexit' itself remain covered over. The dots of the essentially phoney Leave the EU referendum are not yet joined. The holus-bolus financial and environmental deregulation by the Brexit scheme remains undefined. The basic outline for the historic hoax has remained undetected into June.
"There is no alternative" has thus been reconstituted into the 2017 election. The underlying driver to cement the unaccountable private money power demanding ever more into a de-regulation bonanza remains unnamed.
Not even the master slogan of 'Brexit' is deconstructed as a public relations mask of the greatest backward move in life-protective norms in historical record: all to serve life-means destroying or unproductive money-party powers that are fronted by photogenic leaders on all planes.
The rationally self-maximizing growth of private-profit power over all existing assets is built into the meta program. But it is not comprehended. It exactly follows the inner logic of ruling economic, military and strategic game theory in models and calculations, but there is no linking across the simultaneous phenomena which are life blindly forming the future.
The conversion of organic, social and ecological life organisation into more money demand for fewer is now being rapidly instituted into place.
Summary
The June 8 British election is set to lock in the big-money coup against long- evolved regulations and norms protecting human, social and environmental life. The crisis is incomprehension of the meaning.
A corrosive cynicism of EU capacity to govern for the public interest (Greece the continuous demonstration), media-debased public perceptions suppressing the historic stakes involved, a US presidency demonized in all the corporate media, NATO-supported Nazism in Ukraine as Western freedom, and other degenerate trends have not been connected in their unifying pattern – within which UK money-party reversal of post-War socio-economic evolution is taking place.
PM Theresa May is the political face of the great leap backwards. So far the ruling politics of one distracting spectacle after another has worked right up to the June 8 election, fortified by a diabolical terrorist attack on London 5 days before the vote. y.. Yet there is a growing intuition of the fast slippage of social and ecological life order into chaos with no human centre of gravity in charge. The British public may still see through to the underlying radical program of government de-regulation, de-taxation, and de-funding to further empower the financial looting and life-despoiling forces at work.
Joining the dots behind the scenes reveals the emerging plot of meaning. The Great Brexit:
(1) stops the EU Central Bank Regulators and Supervisors from finally checking out the models, risk culture methods, inadequate reserves and so on of big London banks involved including Goldman-Sachs in the 2007-8 financial collapse, and
(2) eliminates the binding force of all the long-evolved and scientific EU regulations structured to prevent, in particular, the corporate industrial food system's polluting and despoiling US-led methods undermining the British people's health and environment.
Brexit's Great Repeal Act and PM May's snap June election is the only way to achieve (1) and (2) without negotiation or exposing public issue.
London financial accountability has most of all been silenced as an issue. Its growing trillions of nano-second fast-dealing to enrich the already rich by unregulated methods and calculations remain immune from any independent oversight.
Similarly, the very aims and principles of the binding, monitored and still developing Organic Agriculture Directive are anathema to Britain's US-led Big Agriculture and Food lobbies, not only around GMO restrictions – which US trade authorities and British GMO 'science' have made war on for over 15 years – but around every EU restriction on pesticides and herbicides to clear-cutting environments for monocultural factory methods to commodity motor rackets and pollutions to norms of licensed "food quality" in the corporate market.
The very governing EU objectives of "biodiversity", "animal protection", and "organic natural systems and cycles" are a threat to Big Food production and products when attached to exactly defined, inspected and enforceable life standards. Long used to pervasive public relations sales pitches of "feeding the world" in place of accountable, life-protective environmental and nutrition standards, this very powerful British lobby is next to London Big Finance as the covertly moving major profit-first force behind the Brexit coup d'etat.
Both are in principle life-blind in their mechanical financial models. Both are governed only by self-maximizing private money sequencing in exponential growth with no life-coherent ground or norms to stop their march across the world through organic, social and ecological life hosts. Both have led the Great Repeal of developed EU life standards beneath the radar of media coverage, parliamentary diagnosis, and academic silos.
It is not an exaggeration to observe that the UK chooses more than its own life future in the June 8 2017 general election.
John McMurtry is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and his work is published and translated from Latin America to Japan. He is the author and editor of the three-volume Philosophy and World Problems published by UNESCO's Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), and his most recent book is The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: from Crisis to Cure.
JOHN PILGER EXPOSES WHITE HELMETS AS "PROPAGANDA CONSTRUCT IN SYRIA"
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/26/john-pilger-exposes-white-helmets-as-uk-propaganda-construct-in-syria/#disqus_thread
Vanessa Beeley
Just prior to the 2016 announcement of the Nobel Prize I wrote to eminent author and filmmaker, John Pilger, about the NATO and Gulf State propaganda construct, the White Helmets, demonstrated to be nothing more than Nusra Front civil defence in Syria. In yesterday's interview with RT's Going Underground, John Pilger outed the White Helmets as nothing more than a "complete propaganda construct in Syria". WATCH ~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27B0yuazGo
This was my email to John Pilger on the 27/9/2016. I have no idea if it had any influence upon the comments that Pilger made during his interview but the fact that such a respected and admired analyst has finally, publically exposed the White Helmets – as a primarily UK funded, propaganda, shadow state construct, engineered to facilitate intervention in Syria, should be a powerful ally for independent media in their efforts to reveal the pivotal aspects of the dirty war being waged against Syria.
"I am writing to you as a journalist who believes in all the values you have represented to them for the years they have followed you.
I have, for some time, been working to expose, alongside many others, the "Dirty War on Syria" . I have recently returned from a 4 week journey around Syria, visiting Aleppo and meeting with President Assad, as part of the US Peace Council Delegation. Three weeks of my trip were, however, as an independent journalist.
My main investigation has focused on the White Helmets, the phony NATO shadow state construct, masquerading as a Humanitarian NGO, an alleged first response unit saving civilians.
I will not go into huge detail in this email but suffice to say that this group are a multi million $ funded operation with ties to private security firms and to deep state in both US and UK.
Their current funding amounts to well over £ 100m. This is not funding for 2,800 civil defence workers, this is funding for an "army". Funding comes from UK, US, Japan and EU countries and now Qatar. This suggests to me an Axis of intervention using these "humanitarians" as a cover for their nefarious military intervention. Syria is the blueprint. If Clinton is elected, who knows what kind of tool this blueprint will become in her war-hawk hands.
At the end of this email I will include links to the main body of my work, I have compiled them into one article titled "Who are the Syria White Helmets".
During my time in Syria, I met with the REAL Syria Civil Defence that has been in existence for 63 years compared to the White Helmets for 3 years. The REAL Syria Civil Defence is a member of the ICDO affiliated to the UN, WHO, Red Cross and OCHA to name a few. It is operating across Syria in both terrorist held and government held areas rescuing civilians.
I spoke with crew members whose comrades had been massacred by the incoming terrorists who then became known as the White Helmets in East Aleppo for example but also in other areas, Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, Idlib.
None of this is being reported and now we are heading towards the abyss of war and this terrorist affiliated group has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I appeal to you as someone with such standing and eminence in the media world, in the world at large, please would you highlight this story. If the White Helmets win the Nobel Prize it will bring with it such credibility, not only for the group, but for the entire illegal war effort and US hegemony globally. The war against Syria is underpinned by the propaganda provided by this group of White Helmets, who knows what they will be used for in the future.
I speak to you as a journalist, one who believes in presenting the truth not a two dimensional version of it that serves only to amplify state narratives....and to further reduce the brave and noble nation of Syria to ashes and rubble mingled with the blood of their people who would never have killed their country to improve it.
Another sovereign nation being torn apart but Syria is resisting and refusing to yield. She needs us to stand by her.
Please help me to prevent this travesty of justice and to prevent what is effectively Al Qaeda winning the Nobel Prize.
I thank you in advance for your kind attention and look forward to hearing from you."
Thank you John Pilger for what you said today.
As an Anglo-Saxon Celt I find the topic of my heritage fascinating:
English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English
English may refer to:
Something of, from, or related to the country of England
English people, an ethnic group of people native to England
English national identity, an identity and common culture
English language
England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[5][6][7] It shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west. The Irish Sea lies northwest of England and the Celtic Sea lies to the southwest. England is separated from continental Europe by the North Sea to the east and the English Channel to the south. The country covers five-eighths of the island of Great Britain (which lies in the North Atlantic) in its centre and south; and includes over 100 smaller islands such as the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Wight.
The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in the 10th century, and since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century, has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world.[8] The English language, the Anglican Church, and English law – the basis for the common law legal systems of many other countries around the world – developed in England, and the country's parliamentary system of government has been widely adopted by other nations.[9] The Industrial Revolution began in 18th-century England, transforming its society into the world's first industrialised nation.[10]
England's terrain mostly comprises low hills and plains, especially in central and southern England. However, there are uplands in the north (for example, the mountainous Lake District, and the Pennines) and in the southwest (for example, Dartmoor and the Cotswolds). The capital is London, which has the largest metropolitan area in both the United Kingdom and the European Union.[nb 1] England's population of over 53 million comprises 84% of the population of the United Kingdom, largely concentrated around London, the South East, and conurbations in the Midlands, the North West, the North East, and Yorkshire, which each developed as major industrial regions during the 19th century.[11]
The Kingdom of England—which after 1535 included Wales—ceased being a separate sovereign state on 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union put into effect the terms agreed in the Treaty of Union the previous year, resulting in a political union with the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.[12][13] In 1801, Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland through another Act of Union to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, leading to the latter being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
English people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ("family of the Angles"). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[6] England is one of the countries of the United Kingdom.
Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.
Today many English people have recent forebears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.
The English people are the source of the English language, the Westminster system, the common law system and numerous major sports such as cricket, football,[8] rugby union, rugby league and tennis. These and other English cultural characteristics have spread worldwide, in part as a result of the former British Empire.
English national identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_national_identity
A national identity of the English as the people or ethnic group native to England developed in the Middle Ages arguably beginning with the unification of the Kingdom of England in the 10th century, but explicitly in the 11th century after the Norman Conquest, when Englishry came to be the status of the subject indigenous population.
From the eighteenth century the terms 'English' and 'British' began to be seen as interchangeable to many of the English.[1]
While the official UK census does record ethnicity, English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British is a single tick-box under the "White" heading for the answer to the ethnicity question asked in England and Wales (while making the distinction of white Irish).[2]
Although Englishness and Britishness are used synonymously in some contexts,[3] the two terms are not identical and the relation of each to the other is complex. Englishness is often a response to different national identities within Britain such as Scottishness, Irishness, Welshness.[4]
Sometimes Englishness is thought to be encapsulated in terms of a particular relation to sport: "fair play," for instance. Arguably, England's "national games" are football and, particularly, cricket. As cricket historian Dominic Malcolm argues, the link between cricket and England's national identity became solidified through literature. Works such as James Love's "Cricket: an heroic poem" and Mary Mitford's "our Village," along with Nyren's "cricketers of my Time" and Pycroft's "The Cricket Field," purported to identify the characteristics of cricket with the notional characteristics of English society, such as pragmatism, integrity, and independence.[5]
Sessions calls Comey's handling of the Clinton email case a "usurpation" of Justice Department authority
http://wcfcourier.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/sessions-calls-comey-s-handling-of-the-clinton-email-case/article_6767b3ad-caa0-5ab9-823e-88c14cf4d5fb.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sessions calls Comey's handling of the Clinton email case a "usurpation" of Justice Department authority.
usurpation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usurpation
1. The act of usurping, especially the wrongful seizure of royal sovereignty.
2. A wrongful seizure or exercise of authority or privilege belonging to another; an encroachment: "in our own day, gross usurpations upon the liberty of private life" (John Stuart Mill).
QuoteSessions calls Comey's handling of the Clinton email case a "usurpation" of Justice Department authority.
Now that Trump is president and he has stacked the government with psychopaths it should be easy to get all the proof he needs against Hillary. So why isn't he throwing her in jail?, why no investigation?...well because it was all BS peddled to snowflakes to win the election that's why.
I like steve hughes take on the war on terror...
"So your having a war on terror are you?
So what does war create... uhm Terror
So your having a war against the consequences of the actions your involved in"
Secession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance. Threats of secession can also be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.[1]
Secession theory
Theories of secession relate to a fundamental question of political philosophy: the basis of the state's authority.[2]
In his 1991 book Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, philosophy professor Allen Buchanan outlined limited rights to secession under certain circumstances, mostly related to oppression by people of other ethnic or racial groups, and especially those previously conquered by other peoples.[3]
In July 1998 the Rutgers University journal "Society" published papers from a "Symposium on Secession and Nationalism at the Millennium" including the articles "The Western State as Paradigm" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Profit Motives in Secession" by Sabrina P. Ramet, "Rights of Secession" by Daniel Kofman, "The Very Idea of Secession" by Donald Livingston and "Secession, Autonomy, & Modernity" by Edward A. Tiryakian. In 2007 the University of South Carolina sponsored a conference called "Secession As an International Phenomenon" which produced a number of papers on the topic.[4]
Justifications for secession
Some theories of secession emphasize a general right of secession for any reason ("Choice Theory") while others emphasize that secession should be considered only to rectify grave injustices ("Just Cause Theory").[5] Some theories do both. A list of justifications may be presented supporting the right to secede, as described by Allen Buchanan, Robert McGee, Anthony Birch,[6] Jane Jacobs,[7] Frances Kendall and Leon Louw,[8] Leopold Kohr,[9] Kirkpatrick Sale,[10] and various authors in David Gordon's "Secession, State and Liberty", includes:
United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
Former President of the United States Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William H. Crawford, Secretary of War under President James Madison, on June 20, 1816: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many ; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'. I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."[11]
Economic enfranchisement of an economically oppressed class that is regionally concentrated within the scope of a larger national territory.
The right to liberty, freedom of association and private property
Consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized
Making it easier for states to join with others in an experimental union
Dissolving such union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved
Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area
Self-determination of peoples
Preserving culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group
Furthering diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity
Rectifying past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power
Escaping "discriminatory redistribution", i.e., tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, etc. that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion
Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently
Preserving "liberal purity" (or "conservative purity") by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede
Providing superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession
Keeping political entities small and human scale through right to secession
Aleksandar Pavkovic,[12] associate professor at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Macquarie University in Australia and the author of several books on secession describes five justifications for a general right of secession within liberal political theory:[13]
Anarcho-Capitalism: individual liberty to form political associations and private property rights together justify right to secede and to create a "viable political order" with like-minded individuals.
Democratic Secessionism: the right of secession, as a variant of the right of self-determination, is vested in a "territorial community" which wishes to secede from "their existing political community"; the group wishing to secede then proceeds to delimit "its" territory by the majority.
Communitarian Secessionism: any group with a particular "participation-enhancing" identity, concentrated in a particular territory, which desires to improve its members' political participation has a prima facie right to secede.
Cultural Secessionism: any group which was previously in a minority has a right to protect and develop its own culture and distinct national identity through seceding into an independent state.
The Secessionism of Threatened Cultures: if a minority culture is threatened within a state that has a majority culture, the minority needs a right to form a state of its own which would protect its culture.
Types of secession
Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state:[1][13][14]
Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join together) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units)
Colonial aka "wars of independence" from a "mother country" or imperial state
National (seceding entirely from the national state) versus local (seceding from one entity of the national state into another entity of the same state)
Central or enclave (seceding entity is completely surrounded by the original state) versus peripheral (along a border of the original state)
Secession by contiguous units versus secession by non-contiguous units (exclaves)
Separation or partition (although an entity secedes, the rest of the state retains its structure) versus dissolution (all political entities dissolve their ties and create several new states)
Irredentism where secession is sought in order to annex the territory to another state because of common ethnicity or prior historical links
Minority (a minority of the population or territory secedes) versus majority (a majority of the population or territory secedes)
Secession of better off regions versus secession of worse off regions
The threat of Secession sometimes is used as a strategy to gain greater autonomy within the original state
Arguments against secession
Allen Buchanan, who supports secession under limited circumstances, lists arguments that might be used against secession:[15]
"Protecting Legitimate Expectations" of those who now occupy territory claimed by secessionists, even in cases where that land was stolen
"Self Defense" if losing part of the state would make it difficult to defend the rest of it
"Protecting Majority Rule" and the principle that minorities must abide by them
"Minimization of Strategic Bargaining" by making it difficult to secede, such as by imposing an exit tax
"Soft Paternalism" because secession will be bad for secessionists or others
"Threat of Anarchy" because smaller and smaller entities may choose to secede until there is chaos, although this is not the true meaning of the political and philosophical concept.
"Preventing Wrongful Taking" such as the state's previous investment in infrastructure
"Distributive Justice" arguments that wealthier areas cannot secede from poorer ones
Explanations for the 20th century explosion in secessionism
According to University of California, Santa Barbara, political scientist Bridget L. Coggins, there are four potential explanations in the academic literature for the drastic increase in state birth during the 20th century:[16]
Ethnonational mobilization - Ethnic minorities have been increasingly mobilized to pursue states of their own.
Institutional empowerment - The growing inability of empires and ethnic federations to maintain colonies and member states.
Relative strength - Increasingly powerful secessionist movements are more likely to achieve statehood.
Negotiated consent - Home states and the international community increasingly consent to secessionist demands.
Secession movements
Movements that work towards political secession may describe themselves as being autonomy, separatist, independence, self-determination, partition, devolution, decentralization, sovereignty, self-governance or decolonization movements instead of, or in addition to, being secession movements.
English independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_independence
English independence is a political stance advocating secession of England, the largest and most populous country of the British Isles, from the United Kingdom. Support for secession of England has been influenced by the increasing devolution of political powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where independence from the United Kingdom is a prominent subject of political debate.[1]
English independence is seen by its advocates as a way to resolve the West Lothian question in British politics: Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs in the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster can vote on matters affecting England, while English MPs do not have the same power over equivalent issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as these powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales.[2][3]
While some minor political parties have campaigned for English independence, all major UK-wide political parties adhere to the opposing view of British unionism, and oppose altering the constitutional status of England.[4] Scottish demands for independence, rather than English demands, are seen as the most pressing threat to British unity; Scotland voted against independence at the referendum on 18 September 2014.[5] and a second vote is proposed in late 2018 or early 2019.
History
The English national identity developed over a long period of time. The Kingdom of England came into being in the 10th century: it spanned much of the southern two-thirds of Great Britain and a number of smaller outlying islands. The Norman conquest of Wales from 1067–1283 (formalized by the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284) placed Wales under English control, and Wales came under English law with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, which disestablished the Principality of Wales.
In 1603, the Union of the Crowns took place when the death of Elizabeth I resulted in James VI, King of Scots, acceding to the English throne, placing England and Scotland under personal union. In 1707, the Acts of Union were passed by both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain. The measure was deeply unpopular in both Scotland and England. The Scottish signatories to the Act were forced to sign the documents in secrecy because of mass rioting and unrest in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh. Scotland did however retain Scots law, a legal system distinct from that used in England and Wales.
In 1800, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland both passed new Acts of Union, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1921, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was agreed, allowing Southern Ireland under the Irish Free State to become a Dominion, resulting in only Northern Ireland remaining within the UK, which in 1927 was formally renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Arguments for English independence
Advocates of English sovereignty state that a sovereign England would enjoy one of the world's strongest economies, with an estimated GDP of US$2.865 trillion as of 2015, making it the world's 5th, 6th, or 7th largest economy depending on measurement. It is also claimed that England would be the 15th wealthiest nation in the world, with a GDP per capita of US$33,999.[6] Compare this with $30,783 for Scotland,[6] $23,397 for Wales,[6] and $24,154 for Northern Ireland,[6] or $37,659 for the UK minus England.[6]
Along with London, the leading major world city and the world's largest financial centre, as its capital,[7] England would continue to possess an enviable education system that includes some of the world's most prestigious universities, with the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge and colleges of the University of London regularly featuring among the top 10 of the QS World University Rankings.
Devolved English parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament
A devolved English parliament or assembly is a proposed institution that would give separate decision-making powers to representatives for voters in England, similar to the representation given by the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. A devolved English parliament is an issue in the politics of the United Kingdom.
Public opinion surveys have resulted in widely differing conclusions on public support for the establishment of a devolved English parliament.
Background
The future prospects of a devolved English Parliament have been raised in relation to the so-called West Lothian Question, which came to the fore after devolutionary changes to British parliaments. Before 1998, all political issues, even when only concerning parts of the United Kingdom, were decided by the British parliament at Westminster. After separate regional parliaments or assemblies were introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998, issues concerning only these parts of the United Kingdom were often decided by the respective devolved assemblies, while purely English issues were decided by the entire British parliament, with MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fully participating in debating and voting. The establishment of a devolved English parliament, giving separate decision-making powers to representatives for voters in England, has thus become an issue in British politics.
The question of a devolved English parliament was considered a minor issue until the Conservative Party announced policy proposals to establish English votes on English legislation, thus raising the profile of the issue.[citation needed][when?] The political parties which are campaigning for an English Parliament are the British National Party[citation needed], the English Democrats, the Free England Party and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). The Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru also call for an English parliament, although they feel the best way to achieve this is through a dissolution of Union, they will accept federation in the interim.[citation needed] Since 1997, the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) has been campaigning for a referendum on an English Parliament. Despite institutional opposition in Westminster to a Parliament for England, the CEP has had some success in bringing the issue to people's attention, particularly in political and academic circles.[citation needed]
Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected simultaneously in general elections all over the United Kingdom. There are 533 English constituencies, which because of their large number, form an inbuilt majority in the House of Commons. However, there have been notable occasions - Foundation Hospitals, Top-up fees and the new runway at Heathrow, for example - where MPs elected in England have been outvoted by MPs from the rest of the UK on English-only legislation that is devolved outside England.[citation needed] As the British Government considered Scotland to be over-represented in relation to the other components of the United Kingdom, Clause 81 of the Scotland Act 1998 equalised the English and Scottish electoral quota, and London now provides more MPs per capita than Scotland does.[citation needed]
Surveys of public opinion on the establishment of an English parliament have given widely varying conclusions. In the first five years of devolution for Scotland and Wales, support in England for the establishment of an English parliament was low at between 16 and 19 per cent, according to successive British Social Attitudes Surveys.[1] A report, also based on the British Social Attitudes Survey, published in December 2010 suggests that only 29 per cent of people in England support the establishment of an English parliament, though this figure had risen from 17 per cent in 2007.[2] One 2007 poll carried out for BBC Newsnight, however, found that 61 per cent would support such a parliament being established.[3]
In January 2012 Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, supported calls for a devolved English parliament.[4]
On 19 September 2014, the day after the referendum on Scottish separation, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a solution to the problem, in the form of "English votes for English laws"- where MPs in English constituencies, will only vote on matters concerning England, this will prevent MPs from the rest of the UK voting on matters which only relate to England. The Labour Party is opposed to the idea, citing that this will create two classes of MPs in the House of Commons, and that a regional approach should be taken, in the form of regional English devolution.
In July 2015, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Chuka Umunna, suggested that the Labour Party should support the creation of a separate English parliament as part of a federal United Kingdom. He also called for a federal structure to the Labour Party with the creation of a distinct English Labour Party.[5]
Campaigning
Several groups are working to raise this issue of a devolved English parliament, including the Campaign for an English Parliament and the English Constitutional Convention. The English Democrats Party also supports the creation of an English parliament. Electoral support for English nationalist parties is low, however, even though there is public support for many of the policies they espouse.[6] The English Democrats gained just 64,826 votes in the 2010 UK general election, accounting for 0.3 per cent of all votes cast in England.[7]
Public opinion
Surveys of public opinion on the establishment of an English deliberative assembly have given widely varying conclusions. In the first five years of devolution for Scotland and Wales, support in England for the establishment of an English parliament was between 16 and 19 per cent, according to successive British Social Attitudes Surveys.[1] A report, also based on the British Social Attitudes Survey, published in December 2010 suggests that only 29 per cent of people in England support the establishment of an English parliament, though this figure had risen from 17 per cent in 2007.[8] One 2007 poll of 1,953 people throughout Great Britain carried out for BBC Newsnight, however, found 61 per cent support among the English for a parliament of their own, with 51 per cent of Scots and 48 per cent of Welsh people favouring the same.[9][10] An earlier ICM poll of 869 English people in November 2006 produced a slightly higher majority of 68 per cent backing the establishment of such a body.[11][12][13][14]
Academic Krishan Kumar notes that support for English votes for English laws, or measures to ensure that only English MPs can vote on legislation that applies only to England is generally higher than that for the establishment of an English parliament, although support for both varies depending on the timing of the opinion poll and the wording of the question.[15] Kumar argues that "despite devolution and occasional bursts of English nationalism – more an expression of exasperation with the Scots or Northern Irish – the English remain on the whole satisfied with current constitutional arrangements".[16]
A 2014 poll by Cardiff and Edinburgh universities found that 54% of English people surveyed agreed with a devolved parliament, while 20% neither agreed nor disagreed, 15% disagreed, and 10% were undecided.[17]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.15, 21:02:16
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this.
But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil'
only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country
behind this propaganda is the US . . ."
This quite correct but really needs some supporting facts. You see there is an Alqaeda, which has gone on to
include al nusra, ISIS etc, all the constructs of the US
Global Research Editor's Note
This article originally published by Global Research in 2005 sheds light on the nature of Al Qaeda, an intelligence
construct used by Washington to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries, while sustaining the illusion of
an outside enemy, which threatens the security of the Western World.
In recent developments, the Obama administration has intimated that it will be supporting "moderate al Qaeda rebels"
in Syria in its
"counter-terrorism" campaign (i.e. bombing raids) allegedly against the ISIS, formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The state sponsor of Al Qaeda goes after Al Qaeda? The fact of the matter is that both Al Nusra and the Islamic State
(ISIS) are
supported by Washington and its allies. And in recent developments, Washington has asked Moscow not to bomb the
Al Nusra Front,
which is categorized as part of the moderate opposition. The article below describes the origins of Al Qaeda: The Base,
by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-
2/24738 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738)
So Robin was correct in that there was no "real" Alqaeda but failed to mention in this quote that it was an artificial
construct of the U ..still supported, supplied and championed to this day.
Robin Cook died August 2005 yiu guessed it, a heart attack,, age 59
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.16, 15:17:48
Robin Cook died August 2005 yiu guessed it, a heart attack,, age 59
Robin Cook wrote this the day after the July 7th London Bombings, and a month or so before he died.
The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead.
The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.
It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?
But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?
At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.
Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.
In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.
Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.
The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.
But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.
And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.
r.cook@theguardian.com
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.17, 09:29:41
At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.
Faith and rationalityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.
Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated[citation needed] and used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above.
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:
Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.
The Catholic Church also has taught that true faith and correct reason can and must work together, and, viewed properly, can never be in conflict with one another, as both have their origin in God, as stated in the Papal encyclical letter issued by Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio ("[On] Faith and Reason").
Relationship between faith and reasonFrom at least the days of the Greek Philosophers, the relationship between faith and reason has been hotly debated. Plato argued that knowledge is simply memory of the eternal. Aristotle set down rules by which knowledge could be discovered by reason.
Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal's Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are seen by many as finite. One more reason for irrational beliefs can perhaps be explained by operant conditioning. For example, in one study by B. F. Skinner in 1948, pigeons were awarded grain at regular time intervals regardless of their behaviour. The result was that each of pigeons developed their own idiosyncratic response which had become associated with the consequence of receiving grain.[1]
Believers in faith — for example those who believe salvation is possible through faith alone — frequently suggest that everyone holds beliefs arrived at by faith, not reason.[citation needed] The belief that the universe is a sensible place and that our minds allow us to arrive at correct conclusions about it, is a belief we hold through faith. Rationalists contend that this is arrived at because they have observed the world being consistent and sensible, not because they have faith that it is.
Beliefs held "by faith" may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:
Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to René Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am", which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.
Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.
Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it interferes with our ability to think, and inversely rationality is seen as the enemy of faith by interfering with our beliefs.
Faith and reason as essential together: This is the Catholic view that faith without reason leads to superstition, while reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism.
Faith as based on warrant: In this view some degree of evidence provides warrant for faith. "To explain great things by small."[2]
The Qatar Blockade, the Petro-Yuan, and the Coming War on Iran
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/16/the-qatar-blockade-the-petro-yuan-and-the-coming-war-on-iran/
by Dan Glazebrook
Trump's speech to the assembled Gulf leaders in Saudi Arabia on May 21st is worth reading in full. It is deeply disturbing.
Having praised himself for his $110billion arms deal with the Saudis, he goes on to talk about the threat posed by terrorism, and what a wonderful job the US and the Gulfis – that is, the leading state sponsor of the region's supremacist death squads, and its assembled proxies – are doing in combating it. He then goes on to claim that at the root of the region's terrorism lurks – guess who? The power leading the regional pushback against ISIS and Al Qaeda – Iran.
"Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them" he says, "But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three—safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment". This is pretty much exactly how Joe Biden – in his own attempt to whitewash US involvement – described Trump's Saudi hosts three years earlier. But Trump is not talking about IS's Saudi backers; he is talking about Iran – the same Iran responsible, with its Syrian and Russian allies, for that fact that the IS flag is NOT today flying over Damascus.
It gets worse. Look at the following passage, just after he calls on "all nations of conscience to work together to isolate Iran":
"Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil? Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology? Will we let its venom spread through our societies? Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth? If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the future will bring—more suffering and despair. But if we act—if we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world—then there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have.
The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring. Glorious wonders of science, art, medicine and commerce to inspire humankind. Great cities built on the ruins of shattered towns. New jobs and industries that will lift up millions of people."
This is the language of genocide. Heroism and genocide have always gone hand-in-hand in the settler-colonial ideology internalised by the likes of Trump, for which 'building great cities on the ruins of shattered towns', be they native American, Palestinian, or, it seems, Iranian, has always been the highest accolade. Some have accused Trump of making novice blunders during his first lumbering foray into the Middle Eastern maelstrom. But I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows very well that the loosely-defined 'ideology' he speaks of as 'spreading venom' will be much more readily interpreted by his hosts as Shi'ism – the creed to which Iran actually subscribes – than as Wahhabi'ism, the sectarian ideology behind ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Saudi state. And just to make clear what he is demanding be done to this ill-defined – but, nudge-wink, understood – enemy, he spells it out:
"The nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.
It is a choice between two futures — and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.
A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and
DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH."
Doesn't this sound horribly like Trump giving the green light to an all-out war of eradication against the region's Shia – that is, a war very similar to the one actually being waged, in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, by Trump's government, his hosts, and their proxies?
At the same time, having found it harder than expected to rip up the Iran deal, Trump is instead hoping to render it null and void by simply blackmailing individual nations into not dealing with Iran, ensuring the formal lifting of sanctions is replaced by an informal blockade.
This is where Qatar comes in. Qatar has clearly not been playing ball with the US-approved, Saudi-led 'isolate Iran' programme. This is partly because, ever since the current Emir toppled his pro-Saudi father in 1995, the country has made independence from Saudi Arabia a hallmark of its foreign policy. But it is mostly because Qatar and Iran share the world's largest natural gas field – known in Qatar as North Field and in Iran as South Pars.
In fact, the two countries have had decent relations for some time: in May 2010, for example, in stark contrast to the hardline attitude of his Gulf neighbours, the Qatari Emir Al-Thani joined forces with President Assad of Syria, no less, to support Turkey's diplomatic proposals over Iran's nuclear programme. Then, in 2014, in a 'dry run' of today's crisis, the Saudis, UAE and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Doha following a Qatari proposal to help Iran develop its side of the North Field/ South Pars gas field. But what's taking place now is much more serious. And that is largely because of the likely earth-shattering impact of the decisions surely now being considered by the two powers over where their gas will go, how it will get there – and in what currency it will be sold.
In April of this year, a self-imposed 12-year moratorium on the development of Qatar's share of North Field came to an end, potentially opening up a flood of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) onto the market in the years to come. But where will it go? Qatar had originally been hoping to build an LNG pipeline to the Mediterranean via Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey; indeed, many have speculated that Assad's blocking of this proposal in favour of an Iran-Iraq-Syria route was a major reason for Qatar's support of the anti-government insurgency there. The failure of this insurgency, however, has spelled the death of this proposal, leaving Qatar bound to look East to Asia – already their biggest customers – for their LNG markets. But most of the existing Eastbound LNG pipeline infrastructure is controlled by Iran. For Qatar, then, cutting its Iran links would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. This is why the Saudis aim to demonstrate that the alternative is having their entire face cut off.
For the US, the stakes couldn't be higher. In 2012, Iran began to accept yuan for its oil and gas payments, followed by Russia in 2015. If this takes off, this could literally spell the beginning of the end of US global power. The dollar is the world's leading reserve currency, in the main, only because oil is currently traded in dollars. Countries seeking foreign exchange reserves as insurance against crises within their own currencies tend to look to the dollar precisely because it is effectively 'convertible' into oil, the world's number one commodity. This global thirst for dollars is what allows the US to print endless amounts of them, virtually for free, which it can then exchange for real goods and services with other countries. This is what is known as 'seignorage privileges'; that is, the ability to absorb ever-increasing amounts of goods and services from other countries without having to provide anything of equivalent value in return. In turn, it is this privilege which helps to finance the staggering costs of the US military machine, now running at over $600 billion per year.
Yet, this whole system falls apart once other countries stop using the dollar as their prime reserve currency. And they stop doing this once oil stops being traded in dollars. This is one reason why the US were so keen for Saddam Hussein to go after he began trading Iraqi oil in Euros.
And, slowly but surely, this change is already occurring. In 2012, the People's Bank of China announced it would no longer be increasing its holdings of US dollars, and two years later, Nigeria increased its holdings of yuan from 2% to 7% of its total foreign exchange reserves. Many other countries are moving in the same direction.
At the same time, China has been on a gold-buying spree, setting up its own twice-daily pricing of gold in yuan in 2012 as part of what the chair of the Shanghai Gold Exchange called the "internationalisation of renminbi", ultimately aiming towards making yuan fully convertible to gold. Once this happens, the choice for oil-producing countries between trading oil for ever-more-worthless paper dollars, or trading it for convertible-to-gold renminbi will be a no-brainer. For Qatar, the pull may already be irresistible.
Hence the urgency to pre-emptively punish Qatar for its likely move towards a joint venture with Iran to supply Asia with LNG priced in yuan. The aim is to demonstrate that, however economically suicidal it may be in the long term to snub Iran and continue trading in the dollar, it will be politically suicidal in the immediate term to do anything else. Just how far Trump and his Arab friends are prepared to take this remains to be seen. But Trump has repeatedly suggested that the whole point of having a military is to use it.
Theresa May's war on the internet
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/392701-uk-may-tories-internet/
Last night, Theresa May was in France for a joint press conference with new French President Emmanuel Macron. As far as I could tell, it was only Al Jazeera that broadcast it live in Britain.
The only time it was mentioned during BBC radio 4's flagship news show, the Today program, was during the five-minute religious slot Thought for the Day. It was not covered in the news section at all.
But this should be major, major news. This was Theresa May's first policy announcement since last week's election. And it wasn't on Brexit, the reason she supposedly called the election. It wasn't on austerity, which she apparently told her own MPs was over in a private session two days ago. No, her first major public policy announcement was – the end of internet freedom.
Specifically, what was announced was that both countries would be introducing heavy fines for internet companies that failed to remove what they, very loosely, defined as "extremist content."
Now, taken at face value, this might seem to be referring to ISIS [Islamic State, formerly ISIL] recruitment videos or online suicide bombing training videos, or whatever. But the direct encouragement of violence is already illegal. So, what exactly is being proposed? Who exactly will be targeted?
It was former PM David Cameron who originally came up with the idea that "nonviolent extremism" should be criminalized alongside violent extremism. Intriguingly, as an example of what he meant, he included the idea that the "West is bad," as well as elsewhere arguing that the promotion of "wild conspiracy theories" would also qualify.
Well, the collusion between, for example, British intelligence and Al-Qaeda might sound like a wild conspiracy theory. But, in the context of Britain and Al-Qaeda's shared enemies in the form of Gaddafi and Assad, this collusion actually did take place. MI5 was facilitating the passage of fighters between Britain, Syria, and Libya, the SAS were training them, and MI6 was equipping them. Indeed, this collusion is not even secret: as late as 2016 the British government openly pledged to send more British troops to Syria to train rebel groups that even the BBC admitted were likely to be allied with Al-Qaeda.
So, is the publication of this information going to be barred now as extremist? Will YouTube and Facebook and Google and Twitter pull these revelations in fear of getting fined for promoting the "wild conspiracy theories" that, according to Cameron, qualify as extremism?
It is clear why the British state is so keen to clampdown on the internet once this kind of information starts going viral. But the election just gone has raised the stakes even further, demonstrating that, if the government does not reassert its authority over the internet, it may well have lost control of the political narrative for good. Let's review what's just happened:
A month ago, almost everybody was predicting a wipeout for the Labour party, a repeat of the disastrous 1983 election in which Margaret Thatcher really did win the landslide Theresa May had been predicting. Oh, how times have changed.
Back in 1983, pretty much everyone got their political information from either the newspapers or the BBC. In other words, between them, the big press barons – about 4 or 5 of them – and the British state had total monopoly control of political information.
This meant that when they portrayed Labour leader Michael Foot as a bumbling Oaf, that became the abiding image of him. A tiny handful of millionaire Tories effectively had total control over the public image of every politician in the land.
This time around, it's a different story. The newspapers and the TV threw everything they could at Corbyn – 'he's a terror-supporting, magic money tree-mongering, Brexit-frustrating Remainiac' – but people weren't buying. And why weren't they buying? Because they're not reading the newspapers, and they're not watching terrestrial TV. This time around, people, young people in particular, were increasingly getting their political information from social media – and on social media, the conservatives did not control the narrative.
For example, an RT interview I did about British collusion with terrorism shortly before the election got over one and half million views on Facebook – higher than the daily readership of the Daily Mail. Jonathan Pie's fantastic piece tearing apart the Tory's 'strong and stable' nonsense, got 11 million views. That is two and half million more than the combined circulation of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Guardian, Sun, Daily Star, Times, Telegraph, Evening Standard, and the Mirror and Metro – the country's ten leading newspapers. And hilariously, when I had just watched one of Theresa May's speeches on YouTube during the campaign, immediately afterwards, YouTube automatically playedLiar Liar, the anti-May anthem that reached number four in the UK pop charts last week. And I suspect YouTube auto played that video after anyone watched anything about Theresa May due to the algorithms that they employ.
So, you can see why the Tories are furious about the internet. They, and the British state more generally, have totally lost control of the narrative. And that's what cost them this election.
So that's what this new crackdown on the internet is really about; it's about regaining control of that narrative. It's about turning the CEOs of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Google into the Rupert Murdochs of the 21st century – the political allies and mouthpieces of the British state and the capitalist class, and doing this by forging a new relationship that explicitly punishes them if they refuse to play ball.
Even the government's own 'reviewer of terrorism laws', Max Hill, has come out against the move, explaining that "my view is that... we do have the appropriate laws in place, and that essentially the police and security services, and those whose job it is to keep us safe, do have the powers at their disposal."
He noted that, in his experience, the police unit responsible for identifying online extremist material receive full co-operation from the tech companies already.
Similarly, The Open Rights Group has warned that "to push on with these extreme proposals for internet clampdowns would appear to be a distraction from the current political situation and from effective measures against terror."
"The government already has extensive surveillance powers. Conservative proposals for automated censorship of the internet would see decisions about what British citizens can see online being placed in the hands of computer algorithms, with judgments ultimately made by private companies rather than courts. Home Office plans to force companies to weaken the security of their communications products could put all of us at a greater risk of crime."
Those who are worried about extremism should be calling for an end to the British intelligence services' collaboration and facilitation of terrorism and the extradition of those who have carried out or facilitated attacks abroad, as well as an international investigation and prosecutions of all those involved.
Theresa May's new proposals do nothing to end the impunity of her own government in the grooming and facilitation of terrorism. Rather, they serve to extend this impunity. They must be resisted.
US charged with de facto invasion of Syria and openly supporting Isis
https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/us-charged-with-de-facto-invasion-of-syria-and-openly-supporting-isis/
The Trump administration is now openly supporting Isis and bombing Assad's troops in Syria on behalf of Israel. This is what a new PressTV report shockingly claims. (See 5-minute video below). If Trump is one of the good guys, as is still being argued by a rapidly diminishing number of diehard Trump supporters, why is he escalating tensions in Syria and inviting a major confrontation with Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ReoFVAV00
Reader, judge for yourself whether my correspondent is right or wrong. A radical reassessment of Donald Trump is clearly needed. He is not the man we thought he was. He is now openly supporting Isis.
The video concludes that the only beneficiary of Trump's illegal warmongering in Syria is Israel.
War is now almost certain, for there is no way that Russia and Iran can stand by and see the wanton destruction of Syria in order to serve the interests of the Jewish state.
Glazebrook and Escobar got their finger on the pulse..
The West Can't Smell What Eurasia is Cooking
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706161054701807-west-cannot-smell-what-eurasia-cooking/
by Pepe Escobar
A tectonic geopolitical shift happened in Astana, Kazakhstan, only a few days ago, and yet barely a ripple registered in Atlanticist circles.
At the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001, both India and Pakistan were admitted as full members, alongside Russia, China and four Central Asian "stans" (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).
So now the SCO not only qualifies as the largest political organization – by area and population – in the world; it also unites four nuclear powers. The G-7 is irrelevant, as the latest summit in Taormina made it clear. The real action now, apart from the G-20, also lays in this alternative G-8.
Permanently derided in the West for a decade and a half as a mere talk shop, the SCO, slowly but surely, keeps advancing a set up that Chinese President Xi Jinping qualifies, in a subdued manner, as "a new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation."
That's the least one can say when you have China, India and Pakistan in the same group.
The SCO's trademark, under the radar game is quite subtle. The initial emphasis, as we were entering the post-9/11 world, was to fight what the Chinese qualify as "the three evils" of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Beijing – and Moscow – from the beginning were thinking about the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their Central Asian connections, especially via the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).
Now the SCO is actively warning about the security "deterioration" in Afghanistan and calling for all members to support the "peace and reconciliation" process. That's code for the SCO from now on directly engaged in finding an "all-Asian" Afghan solution – with both India and Pakistan on board – that should transcend the failed Pentagon "remedy"; more troops.
NATO, by the way, miserably lost its war in Afghanistan. The Taliban control at least 60% of the country – and counting. And adding supreme insult to predictable injury, the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) – Daesh's branch in Afghanistan – has just captured Tora Bora, where way back in late 2001 the Pentagon's B-52s were bombing already-escaped Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Make no mistake; there will be SCO action in Afghanistan. And that will include bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. China has taken over the rotating presidency of the SCO and will be keen to show practical results in the next summit in June 2018.
Step on the gas, pay in yuan
The SCO has also steadily evolved in terms of economic cooperation. Last year Gu Xueming, head of the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation at the Ministry of Commerce, proposed a SCO economic think tank alliance, also tasked to study the set up of SCO free trade zones.
This spells out further economic integration – already ongoing for scores of small-and medium-sized businesses. The trend is inevitable, in parallel to the interpenetration of the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EEU).
So no wonder at their bilateral meeting in Astana, Xi and President Putin once again exhorted the merging of BRI and EEU. And we're not talking only about the BRI, EEU and SCO trio; that also concerns the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS's New Development Bank (NDB), the Chinese Silk Road Fund — a full array of politico-economic mechanisms.
Things are moving incredibly fast – on all fronts. At a recent "Future of Asia" conference in Tokyo, the supposedly rabid anti-Chinese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced, although subject to many conditions, that Japan is ready to cooperate with BRI, with its "potential to connect East and West as well as the diverse regions found in between." A possible China-Japan reset would add the definitive momentum to the BRI, EEU and SCO interpenetration.
Crucially, both China and Russia are also on the same page in terms of fast-tracking Iran's admission as a full SCO member.
Now compare it with US Secretary of State "T.Rex" Tillerson calling for regime change in Iran.
As Eurasia integration inexorably moves in leaps and bounds, the contrast with the proverbially swampy Atlanticist arrogance could not be more glaring.
When Moscow decided its game-changing intervention in the Syria tragedy, no analyst in the West apart from Alastair Crooke identified how that was configuring a sort of SCO-style operation; true, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah are not part of the SCO, but the way they coordinated with Russia spelled out a feasible alternative to unilateral NATO humanitarian imperialism and regime change-style adventures.
The "4+1" mechanism – Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah – quietly backed by China, was set up to fight all forms of Salafi-jihadi terrorism and at the same time to prevent regime change in Damascus, a NATO-GCC wet dream.
Now with shambolic Trump foreign policy hardly coordinating any policy at all apart from harassing Iran, both Russia and China understand how Iranian membership of the SCO should be key.
Beijing already understood the ultra high stakes ramifications via its relationship with Qatar – a key natural gas provider sooner or later to accept payment for energy in yuan.
Qatar's quiet pivot towards Iran – the key reason that drove the cornered House of Saud absolutely bonkers – revolves around the common exploitation of the largest gas field in the world, North Dome/South Pars, which they share in the Persian Gulf.
It took a while for Doha to realize that after the "4+1" established facts on the ground a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey via Saudi Arabia and Syria for the European market will never happen. Ankara also knows it. But there might eventually be an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – even with a possible extension to Turkey — with gas jointly provided by North Dome/South Pars.
That would revolutionize the entire energy equation in Southwest Asia; and a key casualty might be petrodollar hegemony, to which Saudi Arabia and the UAE duly abide.
Imagine Qatar/Iran selling their future Europe-bound gas in euros, not in US dollars, just like the Chinese will adamantly move to pay Qatar – and Saudi Arabia – in yuan for their energy supplies.
Make no mistake; the – inexorable – future spells out trading energy not in petrodollars but in yuan, which is convertible to gold.
Long live the new Caliphate
It's never enough to stress the importance of the Russia-China strategic partnership coordinating all their policies regarding Eurasia integration, including efforts by the usual suspects to thwart it.
During the first part of 2017, Moscow and Beijing's working hypothesis was that the Trump administration was keen to engage Russia as a partner for new oil and gas projects in Eurasia. In a Kissingerian vein, suggested to Trump, the Russia-China strategic partnership would be weakened while Washington would increase pressure on Beijing in multiple fronts.
Well, that may not happen anytime soon – considering the pervasive, demented anti-Russia hysteria consuming the Beltway.
What does remain in place is the GWOT (global war on terror) corollary of Trump's policy; to rollback – by all means necessary – increasing Iranian influence all across Southwest Asia. And that implies boosting the geopolitical power of the GCC – led by the noxious House of Saud.
That would explain Trump's enthusiastic twitter boost of the House of Saud's anti-Qatar blitzkrieg – which doubles as a move against Iran. Beijing for its part is watching closely, and has identified it for what it is; an attempt to disturb the progress of the New Silk Roads.
At the same time, Beijing and Moscow cannot help being amused by the glaring inconsistencies. The Pentagon does not seem inclined to annex the rest of Qatar; the Al Udeid air base and the HQ of Centcom are enough. Pentagon head "Mad Dog" Mattis was more than pleased to sell $12 billion in F-15s to "supporter of terrorism" Doha. Trump "supports" the House of Saud. Mattis "supports" Doha. Tillerson declines to take sides.
The GCC as we know it may be dead and buried – as well as the embryonic Arab NATO feted by Trump with that pathetic sword dance in Riyadh. And yet Moscow and Beijing – as well as Tehran – are fully aware how these setbacks will only exacerbate the Exceptionalistan environment, a.k.a. the swamp, a.k.a. the deep state, to double down, and continue to provoke havoc.
The Caliphate in the "Syraq" desert is now dead – especially if Russia confirms the Caliph himself has gone to meet his maker. Too bad – because a totally destabilized Syria would be perfect to destabilize Russia from the Caucasus to Central Asia; Russian intelligence has always been focused on those 900 km from Aleppo to Grozny.
Like Terminator, the US deep state will be back. An expanded wet dream remains to create the conditions for the destabilization of a vast stretch from the Levant to South Asia — with possible future terror waves expanding north to Russia and east to China. The target: the interpenetration of BRI, EEU and the SCO.
To compound it, the Pentagon will refuse to abandon Afghanistan – a bridgehead to wreaking havoc in Central Asia. What could possibly go wrong? After all, Daesh is now virtually positioned in Central Asia, not far from Xinjiang and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – a key node of BRI.
Still, the Saudi anti-Qatar blitzkrieg – as much as it's already unraveling – may in the medium term precipitate a monumental seismic shift, accelerating Iran's as well as Turkey's entry into the SCO; consolidating Doha's pivot towards an entente with both Russia and Iran; and anticipating a serious blow to petrodollar hegemony. All this must have been discussed in detail in Astana at the SCO summit – mostly at the Putin-Xi bilateral.
As Exceptionalistan grows increasingly erratic, all key strategic decisions ahead rest with Xi-Putin – and they know it. What's certain is that the SCO is bound to get involved deeper and deeper in protecting the key project of the young 21st century; Eurasia integration.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.17, 20:36:41
Glazebrook and Escobar got their finger on the pulse..
The West Can't Smell What Eurasia is Cooking
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706161054701807-west-cannot-smell-what-eurasia-cooking/
by Pepe Escobar
Some excellent posts, good work!
Ron
And so the Last Great War starts...
We Christians know what this all comes to. We have been following this trend a long time. The Caananites have blossomed to a overbudance. And they know it. They have been working at this for thousands of years. All the great tribes were given orders in the Old Testament to 'Go and annihilate' them and always one was let slip by. The tribes of the planet were warned and now we suffer the deluge.
There is no other history that matters as we watch the chaos and war unfold.
Pope says immigrants no threat to Europe's Christian identity
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/17/pope-says-immigrants-no-threat-europes-christian-identity/
Pope accused of encouraging illegal immigration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10171289/Pope-accused-of-encouraging-illegal-immigration.html
Subway Adopts Sharia Law for 185 UK Outlets with 'Halal Meats Only' Policy
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/subway-adopts-sharia-law-185-uk-outlets-halal-meats-only-policy-1446781
UK: Subway caves to Muslim demands, removes pork, sells only halal meat
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/uk-subway-caves-to-muslim-demands-removes-pork-sells-only-halal-meat
Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after 'strong demand' from Muslims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616576/Subway-removes-ham-pork-nearly-200-stores-strong-demand-Muslims-eat-Halal-meat.html
Jews and Muslims Join Forces Against Poland's Kosher and Halal Ban
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jews-muslims-kosher-halal-ritual-slaughter-poland-526255
It sure looks like the three main religions are working together to subvert the remaining sovereign nation states of the world to an entirely religious identity.. (probably merging into a single one world religion)
Let's be honest about this, the real targets are the atheists, as they have demonstrated an ability to critically think and reject shared mass delusions as a way of life.
Census 2011: Christian numbers fall with atheism on the rise
http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/11/census-2011-christian-numbers-fall-with-atheism-on-the-rise-3311594/
Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/01/do-christians-muslims-and-jews-worship-the-same-god/comment-page-73/
"But Sunday's special ceremony at the Vatican raises an interesting question: When Francis, Peres and Abbas bow their heads in prayer, will they be talking to the same God?
After all, Jews, Christians and Muslims all trace their faiths back to a fellow named Abraham, whom they all claim was chosen for special treatment by the Almighty."
Faith is defined as belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust, confidence, reliance or devotion. Faith is the opposite of doubt.
Webster's New World College Dictionary defines faith as "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence; unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets."
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-faith-700722
Abrahamic religions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious sects that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.[1] Abrahamists were able to spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the military campaigns of the Arabs who spread Islam from the 7th century onward. As a consequence, today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents.[3][4][5]
The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are:
Judaism (seventh century BCE),[6]
Christianity (first century CE)
Islam (seventh century CE)
Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani and Alevi faiths), Samaritanism (sometimes classified as a branch of Judaism),[7] the Druze faith (often classified as a branch of Isma'ili Shi'i Islam),[8] Bábism,[9] the Bahá'í Faith and Rastafari.[10][11]
As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other religions, and 16% as adherents of no organized religion. Christianity claims 33% of the world's population, Islam has 21%, Judaism has 0.2%[12][13] and the Bahá'í Faith represents around 0.1%.[14][15]
Etymology
It has been suggested that the phrase, "Abrahamic religion", may simply mean that all these religions come from one spiritual source.[according to whom?][3] Christians refer to Abraham as a "father in faith".[Rom. 4] There is an Islamic religious term, Millat Ibrahim (faith of Ibrahim),[4][5] indicating that Islam sees itself as having practices tied to the traditions of Abraham.[16] Jewish tradition claims descent from Abraham, and adherents follow his practices and ideals as the first of the three spiritual "fathers" or biblical Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
All the major Abrahamic religions claim a direct lineage to Abraham:
Abraham is recorded in the Torah as the ancestor of the Israelites through his son Isaac, born to Sarah through a promise made in Genesis.[Gen. 17:16][17]
The sacred text of Christianity is the Christian Bible, the first part of which, the Old Testament, is derived from the Jewish Bible, leading to similar ancestry claims as above, although most Christians are gentiles who consider themselves as grafted into the family tree under the New Covenant, see significance of Abraham for Christians for details.
It is the Islamic tradition that Muhammad, as an Arab, is descended from Abraham's son Ishmael. Jewish tradition also equates the descendants of Ishmael, Ishmaelites, with Arabs, as the descendants of Isaac by Jacob, who was also later known as Israel, are the Israelites.[18]
The Báb, regarded by Bahá'í's as a predecessor to Bahá'u'lláh, was a Sayyid, or a direct descendant of Muhammad and thus traces his ancestry to Abraham's son Ishmael. Tradition also holds that Bahá'u'lláh is a descendant of Abraham through his third wife, Keturah.[19]
Other terms sometimes used include Abrahamic faiths, Abrahamic traditions, religions of Abraham, Abrahamic monotheistic religions, Semitic religions, Semitic monotheistic religions, and Semitic one god religions.[20]
Adam Dodds argues that the term "Abrahamic faiths", while helpful, can be considered misleading, as it conveys an unspecified historical and theological commonality that is problematic on closer examination. While there is commonality among the religions, in large measure their shared ancestry is peripheral to their respective foundational beliefs and thus conceals crucial differences.[21] For example, the common Christian beliefs of Incarnation, Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus are not accepted by Judaism or Islam (see for example Islamic view of Jesus' death). There are key beliefs in both Islam and Judaism that are not shared by most of Christianity (such as strict monotheism and adherence to Divine Law), and key beliefs of Islam, Christianity, and the Bahá'í Faith not shared by Judaism (such as the prophetic and Messianic position of Jesus, respectively).[22]
Origins and history
The civilizations that developed in Mesopotamia influenced some religious texts, particularly the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Genesis in particular; Abraham is said to have originated in Mesopotamia.[23]
Judaism regards itself as the religion of the descendants of Jacob,[n 1] a grandson of Abraham. It has a strictly unitary view of God, and the central holy book for almost all branches is the Masoretic Text as elucidated in the Oral Torah. In the 19th century and 20th centuries Judaism developed a small number of branches, of which the most significant are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.
Christianity began as a sect of Judaism[n 2] in the Mediterranean Basin[n 3] of the first century CE and evolved into a separate religion—Christianity—with distinctive beliefs and practices. Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, considered by almost all denominations to be God the Son, one person of the Trinity. See God in Christianity.[n 4] The Christian biblical canons are usually held to be the ultimate authority, alongside sacred tradition in some denominations (such as the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). Over many centuries, Christianity divided into three main branches (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant), dozens of significant denominations, and hundreds of smaller ones.
Islam arose in the Arabian Peninsula[n 5] in the 7th century CE with a strictly unitary view of God.[n 6] Muslims hold the Qur'an to be the ultimate authority, as revealed and elucidated through the teachings and practices[n 7] of a central, but not divine prophet, Muhammad. The Islamic faith consider all prophets and messengers from Adam through the final messenger (Muhammad) to carry the same Islamic monotheistic principles. Soon after its founding Islam split into two main branches (Sunni and Shi'a), each of which now have a number of denominations.
The Bahá'í Faith began within the context of Shi'a Islam in 19th-century Persia, after a merchant named Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází claimed divine revelation and took on the title of the Báb, or "the Gate". The Bab's ministry proclaimed the imminent advent of "He whom God shall make manifest", who Bahá'í's accept as Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'í's revere the Torah, Gospels and the Qur'an, and the writings of the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, and `Abdu'l-Bahá' are considered the central texts of the faith. A vast majority of adherents are unified under a single denomination.[24]
Lesser-known Abrahamic religions, originally offshoots of Shia Islam, include Bábism[n 8] and the Druze faith.[25]
Common aspects
The unifying characteristic of Abrahamic religions is that all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham.[26] All are monotheistic, and conceive God to be a transcendent creator and the source of moral law.[27] Their religious texts feature many of the same figures, histories, and places, although they often present them with different roles, perspectives, and meanings.[28] Believers who agree on these similarities and the common Abrahamic origin tend to also be more positive towards other Abrahamic groups.[29]
In these four Abrahamic religions the individual, God, and the universe are highly separate from each other. The Abrahamic religions believe in a judging, paternal, fully external god to which the individual and nature are subordinate. One seeks salvation or transcendence not by contemplating the natural world or via philosophical speculation, but by seeking to please God (such as obedience with God's wishes or his law) and see divine revelation as outside of self, nature, and custom. Christianity differs somewhat in that it includes the key tenet of "salvation by grace" and not through seeking to please God or by good works. Obedience for the Christian is expected as a natural response to having received salvation. This tenet is based on the Abrahamic principle of righteousness imputed by faith, and only through the provision of payment for sin by Jesus' sacrificial death as the promised Messiah.
Surprisingly under the common aspects category pedophilia is not mentioned.. ?
Pedophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]
Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[4]
In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[5][6] This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[7][8] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder,[6][9] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,[7][10][11] and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children.[5][12][13]
Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. Although mostly documented in men, there are also women who exhibit the disorder,[14][15] and researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles.[16] No cure for pedophilia has been developed, but there are therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing child sexual abuse.[6] The exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.[17] Some studies of pedophilia in child sex offenders have correlated it with various neurological abnormalities and psychological pathologies.[18] In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders, particularly pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment.
Islam and Pedophilia
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia
Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Prophet Muhammad and his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime, following their prophet's example.
Pedophilia 'Rampant' In Orthodox Judaism
http://www.cwporter.com/kikerape.htm
From its founding by the ancient Pharisees and still today, Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. [1] The state of Israel officially endorses Orthodoxy. For 2,000 years—since before such relatively recent variants as Conservative and Reform Judaism branched off—Talmud-believing Orthodox Judaism has been the spiritual center of gravity of the Jewish people. [2]
Now the Associated Press reports that the Orthodox Jewish community struggles to contain what has been a closely guarded secret: pedophilia. [3] AP says that, especially in areas most populated by Orthodox Jews (such as New York where 37 percent of Jews are Orthodox), widespread sexual molestation of children can no longer be denied. Yet "initiatives encouraging victims to come forward or offering support for those claiming they were molested encounter strong opposition, lead to death-threats in the Jewish community..."
Christian Pedophile "Finding a Way"
https://www.christianpedophile.com/
Are you a Pedophile (Hebephile), or do you know someone who is minor attracted? This site is dedicated to sharing ideas and strengthening one another. Pedophiles often wonder what God thinks about them, and why they have this struggle. Let's answer these questions from a Christian faith.
Every person can have a relationship with Jesus. With him, we can make it through life without harming a child, have purpose, and find the love and intimacy we all need.
Our politicians are more devout than ever – so it's time we started taking their faith seriously
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/politicians-devout-ever-time-started-taking-faith-seriously/
by Nick Spencer
We don't do God. Everyone knows that. Even though Alistair Campbell's oft-quoted aphorism was never intended to be some secular edict from on high – he was actually just closing down an interview with Tony Blair rather than making a statement of principle – it has become one. Plural, secular, Western politics is, or should be, a God-free zone.
It isn't. Indeed, one of the most striking trends of the last generation or so is how many Christian politicians have risen to the top of the political tree. Take the UK: in the 35 years after the Second World War, the country only really had one personally devout Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan. In the next 35, it had three, or four, or even five: Thatcher, Blair, Theresa May, possibly Brown, maybe even Cameron.
Australian politics has been dominated by believing Prime Ministers for twenty years – Howard, Rudd, Abbott – and Germany has been led by a devout Protestant for the last ten. America, always a disconcertingly pious polity, noticed a step-change from the early 1980s with Reagan and his successors name-checking God considerably more frequently than their immediate predecessors. And even France, that bastion of secularism, saw quasi-Catholic Nicolas Sarkozy question the nation's laïcité, and now risks electing the really-Catholic François Fillon (or did until his campaign imploded). Pious Presidents and PMs are everywhere.
This is the kind of thing that gives secular liberals nightmares, and has them reaching for the mediaeval history books to show what happens when faith gets into power. At best, they say, it's a sham: think of Reagan stirring up the moral majority, or Donald Trump talking about his love of the Bible on the campaign trail. At worst, it's actively harmful: think Putin courting the Russian Orthodox Church in his construction of Holy Russia, or Hungary's Victor Orban deploying the language of Christendom to turn back refugees.
We are indeed right to be sceptical of our leaders' faith, but only because we are right to be sceptical of our leaders. With the right of coercion that underpins political power, comes the responsibility of being accountable, of opening up your actions – and your motivations – to the public's inspection, and their suspicion. It makes no difference whether those motivations are secular or religious: playing the faith card does not indemnify you from scrutiny.
But then, which modern Western politician seriously thinks otherwise? The bogeyman of the PM who takes her political orders from the Pope, or the Bible, or prayer, or shadowy Dan Brownish organisations is a straw man, a figment of hyperactive secular imaginations.
Political leadership is a complex business, a messy balancing act of representation, circumstance and principle. Leaders need at least to try and represent the varied and clashing views of their electorates. They need the mandate and the flexibility to be able to respond to what MacMillan famously called "events, dear boy". And they also need the moral vision, compass and fibre to guide them, and us, through the complexities of government.
It's a treacherous balance, one that is impossible to get right. Too much of the first and you risk the kind of populist government that ignores and sometimes menaces minority views. Too much of the second and you risk a disjointed and incoherent government by whim and impulse. Too much of the last and you risk inflexibility, sacrificing concrete human goods in favour of abstract ideals.
For reasons that are not entirely clear the natural and proper scepticism towards the last of these, and in particular to religious principle, has morphed, in Britain, into uncontrolled paranoia. A leader can't voice their religious faith without being thought of as a "nutter", as Tony Blair memorably put it.
This is a mistake. We want to know what makes our leaders tick, and automatically assuming that if that is Christian faith their politics is necessarily suspect does an injustice not only to them but to the liberal democracies they govern.
One of the many memorable images of Easter is Christ standing before Pilate, the awkward collision of religious faith and worldly power. The Enlightenment decided it was best to keep the two apart, but that has proved perilously hard to do, not just in "the rest of world", which Europeans naturally assumed would follow where Europe led, but even in Europe. Christian leaders just keep on turning up. Unlike Pilate, we should do them the honour of listening to what they have to say before making up our minds about them.
Nick Spencer is the editor of The Mighty and the Almighty: how political leaders do God, published by Biteback on April 13
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 14:30:43
Our politicians are more devout than ever – so it's time we started taking their faith seriously
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion
2 b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary
Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidencehttp://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)
God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)
The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)
When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)
Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
And so on
Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. And there should be evidence - for example, this page describes a method that should produce incontrovertible evidence of God's existence. See also this page.
Many of God's supposed attributes should create evidence. For example, the Bible says that God answers prayers. But we know that the belief in prayer is a superstition. The lack of evidence seen in the prayer realm acts as evidence that God is imaginary. So absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, because it shows that God is not doing things he has promised to do.
If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 14:43:17
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that.
No proof ? aww c'mon!
Face of Jesus appears in naan breadhttp://metro.co.uk/2010/01/11/face-of-jesus-appears-in-naan-bread-23634/
It's been a busy time for the face of Christ recently, appearing on an iron, in a bruise, on a car window – and now on a naan bread in a curry house in Surrey.We know that most Brits find curries heavenly, but this is surely taking the passanda.
This latest sighting follows a spate of the Messiah's holy visage popping up in unexpected places.
A few days back a woman from the US claimed she could see the face of Jesus in a bruise on her arm, while an American woman's iron also played host to the Lord Jesus Christ's facial features.
Meanwhile, the Messiah's countenance materialises every day on a Tennesse man's pick-up window.
The holy naan bread pictured above was served to plumber David Howlett, 34, at India Dining in Esher, Surrey.
He lost no time in piping up about the event.
He explains that the fact it was Twelfth Night added to the general spookiness of the episode.
David said: 'I spotted Jesus looking back at me. It was one eerie experience given how close we were to Christmas.'
Jesus Christ appears to English Man on a piece of toast
http://www.inquisitr.com/1541736/jesus-christ-appears-to-english-man-on-a-piece-of-toast/
People all over the world see images of Jesus Christ in many things. Clouds, trees, rocks, and various food items have all been found over the years that appear to have Jesus' image. But if Jesus is a fan of modern food, His favorite must certainly be toast, as it seems more people see Christ in their breakfast bread than in any other way.
According to Metro, a man in Manchester, UK, is the latest to find an image of Jesus Christ revealed in his toast. John Cranfield says that he dropped a piece of whole meal bread into his toaster, and when it popped up, it featured a distinct image of Jesus. Cranfield described the experience to Metro.
"I returned from my workplace to find that the only food item in my cupboard was a loaf of bread. I popped in two slices of wholemeal (I am on a diet) bread, and discovered that the face of Jesus was beautifully presented to me on one of the slices."
Cranfield said he called his friend, Michael, to have a look. Michael, however, was skeptical, observing that the image looked to him to be more like rocker Ozzy Osbourne.
"You only realise the face once it's turned the right way up, but when you do, I think it looks much more like Ozzy Osbourne than Jesus."
Cranfield describes himself as a "strong Catholic," and says he is sure that the image of Christ is a message from God.
"As a strong Christian I believe that this was no mistake, I believe that God himself had sent it to me to prove that he exists and that I should not give up my faith. People may mock me and call me a "self proclaimed" catholic, they may swear and say rude things but I don't care. I don't care because I know that was no coincidence, I know the truth."
This incident is only the latest of many times that Jesus has appeared on a piece of toasted bread. In fact, the phenomenon occurs so often that scientists have studied it. The journal Cortex reports that seeing Jesus in toast is due to something known as "face pareidolia." It seems that human brains are wired to see faces in objects. Take someone with a strong religious belief, give them a piece of toast, and it is not surprising that they would think they see Jesus.
Whenever someone sees an image of Jesus in an every day object, it is always the classical, bearded Christ that they see. But, as reported in The Inquisitr, the recent discovery of an artifact in Spain reveals a different looking Jesus; a clean shaven man with short hair. Would John Cranfield recognize that Jesus if He appeared on his toast, or would he just cover his toasted Jesus with marmalade?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 14:43:17
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
snip
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.
Actually to get closer to the heart of the matter you need to find out what or who you are. Definitely God is not a person.
But starting with 'we are all connected' and 'we are a part of God' then the closer understanding you have of your self and your connection with your higher self then the better understanding you will have of the God aspect.
Or you can cheat a bit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine)
You are on the right track, you just need to become more comfortable with your spiritual aspect'
Take care,
Ron
Pareidolia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
Pareidolia (/pærᵻˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon in which the mind responds to a stimulus (an image or a sound) by perceiving a familiar pattern where none exists.
Common examples are perceived images of animals, faces, or objects in cloud formations, the man in the moon, the moon rabbit, hidden messages within recorded music played in reverse or at higher- or lower-than-normal speeds, and hearing indistinct voices in random noise such as that produced by air conditioners or fans.[1]
Etymology
The word derives from the Greek words para (παρά, "beside, alongside, instead [of]"—in this context meaning something faulty or wrong) and the noun eidōlon (εἴδωλον "image, form, shape"—the diminutive of eidos).
Explanations
Pareidolia can cause people to interpret random images, or patterns of light and shadow, as faces.[2] A 2009 magnetoencephalography study found that objects perceived as faces evoke an early (165 ms) activation of the fusiform face area at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces — whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation. This activation is similar to a slightly faster time (130 ms) that is seen for images of real faces. The authors suggest that face perception evoked by face-like objects is a relatively early process, and not a late cognitive reinterpretation phenomenon.[3] An fMRI study in 2011 similarly showed that repeated presentation of novel visual shapes that were interpreted as meaningful led to decreased fMRI responses for real objects. These results indicate that the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli depends upon processes similar to those elicited by known objects.[4]
These studies help to explain why people identify a few circles and a line as a "face" so quickly and without hesitation. Cognitive processes are activated by the "face-like" object, which alert the observer to both the emotional state and identity of the subject – even before the conscious mind begins to process – or even receive – the information. The "stick figure face", despite its simplicity, conveys mood information (in this case, disappointment or mild unhappiness). It would be just as simple to draw a stick figure face that would be perceived (by most people) as hostile and aggressive. This robust and subtle capability is hypothesized to be the result of eons of natural selection favoring people most able to quickly identify the mental state, for example, of threatening people, thus providing the individual an opportunity to flee or attack pre-emptively. In other words, processing this information subcortically (and therefore subconsciously) – before it is passed on to the rest of the brain for detailed processing – accelerates judgment and decision making when a fast reaction is needed.[5] This ability, though highly specialized for the processing and recognition of human emotions, also functions to determine the demeanor of wildlife.[6]
Pareidolia can be considered a subcategory of Apophenia.
Apophenia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Apophenia /æpoʊˈfiːniə/ is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.
The term apparently dates back to 1958, when Klaus Conrad[1] described in groundbreaking detail the prodromal mood and earliest stages of schizophrenia. He coined the word "Apophänie" to characterize the onset of delusional thinking associated with psychosis. Conrad's neologism was a translation or calque into English as "apophenia" (from the Greek apo [away from] + phaenein [to show]) to reflect the fact that a person with schizophrenia initially experiences delusion as revelation.[2]
In 2001 neuroscientist Peter Brugger referenced Conrad's terminology [3] and defined the term as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness".
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.[4]
Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is often seen as the direct influence of desire or beliefs. It is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms a person's preconceptions or the hypothesis that they intend to put forth. This can often lead to people seeing clusters or patterns in data sometimes inadvertently to prove their ideas. [9]
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.18, 15:17:47
You are on the right track, you just need to become more comfortable with your spiritual aspect'
Are you taking the piss ?
Group polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization
In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious.[1] The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion, a phenomenon known as attitude polarization.[2]
Overview
Group polarization is an important phenomenon in social psychology and is observable in many social contexts. For example, a group of women who hold moderately feminist views tend to demonstrate heightened pro-feminist beliefs following group discussion.[3] Similarly, have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were either larger or smaller than the amount any individual juror had favored prior to deliberation.[4] The studies indicated that when the jurors favored a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher.[5] Moreover, in recent years, the Internet and online social media have also presented opportunities to observe group polarization and compile new research. Psychologists have found that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter demonstrate that group polarization can occur even when a group is not physically together. As long as the group of individuals begins with the same fundamental opinion on the topic and a consistent dialogue is kept going, group polarization can occur.[6]
Research has suggested that well-established groups suffer less from polarization, as do groups discussing problems that are well known to them. However, in situations where groups are somewhat newly formed and tasks are new, group polarization can demonstrate a more profound influence on the decision-making.[7]
Attitude polarization
Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization and polarization effect, is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of confirmation bias: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes.[8] When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing the disagreement between them.[9]
The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "hot button" issues.[10] For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect.[11] For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect.[11] Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for the effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements.[12] This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists, but also to sociologists[13] and philosophers.[14]
Confirmation bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3][Note 2]
Types
Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person's expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.[4]
Some psychologists restrict the term confirmation bias to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[5][Note 3]
Biased search for information
Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis.[7][8] Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they phrase questions to receive an affirmative answer that supports their theory.[9] They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if they were false.[9] For example, someone using yes/no questions to find a number he or she suspects to be the number 3 might ask, "Is it an odd number?" People prefer this type of question, called a "positive test", even when a negative test such as "Is it an even number?" would yield exactly the same information.[10] However, this does not mean that people seek tests that guarantee a positive answer. In studies where subjects could select either such pseudo-tests or genuinely diagnostic ones, they favored the genuinely diagnostic.[11][12]
The preference for positive tests in itself is not a bias, since positive tests can be highly informative.[13] However, in combination with other effects, this strategy can confirm existing beliefs or assumptions, independently of whether they are true.[14] In real-world situations, evidence is often complex and mixed. For example, various contradictory ideas about someone could each be supported by concentrating on one aspect of his or her behavior.[8] Thus any search for evidence in favor of a hypothesis is likely to succeed.[14] One illustration of this is the way the phrasing of a question can significantly change the answer.[8] For example, people who are asked, "Are you happy with your social life?" report greater satisfaction than those asked, "Are you unhappy with your social life?"[15]
Even a small change in a question's wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case.[16] Participants read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods of time. When asked, "Which parent should have custody of the child?" the majority of participants chose Parent B, looking mainly for positive attributes. However, when asked, "Which parent should be denied custody of the child?" they looked for negative attributes and the majority answered that Parent B should be denied custody, implying that Parent A should have custody.[16]
Similar studies have demonstrated how people engage in a biased search for information, but also that this phenomenon may be limited by a preference for genuine diagnostic tests. In an initial experiment, participants rated another person on the introversion–extroversion personality dimension on the basis of an interview. They chose the interview questions from a given list. When the interviewee was introduced as an introvert, the participants chose questions that presumed introversion, such as, "What do you find unpleasant about noisy parties?" When the interviewee was described as extroverted, almost all the questions presumed extroversion, such as, "What would you do to liven up a dull party?" These loaded questions gave the interviewees little or no opportunity to falsify the hypothesis about them.[17] A later version of the experiment gave the participants less presumptive questions to choose from, such as, "Do you shy away from social interactions?"[18] Participants preferred to ask these more diagnostic questions, showing only a weak bias towards positive tests. This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies.[18]
Personality traits influence and interact with biased search processes.[19] Individuals vary in their abilities to defend their attitudes from external attacks in relation to selective exposure. Selective exposure occurs when individuals search for information that is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with their personal beliefs.[20] An experiment examined the extent to which individuals could refute arguments that contradicted their personal beliefs.[19] People with high confidence levels more readily seek out contradictory information to their personal position to form an argument. Individuals with low confidence levels do not seek out contradictory information and prefer information that supports their personal position. People generate and evaluate evidence in arguments that are biased towards their own beliefs and opinions.[21] Heightened confidence levels decrease preference for information that supports individuals' personal beliefs.
Another experiment gave participants a complex rule-discovery task that involved moving objects simulated by a computer.[22] Objects on the computer screen followed specific laws, which the participants had to figure out. So, participants could "fire" objects across the screen to test their hypotheses. Despite making many attempts over a ten-hour session, none of the participants figured out the rules of the system. They typically attempted to confirm rather than falsify their hypotheses, and were reluctant to consider alternatives. Even after seeing objective evidence that refuted their working hypotheses, they frequently continued doing the same tests. Some of the participants were taught proper hypothesis-testing, but these instructions had almost no effect.[22]
Biased interpretation
Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased.
A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it.[24][25] Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing.[24] In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped.[24][25]
The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways.[24][26] Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, "The research didn't cover a long enough period of time," while an opponent's comment on the same study said, "No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented."[24] The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as "disconfirmation bias", has been supported by other experiments.[27]
Another study of biased interpretation occurred during the 2004 U.S. presidential election and involved participants who reported having strong feelings about the candidates. They were shown apparently contradictory pairs of statements, either from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry or a politically neutral public figure. They were also given further statements that made the apparent contradiction seem reasonable. From these three pieces of information, they had to decide whether or not each individual's statements were inconsistent.[28]:1948 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[28]:1951
In this experiment, the participants made their judgments while in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner which monitored their brain activity. As participants evaluated contradictory statements by their favored candidate, emotional centers of their brains were aroused. This did not happen with the statements by the other figures. The experimenters inferred that the different responses to the statements were not due to passive reasoning errors. Instead, the participants were actively reducing the cognitive dissonance induced by reading about their favored candidate's irrational or hypocritical behavior.[28]:1956
Biases in belief interpretation are persistent, regardless of intelligence level. Participants in an experiment took the SAT test (a college admissions test used in the United States) to assess their intelligence levels. They then read information regarding safety concerns for vehicles, and the experimenters manipulated the national origin of the car. American participants provided their opinion if the car should be banned on a six-point scale, where one indicated "definitely yes" and six indicated "definitely no". Participants firstly evaluated if they would allow a dangerous German car on American streets and a dangerous American car on German streets. Participants believed that the dangerous German car on American streets should be banned more quickly than the dangerous American car on German streets. There was no difference among intelligence levels at the rate participants would ban a car.[21]
Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, participants were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character's guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.[29]
Biased memory
Even if people gather and interpret evidence in a neutral manner, they may still remember evidence selectively to reinforce their expectations. This effect is called "selective recall", "confirmatory memory", or "access-biased memory".[30] Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled than information that does not match.[31] Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out and so is memorable.[31] Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright.[32]
In one study, participants read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors.[33] They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group were told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the "librarian" group recalling more examples of introversion and the "sales" groups recalling more extroverted behavior.[33] A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types.[31][34] In one of these, a group of participants were shown evidence that extroverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group were told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated, study, they were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extroverted. Each group of participants provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly.[35]
Changes in emotional states can also influence memory recall.[36][37] Participants rated how they felt when they had first learned that O.J. Simpson had been acquitted of murder charges.[36] They described their emotional reactions and confidence regarding the verdict one week, two months, and one year after the trial. Results indicated that participants' assessments for Simpson's guilt changed over time. The more that participants' opinion of the verdict had changed, the less stable were the participant's memories regarding their initial emotional reactions. When participants recalled their initial emotional reactions two months and a year later, past appraisals closely resembled current appraisals of emotion. People demonstrate sizable myside bias when discussing their opinions on controversial topics.[21] Memory recall and construction of experiences undergo revision in relation to corresponding emotional states.
Myside bias has been shown to influence the accuracy of memory recall.[37] In an experiment, widows and widowers rated the intensity of their experienced grief six months and five years after the deaths of their spouses. Participants noted a higher experience of grief at six months rather than at five years. Yet, when the participants were asked after five years how they had felt six months after the death of their significant other, the intensity of grief participants recalled was highly correlated with their current level of grief. Individuals appear to utilize their current emotional states to analyze how they must have felt when experiencing past events.[36] Emotional memories are reconstructed by current emotional states.
One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[38] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, participants recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.[38]
Related effects
Polarization of opinion
When people with opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart. This is called "attitude polarization".[39] The effect was demonstrated by an experiment that involved drawing a series of red and black balls from one of two concealed "bingo baskets". Participants knew that one basket contained 60% black and 40% red balls; the other, 40% black and 60% red. The experimenters looked at what happened when balls of alternating color were drawn in turn, a sequence that does not favor either basket. After each ball was drawn, participants in one group were asked to state out loud their judgments of the probability that the balls were being drawn from one or the other basket. These participants tended to grow more confident with each successive draw—whether they initially thought the basket with 60% black balls or the one with 60% red balls was the more likely source, their estimate of the probability increased. Another group of participants were asked to state probability estimates only at the end of a sequence of drawn balls, rather than after each ball. They did not show the polarization effect, suggesting that it does not necessarily occur when people simply hold opposing positions, but rather when they openly commit to them.[40]
A less abstract study was the Stanford biased interpretation experiment in which participants with strong opinions about the death penalty read about mixed experimental evidence. Twenty-three percent of the participants reported that their views had become more extreme, and this self-reported shift correlated strongly with their initial attitudes.[24] In later experiments, participants also reported their opinions becoming more extreme in response to ambiguous information. However, comparisons of their attitudes before and after the new evidence showed no significant change, suggesting that the self-reported changes might not be real.[27][39][41] Based on these experiments, Deanna Kuhn and Joseph Lao concluded that polarization is a real phenomenon but far from inevitable, only happening in a small minority of cases. They found that it was prompted not only by considering mixed evidence, but by merely thinking about the topic.[39]
Charles Taber and Milton Lodge argued that the Stanford team's result had been hard to replicate because the arguments used in later experiments were too abstract or confusing to evoke an emotional response. The Taber and Lodge study used the emotionally charged topics of gun control and affirmative action.[27] They measured the attitudes of their participants towards these issues before and after reading arguments on each side of the debate. Two groups of participants showed attitude polarization: those with strong prior opinions and those who were politically knowledgeable. In part of this study, participants chose which information sources to read, from a list prepared by the experimenters. For example, they could read the National Rifle Association's and the Brady Anti-Handgun Coalition's arguments on gun control. Even when instructed to be even-handed, participants were more likely to read arguments that supported their existing attitudes than arguments that did not. This biased search for information correlated well with the polarization effect.[27]
The backfire effect is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.[42][43] The phrase was first coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler.[44]
Persistence of discredited beliefs
Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs persist when the initial evidence for them is removed.[46] This belief perseverance effect has been shown by a series of experiments using what is called the "debriefing paradigm": participants read fake evidence for a hypothesis, their attitude change is measured, then the fakery is exposed in detail. Their attitudes are then measured once more to see if their belief returns to its previous level.[45]
A common finding is that at least some of the initial belief remains even after a full debriefing.[47] In one experiment, participants had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. The feedback was random: some were told they had done well while others were told they had performed badly. Even after being fully debriefed, participants were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told.[48]
In another study, participants read job performance ratings of two firefighters, along with their responses to a risk aversion test.[45] This fictional data was arranged to show either a negative or positive association: some participants were told that a risk-taking firefighter did better, while others were told they did less well than a risk-averse colleague.[49] Even if these two case studies were true, they would have been scientifically poor evidence for a conclusion about firefighters in general. However, the participants found them subjectively persuasive.[49] When the case studies were shown to be fictional, participants' belief in a link diminished, but around half of the original effect remained.[45] Follow-up interviews established that the participants had understood the debriefing and taken it seriously. Participants seemed to trust the debriefing, but regarded the discredited information as irrelevant to their personal belief.[49]
The continued influence effect is the tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[50]
Preference for early information
Experiments have shown that information is weighted more strongly when it appears early in a series, even when the order is unimportant. For example, people form a more positive impression of someone described as "intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious" than when they are given the same words in reverse order.[51] This irrational primacy effect is independent of the primacy effect in memory in which the earlier items in a series leave a stronger memory trace.[51] Biased interpretation offers an explanation for this effect: seeing the initial evidence, people form a working hypothesis that affects how they interpret the rest of the information.[46]
One demonstration of irrational primacy used colored chips supposedly drawn from two urns. Participants were told the color distributions of the urns, and had to estimate the probability of a chip being drawn from one of them.[51] In fact, the colors appeared in a prearranged order. The first thirty draws favored one urn and the next thirty favored the other.[46] The series as a whole was neutral, so rationally, the two urns were equally likely. However, after sixty draws, participants favored the urn suggested by the initial thirty.[51]
Another experiment involved a slide show of a single object, seen as just a blur at first and in slightly better focus with each succeeding slide.[51] After each slide, participants had to state their best guess of what the object was. Participants whose early guesses were wrong persisted with those guesses, even when the picture was sufficiently in focus that the object was readily recognizable to other people.[46]
Illusory association between events
Illusory correlation is the tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.[52] This tendency was first demonstrated in a series of experiments in the late 1960s.[53] In one experiment, participants read a set of psychiatric case studies, including responses to the Rorschach inkblot test. The participants reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact the fictional case studies had been constructed so that the homosexual men were no more likely to report this imagery or, in one version of the experiment, were less likely to report it than heterosexual men.[52] In a survey, a group of experienced psychoanalysts reported the same set of illusory associations with homosexuality.[52][53]
Another study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.[54]
This effect is a kind of biased interpretation, in that objectively neutral or unfavorable evidence is interpreted to support existing beliefs. It is also related to biases in hypothesis-testing behavior.[55] In judging whether two events, such as illness and bad weather, are correlated, people rely heavily on the number of positive-positive cases: in this example, instances of both pain and bad weather. They pay relatively little attention to the other kinds of observation (of no pain and/or good weather).[56] This parallels the reliance on positive tests in hypothesis testing.[55] It may also reflect selective recall, in that people may have a sense that two events are correlated because it is easier to recall times when they happened together.[55]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 15:54:44
Preference for early information
Experiments have shown that information is weighted more strongly when it appears early in a series, even when the order is unimportant.
Now you know why they have the scripts ready to roll the moment a terrorist event appears on TV.. O0
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 15:24:58
Are you taking the piss ?
Nope, deadly serious. I have not used DMT myself, but that was not the message.
I am amazed that with your vast knowledge and search for even more you have not opened this door?
We come from somewhere...we return to somewhere. It is best to explore as much of this in the here and now so that when you pop off you are "somewhat" aware of what to expect. Otherwise it can be a trap as it is for so many. Life is continuous, what you have learned here you get to take with you. At one level, at some level, you will be able to meet God (or what we call God)
Where do you go when you sleep?
Explain how an eye ball "evolved", Isn't it easier to admit that it was designed? by whom?
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.18, 18:44:57
I am amazed that with your vast knowledge and quest for even more you have not opened this door?
Ron
Are you aware of your Chakras?
Can you make Chi balls?
Can you dowse?
Can you get answers from a pendulum?
Do you understand how Reiki works?
Can you heal self?
Can you remote heal?
Have you read Edgar Cayce?
Have you read Carlos Castaneda?
Have you read any of the Seth Material
Do you pray?
The bible and all religions can be dismissed as "man with an agenda" writings
However in the quest for spirituality you eventually come to fully understand that there has to be a God.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.18, 19:57:50
The bible and all religions can be dismissed as "man with an agenda" writings
Agreed.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.18, 19:57:50
However in the quest for spirituality you eventually come to fully understand that there has to be a God.
Not agreed.
Anyway, we have bigger problems afoot:
Iran fires missiles against 'terrorist bases' in E. Syria in retaliation for Tehran attackshttps://www.rt.com/news/392940-iran-fires-missiles-syria/
US-led coalition downed Syrian army plane in southern Raqqa - Syrian army statement https://www.rt.com/news/392941-us-led-coalition-downed-syrian-plane/
Russia Halts Cooperation With US In Syria, Will "Intercept Any Aircraft" In Russian Areas Of Operation
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/russia-halts-cooperation-us-syria-will-intercept-any-aircraft-russian-areas-operatio
Shortly after Russia's deputy foreign minister slammed the US downing of a Syrian Su-22 jet as an "act of aggression" and "support for terrorists", Russia announced that starting June 19 it was halting all interactions with the US under the framework on the "memorandum of incident prevention in Syrian skies", the Russian Defense Ministry said on Monday, thereby assuring the probability of even more deadly escalations between Russia and the US-led coalition.
In retaliation, the ministry warned that Russian missile defense will intercept any aircraft in the area of operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria,
"In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying ojects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets," the Russian Defense Ministry announced, quoted by Sputnik.
Contrary to the earlier statement by the US according to which, it "contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established "de-confliction line" to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing", Russia claims the US-led coalition command didn't use the deconfliction channel with Russia to avoid an incident during an operation in Raqqa:
"Russian Aerospace Forces' jets were conducting operations in Syrian airspace that time. However, the command of the coalition forces didn't use the existing channel between the air command of the Qatari airbase al Udeid and the [Russian] Hmeymim airbase to avoid incidents over Syria."
The Russian ministry also "demands a thorough investigation by the US command with the provision of its results and measures taken."
"We consider such actions of the US command as an intentional violation of its obligations in the framework of the memo on avoiding incidents and the safety of aviation flights during operations in Syria signed on October 20, 2015."
A bilateral memorandum of understanding was signed between the United States and Russia signed in October 2015 to ensure the safety of flights during combat missions over Syria.
On June 18, the Syrian army said that the US-led coalition had brought down its aircraft in southern Raqqa countryside when it was fulfilling its mission against Daesh. Later, the coalition confirmed the attack saying that it shot down the Syrian government forces' Su-22 aircraft as it had allegedly been bombing in an area where US-backed rebel forces, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), were stationed, south of Tabqa in the Raqqa province. The US-led coalition called its attack on the Syrian army's jet "collective self-defense," adding that it contacted the Russian military to de-escalate the situation after the incident.
Israel Has Been Secretly Funding Syrian Rebels For Years
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/israel-has-been-secretly-funding-syrian-rebels-years
https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gives-secret-aid-to-syrian-rebels-1497813430
Earlier, when discussing why the Syrian "rebels" fighting Assad are in "turmoil", we said that as a result of the ongoing Qatar crisis the various Saudi and Qatari supply chains supporting the rebels, both in terms of weapons and funding, had dried up due to the diplomatic fallout involving Qatar and Saudi Arabia. "Together with Turkey and the United States, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been major sponsors of the insurgency, arming an array of groups that have been fighting to topple Syria's Iran-backed president."
We concluded that "the rebellion against Assad now seems moot, which is why the most likely outcome is a continued phase-out of support for forces fighting the Syria government until eventually the situation reverts back to its pre-2011 "status quo."
That, however, may have been premature as it was missing a key piece of data, one which was just revealed by the WSJ and which many had suspected. According to the Journal, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been alligned from the onset of the Syrian conflict, "with Israel supplying Syrian rebels near its border with cash as well as food, fuel and medical supplies for years, a secret engagement in the enemy country's civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces."
The Israeli army is in regular communication with rebel groups and its assistance includes undisclosed payments to commanders that help pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons, according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters. Israel has established a military unit that oversees the support in Syria—a country that it has been in a state of war with for decades—and set aside a specific budget for the aid, said one person familiar with the Israeli operation.
This news comes as a major surprise because while it was well known that Israel has provided medical help for Syrian civilians and fighters inside its own borders in the past, with the IDF retaliating to occasional stray rockets in the restive border region with reprisals, it was previously thought that the Israeli authorities largely stay out of the complicated six-year-old conflict next door.
That now appears to have been dead wrong. "Israel stood by our side in a heroic way," said Moatasem al-Golani, spokesman for the rebel group Fursan al-Joulan, or Knights of the Golan. "We wouldn't have survived without Israel's assistance."
Al-Joulan is the main rebel group coordinating with Israel, according to fighters. It told the WSJ that Israel's support began as early as 2013 under former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, with the goal of creating a 'buffer zone' free of radical militants such as Isis and Iranian-allied forces along Israel's border. A special Israeli army unit was created to oversee the costly aid operation, the WSJ reported, which gives Fursan al-Joulan - Knights of the Golan - an estimated $5,000 (£3,900) a month. The group of around 400 fighters receives no direct support from Western rebel backers, and is not affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, the official rebel umbrella organisation.
The Journal also reports that Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition.
In total, there are roughly 800 rebel fighters across more than a dozen villages in this area, where thousands of civilians live, fighters said. Many of the rebels and civilians in this area rely on some level of support from Israel, they added.
"Most people want to cooperate with Israel," said a fighter with rebel group Liwaa Ousoud al-Rahman, also fighting on the Golan.
The alliance reportedly began after wounded Fursan al-Joulan fighters made their way to the border and begged Israeli soldiers for medical assistance.
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment, the Israel Defence Forces said in a statement that it is "committed to securing the borders of Israel and preventing the establishment of terror cells and hostile forces... in addition to providing humanitarian aid to the Syrians living in the area."
Israel and Syria have technically been in a state of warfare for decades. Syria controls around one third of the Golan Heights border, and Israel occupies the rest.
In recent years, Israeli air strikes in Syrian territory have aimed to prevent weapons smuggling to Iranian-allied Hezbollah, which fights alongside the Assad government. Hezbollah, like Iran, is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Ironically, while Assad has in the past claimed - correctly it now turns out - that Israel supports rebel groups which his government refers to as terrorists, elements of the opposition have accused Israel of helping to keep the regime in power. The biggest irony, of course, is that virtually for the entire duration of the Syrian conflict, Israel and Saudi Arabia were aligned on the same side against the Assad regime; it also means that one can now also add Israel to the ungodly proxy war in Syria alongside Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, Europe and most Arab states across from Iran, Turkey, Russia and, increasingly, China.
Today's revelation may also explain why ISIS has rarely if ever launched attacks against Israeli citizens or on Israel territory.
Courtesy of the WSJ, here is a chronology of Israeli involvement in the Syrian proxy war:
2011:Syrian uprising against Iran-backed President Bashar al-Assad begins.
2012: Syrian rebel group the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, which has a presence in the divided Golan Heights near Israel's border, forms and later declares allegiance to Islamic State. It then joins with other groups to form the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, an offshoot of Islamic State.
2013: Israel acknowledges it is treating Syrians wounded in the war in hospitals near the border. Secretly, the military begins to build a relationship with rebel commanders on the Syrian side of the Golan and starts sending aid.
January 2015: An alleged Israeli airstrike kills Hezbollah militants and a general in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps near Quneitra province in the Golan Heights. Israel later says the militants were planning to attack Israelis.
June 2015: Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon says Israel is helping Syrian rebels with medical treatment in return for assurances they won't attack the Druse—a religious minority group that straddles the Israeli and Syrian sides of the Golan.
September 2015: Russia enters the war on the side of the Assad regime, tipping the balance of power in favor of the Iran-backed president.
December 2015: Lebanese Hezbollah militant Samir Kuntar dies in an alleged Israeli airstrike in Damascus suburb. Israeli officials later say he was planning attacks against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan.
2016: Israel secretly sets up an army unit and budget to manage relationship with rebels and civilians on the Golan Heights, say people familiar with the policy.
November 2016: An Israeli airstrike kills four Khalid ibn al-Walid militants in Syrian Golan after Israeli soldiers come under fire.
March 2017: Israeli warplanes carry out airstrikes inside Syria, drawing fire from antiaircraft missiles in the most intense military exchange between the two countries since the start of the Syrian conflict.
June 2017: Syrian rebels say they have been receiving cash from Israel for the past four years that they use to help pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.19, 17:58:35
a secret engagement in the enemy country's civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces
The same thing has been going on in the artificial construct known as "Britain" for a hundred years.. in order to destroy the country called England, ancestral home to the Anglo Saxons.
The English have been betrayed.
Like a good fry up in the morning ? how about a good piss up ? Kiss all that goodbye Anglo Saxons they are here to destroy your culture, and if you won't convert to their's you will be executed.. understand ?
Muslim protestors demand restaurants and shops stop selling 'evil' alcohol warning them they face 40 lashes if they carry onhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523658/Muslim-campaigners-protest-sale-alcohol-popular-East-London-area.html
Normalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization
Normalization (sociology)
Normalization refers to social processes through which ideas and actions come to be seen as 'normal' and become taken-for-granted or 'natural' in everyday life. In sociological theory, normalization appears in two forms.
First, the concept of normalization is found in the work of Michel Foucault, especially Discipline and Punish, in the context of his account of disciplinary power. As Foucault used the term, normalization involved the construction of an idealized norm of conduct – for example, the way a proper soldier ideally should stand, march, present arms, and so on, as defined in minute detail – and then rewarding or punishing individuals for conforming to or deviating from this ideal.[1][2] In Foucault's account, normalization was one of an ensemble of tactics for exerting the maximum social control with the minimum expenditure of force, which Foucault calls "disciplinary power". Disciplinary power emerged over the course of the 19th century, came to be used extensively in military barracks, hospitals, asylums, schools, factories, offices, and so on, and hence became a crucial aspect of social structure in modern societies.
Second, normalization process theory[3] is a middle-range theory used mainly in medical sociology and science and technology studies to provide a framework for understanding the social processes by which new ways of thinking, working and organizing become routinely incorporated in everyday work. Normalization process theory has its roots in empirical studies of technological innovation in healthcare, and especially in the evaluation of complex interventions.
There are different behavioral attitudes humans accept as normal, such as grief of a loved one, avoiding danger, and not participating in cannibalism.[4]
Influences of behavior
The world is constantly changing and many things can change the situation you are in. Many influences such as past experiences, environment, mental strength, physical strength, people, and the media. People are constantly influenced everyday by the things in your head and what's happening around you. Letting certain things influence you is based on the person's decision. This will determine if the person is able to make a decision rationally or not. Some people fail to see the effects of their actions after letting influences affect their actions.[5]
Mood and emotions
The person can greatly be affected by the person's mood. The judgement and emotional well-being is caused by how your mood is at the moment. A negative mood can cause someone to be unproductive and it will show in the person's performance. Positive moods can make a person be more active and productive. Emotions are affected by hormones and nerves. If the person is great emotion wise they are full of energy and are able to stay positive.[6]
Child development
Children are known for developing behaviors based on family, friends and media influences. It's the parent's job to teach the child whether it is socially accepted or not. As the child develops from a child to a young adult most of their influence will come from their friends. It will become harder for parents to tell how the child behaves as the child grows older. A child may not know what he was doing is right or wrong. They must be able to learn from experiences if their actions or right or wrong.[7]
Role models
Young adults and teenagers are heavily affected by looking up to role models. Young adults are influenced to act, talk, dress and behave similarly to their role models. This can either be a positive or negative for the individual.[8] Looking up to a role model has positive effects as it influences young adults to strive for success and it brings the best out of the person to do well. Role models that are positives are people able to overcome obstacles, inspire others, and achievements of success. Though there are other role models that might be able to influence young adults to doing bad behaviors like bullying, drug usage, and cheating. These behaviors are able to lead them to failure rather than success. They usually do these to avoid outcomes rather than overcoming them.[9] The problems with blindly copying a role model is that people start to lose a sense of identity.
Types of normal behavior
Grief
Grief is the deep sorrow usually caused by someone's death. It has now become a normal human reaction to a loss of a loved one. It is definitely not uncommon for someone to be in sadness. Many have to deal with coping with grief it is often they use coping mechanisms to get over the deep sorrow.[10]
Body markings
Body marking such as tattoos and piercings were once considered unaccepted, but the majority of the population today use body markings as a form of expression. It isn't uncommon to see doctors, lawyers, and other professions to have them. It has become a norm such that even males are using tattoos and piercings.[11]
Homosexuality
During the 1900s homosexuality was not accepted as a normal behavior and people attracted to the same gender were considered different and were discriminated heavily. Over the years it has now been accepted in places such as the United States, Canada and other places around the world.[12]
Laughter
Laughing signals a sign of acceptance in a group and shows a sign of trust in a group. This is often why laughter is contagious, but this explains why people are unlikely to laugh alone.[13]
Types of abnormal behavior
Abnormal behavior is broken up to two types known as atypical and maladaptive. Atypical behavior is not necessarily harmful, but maladaptive behavior could potentially be harmful.[14]
See also
Child grooming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
Power and control in abusive relationships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_and_control_in_abusive_relationships
Rape culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
Stigma management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigma_management
WHY TOMMY ROBINSON IS RIGHT; and the Hypocrisy of Piers Morgan
https://theredpilling.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/why-tommy-robinson-is-right-and-the-hypocrisy-of-piers-morgan/
Tommy Robinson is right.
The man viewed by some as a patriot looking to save his nation from a foreign, dangerous ideology; and viewed by others as an "islamophobic bigot', is right when it comes to speaking of the dangers of Islamism in Britain.
The Good Morning Britain interview conducted by Piers Morgan showcased this to a record audience, and only grew Tommy's case.
After the deplorable terror attack at Finsbury Park, Piers Morgan blasted Tommy in a Daily Mail column, before having Tommy invited to Good Morning Britain on Tuesday.
Piers slandered Tommy by bringing up the EDL, *Luton Town hooliganism*, an audio recording from almost a decade ago of Tommy seemingly blaming all Muslims for 7/7, and tried to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws on live morning TV. This is the same man who was involved in two of the largest press scandals in British history, and a man who wrote in a Daily Mail column a day prior blasting Scientologists for their beliefs.
Piers is also a Remain-voting, L.A., London elite who hangs with the likes of other elites, having never spent a minute of his life living in places such as Bradford, Blackburn, or Luton, where certain parts look like they may be from Karachi or Kabul. He DOES NOT care about the reality of life for those living in areas affected by extremism; his greatest concern is going on Twitter when Aaron Ramsey scores in an F.A. Cup Final and tweeting #WENGEROUT.
When confronted with the truth by Tommy Robinson, a truth that he wanted censored, he turned into the same Piers that quite literally got sacked from CNN. Yes, the station that is literally dubbed as FAKE NEWS by the President of the United States. Such journalistic integrity.
Tommy Robinson has never advocated for violence and turning Britain into a sectarian war zone resembling Iraq. He has warned what the effects of government policy , especially that of Labour (especially under Tony Blair) could stir up. He's also warned of Theresa May's mistakes as Home Secretary.
The video being circulated of him calling for "retribution" after London and Manchester wasn't what the mainstream media makes it to be. It was a warning, quite rightly so, that if the British government does not start acting to prevent Manchester and London from repeating in even larger numbers, then deranged people will decide to basically fight fire with fire. Of course, after what happened at Finsbury Mosque, the Twitter trolls came out blaming him and his bigoted behavior, as though he was calling for some sort of crusade. But even before that, back after what happened to Lee Rigby, Tommy said that people harassing Muslims in revenge attacks is despicable in itself as well, and to this day he does not want escalation of these tensions occurring.
On GMB, when Tommy held up a copy of the Koran, seemingly to read one of the many literal violent verses about "kuffar", or non-Muslims, Piers was infuriated and said Tommy was disrespecting a religion, all the time while scolding Christianity. Tommy tried to hammer Piers about Piers' column about Scientology, with Piers talking over him in typical arrogant Piersy fashion. He should've instead read a verse on live TV. There's nothing disrespectful about that. It's words from a text he's reading, not making up a random paragraph to trigger people. Piers could just not afford having the truth go on live TV.
Anyways, why doesn't Piers think it more disrespectful that people actually use this same text to justify committing such barbaric, horrifying acts in Manchester and London? Tommy has never hurt anyone with his words; the literal radical interpretation of these verses has led to mass tragedy.
And of course, normalizing these actions with the excuse of "the Bible" and mentioning an Old Testament verse and the Crusades is also ludicrous. If Piers, a *Catholic*, didn't know that there was this thing called *the Protestant Reformation*, and subsequent progress in Western, Christian nations, then he is a fool. White Christians also do not go into places yelling "Hail Mary" or "This is for Our Lord Jesus Christ" before causing mass casualties in the name of religious domination
Piers also called Tommy a "bigoted lunatic". Tommy is clearly not a bigot or a lunatic. A lunatic would be Anjem Choudary. I wonder if Piers would have been nearly as quick to insult the now-locked up REAL hate preacher if Anjem had been invited onto GMB? I don't think so. What makes someone more of a lunatic? Warning of the dangers of unfettered immigration from countries with terror links, or promoting Sharia in the UK? I think the answer is clear, and Tommy is clearly not the villain here.
Going back to the issue of Luton vs London, how is Piers going to judge Tommy's history as a hate preacher when Piers would in all likelihood not even dare walk into the worst parts of Luton and witness the trouble that occurs daily, choosing instead to live the high life in London, L.A., Monaco, Dubai, and every other elitist center worldwide. Remember, where you come from and your life experiences shape people, and had Tommy grown up in Chelsea, he would have been just like you, and had Piers grown up in Luton, he wouldn't be getting heckled for his media scandals and arrogance but rather for being a "racist" and a "bigot". Piers understood this enough when it came to Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton for the presidency here in America, but he seems to not understand it at all when it comes to extremism in England.
Tommy is just trying to alert the public of a threat much greater than Piers makes it out to be. Maybe his tone, or his past as the leader of the EDL dissuades many, but his voice needs to be heard, not shouted over. As Piers should have learned from Hillary and the Democratic Party's behavior towards his friend, and now President of the United States, Donald Trump, virtue signalling and buzzword accusations do not lead anywhere, and they certainly did not help him turn Tommy Robinson into a villain.
Tommy Robinson's work is not based off bigotry or Islamophobia, but rather off love of community, country, and Empire, and this interview will only bolster Tommy's cause. He may be vilified now, but over time, we will learn that Tommy told the truth, and will be remembered as fondly as Churchill and Thatcher.
And unless we collectively as a society agree with recent events being the new normal and "part and parcel of living in a big city", it is time we heed what Tommy Robinson says, and that includes Piers, before it is too late.
Tommy Robinson VS Piers Morgan FULL Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPZcnQawX-k
This video contains content from ITV_plc, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that.
18 Israeli Fighter Jets Deployed in Saudi Arabia to Prevent Coup – Iranian Media
https://southfront.org/18-israeli-fighter-jets-deployed-s-arabia-prevent-coup-iranian-media/
On Thursday, 18 Israeli fighter jets and two C130 planes arrived in Saudi Arabia in order to prevent a possible coup attempt in the country, the Iranian Fars News Agency reported on June 22.
"18 Israeli fighter jets along with two Gulfstream aircraft landed in Saudi Arabia on Thursday to prevent any hostile or military moves by former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz who was replaced with Saudi King Salman's son.
Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz announced on Wednesday his decision to replace Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz with his own son, Mohammed bin Salman.
After the decision was announced, the Israeli air force sent 18 of its fighter jets, including F16I, F15CD and F16CD, along with two Gulfstream aircraft, two tanker airplanes and two C130 planes, special for electronic warfare, to Saudi Arabia at the demand of the new crown prince bin Salman to block his cousin (bin Nayef)'s possible measures.
According to a royal decree, Mohammed bin Salman, 31, was also named deputy prime minister, and shall maintain his post as defense minister, the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Wednesday.
Saudi media announced that King Salman has called for a public pledge of allegiance to the new crown prince in the holy city of Mecca on Wednesday night.
The SPA also confirmed that 31 out of 34 members of Saudi Arabia's succession committee chose Mohammed bin Salman as the crown prince.
Just days ago, the Saudi king stripped Nayef of his powers overseeing criminal investigations and designated a new public prosecution office to function directly under the king's authority.
In a similar move back in 2015, the Saudi king had appointed his nephew, then deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef as the heir to the throne after removing his own half-brother Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud from the position.
Under the new decree, King Salman further relieved Mohammed bin Nayef of his duties as the interior minister. He appointed Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef as the new interior minister and Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Salem as deputy interior minister." Fars News' article reads.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960401000674
And so the chess game goes on, or is it the Game of thrones.
Regards
Mike 8)
Hey Mike,
Has chess got anything to do with war?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32542306
From ancient India to the computer age, the military has used chess as both a metaphor and even as training for warfare. But as Dominic Lawson writes, generals who compare themselves with grandmasters are exaggerating their control of human combat.
There is nothing more dangerous - or deafening - than warfare. And there are few pursuits that are as safe and as quiet as chess.
Yet chess began in 6th Century India as a 64-square board game, called Chaturanga, precisely modelled on the military forces of the day. There were "elephants", "chariots" and "'infantrymen".
And the most naturally gifted chess player in history, the Cuban prodigy Jose Capablanca, was the son of a cavalry lieutenant, and said he had been captivated at the age of four by the military symbolism of the little pieces as he watched his father play.
So it seems fitting that one of my guests on the third series of Across the Board - in which I have interviewed eminent chess enthusiasts and the odd world champion while playing a game against them - is the military historian Antony Beevor.
Beevor's books on the World War Two battles of Stalingrad and Berlin have sold in their millions across the globe, but his first career was as a British army cavalry regiment officer. And since he is also a passionately keen chess player, I was intrigued to know if he thought that great generals were like chess grandmasters - brilliant strategists of iron logic.
"Generals would love that parallel and they tend to see themselves in that way. But the truth is very far from that," says Beevor. His point is that battle is indescribably chaotic, with luck and chance playing a large role in any outcome.
And he makes an additional point: "In modern warfare the idea of total victory is now almost irrelevant. You've won - and then you lose the victory in a short space of time. Look at Iraq."
In fact, the military architect of the Iraq invasion of 2003, the former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld inadvertently touched on the difference between chess and real military action, when he talked about "known unknowns" in armed conflict.
Chess is what is termed a "perfect information" game - each player can see on the board everything there is to know about his opponent's dispositions.
This, perhaps, is why German military officers in the 19th Century devised a peculiar board game known as Kriegspiel - or "wargame" - as a training tool. It was later adapted into a variant of chess in which three boards are used, with neither player seeing the opponent's board or pieces, and the third board controlled by an umpire who executes the moves called out by each combatant.
But in the modern age, it is in the field of computer programs that chess - of the conventional sort - has captivated some minds in the military establishment. In the final year of the Cold War, 1989, I investigated this, having discovered that Prof Donald Michie, then the leading British authority on chess artificial intelligence, was being funded in his work by the US Army Research Institute.
Michie was the chief scientist at the Turing Institute at Glasgow. Turing, now most famous as the man who helped break the Nazis' Enigma code at Bletchley Park, was accompanied in that work not just by Michie but by almost the entire English chess team. The best British chess player of the day, Hugh Alexander, went on to become head of cryptoanalysis at GCHQ, while doubling as the Spectator's chess columnist under the pseudonym Philidor.
Michie, who died in 2007, said that his "two bishops versus knight" chess tutorial machine had "enormous" military application. I then discovered that the Deep Thought chess computer program - which in a later version called Deep Blue sensationally beat the reigning human world champion Gary Kasparov in 1997 - was being partially funded by Darpa, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Back in 1989, Lt Col Robert Simpson, Darpa's head of expert systems research, told me that the Deep Thought chess program had a clear military application with "navigation in a battlefield situation. A machine like this, programmed with knowledge of the terrain a pilot is flying through, can digitise all the various route choices, explore them, and choose the optimum route. That is exactly what Deep Thought is doing."
It is fair to say that the computer programmers themselves, whose motives were solely to create world-beating chess algorithms, thought this was hokum. Ken Thompson, of Bell Labs and creator of the Belle chess program, observed: "The only military application for a chess machine like Deep Thought is to drop it from an airplane to kill someone."
On the other hand, it is interesting that in 2007 Darpa named its project to develop a super-intelligent battle computer system Deep Green - apparently in homage to the Deep Blue program which beat Kasparov in what, apart from Bobby Fischer's match against Boris Spassky in 1972, must be counted the most famous chess match in history.
That 1972 match in Reykjavik highlighted as nothing else the role of chess in a different sort of conflict - the Cold War. For the Soviet Union, supremacy at the chess board was a demonstration - as its rulers saw it - of the superiority of their socialist system over the Western capitalist one. After all, isn't chess supposed to be "the touchstone of the intellect"?
The strategic significance of this apparently individual battle between a single American and a single Russian was only emphasised further by the intervention of the then National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who personally called Fischer to persuade him not to abandon the match (as the eccentric grandmaster was threatening to do).
This, however, is chess as a metaphor for military conflict - which, as Beevor says, is infinitely messier than the calculations over the 64 squares.
Still, when I asked the military historian who he thought was the most skilful of all generals, he named Napoleon. The Corsican's successful campaigns had the speed of attack and concentration of maximum force on the opponent's weakest spot which we associate with the best chess players.
And "le petit general" was in fact a very enthusiastic chess player - especially in exile on St Helena, when he no longer had an army at his disposal. And no-one got killed.
More from The Magazine
Conquering a human at chess was a massive target for many artificial intelligence researchers in the years after WW2. It proved to be easier than they imagined.
The unwinnable game
Dominic Lawson is president of the English Chess Federation.
No, chess doesn't really have anything to do with war, why you might say, well in real war we can change the kings and queens, get rid of this one or the other leader, much what is happening in South America, political assassination and not physical.
This is now what happens between political parties, dig up the dirt and publicise it.
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2017.06.23, 15:09:54
political assassination and not physical
Why Hannibal Losthttp://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3270.msg60115#msg60115
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.03.06, 20:48:48
Right up to war's end Carthage had more than enough men, materiel and transports to support Hannibal in Italy. It simply chose not to send them.
Ironically, Carthage's strategic shift away from Italy after Cannae came at a time when Hannibal's momentum was at its zenith. Paradoxically, it was his very successes in the field that led Carthage to reconsider its strategy. When Mago returned to Carthage in 215 BC to request troops and supplies for Hannibal, he addressed the Senate. At that meeting Hanno, head of the faction that had opposed the war from its outset, asked Mago the following questions: "First, in spite of the fact that the Roman power was utterly destroyed at Cannae, and the knowledge that the whole of Italy is in revolt, has any single member of the Latin confederacy come over to us? Secondly, has any man belonging to the five and 30 tribes of Rome deserted to Hannibal?" Mago had to answer they had not.
"Have the Romans sent Hannibal any envoys to treat for peace?" Hanno continued. "Indeed, so far as your information goes, has the word 'peace' ever been breathed in Rome at all?" Mago again replied in the negative. "Very well then," Hanno concluded. "In the conduct of the war we have not advanced one inch: The situation is precisely the same as when Hannibal first crossed into Italy." Hanno's point was that Hannibal's strategy to bring Rome to the negotiating table by defeating its armies in the field had already failed. If none of the Latin allies or Roman tribes had deserted by that point, it was highly unlikely any further defections in the south of Italy or additional victories Hannibal might win there would prompt Rome to seek peace.
If Hannibal could not destroy Rome on its own soil, as Carthage believed, then what was the point of the war? In true Hellenistic fashion the Carthaginian statesmen decided their priorities lay in maintaining control of Iberia and perhaps regaining Sardinia, Corsica and other areas lost earlier. If that was the strategic objective of the war, then how did Hannibal's continued presence in Italy contribute to that end? The answer was to tie down as many legions as possible in Italy while Carthage concentrated its efforts in the other theaters of operations. Italy became a sideshow, and Hannibal was left to his fate so that when the war ended, Carthage might be able to hold on to what it had won elsewhere.
In the end Hannibal failed in Italy not because he was defeated on the battlefield but because his tactical victories had not contributed to Carthage's overall strategic objectives. After Cannae the strategic ground shifted beneath Hannibal's feet, reducing a commander who had once ruled the battlefield to little more than a sacrificial pawn in a much larger game he never really understood.
When the Bible is the Root of Evil
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/when-the-bible-is-the-root-of-evil/
By REV. WILLIAM ALBERTS
For many Christians, religion is about correct belief, not right behavior. For them, The Bible's overriding appeal is the authority it proclaims, not the empathy it inspires. It is about meeting the believer's quest for certainty, not an oppressed person's need for compassion – and justice . The primary goal is personal salvation, not interpersonal solidarity – unless the solidarity is with those of like-minded belief, or with those designated to be "harvested," or with those whose destitution serves to reinforce the superiority of the good doers. It is about obtaining immortality for one's own soul, far more than demanding morality in human affairs
In fact, for many Christians, correct Biblical belief is often used to rationalize, justify and accommodate immoral behavior toward those The Bible has condemned as "enslaveable" or "abominable" or "unredeemable" and thus exploitable. The psychic insecurity of these Christians and their corresponding need for certainty, require them to not only possess, but to propagate, their one true belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and savior of the world — which prevents them from participating as equals in the democratic process. Instead, they seek to exploit the political process to impose their beliefs on to others, rather than as a way to empower everyone rights and well-being. Politics is about gaining the upper hand, rather than everyone lending a hand.
Christians certainly have a right to their own religious pathway to salvation – for themselves. But, tragically, the salvation of biblically-bounded Christians depends on, is intrinsically linked to, the damnation – or subservience — of whole groups of people condemned by these Christians' inerrant Biblically-based beliefs.
The United Methodist Church, the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., demonstrates how The Bible can become the root of evil. At this moment, United Methodism is threatened with a schism over its discriminatory positions on homosexuality. An issue that has dogged the denomination for decades. Which leaders have evaded by the repeated creation of diversionary committees to study homosexuality and report back four years later to The Church's quadrennial General Conference.
But its contradictions have final caught up with The United Methodist Church. At last year's General Conference, some 864 delegates were faced with over 100 petitions on "human sexuality" – which, for official United Methodism, is the theologically correct way of categorizing its discriminatory policies against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer persons. A growing number of delegates submitted petitions calling for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons into the life of The United Methodist Church: ordaining them as ministers, recognizing same-sex marriage and the right of ministers to perform these marriages in their churches, and removing The Church's Book of Discipline's discriminatory references to homosexuality. ('GENERAL CONFERENCE HISTORY WITH LGBTQ,' By Kathy L. Gilbert, www.umc.org, Apr. 27, 2016)
Conversely, the petitions of many other General Conference delegates demanded that the Book of Discipline's "biblically-guided" exclusionary language on homosexuality not be changed. (Ibid) Not even the Supreme Court's legalizing of same-sex marriage in 2015 could influence these delegates' biblical mind-set. In the words of Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, a leader ofGood News, a biblically-based United Methodist advocacy group, "Our commitment to biblical truth does not depend upon judicial affirmation by the Supreme Court of this or any other nation."("Same-sex marriage ruling adds to church debate," By Heather Hahn, www.umc.org, June 26, 2015)
The resulting stalemate and threat of division led the 2016 General Conference delegates to request that The Church's Council of Bishops provide what is called A Way Forward out of the impasse. The bishops responded by "recommend[ing] that the General Conference defer all votes on human sexuality and refer the entire subject to a special Commission named by the Council of Bishops, to develop a complete examination and possible revision of every paragraph in our Book of Disciplineregarding human sexuality," and report back to a special General Conference in 2019. ("Statement by the Council of Bishops: An offering for a way forward," www.bwcumc.org, May 18, 2016)
The "biblical truth" on homosexuality in The United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline?
–You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, is an abomination. . . . If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 18: 22;20: 13)
–They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator . . . Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1: 24-27)
–Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor. 6: 9-10)
–But at the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' . . . Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Mark 10: 6-9)
These "biblical truths" are contradicted by other Scripture. Like Jesus being recorded as saying that one of the two greatest commandments is, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12: 30-31) Also, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) And in his Sermon on the Mount, "when Jesus saw the crowds," he did not distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals when he said to them, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Matthew 5: 1-12)
In a like manner, Paul the Apostle is reported as teaching, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith . . . There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3: 25-29) However, Paul provides a classic example of how one's Christian faith can accommodate racism, patriarchy and homophobia. He also teaches: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6: 5-9). And, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (I Corinthians 14: 34-35). Also, "The law is not laid down for the just but for the . . . ungodly and sinners . . . for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine." (I Timothy 1: 9-10)
Paul reveals that Christianity was an integral part of the day's culture of slavery, patriarchy, homophobia and xenophobia, and that cultural influence shines through The Bible. Paul also could have taught, "There is neither heterosexual nor homosexual, nor bisexual or transgender or queer, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But he obviously didn't. Biblically-bounded Christian denominations still need to confront their own involvement in the oppression of people The Bible has designated as the Other.
The United Methodist Church provides a classic example of how a Christian denomination can profess inclusion and love while practicing exclusion and loathing – with a straight face. United Methodism's Book of Discipline's position on "Human Sexuality" is, "We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God . . . [and] need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self." And in the next breath: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." ("Social Principles: The Nurturing Community," www.umc.org) A classic example of the biblical root of evil perverting the pages of The Book of Discipline.
While "all persons need the ministry and guidance of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment," The United Methodist Church is the greatest obstacle facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) persons in "their struggles for human fulfillment" in United Methodism itself. The Book ofDiscipline prohibits "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" from being ordained ministers — no matter how qualified they are and how committed to a loving same-sex relationship. They also are prevented from professing their love for each other in marriage in a United Methodist Church. And United Methodist ministers who perform such loving and fulfilling marriage ceremonies are brought to church trial and defrocked or punished – or otherwise removed.
How sad! I've had the honor of performing a number of same-sex marriages. One was of two men in a loving relationship for years. When the one became terminally ill, they decided to marry. I performed their marriage ceremony in the ill partner's hospital room. They exchanged their vows as he lay in bed, both partners energized by their love and the affirming presence of close friends and attending nurses. A few weeks later he died. It was then that his partner said to me, "Thank you for making possible the happiest day of our lives."
Professing inclusion and practicing exclusion. The Book of Discipline has a section on "Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation" that states, "Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation." ("Social Principles: The Social Community,"www.umc.org) However, The Book of Discipline's doctrine on "The Nurturing Community" states, "We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love . . . between a man and a woman. . . . We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."("Social Principles: The Nurturing Community," Ibid) That statement is the opposite of "nurturing" for LGBTQ persons and their families, friends and supporters.
How does The Book of Discipline deal with The Church's glaring rejection of LGBTQ persons? By cushioning it with the language of acceptance and caring. Never mind that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching [and] therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals' are not to be . . . ordained as ministers." Pay no attention to the dictate, "Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." ("What is the denomination's position on homosexuality?," www.umc.org) Forget about the fact that "a clergy member . . .may be tried when charged . . . with . . . conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies" ("Book of Discipline: Para. 2702 Chargeable Offenses and the Statue of Limitations,"www.umc.org) And don't be puzzled by the contradictory policy: "The General Board of Finance and Administration shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the express commitment of The United Methodist Church 'not to reject or condemn lesbian or gay members and friends.' (Para. 161f)" ("What is the denomination's position on homosexuality"," Ibid)
The United Methodist Church has it both ways: expressions of affirmation and caring serve to distance The Church from the spiritual, emotional and legal violence it perpetuates against LGBTQ persons – and from society's violent physical climate toward them it helps to generate. In the face of forcing LGBTQ persons to remain in the "Church closet," The Book of Disciplineissues this denial to all United Methodists: "We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." ("Social Principles: The Nurturing Community, Ibid) And, "We support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons regardless of sexual orientation." ("Social Principles: The Social Community," Ibid)
How much can one trust The United Methodist Church's pronouncements? Similar to its position against homosexuality,The Book of Discipline states, "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy." Also, "We oppose unilateral first/preemptive strike actions and strategies on the part of any government." (Social Principles: The World Community," www.umc.org) Nevertheless, in spite of some strong internal resistance, United Methodist leaders approved the building of a monument at Southern Methodist University to the worst war criminal of the 21st century: The George W. Bush Presidential Center. A United Methodist president who is responsible for the unnecessary, falsely-based, preemptive criminal invasions and rape of Afghanistan and Iraq is honored; whereas, a same-sex couple's love for each other is dishonored. Another such war criminal is Bush's vice president, fellow United Methodist Dick Cheney, who is also "in good standing" in The United Methodist Church. The Church is bringing the wrong persons to trial!
Building a monument to a president who is responsible for the falsely-based, horribly destructive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq calls into question The Book of Discipline's "Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities." That declaration states, "We urge policies and practices that ensure the right of every religious group to exercise its faith free from legal, political and economic restrictions." ("Social Principles: The Social Community, Ibid)
Here, again, The Church has it both ways. The Book of Disciplinealso states, "The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." Moreover, "The United Methodist Church affirms that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the savior of the world, and Lord of all." Next the rationalizing cushion for this faith-based imperialism: "As we make disciples, we respect persons of all religious faiths and we defend religious freedom for all persons." Then the equally contradictory biblical clincher to justify the religiously motivated domination of non-Christians as lesser: "Jesus' words in Matthew provide the Church with our mission: 'Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I've commanded you' (28: 19-20), and 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . [and] You must love your neighbor as yourself.' (22: 37, 39)." ("Book of Discipline Section 1: The Churches," www.umc.org) Such faith-based imperialism helps one understand why a reported "astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president's decision" to invade Iraq.("Wayward Christian Soldiers," By Charles Marsh, The New York Times, Jan 20, 2006) How many United Methodists were in that number? Or later accommodated after carefully worded protest?
Instead of "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," the Way Forward for The United Methodist Church should be to transform itself into the likenessof all people in the world by practicing The Golden Rule. (Matthew 7: 12) It should begin that transformation by reconciling fully with LGBTQ persons. And that reconciliation should include providing reparations and restoration for the harm The Church has inflicted on them and their families and supporters.
A moral call for reparations has been issued by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell, a retired United Methodist minister, civil rights leader, and a leader of the movement for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in every aspect of The Church and society. Seven years ago, in an article on, "William Alberts, Jimmy Creech and Gregory Dell; Punished for their Ministry!," Caldwell wrote about us three: "They have been tried, convicted and punished by The United Methodist Church because in their ministry, they performed services of commitment for same gender couples!" Caldwell pointed out that persons wrongly "convicted and imprisoned . . . have a right to sue to be financially compensated for the damage done to their lives." He applies that model of reparatory justice to The United Methodist Church: "Does our denomination that expresses authentic compassion on so many fronts, dare to be compassionate enough to acknowledge the pain it has caused my colleagues and brothers, Bill, Jimmy and Greg?" Caldwell ends with, "Change is on the way. Let us never forget any of those the denomination harmed through denial, exclusion and punishment. They were/are right, and the denomination was/is wrong." (Reconciling Ministries Network, June 14, 2010)
(For an analysis of my forced retirement as a United Methodist minister after performing a same-sex marriage, and the related 13-years-long lawsuit I successfully pursued, see Alberts, "Easter Depends on Whistleblowers," Counterpunch, Mar. 29, 2013, and Alberts, "The Church of 'Something Else' in 'an Ecclesiastical Desert,' " Counterpunch, Nov. 27.2015)
In its current deliberations on providing "A Way Forward," The United Methodist Church should include a statement of confession recognizing the guilt and marginalization, along with the spiritual and emotional violence it has inflicted on LGBTQ persons and their families and friends, and seek their forgiveness. The Church should also offer to restore to active ministry those clergy who were forced out for performing same-sex marriages. That restoration should include reparations for the emotional pain and financial loss those ministers and candidates for ordination have endured. The denomination's motto — "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" – should apply to all applicants for ministry, including those candidates who, over many years, have been shut out because of their sexual orientation.
The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church should also end any current deliberations on whether to remove Bishop Karen P. Oliveto — United Methodism's first openly gay, married, bishop — from her post and revoke her ordination as a minister. Whether Oliveto, or any other minister, the qualification for ministry should depend on "the content of one's character," not the constitutional make-up of one's sexual orientation. In Oliveto's case, the delegates to the Western Jurisdictional Conference of The United Methodist Church elected her bishop because she has demonstrated, through many years of ministry, that she is an authentic self-avowed practicing Christian.
Finally, the Way Forward today requires The United Methodist Church to fully integrate into its life a scientific understanding of psycho-sexual development. That understanding will shoot holes in The Church's theology of free will and sin regarding LGBTQ persons, which theology is used to control and reward and punish people. But that acquired psychological wisdom of "human sexuality"will immeasurable deepen and broaden The Church's understanding of empathy and love — and transformation. Hopefully The Church will even come to the place where it affirms that love is love, whether born of biological affinity or free will.
The Bible becomes the root of evil when it is used to exercise power over people, rather than empower them. The Good Book's real authority is in inspiring the authenticity that is in people.
You have to laugh at the stories in the bible-you really do.
God made Adam and Eve
They had children
Where did the third generation come from ? C.C
The great flood and the story of Noah
Two of each animal,and Noah's family,all on a boat built by Noah and his kin. Larger than any wooden boat that can be built today,that would stay together.
Every other living thing on the planet murdered because they were evil :o --except for the fish-they were all good. :D
What a wonderful God they have.
The earth is only 6000 odd years old
All you know about dinosaurs is wrong--science knows nothing.
We were created from dust and water--mud pie ?
Oh-the list go's on
How dose any sane person believe in this garbage ?.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.29, 11:43:53
When the Bible is the Root of Evil
That declaration states, "We urge policies and practices that ensure the right of every religious group to exercise its faith free from legal, political and economic restrictions."
The bugaboo with "religious freedom" is the failure to examine the basic beliefs of that system. If a belief system contains. conversion, control, slaying, exclusion, then it should be disqualified as a religion.
In the present day this would be all the major "religions" , Christianity, Judaism, Islam.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.06.29, 15:36:31
The bugaboo with "religious freedom" is the failure to examine the basic beliefs of that system. If a belief system contains. conversion, control, slaying, exclusion, then it should be disqualified as a religion.
In the present day this would be all the major "religions" , Christianity, Judaism, Islam.
Ron
Disqualified as a religion ? surely these are some of the defining characteristics of the major Abrahamic religions! You missed out rape and pedophilia.. the latest Christian casualty:
Cardinal George Pell Charged With Multiple Sex Offenses in Australiahttp://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/australian-police-charge-top-vatican-cardinal-sex-offenses-n777921
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg62878#msg62878
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.18, 12:22:01
Abrahamic religions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious sects that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.[1] Abrahamists were able to spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the military campaigns of the Arabs who spread Islam from the 7th century onward. As a consequence, today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents.[3][4][5]
The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are:
Judaism (seventh century BCE),[6]
Christianity (first century CE)
Islam (seventh century CE)
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.06.29, 11:57:51
How dose any sane person believe in this garbage ?.
They don't, but defining sanity is quite difficult and subjective:
Suffering a brain injury can make you more religious, scientists sayhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/suffering-brain-injury-lesion-ventromedial-prefrontal-cortex-religious-beliefs-northwestern-a7722946.html
Study suggests damage to part of the prefrontal cortex makes people's beliefs stronger
Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalismhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393217301318
Highlights
We examined religious fundamentalism in a large sample of penetrating TBI patients.
Patients with VMPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism.
DLPFC lesions increase fundamentalism by reducing cognitive flexibility and openness.
Abstract
Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood. Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain. We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs. To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI). If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness. Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality.
Al Adjuvant Causes Brain Inflammation and Behavioral Abnormalities; Low Dose Is More Harmfulhttp://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/
A new paper (Crepeaux et al.) by the Gherardi research group in France reports important results on the toxicity and transport of aluminum (Al) adjuvant in mice. This study is especially valuable because it looked at many outcomes: behavioral effects, immune (microglial) activation in the brain, and Al transport into the brain. The study tested dosages of 200 , 400 and 800 mcg/Kg (mcg=micrograms, mcg/Kg = micrograms per kilogram of animal body weight), injected intramuscularly (IM). The Al adjuvant used was AlOH (brand name Alhydrogel), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. It is in the tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, HiB, pneumococcal, meningococcal, and anthrax vaccines.
Remarkably, the study found that the lowest dosage (200 mcg/Kg) was the most toxic! The 400 and 800 mcg/Kg dosages produced no statistically significant effects, but the 200 mcg/Kg dosage did.
The low toxicity of the higher dosages appears to be a consequence of dosage-dependent inflammation at the injection site. The high dosages caused intense inflammation at the injection site, forming "granulomas". The 200 mcg/Kg dosage did not produce granulomas. Granulomas are hard nodules in tissue produced in response to injury, infection or foreign substances. Its a way the body "walls off" injured tissue and prevents the spread of infection or toxins. The granulomas apparently prevented Al adjuvant particles from leaving the injection site. This explains why the 200 mcg/Kg dosage affected the brain and behavior, while the higher dosages did not.
Accordingly, it may be more dangerous to administer numerous small doses of Al adjuvant, compared to a large dose that induces a granuloma.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.06.29, 16:49:24
Accordingly, it may be more dangerous to administer numerous small doses of Al adjuvant, compared to a large dose that induces a granuloma.
This is Trumps position from the presidential election debates if I remember correctly.. he wants lot's of small doses.. think about it!
Add in brainwashing and indoctrination from an early age (MSM, religious preachers) and factor in the psychotic push for global mandatory vaccination and you end up with.. one world religion!
Demolition Man - Edgar Friendly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHsp680nEk
John Spartan unexpectedly meets Edgar Friendly and clues him in on the fact that somebody is trying to kill him.
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=demolition-man
You think you're taking me in?
Guess what?
Not happening.
Tell Cocteau he can kiss my ass.
That's right.
It'll take an army to get rid of me.
I don't give a shit. I got nothing to lose.
I don't know who the hell you are,
let alone want to take you anywhere.
So stay here, be well
and Cocteau's an asshole!
Let's dump them up top.
They're only here to spy on us.
Wait a minute.
You're the guy outside Pizza Hut.
What do you want?
You weren't part of the Cocteau plan.
Greed, deception, abuse of power.
That's no plan.
-That's why you're here?
-That's right.
See....
According to Cocteau's plan...
...I'm an enemy because I like to think.
I like to read.
I'm into freedom of speech and choice.
I like to sit in a greasy spoon...
...and think, "Should I have steak
or barbecued ribs with gravy fries?"
I want high cholesterol.
I want to eat bacon, butter and cheese.
I want to smoke a Cuban cigar
the size of Cincinnati.
I want to run through the streets naked...
...reading Playboy magazine
because I might need to.
I've seen the future.
It's a 47-year-old virgin...
...drinking a banana-broccoli shake
and singing "I'm a wiener."
Up top, you live Cocteau's way.
What he wants, when he wants,
how he wants.
Your other choice: come here.
Maybe starve to death.
Refugee Crisis: Manufactured Migrants Are Tools in U.S. Empire's 'Grand Chessboard'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/refugee-crisis-manufactured-migrants-are-tools-in-u-s-empires-grand-chessboard/5596706
Book review of J. Michael Springmann's "Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel's Migrant Bomb"
By Barrie Zwicker
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/manufactured-migrants/#more-4361
The refugee crisis in Europe, the largest seen since World War 2, is no accident.
Former U.S. State Department official J. Michael Springmann addresses this verboten subject in his just-released second book Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel's Migrant Bomb. He argues that these refugees and migrants were deliberately created by the American Empire to be used as political weapons.
The misery of asylees, Springmann writes, is one of the planned outcomes of horrendous and unlawful military attacks on Syria and other countries. These are carried out in proxy wars by "the West," including Israel. Springmann writes that Israel "is a terrorist entity" and "an ever helpful architect of chaos."
Overall the design is to advance the interests of the American Empire. The resulting chaos is cold-blooded strategy. Springmann offers evidence that the Empire has greased the skids for the traumatized asylum seekers. For instance this technical but telling factoid:
CISCO's Tactical Operations (TacOps) team supported by the volunteer Disaster Response Team (DRT) from the U.K. and Ireland, Google, and NetHope have installed Meraki-based Wi-Fi networks and device charging stations at more than 17 sites along the migration route in Southern and Central Europe. [my emphasis]
Springmann provides many other facts to buttress his contention that the "migrant millions" are human pawns. The reference to NetHope, by the way, is significant. NetHope and Mercy Corps "have backgrounds tied to the US government," he writes. "NetHope is a shadowy organization headquartered in CIA-friendly Fairfax County, Virginia." Springmann, who also has a background working for NGOs, names other suspect NGOs that play their role in the overall coerced migration. One of the motives is to destabilize Europe as an economic challenger to the U.S.A.
Verboten is the right word. Springmann speaks German, having spent five years in Stuttgart working for the State Department. He also worked for the department in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he saw close-up how the Empire recruits prospective terrorists, sends them to the U.S. for terror training and deploys them in proxy wars. That experience provided him with the damning fodder for his first book, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World, reviewed on this blog two years ago this month.
"At Jeddah," Springmann wrote in Visas for Al Qaeda, "to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State. The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses."
Elsewhere in that book Springmann suggests that essentially the CIA runs the State Department, and that this is true of many other U.S. government departments and agencies as well.
In Goodbye, Europe? Springmann shows his grasp of how American military, economic, diplomatic, cultural, surveillance, technological, and vast "intelligence" resources comprise an integrated colossus using false flag ops, Trojan Horse fronts, incessant propaganda campaigns, and overt strong-arming. Repeatedly, Imperial Rome's dictum, divide et impera, is a hallmark of the Empire's depredations.
That is a big picture (not quite the big picture). Some of the fine-grained details are revealed in a Norwegian documentary, Recruiting for Jihad. It had its international premiere at Toronto's Hot Docs festival in April-May. The producer had known the key recruiter featured from the time they were 10-year-olds playing soccer. The wheels within wheels involved in the recruitment schemes the producer uncovered can hardly be imagined. Intel agencies need and possess remarkable resources in micro-managing the recruitment, the terrorism, the false flag ops, and the evasion of discovery.
Springmann brings evidence to bear on his contention that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a scheming author of unnecessary misfortunes in the form of the largest influx of migrants to any European country. At one point he holds her entirely to blame for this. ("It was Merkel and her government who invited all the feared Islamists into the country.") Yet contradictorily Springmann overall lays the blame squarely on the American Empire.
That she's such a baddie is also hard to square that with what is known about her overall. She's earned the nickname "Chancellor of the World" and appears more dedicated to peace and understanding than most of her peers, by a long shot.
What Germany's "V-men" do is likely not within her perfect control. The V-men come in for criticism by Springmann. The term comes from the German for a trusted person, Vertrauensmann. They're really secret police. Hitler was recruited to be a "V" man while he was in the World War I postwar army.
The book is not without prosaic shortcomings. Apart from whether Merkel is as large a villain as Springmann suggests, there are some questionable alleged facts and insupportable generalizations.
Springmann includes a number of reports of alleged behaviours by migrants in Europe, from theft to sexual and other violent assaults, including rape and murder. His usual footnotes pointing to reliable sources dry up in regard to some of these reports. One example is a quote from the tabloid Bild that in 2015 "migrant misdeeds" in Germany numbered 208,344—or 23 crimes per hour. The paper said it got the number from a confidential police report that it was given exclusively. Worth noting is that the eminent German author Heinrich Boll wrote in an essay that what Bild does "isn't cryptofascist anymore, not fascistoid, but naked fascism. Agitation, lies, dirt." That is from a Wikipedia entry.
The emotional impact of most of these Bild reports leaves this reviewer with understandable skepticism. Are some of these examples of the very deceptions Springmann in other parts of the book decries? This reviewer encountered one of these fake reports in January 2016 and wrote a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail about it, which was published. It read in part:
An exacerbating factor in the divide over refugees is the insertion of disinformation by the right into the situation. An example is cited in Der Spiegel on Jan. 5, headlined The Case of the Murdered Goats: Exploring Germany's Far-Right Rumour Mill.
Reporters investigated "outrage over an incident in the eastern German town of Lostau. Locals had accused refugees of plundering a petting zoo, slaughtering some goats and eating them around a campfire."
The story, said the writers, "aimed directly at the heart of German animal lovers, taxpayers and immigration opponents. But there was just one problem: It wasn't true.
It turns out that there hadn't been a petting zoo in Lostau for years. And this was just one example among many.
Valuable as it is, this book also is in places a cautionary tale about making sweeping generalizations. One example must suffice. On page 181 we find this:
If people forget their history, reject their heritage, and dismiss their identity, then why object to aliens changing European culture?
The peoples of Europe understand this. Their leaders don't. Those want to cobble together a new multicultural Europe, erasing the one that already exists. And, so far, the replacement doesn't work and likely can't be made to work—except in the minds of the globalists. The people vigorously oppose these government policies. They denounce their leaders' abandoning constitutional obligations to defend their country's borders, territorial integrity, and democracy.
The generalizations here include "peoples of Europe" who "understand this," "replacement doesn't work," "the people vigorously oppose," and "they denounce..." It's reminiscent of Theresa May's repeated contention that "the people of Britain voted for" Brexit when in fact the vote was close to 50-50.
These generalizations lead Springmann to make an assessment that was understandable even a few months ago, namely that (essentially right wing) nationalism remains in an upward trajectory.
But since he wrote that, Macron, ostensibly a centrist and probably a globalist, has risen fast in France. Springmann writes on page 184 that "the left's policies are clearly bankrupt" and "the left has no plan" on page 185. Yet Jeremy Corbyn, very to the left, scored heavily against Theresa May with specific plans. UKIP is dead in the water, obtaining two per cent of the votes in the British election. The story of right wing populism is not paved with certainty, even if right wing populists are certain they're right.
There are two lesser shortcomings. One is an occasional lack of copy editing. For instance, about half of page 19 is devoted to the arrest by North Rhine-Westphalia police of "five members of a 'terrorist recruiting network.'" On page 177 the same half page of text is repeated almost word for word.
In his email to me to which the pdf file of his book was attached, Springmann offered this:
Easier to write than the first but much harder to edit. Could have spent more time on it but thought with European elections was so timely I needed to get it out.
Understandable. Today there's justification for more "instant books" containing vital perspectives, which this one contains. But instantaneity carries prices. I think they're worth paying. A second edition could solve a lot.
In other places Springmann repeats information, but he says he is doing so. And I'm with him on that. Repetition is a pillar of effective communication. This pillar should not be at the disposal of the merchants of lies only.
Another format flaw that could have been avoided with the aid of a competent editor is that some material is misplaced. The most obvious example is at the end, where the conclusions are offered but not really found. Instead, his important conclusions, referred to earlier in this review, are found in the body of the book. An interested reader will encounter them where they are.
These failings are more than counterbalanced by the damning evidence and the damning perspective Springmann brings to the table, based on his life experiences working within different sectors of the American Empire and his wide-ranging research. Four stars out of five.
***
Excerpt from the book:
They come from across the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa—floods of refugees seeking sanctuary in Europe. Most are men. Some are terrorists. And all represent an ethnopolitical nightmare for the European Union.
What drives these migrants? Why, instead of seeking out nations with common ethnic and religious ties, do they instead head north and west, where few speak their language or share a common culture?
In Goodbye, Europe! Hello, Chaos! Merkel's Migrants, former diplomat J. Michael Springmann provides an in-depth analysis of the migrant flood, its causes, and what it means for Europe. Building on arguments put forward in his previous work, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World, the ex–State Department official and attorney reveals how US foreign policy created the crisis.
Destabilizing nations through invasion and espionage furthers US goals in the Middle East, he argues, creating migrant waves guided northward and westward to destabilize the European Union in general and Germany in particular. Germany's own refugee program, designed to exploit migrants as cheap labor, made US intelligence efforts all the easier.
Springmann's insider knowledge of US policy permeates this insightful, sometimes terrifying look at a world where migrants become weapons, nationalism is condemned, and civil liberties hang in the balance.
Demolition Man (1993)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/trivia
Lenina Huxley's name is a combination of Lenina Crowne and Aldous Huxley. Crowne is a character in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' (1932), a novel about a future society where everything is predetermined for you so as not to offend others(among other reasons) and where showing even moderate emotion is considered to be unusual and possibly even illegal. Crowne's first name Lenina itself was chosen by Aldous Huxley after the pseudonym of the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov).
Prescient
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescient
Adj. 1. prescient - perceiving the significance of events before they occur; "extraordinarily prescient memoranda on the probable course of postwar relations"-R.H.Rovere
discerning - having or revealing keen insight and good judgment; "a discerning critic"; "a discerning reader"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discerning
Joseph Tainter: The Collapse Of Complex Societies
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/joseph-tainter-collapse-complex-societies
Authord by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,
https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/109453/joseph-tainter-collapse-complex-societies
By popular demand, we welcome Joseph Tainter, USU professor and author of The Collapse Of Complex Societies (free book download here).
Dr. Tainter sees many of the same unsustainable risks the PeakProsperity.com audience focuses on -- an overleveraged economy, declining net energy per capita, and depleting key resources.
He argues that the sustainability or collapse of a society follows from the success or failure of its problem-solving institutions. His work shows that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their energy subsidies reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. From Tainter's perspective, we are likely already past the tipping point towards collapse but just don't know it yet:
Sustainability requires that people have the ability and the inclination to think broadly in terms of time and space. In other words, to think broadly in a geographical sense about the world around them, as well as the state of the world as a whole. And also, to think broadly in time in terms of the near and distant future and what resources will be available to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
One of the major problems in sustainability and in this whole question of resources and collapse is that we did not evolve as a species to have this ability to think broadly in time and space. Instead, our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers never confronted any challenges that required them to think beyond their locality and the near term(...)
We have developed the most complex society humanity has ever known. And we have maintained it up to this point. I have argued that technological innovation and other kinds of innovation evolve like any other aspect of complexity. The investments in research and development grow increasingly complex and reach diminishing returns. We cannot forever continue to spend more and more on technological innovation when we've reached the point of diminishing returns, which I argue we have reached.
Our system of innovation is going to change very significantly over the next twenty to thirty to fifty years or so. By the end of the century, our system of innovation will not be anything like what we know today. It will have to be very different. And it's likely that innovation is not going to be able to solve our problems as readily as it has done to this point.
The technological optimists have assumed that the productivity of innovation is either constant or increasing. And in fact, what I think my colleagues and I can show is that the productivity of innovation is actually decreasing. What that means is that we will not forever be able to solve resource problems through innovation(...)
And so individuals need to take responsibility for their own ignorance. As I said, our species did not evolve to think broadly in terms of time and space and if we're going to maintain our way of life, people have to learn to do so. People have to take responsibility for knowing and understanding the predicament that we're facing. I have argued over the last few years that we need to start teaching early school age children in K to 12 to think differently, to think broadly in terms of time and space – to think historically, to think long-term about the future, to think broadly about what's going on in the world around us instead of the narrow way – the narrow, local way – that most people live and think. So I put responsibility on individuals to broaden their knowledge.
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Joseph Tainter (42m:44s).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-70ST4hVdYg
America's Descent Into Israel's Moral Abyss
http://rense.com/general96/americasdescent.html
Idealistic principles are used to deceive and manipulate the Goyim. One must learn how to use political freedom as bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses, for the purposes of crushing authority". * The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
" We must use terror, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services, to rid the Galilee of it's Arab population" - * Israel Koenig - The Koenig Report
"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the World - Only to serve the people of Israel. - *Chief Israeli Rabbi- Ovadia Yosef
This Middle East slaughter, or "crusade," as "George the dumber" once awkwardly called it, before the war cabinet settled on the ominous sounding "War on Terror," has been chiseled into the minds of the American public through years of government lies, propaganda, brainwashing, shady dossiers and anonymous sources. After "Die Hard," almost 30 years ago, movie bad guys were mostly Arabs, to embed the demonization into the American psyche. This barrage of disinformation would have never been successful without the mainstream news and their highly paid teleprompter readers, mindlessly reading government approved propaganda. Their reporting is producing grave results for the poor people we are claiming to liberate.
Remember when Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iraqi's would greet us as liberators? Remember when we had to stop Saddam from killing his own people? Then we had to stop Muammar Gaddafi from killing his own people in Libya. Turns out, Benghazi was a US operation smuggling weapons to terrorists, who were actually killing Libyans for Israel. And now, of course, it's imperative that we take out Bashar Al Assad for, you guessed it, killing his own people. The first thing that comes to mind is, who buys this nonsense? The next is, who benefits the most from this manufactured War on Terror and arming the worst terrorists on the planet ?
And finally, why is the American media the biggest cheerleaders of these Pentagon misadventures. No matter how much evidence surfaces that we are being lied to, They continue to support the big lie.
The big lie of course, is why we are there in the first place. Once you understand that, you begin to understand a lot about US foreign policy and why we are spending trillions of dollars, bankrupting our country and cutting programs that benefit American Citizens.
Most will believe the government explanation when the next false flag gas attack in Syria occurs, because they still believe that Al Qaeda was behind 911. ISIS, of course, the new boogeyman invented by the Pentagon, will carry the terror baton for the Pentagram until they serve their evil purpose. ISIS is the mysterious army of murderous miscreants, who seem to hate everyone, and have attacked, Muslims, Christians and every country in the area with the exception of Israel. A specter of evil right out "bad guy" central casting. Mr Orwell would be impressed.
Turns out, Al Baghdadi, the leader of this so called army of scary Arabs, who are torturing, raping and killing people of all faiths, is an Israeli Mossad trained Jew. As a matter of fact, most in the US are unaware that there is mounting evidence that the US Government, their NATO Allies, the psychopathic Saudi's and our BFF's the Israeli's are arming, funding and training several terrorist groups in the Middle East including ISIS and Al Qaeda. What is John "Traitor" McCain's role in all of this. Saudi Arabia has recently given "Traitor" McCain's corrupt foundation a million dollars. Suspicious? You bet. just the past week Syria has accused Israel of twice bombing Syrian positions in support of ISIS. Israel is making Billions of dollars in oil profits on land stolen from Syria in the Golan Heights. Now they are bombing them. Where is the international outrage?
Twice in the last few weeks, American Fighters bombed Syrian troops that were advancing on known terrorist positions. Why is the US in Syria? Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett, who recently returned from Syria , said in a UN press conference that, "everything the American media is reporting about Syria is a lie". Mr Putin, in a speech to the UN recently, told the World that the US and their allies are supporting ISIS.
The US Government and the American media should have no credibility after the lies we were told about 911 and these middle east wars. Why are we being lied to again? How does anyone believe it? Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Bashar Al Assad. The US is not. Assad has asked us to leave Syria. Why haven't we? These are questions the mainstream media should be asking. This is now the time to turn off the liars on FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC and find a good news site online like rense.com, globalresearch.ca, whatreallyhappened.com, operationdisclosure.blogspot.com or blacklistednews.com
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter, who has broken a number of uncomfortable stories that the government would have liked to have kept a lid on. The My Lai Massacre exposed a degenerate, murderous underbelly of reality in Vietnam that the American public had no idea existed. American soldiers attacked a peaceful village, raping women and murdering every man, woman and child in sight. He broke the story of the torture details at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War. The public was lied to about the extent and the methods of torture that were used. No quaint stories about waterboarding, where everybody was ok when it was over.
Eric Fair, in his book, "Consequence- A Memoir," states that US interrogators were trained in sadistic torture techniques by the Israelis. They were trained on the use of a disturbing torture devise, the "Palestinian Chair." The chair was used to break them down both physically and mentally. Many prisoners were humiliated, tortured and beaten to death. Hersh is now reporting that, Trump launched Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian Military in April, after ignoring warnings from US Intelligence that there was no evidence Assad's government was to blame for the chemical attack on his own people. The attack was likely a false flag done by US allied terrorists, in order to escalate the long planned Israeli and American Zionist led regime change.
US foreign policy has bizarrely been controlled by Israel for decades, but no one will talk about it. It's like Fight Club? The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club. The first rule about Israeli control of our Congress, foreign policy and our entire media is you can't talk about Israel control. The truth is, these Middle East wars were planned for Israel long before 911. To understand what is going is on, one would want to read Oded Yinon's 1982 Plan for the Middle East and a "Greater Israel".
Yinon was a Senior Official within the Israeli Foreign Ministry and a journalist with the Jerusalem Post. Donald Trump confirmed his support recently for the illegal settlements and his opposition to United Nations Security Council resolution # 2334, which, of course, affirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements. The plan was for Israel' s neighbors to become weakened and fractured through regime change and war. I don't think anyone thought that Israel would ever carry out their evil plan themselves, not when they control the most powerful military on the planet. Enter The Neo-Cons.
A White paper was written for Bibi Netanyahu in 1996, by Robert Kagan's Neo Con group, "The Project for a New American Century." PNAC was a faction of Israel firsters, made up of American Neo-Con Jews and Christian Zionist. This unlikely group would change the course of history. Titled a "A Clean Break," The plan called for Israel to abandon past practices of trading land for peace as a waste of time and resources, and called for a more hostile and aggressive approach. They would Steal the land they desired through regime change and the ethnic cleansing of millions of people. This would only happen through a major paradigm shift and what PNAC called a "New Pearl Harbor type event", like 911, to kick start their planned land theft and genocide.
Unbelievably, the paper makes this assertion: "Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years is legitimate and noble. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension. Our claim to the land? "Whose future? Using a line from the Bible to justify stealing land, treasure and precious lives is despicable. Members of this group should someday be reviled in history books with the worst traitors and despots. "A Clean Break" called for regime change in seven countries and the Balkanization of the countries that would make up the new greater Israel.
Those seven countries targeted were Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and of course Iran. Members of the group were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush and John Bolton, to name just a few of the traitors and liars that George W Bush assembled and allowed to hijack our country's foreign policy 17 years ago. The War on Terror is a monstrous lie. It's time people wake up.
We are in the calm before the storm. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that this long planned "War on Terror," where we have spent so much blood and treasure, is nothing but an Israeli land grab. Don't hold your breath waiting for the media to tell you what's really going on. The President is a compliant Israeli dupe as were his predecessors. His new UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, is an unapologetic Israeli sycophantic tool, who will never allow any criticism of Israel on her watch.
Many misguided Christians still blindly support this insane agenda. ISIS is a mercenary army being used to take Assad out and break up Syria. Russia knows what is going on, and knows the UN is in the tank for the Zionists. How far will Trump take this? He's in the same tank as the UN and the rest of the country's whose leaders are sold out, blackmailed or threatened by the Zionists. It wouldn't surprise me if they pull another false flag gas attack to be blamed on Assad. Israel won't give up their plan for a Greater Israel or "Eretz Israel", no how many Goyim have to die for them to get it.
Resist This: the United States is at War With Syria
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/resist-this-the-united-states-is-at-war-with-syria/
by Jim Kavanagh
The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would "allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." With the U.S. Air Force—under Trump, following Obama's declared policy—shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable. The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war.
As an act of war, this is unconstitutional, and would demand a congressional declaration. Will Trump ask for this? Will any Democratic or Republican congresscritter demand it? Is the Pope a Hindu?
Would it make any difference? Why should Trump bother? Obama set the stage when he completely ignored the War Powers Act, the Constitution, Congress, and his own Attorney General and legal advisers, and went right ahead with a war on Libya, under the theory that, if we pretend no American troops are on the ground, it isn't really a war or "hostilities" at all. Which I guess means if the Chinese Air Force starts shooting down American planes in American airspace in defense of Black Lives Matter's assault on the White House, it wouldn't really be engaging in an act of war.
It's impossible to overstate the danger in these executive war-making prerogatives that Obama normalized—with the irresponsible connivance of his progressive groupies, who pretend not to know where this would lead: In 2012, referring to the precedent of Obama's policies, Mitt Romney said: "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now." Following Obama, for Trump, and every Republican and Democratic president, it now goes without saying.
As an aggressive, unprovoked war, this is also illegal under international law, and all the political and military authorities undertaking it are war criminals, who would be prosecuted as such, if there were an international legal regime that had not already been undermined by the United States.
Syria is now under explicit attack by the armed forces of the U.S., Turkey, and other NATO states. Sixteen countries have combat aircraft buzzing around Syrian airspace under the effective command of the United States, and a number of them have attacked Syria's army.
Americans, and certainly self-identified "progressives," have to be crystal clear about this: American armed forces have no right to be in Syria, have no right to restrict the Syrian government from using any of its airspace, or to prevent it from regaining control of any of its own territory from foreign-backed jihadi armies.
The Syrian state and its allies (Iran and Russia), on the other hand, are engaged in the legitimate self-defense of a sovereign state, and have the right to respond with full military force to any attack on Syrian forces or any attempt by the United States to balkanize or occupy Syrian territory, or to overthrow the Syrian government.
So please, do not pretend to be shocked, shocked, if Syria and its allies fight back, inflicting American casualties. Don't pose as the morally superior victim when Americans are killed by the people they are attacking. And don't be preaching about how everyone has to support our troops in a criminal, unconstitutional, aggressive attack on a country that has not threatened ours in any way. American soldiers and pilots executing this policy are not heroes, and are not fighting to protect America or advance democracy; they are criminal aggressors and legitimate targets. In response to American aggression, the Syrian Army has every right to strike back at the American military apparatus, everywhere. Every casualty of this war, however big it gets, is the ethico-political responsibility of the attacking party – US. The first responsibility of every American is not to "support our troops," but to stop this war. Right now. Before it gets worse
It's quite obvious, in fact, that the United States regime is deliberately making targets of its military personnel, in the hopes of provoking a response from Syrian or allied armed forces that will kill some Americans, and be used to gin up popular support for the exactly the kind of major military attack on Syria and/or Russia and/or Iran that the American people would otherwise reject with disgust. Anyone who professes concern for "our troops" should be screaming to stop that.
It's also quite clear now, that the War on ISIS is a sham, that ISIS was always just a pretext to get the American military directly involved in attacking the Syrian army and destroying the coherence of the Syrian state. If the U.S. wanted to defeat ISIS, it could do so easily by coordinating their actions with, and not against, the forces who have been most effectively fighting it: the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
Instead, it's attacking the Syrian army precisely because it has been defeating ISIS and other jihadi forces, and regaining its own territory and control of its own border with Iraq. The U.S. does not want that to happen. At the very least—if it cannot immediately engender that massive offensive to overthrow the Baathist government—the U.S. wants to control part of the border with Iraq and to occupy a swath of eastern Syria. It wants to establish permanent bases from which to provision and protect jihadi armies, achieving a de facto partitioning of the Syrian state, maintaining a constant state of armed attack against the Damascus government, and reducing Syria to a weakened, rump state that can never present any effective resistance to American, Israeli, or Saudi designs on the region.
This is extremely dangerous, since the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians seem determined not to let this happen. Trump seems to have abrogated authority to his generals to make decisions of enormous political consequence. Perhaps that's why aggressive actions like the shoot-down of the Syrian plane have been occurring more frequently, and why it's not likely they'll abate. There's a dynamic in motion that will inevitably lead each side to confront a choice of whether to back down, in a way that's obvious, or escalate. Generals aren't good at backing down. A regional or global war is a real possibility, and becomes more likely with every such incident.
Though most American politicians and media outlets do not want to say it (and therefore, most citizens cannot see it clearly enough), such a war is the objective of a powerful faction of the Deep State which has been persistent and determined in seeking it. If the generals are loathe to back down in a battle, the neocons are adamant about not backing down on their plans for the Middle East. They will not be stopped by anything less than overwhelming popular resistance and international pushback.
The upside of these attacks on Syrian forces is that they wipe the lipstick off the pig of the American project in Syria. Everyone—European countries who profess concern for international law and stability, and the American people who are fed up with constant wars that have no benefit for them—can see exactly what kind of blatant aggression is unfolding, and decide whether they want to go along with it.
In that regard, any self-identified "liberal" or "progressive" American—and particularly any such American politician—who spent (and may still spend) their political energy attacking Bush, et. al., for that crazy war in Iraq, and who goes along with, or hesitates to immediately and energetically denounce this war, which is already underway, is a political hypocrite, resisting nothing but the obvious.
The Causes of Terrorism
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-causes-of-terrorism-3209053
by Amy Zalman, Ph.D.
Updated June 21, 2017
Terrorist acts are motivated by two things:
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.
This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow. It sounds too simple, or too theoretical. However, if you look at any group that is widely understood as a terrorist group, you will find these two elements are basic to their story.
People who choose terrorist tactics are also persuaded that violence, or the threat of violence, is effective.
There is some question about who actually 'chooses' terrorism, and it may be unfair to think of young recruits, such as some suicide bombers today, who are seduced by cult-like methods of indoctrination as completely culpable for their choices.
Asking a Better Question: What Conditions Are Favorable for Terrorism
In fact, the question, "what causes terrorism?" is not quite the right question to be asking, because we will never be able to answer it. We cannot say that the presence of one factor provokes terrorism in the same way that we can say with scientific certainty that certain toxins cause diseases.
If you listen closely to the explanations that are usually given as answers to the question, "What is terrorism?" you will find that they actually answer the question: "What are the conditions in which terrorism is most likely to take place?" Sometimes these conditions have to do with the people who become terrorists (they are described as having certain psychological traits, like 'narcissistic rage') and some conditions have to do with the circumstances they live in (a poor society; a formerly colonized society, for example).
Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world.
There are two more reasons why asking, "What conditions create a favorable climate for terrorism?" is better than asking about causes The first is, it makes it easy to remember that there are always at least several conditions. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon; it is a specific kind of political violence committed by people who do not have a legitimate army at their disposal. A second reason that has been useful for me, as I ask questions about terrorism, is that thinking in terms of 'conditions' helps me remember that people have a choice about whether to use violence.
There is nothing inside any person nor in their circumstances that sends them—like a monopoly piece headed directly to "Go"—directly to terrorism.
Instead, there are certain conditions, some of which make violence against civilians seem like a reasonable, and even necessary option. Despite this, and some of the deeply unforgivable circumstances that foster terrorism, people always have the free will to seek another course of action.
More about the groups mentioned in this article:
Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s mandate Palestine felt they must do so in order to create a Jewish state.
The IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed English targets in the 1980s to make the point that they felt their land was colonized by British imperialists.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable response to the usurpation of their land.
Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in the 1990s stemmed from his belief that U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of Islamic state he believed should exist in the Arabian peninsula.
Uighur separatists in China today feel that Chinese religious repression (the Uighur Chinese are Muslims) justifies their terrorist tactics.
In some cases, people choose terrorist tactics based on a cause whose righteousness they believe in to the exclusion of nearly all else. Abortion clinic bombers in the 1990s and groups such as the Animal Liberation Front believe zealously in their causes.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.04, 17:16:42
Terrorist acts are motivated by two things:
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.
Amy Zalman Ph.D. writes from the point of view of the terrorists justifying their actions. No mention of morality or considering an external control frame of reference that desires to both cultivate terrorism and hide the complicity, which is disappointing as the article could have been so much more.. "Manchester Boys" anyone ?
cultivatehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultivate
1.
a. To improve and prepare (land), as by plowing or fertilizing, for raising crops; till.
b. To loosen or dig soil around (growing plants).
2. To grow or tend (a plant or crop).
3. To promote the growth of (a biological culture).
4. To encourage or foster: cultivate a respect for the law. See Synonyms at nurture.
5. To acquire, develop, or refine, as by education: cultivating a posh accent.
6. To seek the acquaintance or goodwill of; make friends with: cultivated the club's new members.
WATCH: Tears of a suicide bomber - Twisted footage shows crying teen's last momentshttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607377/Video-crying-teen-suicide-bomber-last-moments-Syria
Read the comments!
catnap
"
Don't let Britain descend into chaotic ethnic conflict - stop the colonisation of our country !!!!sign the petition."
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106477
IRA gives up arms and terrorism and embraces mainstream politicshttp://www.asiantribune.com/node/2332
London, 06 October, (Asiantribune.com): The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) that had terrorized Britain for over three decades in its quest for independence for Northern Ireland has given up its armed struggle and terrorism to enter democratic politics, an independent commission reported.
In a historic change in strategy which was warmly welcomed by the British government that first fought the IRA and later encouraged negotiations with its political arm, Sinn Fein, to thrash out a political settlement, the announcement comes ahead of next week's talks in Scotland to revive the stalled power-sharing process.
This renunciation of terrorism as a weapon in political change is being attributed by some political groups as a result of the pressure exerted on the IRA and the demand for it to surrender weapons, halt criminal activity and killings and embrace mainstream politics.
The Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) said in a 60-paged report that the IRA has gone through "transformation†that it had disbanded its military structures, asked volunteers to stand down and has renounced terrorism and crime.
The four-member IMC includes former directors of the US Central Intelligence Agency and the anti-terrorism unit of Scotland Yard, is tasked with monitoring the ceasefires that came into operation following the Good Friday agreement reached by the warring parties some years ago.
" We do not believe that Pira is now engaged in terrorism. We do not believe that Pira is undertaking terrorist-type training. We do not believe that Pira is recruiting. The leadership is trying to reduce the size of its organization. We have no evidence of targeting, procurement or engineering activity. We believe that the leadership does not consider a return to terrorism as in any way a viable option," the Commission said.
Reacting to the conclusions in the IMC report, Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "The IRA has done what we asked. In short, Sinn Fein and IRA are following the political path and the commitment to exclusively democratic means. The IRA campaign is over."
"There is now a consensus across all the main parties in the province of Northern Ireland that change can only come through persuasion and not through violence." Mr Blair appealed to the Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley and other politicians in Northern Ireland to take the opportunity in next week's talks to reach a settlement.
In his reaction Rev Ian Paisley, who has been strongly opposed to the IRA and even sharing power in the Northern Ireland parliament with its political arm Sinn Fein, said the report vindicated that his party's hard-line position was forcing the IRA to give up terrorism and its terrorist structures.
The Commission report, which covered para-military activities in the last six months, said the IRA was not undertaking terrorist-type training, recruiting, targeting or buying weapons. No shootings had been attributed to the Pira and no criminal activity sanction by the leadership.
"It is not the same organization that it was three years ago. (Then) it was the most sophisticated and potentially the most dangerous of the (paramilitary) groups, possessed of the largest arsenal of guns. It is not firmly set on a political strategy."
Still, small dissident republican factions such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA, are said to pose a residual threat. They had carried out bomb and arson attacks.
The report warned that after 35 years of terrorism disbanding paramilitary groups would not end all violence.
- Asian Tribune -
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.04, 17:27:22
sign the petition
What's the point ?
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24966.html
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)
England is Not an Independent Country
https://www.thoughtco.com/england-is-not-an-independent-country-1435413
But the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Country
by Matt Rosenberg
Updated March 03, 2017
There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country or not.
A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. England does not meet all eight criteria; it fails on six of the eight criteria...
1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Yes, England does have internationally recognized boundaries and is 130,395 square kilometers in area.
England is the largest component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
Yes, according to the 2001 census, England's population is 49,138,831.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
Somewhat. England certainly has economic activity and an organized economy. However, England does not regulate its own foreign or domestic trade, the United Kingdom's parliament acts on the entire nation's behalf.
The Bank of England serves as the central bank for the United Kingdom and does print banknotes for both England and Wales.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
No. National government departments (such as the Department for Education and Skill) at the national level maintain responsibility for social engineering.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
Mostly. England has a transportation system but the system is not fully under English control. There is no English Parliament but some systems are under local control but must of the national transportation system is under national control by Parliament.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
Somewhat. Local governments provides local law enforcement and fire protection but the national government controls criminal and civil law, the prosecution system, the courts, defense and national security across the United Kingdom. England does not and can not have its own army.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
No. The Parliament of the United Kingdom definitely has power over England's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
No. England does not have external recognition nor does England have its own embassies in other independent countries. There's no possible way England could become an independent member of the United Nations.
Thus, as you can plainly see, England (nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, nor Scotland) is not an independent country; England is an internal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
England and Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales
England and Wales (Welsh: Cymru a Lloegr) is a legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales, two of the four countries of the United Kingdom. "England and Wales" forms the constitutional successor to the former Kingdom of England and follows a single legal system, known as English law.
The devolved National Assembly for Wales (Welsh: Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) was created in 1999 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and provides a degree of self-government in Wales. The powers of the Assembly were expanded by the Government of Wales Act 2006, which allows it to pass its own laws, and the Act also formally separated the Welsh Government from the Assembly. There is no equivalent body for England, which is directly governed by the Parliament and the government of the United Kingdom.
History of jurisdiction
During the Roman occupation of Britain, the area of present-day England and Wales was administered as a single unit, with the exception of the land to the north of Hadrian's Wall. At that time, most of the native inhabitants of Roman Britain spoke Brythonic languages, and were all regarded as Britons, divided into numerous tribes. After the conquest, the Romans administered this region as a single unit, the province of Britain.
After the departure of the Romans, the Britons of what became Wales developed their own system of law, first codified by Hywel Dda (Hywel the Good; reigned 942–950) when he was king of most of present-day Wales, while in England Anglo-Saxon law was initially codified by Alfred the Great in his Legal Code, c. 893. However, following the Norman invasion of Wales in the 11th century, English law came to be practised in the parts of Wales conquered by the Normans (the Welsh Marches). In 1283 the English, led by Edward I, with the biggest army brought together in England since the 11th century, conquered the remainder of Wales, then organised as the Principality of Wales, which was united with the English crown by the Statute of Rhuddlan of 1284. This aimed to replace Welsh criminal law with English law.
Welsh law continued to be used for civil cases until the annexation of Wales to England in the 16th century. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 then consolidated the administration of all the Welsh territories and incorporated them fully into the legal system of the Kingdom of England.[1]
Prior to 1746 it was not clear whether a reference to "England" in legislation included Wales, and so in 1746 Parliament passed the Wales and Berwick Act. This specified that in all prior and future laws, references to "England" would by default include Wales (and Berwick). The Wales and Berwick Act was repealed in 1967, although the statutory definition of "England" it created is preserved for acts passed prior to its repeal. Since the Act's repeal what was referred to as "England" is now "England and Wales", while references to "England" and "Wales" refer to those political divisions.
Law
England and Wales are treated as a single unit, for most purposes, because the two form the constitutional successor to the former Kingdom of England. The continuance of Scots law was guaranteed under the 1706 Treaty of Union that led to the Acts of Union 1707, and as a consequence English law—and after 1801, Irish law— continued to be separate. Following the two Acts of Union, Parliament can restrict the effect of its laws to part of the realm, and generally the effect of laws, where restricted, was originally applied to one or more of the former kingdoms. Thus, most laws applicable to England also applied to Wales. However, Parliament now passes laws applicable to Wales and not to England (and vice versa), a practice which was rare before the middle of the 20th century. Examples are the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Measures and Acts of the National Assembly for Wales passed since the Government of Wales Act 2006 also apply in Wales but not in England.
Following the Government of Wales Act, effective since May 2007, the National Assembly for Wales can legislate on matters devolved to it. Following a referendum on 3 March 2011, the Welsh Assembly gained direct law-making powers, without the need to consult Westminster. This was the first time in almost 500 years that Wales had its own powers to legislate. Each piece of Welsh legislation is known as an Act of the Assembly.
Company registration
Main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_House
For a company to be incorporated in the United Kingdom, its application for registration with Companies House must state "whether the company's registered office is to be situated in England and Wales (or in Wales), in Scotland or in Northern Ireland",[2] which will determine the law applicable to that business entity. A registered office may be specified as "in Wales" if the company wishes to use a name ending cyfyngedig or cyf, rather than Limited or Ltd. and/or to avail itself of certain other privileges relating to the official use of the Welsh language.
Other bodies
In sports, cricket has a combined international team administered by the England and Wales Cricket Board, who also govern the sport across both nations, whilst football, rugby union, rugby league, the Commonwealth Games and other sports have separate national representative teams for each country. A few Welsh association football clubs, most notably Cardiff City F.C. and Swansea City F.C., play in the English football league system, while The New Saints F.C., which represents places on both sides of the border, plays in the Welsh football league system.
Some religious denominations organise on the basis of England and Wales, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, but also small denominations, e.g. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Prior to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in 1920, the Anglican church in Britain operated under the jurisdiction of the Church of England throughout Wales and England.
The Electoral Commission maintains a register of political parties, organised according to where the party operates (either England, Wales or England and Wales).
Some professional bodies represent England and Wales, for example the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society, the National Farmers Union and the Police Federation of England and Wales.
Other examples include the Canal & River Trust, the Charity Commission, the General Register Office for England and Wales, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Land Registry, Her Majesty's Prison Service, Mountain Rescue England and Wales, the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants and the Youth Hostels Association.
Order of precedence
The order of precedence in England and Wales is distinct from those of Northern Ireland and Scotland, and from Commonwealth realms.
National parks
The national parks of England and Wales have a distinctive legislative framework and history.
See also
Courts of England and Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales
Judiciary of England and Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_England_and_Wales
Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relationship_between_the_Welsh_and_the_English
Geography of Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Wales
Geography of England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_England
British Isles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.04, 20:29:23
Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relationship_between_the_Welsh_and_the_English
The relationship between the Welsh and English is characterised largely by tolerance and intermixing of people and cultures. Historically this has not always been the case, and elements of mutual mistrust or dislike and overt racism or xenophobia persist. Hatred or fear of the Welsh by the English has been termed "Cymrophobia",[1] and similar attitudes towards the English by the Welsh, or others, are termed "Anglophobia". However, these expressions are not in general use, and expressions of anti-Welsh or anti-English sentiment tend to be more in jest than in earnest.
The relationship has developed historically from the origins of the two nations, and been shaped by the military, political, economic and cultural power exercised by the much more populous English over the Welsh for many centuries; the marked differences between the English and Welsh languages, both spoken and written; and the high degree of cultural importance attached by many in Wales to signifiers of national identity such as the language, literature, history, traditions, and the national sport of rugby union.
The Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain led to the formation of Wales as a separate nation between the 5th and 7th centuries. The Anglo-Norman kings of England had conquered Wales militarily by the 13th century, and under Henry VIII the country was incorporated into the Kingdom of England by the Laws in Wales Acts in the 16th century. Many elements of the Welsh economy and society since then have been shaped by demands from England, and Wales has been described as "England's first colony".[2] However, Welsh identity remained strong, and recently there has been an increasing awareness and acknowledgement of Wales' cultural and historical separateness from England, which has latterly been reflected politically.
The Welsh language is in the Celtic language group, whereas English is in the West Germanic group; consequently the English language is further from the Welsh language in both vocabulary and grammar than from a number of European languages, such as Dutch, for example. Comparatively few English people can understand or speak Welsh. Conversely, virtually all Welsh speakers can speak English.
Xenophobiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia
Xenophobia is the fear and distrust of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.[1][2] Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.[3] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".[3]
The terms xenophobia and racism are sometimes confused and used interchangeably because people who share a national origin may also belong to the same race.[4] Due to this, xenophobia is usually distinguished by opposition to foreign culture.[4] Xenophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.
DefinitionsDictionary definitions of xenophobia include: "deep-rooted fear towards foreigners" (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), and "fear of the unfamiliar" (Webster's).[5] The word comes from the Ancient Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "strange", "foreigner", and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear".[6]
A scholarly definition of xenophobia, according to Andreas Wimmer, is "an element of a political struggle about who has the right to be cared for by the state and society: a fight for the collective goods of the modern state". In other words, xenophobia arises when people feel that their entitlement to benefit from the government is being subverted by other people's rights.[7]
HistoryAn early example of xenophobic sentiment in Western culture is the Ancient Greek denigration of foreigners as "barbarians", belief that the Greek people and culture were superior to those of others, and the subsequent conclusion that barbarians were naturally meant to be enslaved.[8] Ancient Romans also held notions of superiority over other peoples, such as in a speech attributed to Manius Acilius, "There, as you know, there were Macedonians and Thracians and Illyrians, all most warlike nations, here Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the most worthless peoples among mankind and born for slavery."[9]
Melting pot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot
The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements "melting together" into a harmonious whole with a common culture or vice versa, for a homogeneous society becoming more heterogeneous through the influx of foreign elements with different cultural background with a potential creation of disharmony with the previous culture. Historically, it is often used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States.[1] The melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s.[2][3] The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name.
The desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model has been reconsidered by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who have suggested alternative metaphors to describe the current American society, such as a mosaic, salad bowl, or kaleidoscope, in which different cultures mix, but remain distinct in some aspects.[6][7][8] Others argue that cultural assimilation is important to the maintenance of national unity, and should be promoted.
Origins of the term
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the metaphor of a "crucible" or "smelting pot" was used to describe the fusion of different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures. It was used together with concepts of the United States as an ideal republic and a "city upon a hill" or new promised land.[citation needed] It was a metaphor for the idealized process of immigration and colonization by which different nationalities, cultures and "races" (a term that could encompass nationality, ethnicity and race proper) were to blend into a new, virtuous community, and it was connected to utopian visions of the emergence of an American "new man". While "melting" was in common use the exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in 1908, after the premiere of the play The Melting Pot by Israel Zangwill.
The first use in American literature of the concept of immigrants "melting" into the receiving culture are found in the writings of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecoeur writes, in response to his own question, "What then is the American, this new man?" that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."
...whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either an European or the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared.
— J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer
In 1845, Ralph Waldo Emerson, alluding to the development of European civilization out of the medieval Dark Ages, wrote in his private journal of America as the Utopian product of a culturally and racially mixed "smelting pot", but only in 1912 were his remarks first published. In his writing, Emerson explicitly welcomed the racial intermixing of whites and non-whites, a highly controversial view during his lifetime.
A magazine article in 1876 used the metaphor explicitly:
The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even-- transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot.[9]
In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner also used the metaphor of immigrants melting into one American culture. In his essay The Significance of the Frontier in American History, he referred to the "composite nationality" of the American people, arguing that the frontier had functioned as a "crucible" where "the immigrants were Americanized, liberated and fused into a mixed race, English in neither nationality nor characteristics".
In his 1905 travel narrative The American Scene, Henry James discusses cultural intermixing in New York City as a "fusion, as of elements in solution in a vast hot pot".[10]
The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name, first performed in Washington, D.C., where the immigrant protagonist declared:
Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.[11]
Israel Zangwill
In The Melting Pot (1908), Israel Zangwill combined a romantic denouement with an utopian celebration of complete cultural intermixing. The play was an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, set in New York City. The play's immigrant protagonist David Quixano, a Russian Jew, falls in love with Vera, a fellow Russian immigrant who is Christian. Vera is an idealistic settlement house worker and David is a composer struggling to create an "American symphony" to celebrate his adopted homeland. Together they manage to overcome the old world animosities that threaten to separate them. But then David discovers that Vera is the daughter of the Tsarist officer who directed the pogrom that forced him to flee Russia. Horrified, he breaks up with her, betraying his belief in the possibility of transcending religious and ethnic animosities. However, unlike Shakespeare's tragedy, there is a happy ending. At the end of the play the lovers are reconciled.
Reunited with Vera and watching the setting sun gilding the Statue of Liberty, David Quixano has a prophetic vision: "It is the Fires of God round His Crucible. There she lies, the great Melting-Pot—Listen! Can't you hear the roaring and the bubbling? There gapes her mouth, the harbor where a thousand mammoth feeders come from the ends of the world to pour in their human freight". David foresees how the American melting pot will make the nation's immigrants transcend their old animosities and differences and will fuse them into one people: "Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God. Ah, Vera, what is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labour and look forward!"
Zangwill thus combined the metaphor of the "crucible" or "melting pot" with a celebration of the United States as an ideal republic and a new promised land. The prophetic words of his Jewish protagonist against the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty allude to Emma Lazarus's famous poem The New Colossus (1883), which celebrated the statue as a symbol of American democracy and its identity as an immigrant nation.[12]
Zangwill concludes his play by wishing, "Peace, peace, to all ye unborn millions, fated to fill this giant continent--the God of our children give you Peace." Expressing his hope that through this forging process the "unborn millions" who would become America's future citizens would become a unified nation at peace with itself despite its ethnic and religious diversity.
United States
In terms of immigrants to the United States, the "melting pot" process has been equated with Americanization, that is, cultural assimilation and acculturation. The "melting pot" metaphor implies both a melting of cultures and intermarriage of ethnicities, yet cultural assimilation or acculturation can also occur without intermarriage. Thus African-Americans are fully culturally integrated into American culture and institutions. Yet more than a century after the abolition of slavery, intermarriage between African-Americans and other ethnicities is much less common than between different white ethnicities, or between white and Asian ethnicities. Intermarriage between whites and non-whites, and especially African-Americans, has long been a taboo in the United States, and was illegal in many US states (see anti-miscegenation laws) until 1967.[13]
Whiteness and the melting pot in the United States
The melting pot theory of ethnic relations, which sees American identity as centered upon the acculturation or assimilation and the intermarriage of white immigrant groups, has been analyzed by the emerging academic field of whiteness studies. This discipline examines the "social construction of whiteness" and highlights the changing ways in which whiteness has been normative to American national identity from the 17th to the 20th century.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European immigration to the United States became increasingly diverse and increased substantially in numbers. Beginning in the 1890s, large numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrant groups such as the Italians, Jews, and Poles arrived. Many returned to Europe but those who remained merged into the cultural melting pot, adopting American lifestyles.[14] By contrast, Chinese arrivals met intense hostility and new laws in the 1880s tried to exclude them, but many arrived illegally. Hostility forced them into "Chinatowns" or ethnic enclaves in the larger cities, where they lived a culture apart and seldom assimilated. The acquisition of Hawaii in 1898, with full citizenship for the residents of all races, greatly increased the Asian American population.
In the early 20th century, the meaning of the recently popularized concept of the melting pot was subject to ongoing debate which centered on the issue of immigration. The debate surrounding the concept of the melting pot centered on how immigration impacted American society and on how immigrants should be approached. The melting pot was equated with either the acculturation or the total assimilation of European immigrants, and the debate centered on the differences between these two ways of approaching immigration: "Was the idea to melt down the immigrants and then pour the resulting, formless liquid into the preexisting cultural and social molds modeled on Anglo-Protestants like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson, or was the idea instead that everyone, Mayflower descendants and Sicilians, Ashkenazi and Slovaks, would act chemically upon each other so that all would be changed, and a new compound would emerge?"[13]
Nativists wanted to severely restrict access to the melting pot. They felt that far too many "undesirables," or in their view, culturally inferior immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe had already arrived. The compromises that were reached in a series of immigration laws in the 1920s established the principle that the number of new arrivals should be small, and, apart from family reunification, the inflow of new immigrants should match the ethnic profile of the nation as it existed at that time.[15] National quotas were established that discouraged immigration from Poland, Italy and Russia, and encouraged immigration from Britain, Ireland and Germany.
Native Americans
Intermarriage between Euro-American men and Native American women has been common since colonial days. In the 21st century some 7.5 million Americans claim Native American ancestry.[16] In the 1920s the nation welcomed celebrities of Native American background, especially Will Rogers and Jim Thorpe, and elected as vice president in 1928 Senator Charles Curtis, who had been brought up on a reservation and identified with his Indian heritage.
Miscegenation
The mixing of whites and blacks, resulting in multiracial children, for which the term "miscegenation" was coined in 1863, was a taboo, and most whites opposed marriages between whites and blacks. In many states, marriage between whites and non-whites was even prohibited by state law through anti-miscegenation laws. As a result, two kinds of "mixture talk" developed:
As the new word--miscegenation--became associated with black-white mixing, a preoccupation of the years after the Civil War, the residual European immigrant aspect of the question of [ethnoracial mixture] came to be more than ever a thing apart, discussed all the more easily without any reference to the African-American aspect of the question. This separation of mixture talk into two discourses facilitated, and was in turn reinforced by, the process Matthew Frye Jacobson has detailed whereby European immigrant groups became less ambiguously white and more definitely "not black".[13]
By the early 21st century, many white Americans celebrated the impact of African-American culture, especially in sports and music. Marriages between white Americans and African-Americans were still problematic in both communities. Israel Zangwill saw this coming in the early 20th century: "However scrupulously and justifiably America avoids intermarriage with the negro, the comic spirit cannot fail to note spiritual miscegenation which, while clothing, commercializing, and Christianizing the ex-African, has given 'rag-time' and the sex-dances that go with it, first to white America and then to the whole white world."[17]
Multiracial influences on culture
White Americans long regarded some elements of African-American culture quintessentially "American", while at the same time treating African Americans as second-class citizens. White appropriation, stereotyping and mimicking of black culture played an important role in the construction of an urban popular culture in which European immigrants could express themselves as Americans, through such traditions as blackface, minstrel shows and later in jazz and in early Hollywood cinema, notably in The Jazz Singer (1927).[17]
Analyzing the "racial masquerade" that was involved in creation of a white "melting pot" culture through the stereotyping and imitation of black and other non-white cultures in the early 20th century, historian Michael Rogin has commented: "Repudiating 1920s nativism, these films [Rogin discusses The Jazz Singer, Old San Francisco (1927), Whoopee! (1930), King of Jazz (1930) celebrate the melting pot. Unlike other racially stigmatized groups, white immigrants can put on and take off their mask of difference. But the freedom promised immigrants to make themselves over points to the vacancy, the violence, the deception, and the melancholy at the core of American self-fashioning".[17]
Since World War II, the idea of the melting pot has become more racially inclusive in the United States, gradually extending also to acceptance of marriage between whites and non-whites.
Ethnicity in films
This trend towards greater acceptance of ethnic and racial minorities was evident in popular culture in the combat films of World War II, starting with Bataan (1943). This film celebrated solidarity and cooperation between Americans of all races and ethnicities through the depiction of a multiracial American unit. At the time blacks and Japanese in the armed forces were still segregated, while Chinese and Indians were in integrated units.
Historian Richard Slotkin sees Bataan and the combat genre that sprang from it as the source of the "melting pot platoon", a cinematic and cultural convention symbolizing in the 1940s "an American community that did not yet exist", and thus presenting an implicit protest against racial segregation. However, Slotkin points out that ethnic and racial harmony within this platoon is predicated upon racist hatred for the Japanese enemy: "the emotion which enables the platoon to transcend racial prejudice is itself a virulent expression of racial hatred...The final heat which blends the ingredients of the melting pot is rage against an enemy which is fully dehumanized as a race of 'dirty monkeys.'" He sees this racist rage as an expression of "the unresolved tension between racialism and civic egalitarianism in American life".[18]
Hawaii
In Hawaii, as Rohrer (2008) argues, there are two dominant discourses of racial politics, both focused on "haole" (white people or whiteness in Hawaii) in the islands. The first is the discourse of racial harmony representing Hawaii as an idyllic racial paradise with no conflict or inequality. There is also a competing discourse of discrimination against nonlocals, which contends that "haoles" and nonlocal people of color are disrespected and treated unfairly in Hawaii. As negative referents for each other, these discourses work to reinforce one another and are historically linked. Rohrer proposes that the question of racial politics be reframed toward consideration of the processes of racialization themselves—toward a new way of thinking about racial politics in Hawaii that breaks free of the not racist/racist dyad.[19]
Olympics
Throughout the history of the modern Olympic Games, the theme of the United States as a melting pot has been employed to explain American athletic success, becoming an important aspect of national self-image. The diversity of American athletes in the Olympic Games in the early 20th century was an important avenue for the country to redefine a national culture amid a massive influx of immigrants, as well as American Indians (represented by Jim Thorpe in 1912) and blacks (represented by Jesse Owens in 1936). In the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, two black American athletes with gold and bronze medals saluted the U.S. national anthem with a "Black Power" salute that symbolized rejection of assimilation.[20]
The international aspect of the games allowed the United States to define its pluralistic self-image against the monolithic traditions of other nations. American athletes served as cultural ambassadors of American exceptionalism, promoting the melting pot ideology and the image of America as a progressive nation based on middle-class culture. Journalists and other American analysts of the Olympics framed their comments with patriotic nationalism, stressing that the success of U.S. athletes, especially in the high-profile track-and-field events, stemmed not from simple athletic prowess but from the superiority of the civilization that spawned them.
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City strongly revived the melting pot image, returning to a bedrock form of American nationalism and patriotism. The reemergence of Olympic melting pot discourse was driven especially by the unprecedented success of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans in events traditionally associated with Europeans and white North Americans such as speed skating and the bobsled.[21] The 2002 Winter Olympics was also a showcase of American religious freedom and cultural tolerance of the history of Utah's large majority population of Mormons, as well representation of Muslim Americans and other religious groups in the U.S. Olympic team.[22][23]
Melting pot and cultural pluralism
The concept of multiculturalism was preceded by the concept of cultural pluralism, which was first developed in the 1910s and 1920s, and became widely popular during the 1940s. The concept of cultural pluralism first emerged in the 1910s and 1920s among intellectual circles out of the debates in the United States over how to approach issues of immigration and national identity.
The First World War heightened tensions between Anglo-American and German-Americans. The war and the Russian Revolution, which caused a "Red Scare" in the US, which also fanned feelings of xenophobia. During and immediately after the First World War, the concept of the melting pot was equated by Nativists with complete cultural assimilation towards an Anglo-American norm ("Anglo-conformity") on the part of immigrants, and immigrants who opposed such assimilation were accused of disloyalty to the United States.
The newly popularized concept of the melting pot was frequently equated with "Americanization", meaning cultural assimilation, by many "old stock" Americans. In Henry Ford's Ford English School (established in 1914), the graduation ceremony for immigrant employees involved symbolically stepping off an immigrant ship and passing through the melting pot, entering at one end in costumes designating their nationality and emerging at the other end in identical suits and waving American flags.[24][25]
Opposition to the absorption of million of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe was especially strong among such popular writers Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, who believed in the "racial" superiority of Americans of Northern European descent as member of the "Nordic race", and therefore demanded immigration restrictions to stop a "degeneration" of America's white racial "stock". They believed that complete cultural assimilation of the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe was not a solution to the problem of immigration because intermarriage with these immigrants would endanger the racial purity of Anglo-America. The controversy over immigration faded away after immigration restrictions were put in place with the enactment of the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924.
In response to the pressure exerted on immigrants to culturally assimilate and also as a reaction against the denigration of the culture of non-Anglo white immigrants by Nativists, intellectuals on the left such as Horace Kallen, in Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot (1915), and Randolph Bourne, in Trans-National America (1916), laid the foundations for the concept of cultural pluralism. This term was coined by Kallen.[26] Randolph Bourne, who objected to Kallen's emphasis on the inherent value of ethnic and cultural difference, envisioned a "trans-national" and cosmopolitan America. The concept of cultural pluralism was popularized in the 1940s by John Dewey.
In the United States, where the term melting pot is still commonly used, the ideas of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism have, in some circles, taken precedence over the idea of assimilation.[27][28][29] Alternate models where immigrants retain their native cultures such as the "salad bowl"[30] or the "symphony"[27] are more often used by sociologists to describe how cultures and ethnicities mix in the United States. Nonetheless, the term assimilation is still used to describe the ways in which immigrants and their descendants adapt, such as by increasingly using the national language of the host society as their first language.
Since the 1960s, much research in Sociology and History has disregarded the melting pot theory for describing interethnic relations in the United States and other counties.[27][28][29] The theory of multiculturalism offers alternative analogies for ethnic interaction including salad bowl theory, or, as it is known in Canada, the cultural mosaic. In the 1990s, political correctness in the United States emphasized that each ethnic and national group has the right to maintain and preserve its cultural distinction and integrity, and that one does not need to assimilate or abandon one's heritage in order to blend in or merge into the majority Anglo-American society.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, some prominent scholars, such as Samuel P. Huntington in Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, have expressed the view that the most accurate explanation for modern-day United States culture and inter-ethnic relations can be found somewhere in a fusion of some of the concepts and ideas contained in the melting pot, assimilation, and Anglo-conformity models. Under this theory, it is asserted that the United States has one of the most homogeneous cultures of any nation in the world. This line of thought holds that this American national culture derived most of its traits and characteristics from early colonial settlers from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. When more recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe brought their various cultures to America at the beginning of the 20th century, they changed the American cultural landscape just very slightly, and, for the most part, assimilated into America's pre-existing culture which had its origins in Northwestern Europe.
The decision of whether to support a melting-pot or multicultural approach has developed into an issue of much debate within some countries. For example, the French and British governments and populace are currently debating whether Islamic cultural practices and dress conflict with their attempts to form culturally unified countries.[31]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.04, 20:52:22
Melting pot
snip
Nevertheless, some prominent scholars, such as Samuel P. Huntington in Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, have expressed the view that the most accurate explanation for modern-day United States culture and inter-ethnic relations can be found somewhere in a fusion of some of the concepts and ideas contained in the melting pot, assimilation, and Anglo-conformity models. Under this theory, it is asserted that the United States has one of the most homogeneous cultures of any nation in the world. This line of thought holds that this American national culture derived most of its traits and characteristics from early colonial settlers from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. When more recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe brought their various cultures to America at the beginning of the 20th century, they changed the American cultural landscape just very slightly, and, for the most part, assimilated into America's pre-existing culture which had its origins in Northwestern Europe.
The decision of whether to support a melting-pot or multicultural approach has developed into an issue of much debate within some countries. For example, the French and British governments and populace are currently debating whether Islamic cultural practices and dress conflict with their attempts to form culturally unified countries.[31]
Interesting in this context to examine the DNA make up of the UK mixing pot.
It would seem that the Basques are the predominate influence.
Not much in google but several good videos on you tube, of all places
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.05, 15:51:12
Interesting in this context to examine the DNA make up of the UK mixing pot.
It would seem that the Basques are the predominate influence.
Not much in google but several good videos on you tube, of all places
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s)
Ron
The sordid history of the British Empire.So although the prominent DNA of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish could well retain the influence of the Basques it was they who suffered the most from latter inhuman immigration, particularly around the area of London and the founding of the atrocious British Empire by these latter more war like people.
QuoteIt was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world's population and for many of them, the sun never rose again.
Under the policies of British colonialism, people around the globe were subjected to mass famines, atrocious conditions in concentration camps, and brutal massacres at the hands of imperialist troops. The Brits also played an integral role in the transatlantic slave trade.
Although the atrocities of the British Empire are well documented, the myth of the noble colonising power continued into recent decades.
t was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world's population and for many of them, the sun never rose again. Under the policies of British colonialism, people around the globe were subjected to mass famines, atrocious conditions in concentration camps, and brutal massacres at the hands of imperialist troops. The Brits also played an integral role in the transatlantic slave trade. Although the atrocities of the British Empire are well documented, the myth of the noble colonising power continued into recent decades.
The de-industrialization Of India then happened to the UK and the empire torch was passed to the USA. It too has suffered de-industrialisation, on such a vast scale that Detroit could easily pass for the ruins of Hiroshima. What goes around comes around.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-british-empire/5597781 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-british-empire/5597781)
Ron
European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2367/european-muslim-no-go-zones
"Occupation Without Tanks or Soldiers"
Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of "no-go" areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.
Many of the "no-go" zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.
The "no-go" areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.
In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.
The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.
In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.
In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of "ethnic cleansing" by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of "hate crimes" for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: "How dare you come to a Muslim area."
In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered "no-go" zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.
Muslim immigrants are taking control of other parts of France too. In Paris and other French cities with high Muslim populations, such as Lyons, Marseilles and Toulouse, thousands of Muslims are closing off streets and sidewalks (and by extension, are closing down local businesses and trapping non-Muslim residents in their homes and offices) to accommodate overflowing crowds for Friday prayers. Some mosques have also begun broadcasting sermons and chants of "Allahu Akbar" via loudspeakers into the streets.
The weekly spectacles, which have been documented by dozens of videos posted on Youtube.com (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and which have been denounced as an "occupation without tanks or soldiers," have provoked anger and disbelief. But despite many public complaints, local authorities have declined to intervene because they are afraid of sparking riots.
In the Belgian capital of Brussels (which is 20% Muslim), several immigrant neighborhoods have become "no-go" zones for police officers, who frequently are pelted with rocks by Muslim youth. In the Kuregem district of Brussels, which often resembles an urban war zone, police are forced to patrol the area with two police cars: one car to carry out the patrols and another car to prevent the first car from being attacked. In the Molenbeek district of Brussels, police have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.
In Germany, Chief Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut, in an August 1 interview with the newspaper Der Westen, revealed that Muslim immigrants are imposing "no-go" zones in cities across Germany at an alarming rate.
The interviewer asked Witthaut: "Are there urban areas – for example in the Ruhr – districts and housing blocks that are "no-go areas," meaning that they can no longer be secured by the police?" Witthaut replied: "Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier. The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas crimes no longer result in charges. They are left 'to themselves.' Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture."
In Italy, Muslims have been commandeering the Piazza Venezia in Rome for public prayers. In Bologna, Muslims repeatedly have threatened to bomb the San Petronio cathedral because it contains a 600-year-old fresco inspired by Dante's Inferno which depicts Mohammed being tormented in hell.
In the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the government to release to the public a politically incorrect list of 40 "no-go" zones in Holland. The top five Muslim problem neighborhoods are in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim "problem district" in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam – Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).
In Sweden, which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, large swaths of the southern city of Malmö – which is more than 25% Muslim – are "no-go" zones for non-Muslims. Fire and emergency workers, for example, refuse to enter Malmö's mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts. The male unemployment rate in Rosengaard is estimated to be above 80%. When fire fighters attempted to put out a fire at Malmö's main mosque, they were attacked by stone throwers.
In the Swedish city of Gothenburg, Muslim youth have been hurling petrol bombs at police cars. In the city's Angered district, where more than 15 police cars have been destroyed, teenagers have also been pointing green lasers at the eyes of police officers, some of whom have been temporarily blinded.
In Gothenburg's Backa district, youth have been throwing stones at patrolling officers. Gothenburg police have also been struggling to deal with the problem of Muslim teenagers burning cars and attacking emergency services in several areas of the city.
According to the Malmö-based Imam Adly Abu Hajar: "Sweden is the best Islamic state."
Balkanization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or uncooperative with one another.[1][2] Balkanization is a result of foreign policies creating geopolitical fragmentation as can be seen at times in the Western Balkans with respect to the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Third Reich, the United Nations and NATO. Foreign policies can be precipitous to Balkanization.
Nations and societies
The term refers to the division of the Balkan peninsula, formerly ruled almost entirely by the Ottoman Empire, into a number of smaller states between 1817 and 1912.[3] It was coined in the early 19th century and has a strong negative connotation.[4] The term however came into common use in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, with reference to the numerous new states that arose from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
The larger countries within Europe, often being the result of the union of several historical regions or nations, have faced the perceived issue of Balkanization. The Iberian Peninsula and Spain especially has from the time of Al-Andalus had to come to terms with Balkanization,[5] with several separatist movements existing today including the Basque Country and Catalan independentism.
Canada is a stable country but does harbor separatist movements, the strongest of which is the Quebec sovereignty movement which seeks to create a nation-state that would encompass the majority of Canada's French-Canadian population. Two referendums have been held to decide this question, one in 1980 and the last one in 1995 being lost by the separatist side by a tiny margin. Less mainstream, smaller movements also exist in the western provinces, namely Alberta, to protest what is seen as a domination by Quebec and Ontario of Canadian politics. Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow had also considered separation from Canada if the 1995 Quebec independence referendum had succeeded; which would have led to the balkanization of Canada.
Quebec has been the scene of a small but vociferous partition movement from the part of anglophone activist groups opposed to the idea of Independence of Quebec, as such a country would be dominated by francophones on the order of 80%. One such project is the Proposal for the Province of Montreal, which wishes for the establishment of a separate province from Quebec from Montreal's strongly anglophone Anglo-Saxon and immigrant communities.
In January 2007, regarding the growing support for Scottish independence, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and later Prime Minister, Gordon Brown talked of a "Balkanisation of Britain".[6] Independence movements within Britain also exist in England, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland.
Balkanization in Africa
As Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson would argue, Balkanisation was observed to a great extent in Africa. During the 1960s, Countries in the Communauté Financière Africaine have started to opt for "autonomy within the French community" in this post-colonial era.
Countries within the CFA zone were allowed to impose tariffs, regulate trade and manage transport services. Zambia, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania achieved independence in the post-colonial era. This period also saw the break down of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland as well as the East African High Commission. Balkanization was a result of the movement towards a closed economy. Countries were adopting antitrade and anti-market policies. Tariff rates were 15% higher than OECD countries during the 1970s and 1980s. [7]Furthermore, countries took approaches to subsidize their own local industries yet the market within the country was small-scale. Transport networks were fragmented; regulations on labor and capital flow were more regulated; prices were under control. Between 1960 and 1990, balkanization led to disastrous results. The GDP of these regions were 1/10 of OECD countries.[8] Balkanization also resulted in what van de Valle called "typically fairly overvalued exchanged rates" in Africa. Balkanization contributed to what Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson claimed to be a lost decade in Africa.
Economic situations only took a turn during the mid-1990s. Countries within the region started to input more stabilization policies. What was originally a high exchange rate eventually fell to a more reasonable exchange rate after devaluations in 1994. 18 countries had an exchange rate 50% higher than the official exchange rate, by 1994, the number of countries that had such exchange rate was decreased to 4.[9] However, there is still limited progress in improving trade policies within the region according to van de Walle. In addition, the post-independent countries still rely heavily on donors for development plans. Balkanization still has an impact on today's Africa.
Other uses
The term is also used to describe other forms of disintegration, including, for instance, the subdivision of the Internet into separate enclaves.[10] However, Robert Morgus' and Tim Maurer's study suggests that the alarmist term "Balkanization" should be replaced with more appropriate terms such as fragmentation and diversity.[11] The term has been used in American urban planning to describe the process of creating gated communities.
War of independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence
A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.09, 10:55:41
War of independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence
A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence
An interesting point of view on the USA, 'war of independence'
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/07/24/american_revolution_did_britain_treat_all_its_colonies_equally.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/07/24/american_revolution_did_britain_treat_all_its_colonies_equally.html)
And some claim that the USA still pays tax to England...
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/2012/08/americans-pay-percentage-of-their-taxes.html (http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/2012/08/americans-pay-percentage-of-their-taxes.html)
Ron
Three countries, three continents: One imperial Western project
https://richardedmondson.net/2017/07/08/three-countries-three-continents-one-western-imperial-project/
[ Ed. note – An excellent comparative analysis of US regime change operations in three different countries–Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia. Writer Neil Clark discovers a seven-step process that the regime-changers seem to have employed in all three cases. ]
By Neil Clark
A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare, education and social services.
An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist movements.
Social progress in a number of areas, including women's emancipation.
The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in common.
All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.
The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as 'a/the regime') and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the state-owned passenger airliner JAT
Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.
Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.
The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these "regimes". The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from 'the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for 'killing his own people' (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups), and used to ramp up the case for a 'humanitarian intervention' by the US and its allies.
In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and logistical support by the West.
In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda's air force
In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically labelled 'moderate rebels.' It didn't matter to the 'regime changers' that weapons supplied to 'moderate rebels' ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating 'the Syrian regime'.
The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.
Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a 'dictator' even though he was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely operated.
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.
Syria's Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba'ath Party's monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded 'rebels'.
The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or 'Imperial Truth Enforcers' – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.
The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a 'progressive' veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine 'old school' leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.
To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled 'fascist,' even though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines. Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received enthusiastic support from NATO.
The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable ... it was quite deliberate."
In 2011, the casus belli was that 'the mad dog' Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in Benghazi. We needed a 'humanitarian intervention' to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report held that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."
In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against military action and the planned 'intervention' was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.
The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on Assad, shows that the Empire hasn't given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.
Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in 1999, Gaddafi in 2011.
Stage Seven is 'Mission Accomplished'. It's when the target country has been 'regime-changed' and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently joined NATO.
Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top cruise ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of slave markets.
Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years. The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."
Of course, it's not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There are similarities too with what's happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in Kabul.
Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which grew out of the 'rebel' movement which the US had backed.
Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam Hussein, still possessed WMDs.
The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by one.
The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn't political repression taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of recent years want us to regard the conflicts as 'stand alones' and to regard the 'problem' as being the 'mad dog' leadership of the countries which were attacked.
But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who hasn't been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly, or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the 'problem' really lies.
The 'New Hitlers' - Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi - who we were told were the 'biggest threats' to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes on.
Eastern Europe Chooses To Keep Western Civilization
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-08/eastern-europe-chooses-keep-western-civilization
Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10631/eastern-europe-islam-civilization
"The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics" - Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources.
It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.
"Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether". — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.
In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West's battle against "radical Islamic terrorism" as the way to protect "our civilization and our way of life". Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:
"Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?"
Trump's question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.
After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland's prime minister, Beata Szyd?o, said that Poland would not be "blackmailed" into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union's quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:
"Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day".
A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.
After Szyd?o's speech, Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources, declared:
"Islam is a major culture and religion, which we must respect, but Europe has a different identity, and it is clear that these two cultures are incapable of coexisting without conflict...
The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics".
That is why Viktor Orban has been labelled as "Europe's enemy within" -- because he spelled out what the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will never do: "Keeping Europe Christian".
These speeches from Visegrad officials -- the European group made up of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia -- are just two examples of deep ideological divisions between Western European countries and those in Central- and Eastern Europe.
There has been a growing tendency of Visegrad leaders to depict Islam as a civilizational threat to Christian Europe. If, in Western Europe, Christianity has been dramatically cast aside by public opinion and severely restricted by EU official rules, in Eastern Europe new polls reveal that Christianity is as robust and patriotic as ever. That is why Trump called Poland "the faithful nation". That is why US Catholic magazines are openly asking if there is a "Christian reawakening" in Eastern Europe. Slovakia approved a law to prevent Islam from becoming an official state religion.
These Central- and Eastern European countries know that Western Europe's multiculturalism has been a recipe for terror attacks, for a start. As Ed West of The Spectator noted:
"Not all of Europe, of course. Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing".
What is presumably "obvious" here is that Poland and Hungary are not hit by Islamic terror attacks because they have very few Muslims, while Belgium and UK it is the reverse. Europe would probably have been safer if it had followed Eastern Europe's example.
Eastern Europe not only shows a greater understanding of Western culture than Western Europe does; these Eastern countries have also been far more generous to NATO, the bulwark of their independence and security. Culture and security go hand-in-hand: if you take your own culture and civilization seriously, you will be ready to defend them.
A brief look at the NATO's members' military spending as a percentage of GDP shows that Poland meets the 2% target, unlike all the Western European countries. Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target. Where is France? And Belgium? And Germany? And The Netherlands?
"Unlike most of its NATO and European peers," Agnia Grigas, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, explained, "Poland has for the past two decades consistently viewed defense as a priority issue, and as a result, has been slowly but steadily emerging as the bedrock of European security". Poland -- unlike Belgium, Italy and other European countries -- is not a "free rider" but a trustworthy partner to its US ally. Poland showed loyal support to the United States both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where its troops fought the Taliban and helped to topple Saddam Hussein.
It is no coincidence that President Trump selected Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.
"The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether", wrote William Kilpatrick, a professor at Boston College.
"The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence".
That is why it is critical that Eastern Europe continues to be a strong voice of dissent in the EU project. It might provide just the cultural confidence that European bureaucrats dramatically lack -- at the peril of Europe itself.
Leo Varadkar wins: Ireland set to install first openly gay Prime Minister
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/leo-varadkar-wins-gay-ireland-pm-election-first-lgbt-leader-a7770091.html
The 38-year-old son of an Indian immigrant will succeed Enda Kenny
The proud Irish who for many a year fought the occupation of Ireland by the Judeo-Christian Empire known as Great Britain.. has fallen.. it is a sad day for the Irish Celts and they may never recover :'(
Celts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
FLASHBACK: Muslim Mayor Of London Tells Citizens To Get Used To Terrorism
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16770/flashback-muslim-mayor-london-told-citizens-get-michael-qazvini
As the civilized world joins the United Kingdom in mourning the deaths of 22 innocent people, children included, in a horrific suicide bombing attack at an Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena, police and counter-terrorism agents are scouring to find any accomplices linked to the perpetrator, a 22-year-old Muslim male named Salman Abedi.
Terrorist attacks on major European cities are beginning to feel routine. But they shouldn't be. This isn't normal. The Islamic terrorist reportedly blew himself up with a device meant to send nails flying into human flesh. At the local children's hospital in Manchester, doctors are removing shrapnel from the faces of young girls. This isn't normal. It never was. It never is. And it will never be normal.
But that's not what Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, thinks.
In September 2016, Khan actually had the gall to say that citizens in big cities should just get used to terrorism.
At a glitzy event in New York City called "Building Progressive, Inclusive Cities" alongside his counterpart in the Big Apple, far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, Khan talked about the virtues of immigration and multiculturalism, explaining that some sacrifices had to be made.
Terror attacks are "part and parcel of life in a big city," Khan later told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.
Once hailed as a "progressive" Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan echoed the same excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France "will have to live with terrorism." In other words, terrorism is the new normal.
Serving as London's mayor for less than a year, Khan has a history of controversial remarks.
During the London mayoral election, Khan apologized after a video surfaced showing the Labour party official calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms."
And in February, Khan overstepped his authority as mayor and demanded that President Trump be denied a state visit to the United Kingdom, citing the American administration's "cruel" immigration policies.
Khan is so devoted to the tolerant tenets of multi-culturalism that he even served as "legal consultant' to 9/11 bomber Zacarias Moussaoui, and "shared a platform" with terrorist Yasser al-Siri, who once said American soldiers' corpses should be "dragged in the streets," according to Daily Wire's Hank Berrien.
But Khan isn't the only one who shares a nearly cultish belief in multiculturalism.
Unfortunately, Europe is littered with bureaucrats and politicians who think exactly like Khan. If all stays the same and the European Left has its way, then Europe (and perhaps even the West) as we know it is dead.
Last stand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand
A last stand is a military situation in which a body of troops holds a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, as happened at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, the Battle of the Persian Gate in 330 BC, the Battle of Karbala in 680, the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Georgian Three Hundred Aragvians in 1795, the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the Battle of Shiroyama in 1877, the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876,[1], the Battle of Pavan Khind in 1660, and Battle of Saragarhi in 1897 and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Troops may make a last stand due to a perceived duty; because they are defending a tactically crucial point; to buy time to enable a trapped army to escape, due to fear of execution if captured; or to protect their ruler or leader. Last stands loom large in history, as the heroism and sacrifice of the defenders exerts a large pull on the public's imagination. Some last stands have become a celebrated part of a fighting force's or a country's history.
Tactical significance
A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes or believes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. This usually arises from strategic or moral considerations, such as staying and fighting to buy time for wounded soldiers or civilians to get to a safe place, leading defenders to conclude that their sacrifice is essential to the greater success of their campaign or cause, as happened at the end of the Battle of Thermopylae.[2][3] The situation can arise in several ways. One situation is that retreat by the defending force would lead to immediate defeat, usually due to the surrounding geography or shortage of supplies or support, as happened to the Royalist infantry on Wadborough Hill after the Battle of Naseby.[4][5]
Perceived duty
A last stand may also be the last pitched battle of a war where the position of the defending force is hopeless but the defending force considers it their duty not to surrender until forced to do so, as happened to the last Royalist field army of the First English Civil War at the Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold.[6]
Defending tactically crucial point
Specifically, defeat or withdrawal by the defending force may give the attacking force a point of utmost tactical importance, making it imperative that the defending force hold its position at all costs. The historian Bryan Perrett suggests that although the majority of last stands throughout history have seen the defending force overwhelmed, on rare occasions the outnumbered defenders succeed in their desperate endeavours and live to fight another day, and he lists the Battle of Agincourt and the Battle of Rorke's Drift as such engagements.[7] Another example could be the Battle of Myeongnyang, where 13 Joseon Navy warships (led by Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin) defeated 133 Japanese warships,[8] as well as battles such as Siege of the International Legations, the Battle off Samar and the Raid on Godfrey Ranch.
Protecting leader
In some cases, troops will make a last stand to protect their ruler or leader. When Rome was attacked in 1527 by the army of the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charles V, over 20,000 troops stormed the city. The 189 Swiss Guards made a last stand against the massive army by forming a square around St. Peter's Basilica to give Pope Clement VII time to escape through secret tunnels, and held the doors until Clement could escape. In the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Saxon King Harold II battled the Norman William the Conqueror, who invaded with 7,000 men. After most of the Saxons were killed in the battle, "Harold and his housecarl bodyguard...fought on until an arrow struck the king in the eye." After Harold died, the housecarl bodyguard made a last stand and "...fought to the death around the body of their dead king."[9] At the 1795 battle of Krtsanisi, where the Persian army led by Agha Muhammad Khan defeated the Georgians, the Three Hundred Aragvians - a detachment of the highlanders from the Aragvi valley - loyally fought and died in order to enable the escape of king Heraclius II, for which they are remembered as national heroes and were canonized by the Georgian Church.
Buying time
Sometimes, rather than face annihilation at the hands of a pursuing victorious army, a rearguard will be tasked by the commander of the defeated army with hindering the advance of the victorious army. Even if the rearguard is destroyed in a last stand, its sacrifice may buy their commander time to disengage without losing the majority of his army as happened during the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778), and the Dunkirk evacuation (1940, in World War II).[10][11]
During the second Persian invasion of Greece, the Greeks blocked the advance of the Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae, during what is known as the Battle of Thermopylae. A Greek force of 7,000 men marched north to block the pass in the middle of 480 BC. The Persian army, ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000,[12][13] arrived at the pass in late August or early September. The vastly outnumbered Greeks held off the Persians for seven days (including three of battle) before the rear-guard was annihilated in one of history's most famous last stands. During two full days of battle, the small force led by Leonidas blocked the only road by which the massive Persian army could pass. When Leonidas became aware that his force was being outflanked, he dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and remained to guard their retreat with 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, fighting to the death.
Fear of execution
Troops may fight a last stand if they believe that they will be executed if they surrender.
In Custer's last stand, at the end of the battle, the extent of the soldiers' resistance to the Native Indian warriors indicated they had few doubts about their prospects for survival if they surrendered. In the end, the hilltop where Custer's remaining troops made their last stand made it impossible for Custer's men to secure a defensive position. Nevertheless, the soldiers put up their most dogged defense, and died fighting.
During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, by the end of 1942, the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto learned that the deportations were part of an extermination process, as the deportees were sent to death camps. Many of the remaining Jews decided to revolt.[14] The first armed resistance in the ghetto occurred in January 1943.[15] On 19 April 1943, Passover eve, the Germans entered the ghetto. The remaining Jews knew that the Germans would murder them all and they decided to resist the Germans to the last, rather than surrender.[16]
At the end of a siege
A siege may lead to a last stand by the defenders (see for example the Battle of the Alamo).[17] Last stands at the end of sieges became less common after the Hague Conventions came in force. Before the 20th century, if a besieged garrison refused any offered terms of surrender and the attackers subsequently breached the defences, the defenders were only given quarter at the discretion of the attackers, something they were not likely to do if they perceived that by holding out, with no hope of relief, the defenders had needlessly squandered lives. Under the laws of war as they are now "...it is especially forbidden - ... To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; [and] To declare that no quarter will be given ...",[18] it is unlawful for an attacking force to kill a garrison if they attempt to surrender even if it is during the final assault on a fortified position.
Historical significance
Last stands loom large in history due to the pull on popular imagination. Historian Nathaniel Philbrick argues:
Long before Custer died at the Little Bighorn, the myth of the Last Stand already had a strong pull on human emotions, and on the way we like to remember history. The variations are endless — from the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae to Davy Crockett at the Alamo — but they all tell the story of a brave and intractable hero leading his tiny band against a numberless foe. Even though the odds are overwhelming, the hero and his followers fight on nobly to the end and are slaughtered to a man. In defeat the hero of the Last Stand achieves the greatest of victories, since he will be remembered for all time.[19]
During WW I, the expression to fight "with one's back to the wall" became a widely-known way to refer to making a last stand. The London Times reported on April 13, 1918 that General Douglas Haig ordered British troops that "Every position must be held to the last man...With our backs to the wall...each one of us must fight on to the end". [20]
Merkel Migrant Blowback Begins: "Chechen Sharia Police Terrorize Berlin"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/merkel-migrant-blowback-begins-chechen-sharia-police-terrorize-berlin
The comments on this article are very interesting! The discussion that needed to be had publicly.. is finally happening.. the end times indeed.
Delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or psychiatric disease, although they are not tied to any particular disorder and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.
Definition
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[1] These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue)[2]
Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be, or never can be proven true. For example: a man claiming that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion,[3] unless he were speaking figuratively, or if the belief had a cultural or religious source.
Causes
Explaining the causes of delusions continues to be challenging and several theories have been developed. One is the genetic or biological theory, which states that close relatives of people with delusional disorder are at increased risk of delusional traits. Another theory is the dysfunctional cognitive processing, which states that delusions may arise from distorted ways people have of explaining life to themselves. A third theory is called motivated or defensive delusions. This one states that some of those persons who are predisposed might suffer the onset of delusional disorder in those moments when coping with life and maintaining high self-esteem becomes a significant challenge. In this case, the person views others as the cause of their personal difficulties in order to preserve a positive self-view.[4]
This condition is more common among people who have poor hearing or sight. Also, ongoing stressors have been associated with a higher possibility of developing delusions. Examples of such stressors are immigration, low socioeconomic status, and even possibly the accumulation of smaller daily hassles.[5]
Specific delusions
The top two factors mainly concerned in the germination of delusions are: 1. Disorder of brain functioning; and 2. background influences of temperament and personality.[6]
Higher levels of dopamine qualify as a symptom of disorders of brain function. That they are needed to sustain certain delusions was examined by a preliminary study on delusional disorder (a psychotic syndrome) instigated to clarify if schizophrenia had a dopamine psychosis.[7] There were positive results - delusions of jealousy and persecution had different levels of dopamine metabolite HVA and homovanillyl alcohol (which may have been genetic). These can be only regarded as tentative results; the study called for future research with a larger population.
It is too simplistic to say that a certain measure of dopamine will bring about a specific delusion. Studies show age[8][9] and gender to be influential and it is most likely that HVA levels change during the life course of some syndromes.[10]
On the influence personality, it has been said: "Jaspers considered there is a subtle change in personality due to the illness itself; and this creates the condition for the development of the delusional atmosphere in which the delusional intuition arises."[11]
Cultural factors have "a decisive influence in shaping delusions".[12] For example, delusions of guilt and punishment are frequent in a Western, Christian country like Austria, but not in Pakistan - where it is more likely persecution.[13] Similarly, in a series of case studies, delusions of guilt and punishment were found in Austrian patients with Parkinson's being treated with l-dopa - a dopamine agonist.[14]
Types
Delusions are categorized into four different groups:
Bizarre delusion: Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences.[15] An example named by the DSM-5 is a belief that someone replaced all of one's internal organs with someone else's without leaving a scar.
Non-bizarre delusion: A delusion that, though false, is at least possible, e.g., the affected person mistakenly believes that he is under constant police surveillance.
Mood-congruent delusion: Any delusion with content consistent with either a depressive or manic state, e.g., a depressed person believes that news anchors on television highly disapprove of him, or a person in a manic state might believe she is a powerful deity.
Mood-neutral delusion: A delusion that does not relate to the sufferer's emotional state; for example, a belief that an extra limb is growing out of the back of one's head is neutral to either depression or mania.[16]
Themes
In addition to these categories, delusions often manifest according to a consistent theme. Although delusions can have any theme, certain themes are more common. Some of the more common delusion themes are:
Delusion of control: False belief that another person, group of people, or external force controls one's general thoughts, feelings, impulses, or behavior.[16]
Cotard delusion: False belief that one does not exist or has died.[17]
Delusional jealousy: False belief that a spouse or lover is having an affair, with no proof to back up their claim.[16]
Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation): Ungrounded feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity.[16]
Delusion of mind being read: False belief that other people can know one's thoughts.[16]
Delusion of thought insertion: Belief that another thinks through the mind of the person.[16]
Delusion of reference: False belief that insignificant remarks, events, or objects in one's environment have personal meaning or significance.[16]
Erotomania: False belief that another person is in love with them.[16]
Grandiose religious delusion: Belief that the affected person is a god or chosen to act as a god.[18][19]
Somatic delusion: Delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal or changed.[16] A specific example of this delusion is delusional parasitosis: Delusion in which one feels infested with insects, bacteria, mites, spiders, lice, fleas, worms, or other organisms. Affected individuals may also report being repeatedly bitten. In some cases, entomologists are asked to investigate cases of mysterious bites. Sometimes physical manifestations may occur including skin lesions.[20]
Delusion of poverty: Person strongly believes they are financially incapacitated. Although this type of delusion is less common now, it was particularly widespread in the days preceding state support.[21]
Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder but could possibly feature as a symptom of schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder.[22] Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic, often with a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious bent. In colloquial usage, one who overestimates one's own abilities, talents, stature or situation is sometimes said to have "delusions of grandeur". This is generally due to excessive pride, rather than any actual delusions. Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur can also be associated with megalomania.[citation needed]
Persecutory delusions
Persecutory delusions are the most common type of delusions and involve the theme of being followed, harassed, cheated, poisoned or drugged, conspired against, spied on, attacked, or otherwise obstructed in the pursuit of goals. Persecutory delusions are a condition in which the affected person wrongly believes that they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing three central elements:[23][page needed] The individual thinks that:
harm is occurring, or is going to occur.
the persecutor(s) has(have) the intention to cause harm.
they are constantly being prejudged or profiled.
According to the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the most common form of delusions in schizophrenia, where the person believes they are "being tormented, followed, sabotaged, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed."[24] In the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the main feature of the persecutory type of delusional disorder. When the focus is to remedy some injustice by legal action, they are sometimes called "querulous paranoia".[25]
Diagnosis
The modern definition and Jaspers' original criteria have been criticised,[by whom?] as counter-examples can be shown for every defining feature.
Studies on psychiatric patients show that delusions vary in intensity and conviction over time, which suggests that certainty and incorrigibility are not necessary components of a delusional belief.[26]
Delusions do not necessarily have to be false or 'incorrect inferences about external reality'.[27] Some religious or spiritual beliefs by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect, no matter whether the person holding these beliefs was diagnosed as delusional or not.[28]
In other situations the delusion may turn out to be true belief.[29] For example, in delusional jealousy, where a person believes that their partner is being unfaithful (and may even follow them into the bathroom believing them to be seeing their lover even during the briefest of partings), it may actually be true that the partner is having sexual relations with another person. In this case, the delusion does not cease to be a delusion because the content later turns out to be verified as true or the partner actually chose to engage in the behavior of which they were being accused.
In other cases, the delusion may be assumed to be false by a doctor or psychiatrist assessing the belief, because it seems to be unlikely, bizarre or held with excessive conviction. Psychiatrists rarely have the time or resources to check the validity of a person's claims leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional.[30] This is known as the Martha Mitchell effect, after the wife of the attorney general who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time, her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).
Similar factors have led to criticisms of Jaspers' definition of true delusions as being ultimately 'un-understandable'. Critics (such as R. D. Laing) have argued that this leads to the diagnosis of delusions being based on the subjective understanding of a particular psychiatrist, who may not have access to all the information that might make a belief otherwise interpretable. R. D. Laing's hypothesis has been applied to some forms of projective therapy to "fix" a delusional system so that it cannot be altered by the patient. Psychiatric researchers at Yale University, Ohio State University and the Community Mental Health Center of Middle Georgia have used novels and motion picture films as the focus. Texts, plots and cinematography are discussed and the delusions approached tangentially.[31] This use of fiction to decrease the malleability of a delusion was employed in a joint project by science-fiction author Philip Jose Farmer and Yale psychiatrist A. James Giannini. They wrote the novel Red Orc's Rage, which, recursively, deals with delusional adolescents who are treated with a form of projective therapy. In this novel's fictional setting other novels written by Farmer are discussed and the characters are symbolically integrated into the delusions of fictional patients. This particular novel was then applied to real-life clinical settings.[32]
Another difficulty with the diagnosis of delusions is that almost all of these features can be found in "normal" beliefs. Many religious beliefs hold exactly the same features, yet are not universally considered delusional. These factors have led the psychiatrist Anthony David to note that "there is no acceptable (rather than accepted) definition of a delusion."[33] In practice, psychiatrists tend to diagnose a belief as delusional if it is either patently bizarre, causing significant distress, or excessively pre-occupying the patient, especially if the person is subsequently unswayed in belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments.
It is important to distinguish true delusions from other symptoms such as anxiety, fear, or paranoia. To diagnose delusions a mental state examination may be used. This test includes appearance, mood, affect, behavior, rate and continuity of speech, evidence of hallucinations or abnormal beliefs, thought content, orientation to time, place and person, attention and concentration, insight and judgment, as well as short-term memory.[34]
Johnson-Laird suggests that delusions may be viewed as the natural consequence of failure to distinguish conceptual relevance. That is, the person takes irrelevant information and puts it in the form of disconnected experiences, then it is taken to be relevant in a manner that suggests false causal connections. Furthermore, the person takes the relevant information, in the form of counterexamples, and ignores it.[35]
Treatment
Psychotherapies that may be helpful in delusional disorder include individual psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and family therapy.
Abrahamic religions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious sects that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.[1] Abrahamic religion was able to spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the Islamic Empire from the 7th century onward. As a consequence, today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents.[3][4][5]
The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism in the 7th century BCE,[6] Christianity in the 1st century CE, and Islam in the 7th century CE.
Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani and Alevi faiths), Samaritanism (sometimes classified as a branch of Judaism),[7] the Druze faith (often classified as a branch of Isma'ili Shi'i Islam),[8] Bábism,[9] the Bahá'í Faith and Rastafari.[10][11]
As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other religions, and 16% as adherents of no organized religion. Christianity claims 33% of the world's population, Islam has 21%, Judaism has 0.2%[12][13] and the Bahá'í Faith represents around 0.1%.[14][15]
Challenges to the terms "Abrahamic religions" and "Abrahamic traditions"
The appropriateness of grouping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by the terms "Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic traditions" has been challenged in the following books.
In 2012, Alan L. Berger, Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University,[23] in his Preface to Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11 wrote that there are "commonalities", but "there are essential differences between the Abrahamic traditions" both "historical and theological". Although "Judaism birthed both Christianity and Islam", the "three monotheistic faiths went their separate ways". The three faiths "understand the role of Abraham" in "differing ways", and the relationships between Judaism and Christianity and between Judaism and Islam are "uneven". Also, the three traditions are "demographically unbalanced and ideologically diverse".[24]
Also in 2012, Aaron W. Hughes published a book about the category Abrahamic religions as an example of "abuses of history." He said that only recently the category "Abrahamic religions" has come into use and that it is a "vague referent." It is "largely a theological neologism" and "an artificial and imprecise" term. Combining the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions into this one category might serve the purpose of encouraging "interfaith trialogue", but it is not true to the "historical record". Abrahamic religions is "an ahistorical category". There are "certain family resemblances" among these three religions, but the "amorphous" term Abrahamic religions prevents an understanding of the "complex nature" of the interactions among them. Furthermore, the three religions do not share the same story of Abraham. For these and other reasons, Hughes argued that the term should not be used, at least in academic circles.[25]
The CIA's Absence of Conviction
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
11 Dec, 2016
I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."
"I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
"If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
"America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven't they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump." Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a "credible source"? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the "credible sources" Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It's the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as "credible" give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland's mind, "credible" is 100% synonymous with "establishment". When he says "credible sources" he means "establishment sources". That is the truth of the "fake news" meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.
The Stink Without a Secret
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/07/stink-without-secret/
03 Jul, 2017
After six solid months of co-ordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged.
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether, but we are not allowed to analyse. What did the Russians actually do?
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to Wikileaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument.
The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to Wikileaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a websitecalled DNC Leaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that Wikileaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails travelled over the internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqIY8KvuoJo
The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking" meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly, following the Washington Post, that
"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and Wikileaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI."
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime", while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. Wikileaks. The clue is in the name.
So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to Wikileaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?
Of course we need to add from the Wikileaks "Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.
Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited.
Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.
Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do they have business links with Russian finance?
Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.
Trump's judgement is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject may damage him.
The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the centre of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the centre of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there.
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.10, 21:09:43
The Stink Without a Secret
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/07/stink-without-secret/
03 Jul, 2017
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
snip
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
An excellent article, well written.
Living next to the beast we have long had a term for such people, we call them ugly Americans. I am quite sure Trump qualifies.
I was fooled in the beginning as he was saying all the right things. However the light came on when I saw the dinner video. Trump is a Jesuit with strong ties to Judaism. What he is doing is exactly in character. No different than if the dragon lady won.
Here is a quote:
"Donald Trump has been the subject of media frenzy as of late. It seems that a considerable amount of those who subscribe to alternative sources of information are Trump supporters. They see him as some kind of rebel, going against both the Republican and Democratic parties (as exemplified by his recent non-commitment to support the Republican nominee for President).
Could it be though, that Donald Trump is a "false flag candidate" being used to secure the vote of the ever-increasing independent constituency in order to inevitably lull the US into a false sense of positive political novelty and thus to subsequently impose Jesuitical right-wing fascism leading to a nation-wide race war as devised by the masters of class adversarialism, the Sons of Loyola?
It very well could be. Here is why:
Trump claims to be Presbyterian, yet he attended Jesuit Fordham University for two years and then transferred to the covertly Jesuit-controlled University of Pennsylvania. 1
The University of Pennsylvania is funded by various Papal Court Jews, notably by The Annenberg Foundation, 2 started by Papal Knight and hofjude Walter Hubert Annenberg. Annenberg briefly attended the University of Pennsylvania in his youth and later established the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Annenberg is a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. 3 , 4
Court Jew David L. Cohen is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania as well as an alumnus of University of Pennsylvania. He is also the executive vice president of Comcast. 5 He was recently named co-chairman of the leadership planning committee of the Roman Catholic World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia (which is the coming of the Pope to Philadelphia!) 6
University of Pennsylvania could be renamed "Hofjude University" because of its enormous amount of Papist Jewish funding and leadership and really the entire Pennsylvania area is controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy via the Jesuit provincial holding jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, the Archbishop of Philadelphia and the Bishop of Pittsburgh in conjunction with the temporal coadjutor government officials produced from UPenn and the following Roman Catholic or Catholic-funded Universities: La Salle University, Duquesne University, Pennsylvania State University, Villanova University, Temple University and Saint Joseph's University.
Protestants do not attend Roman Catholic institutions, especially counter-reformation Jesuit institutions like Fordham University, so Trump is at the very least an apostate for having done that. However, the story does not end with Trump.
Out of the five children he has, the three listed on Wikipedia have attended the following schools: 7 , 8 , 9
Donald John Trump, Jr. - Alma mater: University of Pennsylvania
Ivanka Marie Trump - Alma mater: University of Pennsylvania
Eric Frederic Trump - Alma mater: Georgetown University
There you have it; Trump, in addition to being affiliated with both Jesuit Fordham and covertly Jesuit UPenn, has at least three children who are all alumni of UPenn and notorious Jesuit Georgetown University!
Whether it be Trump, Jeb Bush, Hilary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders that ends up winning the 2016 election, all of these candidates are connected to Rome and all will only serve to implement the tyrannical, neo-Romanist policies of the Papacy and its professed soldiers of the Society of Jesus."
https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeRules/comments/3g7zgf/donald_trump_secret_jesuit_agent_for/?st=j4yq9d09&sh=0ec5d577 (https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeRules/comments/3g7zgf/donald_trump_secret_jesuit_agent_for/?st=j4yq9d09&sh=0ec5d577)
(https://s21.postimg.org/vjf3p7vef/-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-a.jpg)
Ron
Society of Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus
The Society of Jesus (S.J. – from Latin: Societas Iesu) is a male religious congregation of the Catholic Church which originated in Spain. The members are called Jesuits.[2] The society is engaged in evangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes, sponsor direct social ministries, and promote ecumenical dialogue.
Ignatius of Loyola, a Basque nobleman from the Pyrenees area of northern Spain, founded the society after discerning his spiritual vocation while recovering from a wound sustained in the battle of Pamplona. He composed the Spiritual Exercises to help others follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. In 1534, Ignatius and six other young men, including Francis Xavier and Peter Faber, gathered and professed vows of poverty, chastity, and later obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope in matters of mission direction and assignment. Ignatius's plan of the order's organization was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by a bull containing the "Formula of the Institute".
Ignatius was a nobleman who had a military background, and the members of the society were supposed to accept orders anywhere in the world, where they might be required to live in extreme conditions. Accordingly, the opening lines of the founding document declared that the society was founded for "whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God[a] to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine."[4] Jesuits are thus sometimes referred to colloquially as "God's soldiers",[5] "God's marines",[6] or "the Company", which evolved from references to Ignatius' history as a soldier and the society's commitment to accepting orders anywhere and to endure any conditions.[7] The society participated in the Counter-Reformation and, later, in the implementation of the Second Vatican Council.
The Society of Jesus is consecrated under the patronage of Madonna Della Strada, a title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it is led by a Superior General.[8][9] The headquarters of the society, its General Curia, is in Rome.[10] The historic curia of St. Ignatius is now part of the Collegio del Gesù attached to the Church of the Gesù, the Jesuit mother church.
In 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the first Jesuit Pope, taking the name Pope Francis.
Jesuits and Nazi Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits_and_Nazi_Germany
At the outbreak of World War II, the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) had some 1700 members in the German Reich, divided into three provinces: Eastern, Lower and Upper Germany. Nazi leaders had some admiration for the discipline of the Jesuit order, but opposed its principles. Of the 152 Jesuits murdered by the Nazis across Europe, 27 died in captivity or its results, and 43 in the concentration camps.[1]
Hitler was anticlerical and had particular disdain for the Jesuits. The Jesuit Provincial, Augustin Rosch, ended the war on death row for his role in the July Plot to overthrow Hitler. The Catholic Church faced persecution in Nazi Germany and persecution was particularly severe in Poland. The Superior General of the Jesuits at the outbreak of War was Wlodzimierz Ledochowski, a Pole. Vatican Radio, which spoke out against Axis atrocities, was run by the Jesuit Filippo Soccorsi.[2]
Jesuits made up the largest contingent of clergy imprisoned in the Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, where some 30 Jesuits died. Several Jesuits were prominent in the small German Resistance, including the influential martyr Alfred Delp of the Kreisau Circle.[3] The German Jesuit Robert Leiber acted as intermediary between Pius XII and the German Resistance. Among the Jesuit victims of the Nazis, Germany's Rupert Mayer has been beatified. Among twelve Jesuit "Righteous Gentiles" recognised by Yad Vashem is Belgium's Jean-Baptiste Janssens, who was appointed Superior General of the Jesuits after the War.[4]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.10, 23:27:22
Society of Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus
The society is engaged in evangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes, sponsor direct social ministries, and promote ecumenical dialogue.
What a white wash! The most diabolical order in the world.
From Titanic to 9-11
Quote:
Peter Hans Kolvenbach General of the International Military Order of the Society of Jesus is seen by many as one of the main people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The New World Order is the fourth empire, an empire under the Vatican under Lucifer. Since the secretions of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation does the Luciferian cult everything possible to regain full control.
http://www.volkwordtwakker.nl/en/truth-or-lies-revelations/black-pope-lucifer-and-the-jesuits/ (http://www.volkwordtwakker.nl/en/truth-or-lies-revelations/black-pope-lucifer-and-the-jesuits/)
Eric Jon Phelps quotes
The Jesuits obviously wrote the Protocols because they have carried out every protocol in that little handbook. Alberto Rivera says that it was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.
They're the ones in the government. They're the ones behind professional sports. The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is a Knight of Malta. The owner of the Detroit Lions is a Knight of Malta. All your top owners of these ball clubs, for the most part, are Knights of Malta, getting the people whooped up in this hoopla over games and sports, while they're busy creating a tyranny. So, that was one of the things in the Protocols-that they would create 'amusements'.
Another one they used was Walt Disney, 33rd-degree Freemason-Disneyworld, Disneyland. Another one was Milton Hersey, with Hersey Park. They create all of these amusements and games and pastimes to get the people drunk with pleasure, while they're busy overthrowing the Protestant form of government........ the High Knights are good, dear brothers with the High Mafia Dons-the Gambinos, the Lucchese, the Columbos, all of them. And they control Hollywood, not the Jews. It's only Jews who are front-men who are involved in Hollywood and working for the Mafia and for the Cardinal, just like in politics it would be Arlen Spector. Arlen Spector was Spelly's [Cardinal Spellman's] Jew in the assassination [of President Kennedy], and he would never say a word about it.
https://dreamweaver11gold.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/jesuits-exposed-jesuit-general-black-pope-most-powerful-man-jesuits-who-took-the-4th-vow-blood-oath-referred-to-extreme-oath-of-the-jesuits-eric-john-phleps-quotes-2/ (https://dreamweaver11gold.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/jesuits-exposed-jesuit-general-black-pope-most-powerful-man-jesuits-who-took-the-4th-vow-blood-oath-referred-to-extreme-oath-of-the-jesuits-eric-john-phleps-quotes-2/)
The Council of Trent was the response of Rome to the Protestant Reformation. Remember-the Protestant Reformation brought us all of the political liberty that we know of today. There's no such thing as national sovereignty without the Reformation. There's no such thing as private rights without the Reformation. There's no such thing as the Law of Nations, as we know of it today, of Montesquieu and the others, without the Reformation. Eric Jon Phelps
In the 4th Session, which is probably the most important Session, the Jesuits condemn freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience. So, no man has the right to choose his own religion; no man has the right to publish what he feels is the truth; and no man has the right to freedom of conscience.
Harry Truman was put in office by the Jesuits, the Pensergast Democratic machine in Missouri.Harry Truman takes over after FDR's murder, because he was murdered in the home of Bernard Baruch. When he did that, he then finished up the war with the hoax called the dropping of the nuclear bombs, to purposely create this greater hoax called the Cold War, that would enable the Vatican to knock over country after country after country, and replace the leaders with dictators, subordinate to the Pope. That was the purpose of the Cold War. Eric Jon Phelps
The reason why Kennedy was assassinated was he wanted to end the Vietnam War, and he wanted to end the rule of the CIA. That begets two questions: Did Rome want the Vietnam War? And, did Rome control the CIA? The answer is yes on both counts. We know, on its face, that the Vietnam War was called 'Spelly's War'-Cardinal Spellman's war. He went over to the warfront many times and he called the American soldiers the 'soldiers of Christ'. The man who was the Commander of the American forces was a Roman Catholic, CFR member, possibly a Knight of Columbus, I don't know, but he was General William Westmoreland.
So, Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman's agent to make sure that war was prosecuted properly. And another overseer of Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman's boy, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a 33rd-degree Freemason. He was also part of the assassination, with J. Edgar Hoover, another 33rd-degree Freemason.
........Spellman wanted the Vietnam War, why? Spellman was controlled by the Jesuits of Fordham. Why did the Jesuit General want the Vietnam War? The people of Vietnam, the Buddhists, were unconvertible. They would not convert to Catholicism. They didn't need Rome.
There had been a Jesuit presence in Vietnam for centuries, so it had been decided that about a million or so Buddhists would have to be 'purged'. They would later continue this purge of Cambodia, with Pol Pot, and the purge is yet for Thailand. It was a purging of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam of all these Buddhists, just like they purged the Buddhists of China with Mao Zedong, because Mao Zedong was completely controlled by the Jesuits. So, they wanted the Vietnam War. Eric Jon Phelps
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.11, 01:01:57
From Titanic to 9-11
Yes the Titanic's captain was a Jesuit.
The Jesuits are undoubtedly the true representative of evil the world has ever known.
History is replete with warnings do we ever listen?
Quote"The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the starting of the two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict."
– Edmond Paris
"It is impossible to read Elizabethan history [i.e., the history surrounding Queen Elizabeth I of England; queen: 1558-1603] except in the context of an army of Jesuits, masters of deceit, treachery, treason, infiltration, subversion, assassination, insurrection, civil war and coercion, plotting for the good of the papacy, and the defeat of all the Pope's foes anywhere in the world." (1987)
– J.E.C. Shepherd
"[Wherever] a totalitarian movement erupts, whether Communist or Nazi [Fascist], a Jesuit can be found in the role of 'adviser' or leader; in Cuba [it was] [Jesuit-trained] Castro's 'Father' Armando Llorente..."
– Emanuel M. Josephson
"If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person."
– James Parton
"The Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] is the enemy of man. The whole human race should unite for its overthrow. ...For there is no alternative between its total extirpation, and the absolute corruption and degradation of mankind."
– Robert J. Breckinridge
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/12/08/famous-warning-quotes-on-the-evil-of-jesuits/ (https://aplanetruth.info/2015/12/08/famous-warning-quotes-on-the-evil-of-jesuits/)
Ron
Christian Zionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The term began to be used in the mid-20th century, superseding Christian Restorationism.[1][2]
Traditional Catholic thought did not consider Zionism in any form.[3] Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews arose following the Protestant Reformation. A contemporary Israeli historian suggests that evangelical Christian Zionists of the 1840s "passed this notion on to Jewish circles",[4] while Jewish nationalism in the early 19th century was widely regarded with hostility by British Jews.[5]
Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy, has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.[6][7][8][9]
History prior to the First Zionist Conference
Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews in Palestine, was first heard following the Protestant Reformation, particularly in the English-speaking world among the Puritans. It was common practice among Puritans to anticipate and frequently pray for a Jewish return to their homeland.[10] John Owen, a prominent 17th century English Covenant theologian, for example, wrote: "Moreover, it is granted that there shall be a time and season, during the continuance of the kingdom of the Messiah in this world, wherein the generality of the nation of the Jews, all the world over, shall be called and effectually brought unto the knowledge of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ; with which mercy they shall also receive deliverance from their captivity, restoration unto their own land, with a blessed, flourishing, and happy condition therein."[11] John Gill took a similar position.[12]
Samuel Rutherford, a seventeenth-century Scottish theologian, expressed the ardent spirit of prayer of many of his contemporaries: "O to see the sight, next to Christ's coming in the clouds the most joyful! Our elder brethren the Jews and Christ fall upon each other's necks and kiss each other! They have long been assunder, they will be kind to one another when they meet. O day! O longed-for and lovely day-dawn!"[13]
In 1762, Charles Wesley wrote:[14]
O that the chosen band
Might now their brethren bring,
And gather'd out of every land
Present to Sion's King;
Of all the ancient race
Not one be left behind,
But each impell'd by secret grace
His way to Canaan find!
Christian support for Jewish restoration was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather and John Cotton, among many others, favored Jewish restoration.[10] Later Jonathan Edwards also anticipated a future return of Jews to their homeland.[15] However it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered political impetus.
Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of Jewish restoration. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about Jewish restoration. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825, Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the Holy Land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was among the inspirations for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East[16] and for mapping the Holy Land.[17]
Many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Judea, as prophesied in the Bible, was a necessary preliminary step towards the Second Coming. In this particular interpretation, after the Jews returned they would both accept Jesus as their savior and rebuild the Temple, which would usher in the Second Coming of Christ.[18]
Another piece of the 9/11 Puzzle has emerged which fits
smoothly into place.
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47440.htm)
Poignantly demonstrates the Power of Indoctrination as well as
the Power of MainStream Media Propaganda techniques.
Engineers are susceptible to the "programming" and the
"indoctrination."
Follow the Money.
Those who participated in the "event" often reveal the Truth
at the end of their lives.
@mudped
QuoteEngineers are susceptible to the "programming" and the
"indoctrination."
Follow the Money.
Those who participated in the "event" often reveal the Truth
at the end of their lives.
As an Engineer I have another theory... shit happens. I was working on my tractor one day and I dropped a part which fell under the tractor. So I looked and it wasn't there, then I looked everywhere for hours and it wasn't anywhere. So I bought another part but months later I found that little bugger. You see it only dropped 4 feet but somehow it managed to bounce straight sideways when it hit the ground and travel twenty feet across my shop ricochet off the wheel of a cart and wedge itself behind a box. Hell the odds are more likely that tomorrow morning I will be able to walk on water but it happened... shit happens.
It's kind of an Engineering secret but we don't have all the answers and were just ordinary people like you with a little extra knowledge and training. I know good engineers and bad engineers and crazy as a loon engineers... that's life.
One can only wonder whether the State Propaganda Apparatus of the West,
also known as the Mainstream Media, will publish this sort of Truth regarding
ISIS or DAESH? (https://www.rt.com/news/396399-isis-wives-violence-slavery-stories/)
ISIS, the brainchild of the NeoCon controlled Pentagon, aptly
demonstrates the ruthlessness of those who are responsible
for implementation of The Protocols.
Shit is made to happen.
The State of Israel, Zionism and the Jewish Worldwide Diaspora
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-of-israel-zionism-and-the-jewish-worldwide-diaspora/5598328
Is the State of Israel really held by American, British and French Jews to be a safe haven - or a nuclear flashpoint?
By Anthony Bellchambers
Bearing in mind that the majority of the Jewish Diaspora is not Zionist – only less than half reside in Israel, the majority being permanently resident in the US, and Europe – plus the documented fact that the overwhelming proportion of Zionists are not even Jewish but are Evangelical Christians who number something in the region of 50 million – it is reasonably clear that the Jewish majority who currently live and work in the Diaspora, not only have no desire to move to one of the world's most dangerous, geo-political trouble spots, but would dismiss the idea of the State of Israel being a safe haven for anyone, whether Jew or Gentile.
So, what are the facts?
The OECD in 2016 ranks Israel as the country with the highest rates of poverty among its members. 21% of Israelis live under the poverty line – (more than Mexico, Turkey or Chile).
Israel has a population of about 8.5 million and is the 34th most densely crowded country in the world.
20% of Israelis are Muslim Arab; a further 20% from the former USSR and another 20% being from North Africa. There is little commonality of ethnicity or purpose with the EU or any Western Europe state.
Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages.
As a result of Likud government intransigence, there is now no peace process with the over five million indigenous Muslim Arabs, half of whom are forced to live under a 10 year Israeli blockade, of essential supplies, designed to try to break them. Tragically, there is now virtually no electricity or power in Gaza for its 600,000 families the majority of whom are deliberately kept unemployed and hungry.
However, there is an absolute imperative to recognise the difference between Jewish Diaspora communities in Europe and America, and the hard .
The Jewish worldwide Diaspora is universally respected for its various talents (and its loyalty to its host countries), whereas the State of Israel is held in fear because of its massive, undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads that could bring disaster to the world. There is virtually no commonality between the two. Israel is a secular, nuclear weapons state that has little connection with Judaism, or any respect for human dignity and life.
Meanwhile the region simmers on the brink of another expected war with Hezbollah, which would almost certainly involve heavy fatalities on both sides.
Hardly a place to holiday, much less a Dar-es-Salaam, by any stretch of the imagination.
Why Has The Thinking Class Of America Abandoned Thinking?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-14/why-has-thinking-class-america-abandoned-thinking
The abiding enigma of this tormented era remains: why has the thinking class of America abandoned thinking?
The answer is: it's the reaction to their own failure.
Failure to do what? To produce the utopia that Gnostic liberalism promised - a perfect world based on altering human nature.
The result is an essentially religious hysteria, like the witch frenzies of Medieval Europe that were sometimes provoked by ergot poisoning — a fungus with toxic psychotropic properties that grew on the harvested rye, inducing frightful hallucinations in the villagers, who then lashed out at their perceived supernatural antagonists. Trump in our time is the ergot on the bread of our politics. And Russia is the witch.
Like other operations of the human mind, this collective fugue-state has a big subconscious module in it: the deep, poorly articulated fear that the single notion of Progress behind progressive politics in the industrial era has reached a dead end. The world is clearly not becoming a better place, but rather reeling into disorder and ecological crisis, despite all the rational programs and politics of modern democracy, and political failure is everywhere.
The "peace dividend" promised by the end of the cold war has degenerated into endless war. The miraculous promises of medicine have been hijacked by "health care" racketeering now institutionalized under ObamaCare. The Civil Rights campaign begun in the 1950s with the most earnest, hopeful intentions (and generous policies) has produced off-the-charts black crime rates, educational defeat, ruined cities, and epic rancor. The middle class has been left economically shipwrecked by the promises of globalism. The pledge of a happy retirement dissolves as the pension funds roll over and die. And the supposed paragon of enlightened American governance morphs into a sinister and corrupt Deep State of oligarchical corruption.
In the background of all this are even more disturbing quandaries and prospects: population overshoot, mass migration from regions that can't support these numbers of people, extinctions of animal species, the death of the oceans, climate instability. The practical problems of economy approach an event horizon of energy scarcity, runaway debt from trying to mitigate it, and eventual collapse of our day-to-day hyper-complex economic arrangements. These things are so scary that the thinking classes - except for a minority of nerdy scientists - can't even bear to think about them.
Instead, we have the Gnostic drive to alter human nature, which has terminated in the preoccupation with abolishing sexual identity - the fantasy that we will (and ought to) throw off the shackles of biology and rise into a sort of "trans-human" nirvana. Just behold the amount of "ink" that The New York Times has spilled reporting on the triumphs of transexualism in the past year.
It's not surprising that some of the worst thinking, the most obviously tortured theological hallucinations, emanate these days from the universities — the places where young, developing intellects are supposed to be molded. Instead of free inquiry, they now offer intellectual martial law, chained to sets of ersatz metaphysics. "Victim" ideas run wild because malign supernatural powers are in play against the faculty hierophants on the elite campuses, charged with interpreting the sacred mysteries and esoteric principles of "post-structural" (reality-optional) thought. The quandaries of "minority" America have resolved in the simple superstitious idea that demonic forces of "white male privilege" and ubiquitous, implacable misogynistic racism are entirely responsible for the woes and sorrows of the world, and the failure of progress in particular.
The failures of US-sponsored economic globalism now focus on the ur-demon (the Satan!) called Russia. Apocalyptic battle with the greatest monster of the imagination is the ultimate struggle in outbreaks of religious frenzy, and America has a ripe history of engaging with the Devil. It's bad enough when it breaks out in a tiny colonial settlement like Salem, Massachusetts, in the 1600s. There only a few dozen people were persecuted and destroyed. It's another matter on the global stage today when you engage a perceived "Satan" like Russia, which truly can rain holy Hell back on you if you push your hallucinated animus too far.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.16, 08:03:27
Why Has The Thinking Class Of America Abandoned Thinking?
snip
It's not surprising that some of the worst thinking, the most obviously tortured theological hallucinations, emanate these days from the universities — the places where young, developing intellects are supposed to be molded. Instead of free inquiry, they now offer intellectual martial law, chained to sets of ersatz metaphysics. "Victim" ideas run wild because malign supernatural powers are in play against the faculty hierophants on the elite campuses, charged with interpreting the sacred mysteries and esoteric principles of "post-structural" (reality-optional) thought. The quandaries of "minority" America have resolved in the simple superstitious idea that demonic forces of "white male privilege" and ubiquitous, implacable misogynistic racism are entirely responsible for the woes and sorrows of the world, and the failure of progress in particular.
How far back should we go in our discussions of history?
Would 200 K and the advent of "humans" suffice? Anyway I found this of interest, As Sitchin said, we were 'engineered' to be a slave race with limited intellect, this vid seems to bear that out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXOFBMDagE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXOFBMDagE)
Ron
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.07.15, 03:26:57
@mudped
As an Engineer I have another theory... shit happens. I was working on my tractor one day and I dropped a part which fell under the tractor. So I looked and it wasn't there, then I looked everywhere for hours and it wasn't anywhere. So I bought another part but months later I found that little bugger. You see it only dropped 4 feet but somehow it managed to bounce straight sideways when it hit the ground and travel twenty feet across my shop ricochet off the wheel of a cart and wedge itself behind a box. Hell the odds are more likely that tomorrow morning I will be able to walk on water but it happened... shit happens.
It's kind of an Engineering secret but we don't have all the answers and were just ordinary people like you with a little extra knowledge and training. I know good engineers and bad engineers and crazy as a loon engineers... that's life.
Some one looking for me? :D
Brad
America's War Against International Civil Society Is Permanent
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960424001997
TEHRAN (FNA)- This week, ISIL lost its medieval caliphate in Mosul. The fringe terrorist organization is also fast losing the remaining places it has occupied in Syria. It will soon be relegated to the ash heap of history. But it may not matter much if the US Empire of Bases decides to stay and entertain supposedly to fight terrorism.
The terrorist organization, which once mesmerized and horrified the world, only has a few small desert towns left in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. Its biggest lasting impact will most likely be on the Capitol Hill, where the political class has every intention to maintain a global state of emergency, occupy Muslim lands, launch a permanent war on Islam (alias War on Terror), and use it as a pretext to maintain the global colonial order. This development is no surprise in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain - but Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni democracies are in danger:
- After powering Saudi-led war on Yemen, war-party Washington imposed a state of emergency and began building a closed military zone on the Yemeni Island of Hanish al-Kubra, which is 130 km from the city of Hodeidah.
- After getting involved directly in regime-change campaign in Syria – again on the pretext of fighting terror – the US began building military bases along the Syrian-Iraqi border.
- The US also has military and drone bases in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – among many other illegal sites scattered across the region and beyond.
Neither President Trump nor his predecessors Obama and Bush have seriously addressed US policy for any of these multiple wars and bases, and the Trump administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any of them. For the first time in its history, the United States has no intention to seriously debate or discuss where its permanent war is going, or what its longer-term impacts will be.
If anything, both American politics and the "fakestream" media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Trump had any contacts with Russia during the presidential race than ending the permanent war. This focus disregards whether or not his policy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves global interests.
Given that America's state of emergency is going to be permanent long after ISIL and Trump, it has allowed the US government to continue its vendetta against the resistance front, a non-aligned group that seeks to stay outside the realm of American power and influence – mainly Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The Trump administration continues the lie that the resistance front supports terrorism, while it is fighting designated terrorist organizations like ISIL and Al-Qaeda in the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, where they have the full backing of the United States and its allies, mainly Saudi Arabia.
This situation does not require a state of emergency throughout the region, especially since the US government routinely rides roughshod over basic sovereign rights in any case. Presumably, the state of emergency – and the subsequent terror war - is a hedge against any nation brave enough actually to take the US government to an international court in defense of its sovereign rights.
Into the argument, America's state of emergency and permanent war is not primarily related to ISIL or Al-Qaeda, though the bombings and attacks carried out by terrorists from those groups in Europe and the United States contributed to a sense of insecurity that lies in the background of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia blame Iran, Iraq and Syria for the emergence of ISIL which works for the first three regimes.
Many nations targeted by ISIL, however, are not pro-US at all but critics of Washington's meddling in internal affairs of the Muslim world. The US and its allies are also fighting what amounts to a proxy war with Iran in the region as the forces of the latter nation have helped liberate so many ISIL-held cities and towns recently.
That time of hope is now in jeopardy. The state of emergency, which Washington has said will not be lifted as long as the threat of global terrorism remains, is the nail in its coffin. After ISIL was defeated on many fronts by the allied forces of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia, the Trump government escalated the conflict. Most recently, it has been trying to capture Raqqa from ISIL with support from proxy forces. It allows permanent occupation without a warrant from Syrian government or United Nations. The Trumpsters are trying to enshrine these repressive measures in International Law by statute, making them permanent. To this end, every military base is precious.
Make no mistake. The danger of terrorism is real, and as ISIL dwindles it may lash out in revenge at any country. But that does in no way give an international warrant to the US to build illegal bases, occupy Muslim lands, and police the world in between. The real threat, nonetheless, is America's permanent state of emergency and war, under which it can make law, occupy lands, and create colonial crises at will. The aim seems not so much to combat terrorism as to strengthen the US influence against international civil society.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.16, 15:17:05
How far back should we go in our discussions of history?
An excellent question Ron, let's try to answer it. The British Empire is an excellent place to start as it demonstrates in recent history how a sovereign native people can be occupied and conquered by an artificial construct that denies them the right to self government, or even the public acknowledgement that they exist as an individual ethnic and racial identity, separate from the artificial construct identity, as is the case with England and the English people. The British 'label' model was the forerunner of the 'United States' under a centralised federal identity, and lately the European Union, attempting the same play. The low IQ mongrel racial identity is essential for a 'One World Order and Religion' and is being forcefully pushed as an ongoing fait accompli.
The Great Replacement, Part 2: Great Britainhttps://www.defendevropa.org/2017/population-replacement/the-great-replacement-part-2-great-britain/
The demographic situation in the United Kingdom is very dire indeed. As of the 2011 census, 13% of the population of our islands are foreign born. The native, white British population of England sits at just 79%, a dramatic fall from the 91% recorded in the 1991 census. In the 10 years to 2011, the Pakistani, Indian and African communities increased their shares of the overall population of the United Kingdom by 37, 57 and 63% respectively. Asians not from China or the Indian sub-continent increased their share of the population by a massive 247.9% in the same 10 year period. Meanwhile, the fertility rate of native British women has fallen well below the accepted replacement rate (2.1), to a staggering 1.7, possibly even lower, whilst the fertility rates of immigrant women from Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan – but living in the UK – stand at 4.19, 4.25 and 3.82 respectively. Now, 1 in 3 new born babies in the United Kingdom are not white British. There are over 80 schools in the country that do not have a single white British child in attendance. Major cities such as London, Leicester, Birmingham and Luton have seen native, white British people become an overall minority.
Startling information, but how did we get here?
The current effort to displace the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom began in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, with the British Nationality Act of 1948 – signed by the then Labour Party government – often regarded as the beginning of the mass-immigration methods used to achieve a multicultural society. Back at that time, the governments of many Western European nations, including that of Britain, believed that they could use immigration as a way in which to plug the gap in the labour markets that had been created by the loss of the young men who tragically died at war. To this end, the British Nationality Act decreed that subjects of British territory overseas (current or historic) – those of India, Botswana or Ghana for example – automatically had the right to move freely to and from Britain, and the right to remain here indefinitely.
Commonwealth Immigration: 1948-1997Prior to 1945, the ethnic groups of the constituent countries of Great Britain – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – had been relatively homogeneous since the land was first settled. In any case, those "migrants" that came to the United Kingdom between the Roman withdrawal and 1066 (Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans etc), did so in relatively small groups and from largely similar cultures. They looked like us, they behaved like us and brought their cultural benefits with them.
This all changed in the post-war period. By 1951, the foreign born population of the United Kingdom stood at 1.9 million (approx. 3% of the overall population). The largest number of the foreign born contingent in the UK were from Ireland (492,000), with tens of thousands also originating from Germany (96,000), the Soviet Union (76,000), USA (59,000), Canada (46,000), Australia (31,000) and France (30,000) – this is not a particularly startling piece of information, particularly because people from these countries that are similarly ethnically and culturally, if not directly descended from the British ethnic groups, as is the case with Canada, Australia and the USA.
What is notable, however, is the first influx of immigrants from non-western nations and non-European ethnic heritage. By 1951, 111,000 Indian-born immigrants had settled in the United Kingdom (England & Wales, to be precise), which was the first sign that the British Nationality Act of 1948 had set the government on a course which would forever alter the demographic make-up of the nations.
By 1961, the numbers had not dwindled, but had in fact risen to include various other non-European, non-western countries of origin. The number of Indian-born immigrants in the country by this time had risen to 157,000, without counting the children born in the United Kingdom to earlier Indian settlers. Furthermore, 100,000 Jamaicans had come to settle in the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1961.
This trend continued through to the 1970's, by which time there were 313,000 Indian-born settlers in the United Kingdom, along with 171,000 Jamaicans, 136,000 Pakistanis and 36,000 Kenyans. Again, it is important to stress that these are not figures demonstrating the ethnic make-up of the nations, but rather the number of people living in England and Wales that were born in the aforementioned countries. These figures do not account for children born in the UK to parents from these countries, which one can assume to be a relatively large number, considering factors such as decreased infant mortality upon moving here, lack of belief in birth control and so on.
These trends continued through the 1970's, into the 1980's and beyond. However, in 1991, the government introduced the recording of ethnic classification into the compulsory census questionnaire that every resident in the United Kingdom is required to return each decade. This new classification of demographic groups has enabled us to not only analyse the number of foreign-born settlers in Britain, but also children born in the UK to one or two non-native parents and so on. This is important in the demonstration of the "changing face of Britain", the term often used to refer to the ethnic displacement of natives and replacement by immigrants, which I shall come back to in a short while.
Mass-Immigration: 1997-2015When the Labour Party came to power in 1997 after an 18 year period in opposition, they did so with a determination to make the United Kingdom truly "multicultural". They sought to transform Britain's ethnic makeup, using the United States as a model for the 'melting pot', as has been openly expressed by various members of Tony Blair's cabinent, one of whom claimed they sent out search parties in foreign lands for immigrants to come to Britain, whilst another (Andrew Neather) claimed they enacted this policy to "rub the right's nose in diversity".
In 1997, Blair appointed the Jewish MP Barbara Roche as Immigration Minister, who presided over – alongside Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw – the most dramatic increase in third world immigration any European country saw until Angela Merkel. The "migrant crisis" that countries like Germany and Sweden have suffered since 2014 was effectively British government policy from 1997 onward. Incidentally, 1997 – the year Blair's government came to power – was the last year that net migration to Britain was below 100,000. By 1998, net migration had jumped from 48,000 to 140,000, and this trend continued right through until the end of the government in 2010. In 2004, the Labour Party presided over an immigration policy that saw more people settle in the United Kingdom than in the entire period between 1066 and 1945.
Over the period of the Labour government between 1997 and 2010, migrants arrived in the UK at an average rate of one every minute. By 2010, 3 million immigrants had come to the United Kingdom since 1997, whilst a third of new households were immigrant families and half a million extra immigrant children had enrolled in British primary schools. Perhaps the most concerning statistic of this period for the average working class Briton is the fact that, under this Labour government, 75% of new jobs created went to migrants – this despite the fact that there was consistently over 1.5 million Britons unemployed throughout the Labour years. The majority of these migrants were from the third world, and the Labour Party had already identified the fact that immigrants from Africa and Asia are many times more likely to vote for Labour than for their rivals the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats – of course, short-term electoral gain is more important to the left than the irreparable damage they've done to the ethnic makeup of the nation.
It was not just the Labour Party's lackadaisical attitude towards non-European immigration that proved disastrous for Britain, but also their willingness to open the door to the former communist countries that became part of the European "Schengen Zone" (border-free zone) in 2004. Even though the British government were offered an opt-out on this policy, that is to say that they had the chance to extracate themselves from impending migrant chaos, they refused. So, to that end, 2004 marked a dramatic increase in immigration from the European Union, particularly from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. As of 2013, over a million (1.07, to be precise) migrants from the 8 former communist countries that acceded to the EU in 2004 had settled in Britain.
The Labour government implemted a number of policies to diliberately increase the levels of immigration. In 1997 for example, they abolished the "Primary Purpose Rule", which removed the responsibility of non-British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage to a British citizen was not to gain entry to the country. Of course, this greatly increased the number of "sham marriages" and, therefore, immigration. In addition to this, in 1998 the government abolished exit checks to non-EU destinations, rendering it impossible to check whether or not non-European migrants on a temporary or student visa had left or illegally remained, ensuring that levels of illegal immigration sky-rocked.
Not content with just these reforms, Immigration Minister Barbara Roche announced further reforms of the Highly Skilled Work Permit system in the year 2000. As we know, Ms. Roche was very keen to force diversity on the people of Britain, therefore it is unsurprising that the changes made only served to lower the requirements for obtaining a visa for non-European migrants. Further reforms to this system were implemented in 2005 and 2008, the latter of which dropped the requirement to have an offer of employment prior to entering the United Kingdom, making it easier for immigrants to arrive here and live off the British taxpayer.
In 2010, the Conservative Party came to power in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats on a platform of cutting net migration "to the tens of thousands" – needless to say, they failed.
By the time the coalition left office in 2015, net migration was running at record levels. In fact, in 2014, gross immigration rose from 530,000 from the previous year, to 624,000. Emigration had remained the same, meaning that net migration stood at 298,000 for that year. Despite the Conservative Party presiding over immigration levels as high as those seen under the Labour years, the British people saw fit to trust them with re-election in 2015 with the same promise of "reducing net migration to the tens of thousands". Of course, in the short amount of time that has lapsed since this latest untruth, immigration has hit record levels. In the year to June 2016, net migration stood at 335,000 – just a thousand below the previous all-time record (2014).
"Fudging" The StatisticsAn interesting dynamic of the debate about immigration and demographics in the United Kingdom is the insistence of the government statistics bureau in using "net" migration as a marker, instead of gross immigration. By using this figure, they can A) create the impression that the numbers are smaller than they actually are, i.e 335,000 "net" migration, as opposed to 624,000 immigrants and, B) move the debate to one about numbers as opposed to the demographic effect over time.
Using net migration as a basis on which to determine the effect of immigration is based on the assumption that you are bringing in 624,000 people who are identical to the 311,000 people who left the country. In actual fact, what this means is the replacement of 311,000 British people with 624,000 non-British people – therefore the overall displacement is much greater than when we simply speak in terms of net migration. This somewhat dishonest way in which immigration statistics are reported does not allow for racial variations, so for example, the fact that non-European migrants tend to have a lower intellect and lower earning – and therefore tax-raising – potential than the British people who are emigrating. Not to mention the fact that those who emigrate tend to be towards the higher end of the economic prosperity scale, resulting in a scenario where we are replacing 300,000 British people with high tax receipts, with 600,000 non-British people who for the large part do not have any intention of contributing to the fiscal state of the nation.
Fertility RatesAs I touched upon earlier, it is not just immigration that is contributing to the demographic situation in which native British people find themselves. The fact is that, even if we were to hypothetically halt all immigration from this day forth, native British people will still see their percentage share of the overall population continue to fall, whilst that of minorities continues to rise. This is because the immigrants coming here, particularly from outside of the European Union, continue the high fertility rates that they might have in their own nations. There is often the assumption that this will change and that, as they "adopt western values", the women will begin to have more of a career and less children. All of the available evidence suggests that this is not the case.
It is widely accepted that the "replacement rate" for an ethnic group – that is, the fertility rate required for their population size to remain the same or grow – is 2.1 children per woman. All across western Europe, the fertility rates of native women have fallen chronically below this level, and Great Britain is no exception. Official government statistics state that women born in the UK are having 1.78 children on average, yet we can assume that this figure is much lower as it does not differentiate between those who are native to the UK and those who are simply citizens by way of birth i.e descendants of immigrants.
Women living in the UK who originate from Eastern Europe have a fertility rate of 2.19, whilst immigrants from Western Europe – the most like us ethnically and culturally – have drastically low fertility rate of 1.52 (which we can safely assume is around the rate for native British women too). Contrast these with the fertility rates of women from the third world and the story is very different indeed.
As I mentioned in the introduction, women living in the UK who originate from Somalia have a fertility rate of 4,19, from Afghanistan 4.25 and from Pakistan, 3.82. This is played out in regional statistics across the country, for example, birthrates in a city such as Peterborough have jumped from 1.8 a decade ago to 2.34, in direct correlation with the large settlement of immigrants over the same time period.
1 in 12 children under 5 in England and Wales are now Muslim, which demonstrates the high fertility rates amongst immigrants and their descendants from the Muslim world. Alongside this, Muhammad (and variants) is now the most popular name for new-born boys in the United Kingdom. A child born in Birmingham – England's second city – is more likely to be born into a Muslim family than a Christian one, whilst more than 50% of under-16s in Birmingham are non-white, with a significant number of the white population originating from Eastern Europe in any event.
The academic consensus is that by 2066 white Britons will become a minority in their own country. This will be achieved through the continuation of mass-immigration policies – the government insists we need net migration of 200,000 per year – as well as the continuation of the decline in native fertility rates, and the exponential rise in babies born to non-native women.
Socio-Cultural EffectThe changing demographics of the United Kingdom are reflected by a myriad of cultural affects that can be seen in every British city. The evidence available dispels completely the myth that culture is a mould in which all of humanity can fit seamlessly, as immigrants (particularly from the third world) are keeping their own cultural values and failing to adopt British cultures and values. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that second and third generation immigrants, particularly those of African extraction, are less integrated than their parents and grandparents, and less likely to adopt the values that are promoted as British by the politicians. This can be evidences just on a surface level by the fact that the majority of terririst incidents that occur in England are perpetrated by "home grown terrorists", that is, those Islamic extremists that were born here but descended from previous generations of immigrants.
Crime figures are a good indicator of the cultural effects on Britain that result from immigration. Crime rates have risen in direct correlation with "diversity", indicating that migrants are more likely to break the law and live in an anti-social manner than native British people.
As of February 2016, Eastern European migrants are committing 700 crimes per week, as rise of 40% in the preceding 5 year period. In the same period, the number of EU-born citizens living in the United Kingdom rose by 30%. in 2015, 17,000 citizens from Romania and Poland alone were convicted of criminal offences. Some figures suggest that there has been a 240% rise in the number of EU convicts in British prisons, which is estimated to be costing the taxpayer as much as £150 million.
Having said that, it would be fair to summarise that, on the whole, European migrants integrate more effectively into the British way of life than non-European migrants. Within a few generations they have adopted British names, British values and have totally closed any ties to their countries of origin – as an example, the immigrants who came to the UK during the war and in the post-war period, from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, are today indistinguishable from their native counterparts.
The same cannot be said for migrants and their descendent of non-European extraction. Specifically, citizens of African origin often reject British values and the rule of law, in favour of a more tribalistic (gang) mentality, as can be seen in the crime statistics for Great London. In England's capital city, citizens of African origin account for 12% of the city's population, yet they account for 32% of suspected sexual violence cases, 54% of street crime convicts (muggings, assault), 46% of knife crimes, 59% of robberies and 64% of gun related crimes. This is a stinging indictment on the ability of Africans to behave in the same way as native Britons, for such a large proportion of them do not even respect simply the British rule of law.
The same situation can be seen in the prison statistics for the country as a whole, in which blacks account for 13.7% of the prison population despite being just 3% of the overall population. Similarly, Muslims represent 5% of the UK population, but 14% of the prison population. This further demonstrates the inability of certain immigrant groups to respect the British rule of law, and the cost of replacing law-abiding native Britons with law-disregarding foreign communities.
Aside from the crime figures, we are seeing this population replacement have an issue on other aspects of our cultural lives. Language, for example, is being changed by immigration, as we now have an entire new dialect of the English language prevalent within British youth "culture" called "London Multicultural English". It is said that this is based largely around slang terms from the Afro-Caribbean communities in the city, but has been adopted by youths of all creeds and colour in the city. This dumbed down version of the English language is now presented as a viable dialect,despite the fact that it originates from a totally alien – and frankly inaudible – set of slang words improvised by the African community.
The social shock that is incurred through this large scale population replacement can be further evidenced from the conditions under which British children are attempting to get an education. At one in nine schools in England and Wales, English is no longer the first language of a majority of pupils and in London, children who's first language is not English are doing better statistically than native speakers, demonstrating the further damaging effect this is having on British children. Furthermore, native British children are ranked behind 14 other ethnic groups when ranked in terms of meeting educational targets at age 16, despite the fact that they rank third aged 5, suggesting that the schools system is disadvantaging native children in favour of non-natives who require extra attention i.e English lessons, translation and extra time in exams.
The effects that this multicultural agenda is having on British children is in no small part down to the teachers themselves, who at a conference last year pledged that they would refuse to teach British values as it was a case of "cultural supremacy". When there are Marxist thinkers such as these teaching our children, it isn't any wonder that the education system is failing British children, in favour of products of diversity.
–
The information presented is quite clear; replacing native Britons, or white Europeans in general, with those from the third world does not bode well for the well-being of a society. However, the only important prediction is that native Britons will be a minority within 5 decades. This is as a result of deliberate policies to flood our country with immigrants from both the third world and former communist states. It is not as if the powers that be are not aware of the dangers – they are – so it is safe to assume that they simply don't care. This is an organised replacement of our population that is bringing down thousands of years of in-group development and, for the time being, we are powerless to stop it.
In the near future, www.defendevropa.org will produce a further piece demonstrating how this same practise is being applied in Germany and how Angela Merkel's migrant policies are ensuring that Germany is in a race to the bottom with Britain and France. In addition to this, we will publish a summary article, demonstrating the reasons why this replacement plan is being put into operation, the historical context behind this, as well as who we have identified as the key perpetrators of this crime against Europe.
Now adjust your studies to the artificial constructs known as Saudi Arabia and Israel, created by the Anglo-Zionist British Empire a century ago. The concept of a holy trinity triumvirate constructed from the three common Abrahamic religions over multiple millennia, and observed today as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic alliance, is self evident at this point.
How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia/
The covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between 1914 – 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it's not too difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred years you're practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that from the British establishment's perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.
In late 2014, according to the American journal, Foreign Affairs, the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said "His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no exception." Recently, Abdullah's successor, King Salman expressed similar concerns to those of Israel's to the growing agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear programme. This led some to report that Israel and KSA presented a "united front" in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960's, the Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser's Egypt militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam's supporters. Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times. The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists and Saudis together in 1960's North Yemen against their common foe.
However, as this author has previously written, one must return to the 1920's to fully appreciate the origins of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity. An illuminating study by Dr. Askar H. al-Enazy, titled, The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914-1927, has further and uniquely provided any student of British Imperialism primary sourced evidence on the origins of this alliance. This study by Dr. Enazy influences the following piece. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of Ha'il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.
Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but was quickly defeated and his British handler, William Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire's ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat greatly hampered Ibn Saud's utility to the Empire and left him militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire's defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-called 'Arab Revolt' in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He was convinced to totally alter his position because the British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.
Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire's new reality which was a division of the Arab world between them and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed 'a national for the Jewish people' in Palestine by colonisation with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks was dubbed the 'Arab Revolt' not the 'Hijazi Revolt'.
Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire's Balfour Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part the British began referring to him as an 'obstructionist', a 'nuisance' and of having a 'recalcitrant' attitude.
The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic measures to bring about his approval of the new reality regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the British operatives in the Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to bribe and bully him to accept Britain's Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000 rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to British Zionism.
When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that "politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain his rule in the region." [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don't tow the British line and avoid entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all is at Britain's 'beck and call'.[6]
Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the Sharif's son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, "Emir", of a new territory called "Transjordan." Churchill informed Abdullah that he should persuade "his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a treaty to such effect," if not "the British would unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz."[7] In the meantime the British were planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha'il, Ibn Rashid.
Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that "Ibn Saud should be 'given the opportunity to occupy Hail.'"[9] By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with "a monthly 'grant' of £10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totalling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns" with British-Indian instructors.[10] Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha'il which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be "Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes" but "Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies". Ha'il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire's Sultan of Najd.
If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to the teeth by the British, would finally become more amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla's son, acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he "accept reality", he didn't even bother to read the treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified![11]
Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain's subsidy to the extent that by the early 1920's they had suspended it, while at the same time continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early 1920's.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great Britain's Zionist project or accept the new divisions in Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance 'grant' of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year's subsidy.[14]
In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the 'grant' to Ibn Saud, the Empire announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon called the "final kick" to Sharif Hussain and attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta'if. The Empire then wrote to Sharif's sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic terms they were informed "to give no countenance to interference in the Hedjaz".[17] In Ta'if, Ibn Saud's Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to rally Arabs against the Empire's Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,
"never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews."[19]
Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the 'Arab Revolt', on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.
Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad's descendants. The British officially recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.
On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud's invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism's geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis's acclaimed BBC "Bitter Lake" documentary, whereby he states that the "fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism" drove the "beduins" to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud's Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980's Afghanistan or in today's Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as "moderate rebels." Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan's recent study on the history on Arabs claims that "Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting" the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing "his own objectives" which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]
In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire's commitment to "use their best endeavours to facilitate" the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia's borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha'il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud's Wahhabis is based in their leaders' rejection to facilitate the British Empire's Zionist project in Palestine.
Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire's drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of "moderate rebels" i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.
As the United States, the 'successor' to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire's Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.
Pincer movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement
The pincer movement, or double envelopment, is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both flanks (sides) of an enemy formation.
The pincer movement typically occurs when opposing forces advance towards the center of an army that responds by moving its outside forces to the enemy's flanks to surround it. At the same time, a second layer of pincers may attack on the more distant flanks to keep reinforcements from the target units.
Description
A full pincer movement leads to the attacking army facing the enemy in front, on both flanks, and in the rear. If attacking pincers link up in the enemy's rear, the enemy is encircled. Such battles often end in surrender or destruction of the enemy force, but the encircled force can try to break out. They can attack the encirclement from the inside to escape, or a friendly external force can attack from the outside to open an escape route.
History
Sun Tzu, in The Art of War (traditionally dated to the 6th century BC), speculated on the maneuver but advised against trying it for fear that an army would likely run first before the move could be completed. He argued that it was best to allow the enemy a path to escape (or at least the appearance of one), as the target army would fight with more ferocity when completely surrounded, but it would lose formation and be more vulnerable to destruction if shown an avenue of escape.
The maneuver may have first been used at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. The historian Herodotus describes how the Athenian general Miltiades deployed 10,000 Athenian and 900 Plataean hoplite forces in a U-formation, with the wings manned much more deeply than the centre. His enemy outnumbered him heavily, and Miltiades chose to match the breadth of the Persian battle line by thinning out the centre of his forces while reinforcing the wings. In the course of the battle, the weaker central formations retreated, allowing the wings to converge behind the Persian battle line and drive the more numerous, but lightly armed Persians to retreat in panic.
The tactic was used by Alexander the Great at the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC. Launching his attack at the Indian left flank, the Indian king Porus reacted by sending the cavalry on the right of his formation around in support. Alexander had positioned two cavalry units on the left of his formation, hidden from view, under the command of Coenus and Demitrius. The units were then able to follow Porus's cavalry around, trapping them in a classic pincer movement. That tactically-astute move from Alexander was key in ensuring what many regard as his last great victory.
The most famous example of its use was at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, when Hannibal executed the maneuver against the Romans. Military historians view it as one of the greatest battlefield maneuvers in history and cite it as the first successful use of the pincer movement that was recorded in detail,[1] by the Greek historian Polybius.
It was also later used effectively by Khalid ibn al-Walid at the Battle of Walaja in 633, by Alp Arslan at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 (under the name crescent tactic), at Battle of Mohács by Süleyman the Magnificent in 1526 and by Field Marshal Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld at the Battle of Fraustadt in 1706.
Daniel Morgan used it effectively at the Battle of Cowpens in 1781 in South Carolina. Many consider Morgan's cunning plan at Cowpens the tactical masterpiece of the American War of Independence.
Zulu impis used a version of the manoeuvre that they called the buffalo horn formation.
Genghis Khan used a rudimentary form known colloquially as the horns tactic. Two enveloping flanks of horsemen surrounded the enemy, but they usually remained unjoined, leaving the enemy an escape route to the rear, as described above. It was key to many of Genghis's early victories over other Mongolian tribes.
Even in the horse-and-musket era, the manoeuvre was used across many military cultures. A classic double envelopment was deployed by the Asiatic conqueror Nader Shah at the Battle of Kirkuk (1733) against the Ottomans; the Persian army, under Nader, flanked the Ottomans on both ends of their line and encircled their centre despite being numerically at a disadvantage. In another battle at Kars in 1745, Nader routed the Ottoman army and subsequently encircled their encampment. The Ottoman army soon after collapsed under the pressure of the encirclement. Also during the famous Battle of Karnal in 1739, Nader drew out the Mughal army which outnumbered his own force by over six to one, and managed to encircle and utterly decimate a significant contingent of the Mughals in an ambush around Kunjpura village.
The manoeuvre was used in the blitzkrieg of the armed forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. Then, rather than a mere infantry maneuver, it developed into a complex, multi-discipline endeavour that involved fast movement by mechanized armor, artillery barrages, air force bombardment, and effective radio communications, with the primary objective of destroying enemy command and control chains, undermining enemy troop morale and disrupting supply lines. During the Battle of Kiev (1941) the Axis forces managed to encircle the largest number of soldiers in the history of warfare. Well over half a million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner by the end of the operation.
Bank of England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England
The Bank of England, formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in operation today, after the Sveriges Riksbank. The Bank of England is the world's 8th oldest bank. It was established to act as the English Government's banker and is still one of the bankers for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946.[3][4]
In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.[6][7][8][9]
The Bank is one of eight banks authorised to issue banknotes in the United Kingdom, but it has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales and regulates the issue of banknotes by commercial banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland.[10]
The Bank's Monetary Policy Committee has a devolved responsibility for managing monetary policy. The Treasury has reserve powers to give orders to the committee "if they are required in the public interest and by extreme economic circumstances", but such orders must be endorsed by Parliament within 28 days.[11] The Bank's Financial Policy Committee held its first meeting in June 2011 as a macro prudential regulator to oversee regulation of the UK's financial sector.
The Bank's headquarters have been in London's main financial district, the City of London, on Threadneedle Street, since 1734. It is sometimes known by the metonym The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street or The Old Lady, a name taken from the legend of Sarah Whitehead, whose ghost is said to haunt the Bank's garden.[12] The busy road junction outside is known as Bank junction.
As a regulator and central bank, the Bank of England has not offered consumer banking services for many years, but it still does manage some public-facing services such as exchanging superseded bank notes.[13] Until 2016, the bank provided personal banking services as a popular privilege for employees.[14]
Founding
England's crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England's rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8% p.a.) that the government wanted.
To induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.[15] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy.
As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, including establishing ironworks to make more nails and advances[clarification needed] in agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[16]
The establishment of the bank was devised[clarification needed] by Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, in 1694. The plan of 1691, which had been proposed by William Paterson three years before, had not then been acted upon.[17] (It is worth noting though, that 28 years earlier, in 1636, Financier to the king Philip Burlamachi had proposed exactly the same idea in a letter addressed to Sir Francis Windebank.)[18] He proposed a loan of £1.2m to the government; in return the subscribers would be incorporated as The Governor and Company of the Bank of England with long-term banking privileges including the issue of notes. The Royal Charter was granted on 27 July through the passage of the Tonnage Act 1694.[19] Public finances were in such dire condition at the time[citation needed] that the terms of the loan were that it was to be serviced at a rate of 8% per annum, and there was also a service charge of £4,000 per annum for the management of the loan. The first governor was Sir John Houblon, who is depicted in the £50 note issued in 1994. The charter was renewed in 1742, 1764, and 1781.
18th century
The Bank's original home was in Walbrook, a street in the City of London, where during reconstruction in 1954 archaeologists found the remains of a Roman temple of Mithras (Mithras is – rather fittingly – said to have been worshipped as, amongst other things, the God of Contracts);[20] the Mithraeum ruins are perhaps the most famous of all 20th-century Roman discoveries in the City of London and can be viewed by the public.
The Bank moved to its current location in Threadneedle Street in 1734,[21] and thereafter slowly acquired neighbouring land to create the edifice seen today. Sir Herbert Baker's rebuilding of the Bank, demolishing most of Sir John Soane's earlier building, was described by architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner as "the greatest architectural crime, in the City of London, of the twentieth century".
When the idea and reality of the National Debt came about during the 18th century, this was also managed by the Bank. By the charter renewal in 1781 it was also the bankers' bank – keeping enough gold to pay its notes on demand until 26 February 1797 when war had so diminished gold reserves that - following an invasion scare caused by the Battle of Fishguard days earlier - the government prohibited the Bank from paying out in gold by the passing of the Bank Restriction Act 1797. This prohibition lasted until 1821.
19th century
The 1844 Bank Charter Act tied the issue of notes to the gold reserves and gave the Bank sole rights with regard to the issue of banknotes. Private banks that had previously had that right retained it, provided that their headquarters were outside London and that they deposited security against the notes that they issued. A few English banks continued to issue their own notes until the last of them was taken over in the 1930s. Scottish and Northern Irish private banks still have that right.
The bank acted as lender of last resort for the first time in the panic of 1866.[22]
The last private bank in England to issue its own notes was Thomas Fox's Fox, Fowler and Company bank in Wellington, which rapidly expanded, until it merged with Lloyds Bank in 1927. They were legal tender until 1964. There are nine notes left in circulation; one is housed at Tone Dale House Wellington.
20th century
Britain remained on the gold standard until 1931 when the gold and foreign exchange reserves were transferred to the Treasury, but they continued to be managed by the Bank.
During the governorship of Montagu Norman, from 1920–44, the Bank made deliberate efforts to move away from commercial banking and become a central bank. In 1946, shortly after the end of Norman's tenure, the bank was nationalised by the Labour government.
After 1945 the Bank pursued the multiple goals of Keynesian economics, especially "easy money" and low interest rates to support aggregate demand. It tried to keep a fixed exchange rate, and attempted to deal with inflation and sterling weakness by credit and exchange controls.[23]
In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited (BOEN), a private limited company, with two of its hundred £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are: "To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them...." Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976, because "it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders." The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.[citation needed] BOEN is a vehicle for governments and heads of state to invest in UK companies (subject to approval from the Secretary of State), providing they undertake "not to influence the affairs of the company".[24][25] BOEN is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[26] Although a dormant company,[27] dormancy does not preclude a company actively operating as a nominee shareholder.[28] BOEN has two shareholders: the Bank of England, and the Secretary of the Bank of England.[29]
In 1981 the reserve requirement for banks to hold a minimum fixed proportion of their deposits as reserves at the Bank of England was abolished: see reserve requirement for more details. The contemporary transition from Keynesian economics to Chicago economics was analysed by Kaldor in The Scourge of Monetarism[30]
On 6 May 1997, following the 1997 general election which brought a Labour government to power for the first time since 1979, it was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, that the Bank would be granted operational independence over monetary policy.[31] Under the terms of the Bank of England Act 1998 (which came into force on 1 June 1998), the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee was given sole responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government's Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation target of 2.5%.[32] The target has changed to 2% since the Consumer Price Index (CPI) replaced the Retail Prices Index as the Treasury's inflation index.[33] If inflation overshoots or undershoots the target by more than 1%, the Governor has to write a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why, and how he will remedy the situation.[34]
The success of inflation targeting in the United Kingdom has been attributed to the Bank's focus on transparency.[35] The Bank of England has been a leader in producing innovative ways of communicating information to the public, especially through its Inflation Report, which have been emulated by many other central banks.[36]
Independent central banks that adopt an inflation target are known as Friedmanite central banks. Inflation targets combined with central bank independence have been characterised as a "starve the beast" strategy creating a lack of money in the public sector. This change in Labour's politics was described by Sidelsky in The Return of the Master[37] as a mistake and as an adoption of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis as promulgated by Walters[38]
The handing over of monetary policy to the Bank had been a key plank of the Liberal Democrats' economic policy since the 1992 general election.[39] Conservative MP Nicholas Budgen had also proposed this as a private member's bill in 1996, but the bill failed as it had the support of neither the government nor the opposition.
21st century
Mark Carney assumed the post of Governor of the Bank of England on 1 July 2013. He succeeded Mervyn King, who took over on 30 June 2003. Carney, a Canadian, will serve an initial five-year term rather than the typical eight, and will seek UK citizenship.[40] He is the first non-British citizen to hold the post. As of January 2014, the Bank also has four Deputy Governors.
Functions of the Bank
There are two main areas which are tackled by the Bank to ensure it carries out these functions efficiently:[41]
Monetary stability
NOTE: It is important to note that "monetary" and "financial" are synonyms.
Stable prices and confidence in the currency are the two main criteria for monetary stability. Stable prices are maintained by seeking to ensure that price increases meet the Government's inflation target. The Bank aims to meet this target by adjusting the base interest rate, which is decided by the Monetary Policy Committee, and through its communications strategy, such as publishing yield curves.[42]
Maintaining financial stability involves protecting against threats to the whole financial system. Threats are detected by the Bank's surveillance and market intelligence functions. The threats are then dealt with through financial and other operations, both at home and abroad. In exceptional circumstances, the Bank may act as the lender of last resort by extending credit when no other institution will.
The Bank works together with other institutions to secure both monetary and financial stability, including:
HM Treasury, the Government department responsible for financial and economic policy; and
Other central banks and international organisations, with the aim of improving the international financial system.
The 1997 Memorandum of Understanding describes the terms under which the Bank, the Treasury and the FSA work toward the common aim of increased financial stability.[43] In 2010 the incoming Chancellor announced his intention to merge the FSA back into the Bank. As of 2012, the current director for financial stability is Andy Haldane.[44]
The Bank acts as the government's banker, and it maintains the government's Consolidated Fund account. It also manages the country's foreign exchange and gold reserves. The Bank also acts as the bankers' bank, especially in its capacity as a lender of last resort.
The Bank has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales. Scottish and Northern Irish banks retain the right to issue their own banknotes, but they must be backed one for one with deposits at the Bank, excepting a few million pounds representing the value of notes they had in circulation in 1845. The Bank decided to sell its banknote printing operations to De La Rue in December 2002, under the advice of Close Brothers Corporate Finance Ltd.[45]
Since 1998, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has had the responsibility for setting the official interest rate. However, with the decision to grant the Bank operational independence, responsibility for government debt management was transferred in 1998 to the new Debt Management Office, which also took over government cash management in 2000. Computershare took over as the registrar for UK Government bonds (gilt-edged securities or gilts) from the Bank at the end of 2004.
The Bank used to be responsible for the regulation and supervision of the banking and insurance industries. This responsibility was transferred to the Financial Services Authority in June 1998, but after the financial crises in 2008 new banking legislation transferred the responsibility for regulation and supervision of the banking and insurance industries back to the Bank.
In 2011 the interim Financial Policy Committee (FPC) was created as a mirror committee to the MPC to spearhead the Bank's new mandate on financial stability. The FPC is responsible for macro prudential regulation of all UK banks and insurance companies.
To help maintain economic stability, the Bank attempts to broaden understanding of its role, both through regular speeches and publications by senior Bank figures, a semiannual Financial Stability Report,[46] and through a wider education strategy aimed at the general public. It maintains a free museum and runs the Target Two Point Zero competition for A-level students.[47]
Asset purchase facility
The Bank has operated, since January 2009, an Asset Purchase Facility (APF) to buy "high-quality assets financed by the issue of Treasury bills and the DMO's cash management operations" and thereby improve liquidity in the credit markets.[48] It has, since March 2009, also provided the mechanism by which the Bank's policy of quantitative easing (QE) is achieved, under the auspices of the MPC. Along with the managing the £200 billion of QE funds, the APF continues to operate its corporate facilities. Both are undertaken by a subsidiary company of the Bank of England, the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited (BEAPFF).[48]
Banknote issues
The Bank has issued banknotes since 1694. Notes were originally hand-written; although they were partially printed from 1725 onwards, cashiers still had to sign each note and make them payable to someone. Notes were fully printed from 1855. Until 1928 all notes were "White Notes", printed in black and with a blank reverse. In the 18th and 19th centuries White Notes were issued in £1 and £2 denominations. During the 20th century White Notes were issued in denominations between £5 and £1000.
Until the mid-19th century, commercial banks were allowed to issue their own banknotes, and notes issued by provincial banking companies were commonly in circulation.[49] The Bank Charter Act 1844 began the process of restricting note issue to the Bank; new banks were prohibited from issuing their own banknotes and existing note-issuing banks were not permitted to expand their issue. As provincial banking companies merged to form larger banks, they lost their right to issue notes, and the English private banknote eventually disappeared, leaving the Bank with a monopoly of note issue in England and Wales. The last private bank to issue its own banknotes in England and Wales was Fox, Fowler and Company in 1921.[50][51] However, the limitations of the 1844 Act only affected banks in England and Wales, and today three commercial banks in Scotland and four in Northern Ireland continue to issue their own banknotes, regulated by the Bank.[10]
At the start of the First World War, the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1914 was passed, which granted temporary powers to HM Treasury for issuing banknotes to the values of £1 and 10/- (ten shillings). Treasury notes had full legal tender status and were not convertible into gold through the Bank; they replaced the gold coin in circulation to prevent a run on sterling and to enable raw material purchases for armament production. These notes featured an image of King George V (Bank of England notes did not begin to display an image of the monarch until 1960). The wording on each note was:
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND – Currency notes are Legal Tender for the payment of any amount – Issued by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury under the Authority of Act of Parliament (4 & 5 Geo. V c.14).
Treasury notes were issued until 1928, when the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928 returned note-issuing powers to the banks.[52] The Bank of England issued notes for ten shillings and one pound for the first time on 22 November 1928.
During the Second World War the German Operation Bernhard attempted to counterfeit denominations between £5 and £50, producing 500,000 notes each month in 1943. The original plan was to parachute the money into the UK in an attempt to destabilise the British economy, but it was found more useful to use the notes to pay German agents operating throughout Europe. Although most fell into Allied hands at the end of the war, forgeries frequently appeared for years afterwards, which led banknote denominations above £5 to be removed from circulation.
In 2006, over £53 million in banknotes belonging to the Bank was stolen from a depot in Tonbridge, Kent.[53]
Modern banknotes are printed by contract with De La Rue Currency in Loughton, Essex.[54]
The Vault
The Bank is custodian to the official gold reserves of the United Kingdom and around 30 other countries. The vault, beneath the City of London, covers a floor space greater than that of the third-tallest building in the City, Tower 42, and needs keys that are three feet (90 cm) long to open.[55] As of April 2016, the Bank held around 400,000 bars, which is equivalent to 5,134 tonnes of gold.[56] These gold deposits were estimated in July 2017 to have a current market value of £142,000,000,000.[57] These estimates suggest the vault could hold as much as 3% of the gold mined throughout human history.[58]
Governance of the Bank of England
Philosophy of war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_war
The philosophy of war is the area of philosophy devoted to examining issues such as the causes of war, the relationship between war and human nature, and the ethics of war. Certain aspects of the philosophy of war overlap with the philosophy of history, political philosophy and the philosophy of law.
Works about the philosophy of war
Perhaps the greatest and most influential work in the philosophy of war is On War by Carl von Clausewitz. It combines observations on strategy with questions about human nature and the purpose of war. Clausewitz especially examines the teleology of war: whether war is a means to an end outside itself or whether it can be an end in itself. He concludes that the latter cannot be so, and that war is "politics by different means"; i.e. that war must not exist only for its own sake. It must serve some purpose for the state.
Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace contains frequent philosophical digressions on the philosophy of war (and broader metaphysical speculations derived from Christianity and from Tolstoy's observations of the Napoleonic Wars). It was influential on later thought about war. Tolstoy's Christian-centered philosophy of war (especially his essays "A Letter to a Hindu" and "The Kingdom of God is Within You") was a direct influence on Gandhi's Hinduism-centered non-violent resistance philosophy.
While Sun Tzu's The Art of War, focusses mostly on weaponry and strategy instead of philosophy, his observations are often broadened into a philosophy applied in situations extending well beyond war itself (see the main Wikipedia article on The Art of War for a discussion of the application of Sun Tzu's philosophy to areas other than war). Parts of Niccolò Machiavelli's masterpiece The Prince (as well as Discourses) and parts of his own work titled The Art of War discuss some philosophical points relating to war, though neither book could be said to be a work in the philosophy of war.
Traditions of thought
Since the philosophy of war is often treated as a subset of another branch of philosophy (for example, political philosophy or the philosophy of law) it would be difficult to define any clear-cut schools of thought in the same sense that, e.g., Existentialism or Objectivism can be described as distinct movements. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to Carl von Clausewitz is "the only (so-called) philosopher of war", implying that he is the only (major) philosophical writer who develops a philosophical system focusing exclusively on war. However, discernible traditions of thought on war have developed over time, so that some writers have been able to distinguish broad categories (if somewhat loosely).
Teleological categories
Anatol Rapoport's introduction to his edition of the J. J. Graham translation of Clausewitz's On War identifies three main teleological traditions in the philosophy of war: the cataclysmic, the eschatological, and the political. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13). These are not the only possible teleological philosophies of war, but only three of the most common. As Rapoport says,
To put it metaphorically, in political philosophy war is compared to a game of strategy (like chess); in eschatological philosophy, to a mission or the dénouement of a drama; in cataclysmic philosophy, to a fire or an epidemic.
These do not, of course, exhaust the views of war prevailing at different times and at different places. For example, war has at times been viewed as a pastime or an adventure, as the only proper occupation for a nobleman, as an affair of honor (for example, the days of chivalry), as a ceremony (e.g. among the Aztecs), as an outlet of aggressive instincts or a manifestation of a "death wish", as nature's way of ensuring the survival of the fittest, as an absurdity (e.g. among Eskimos), as a tenacious custom, destined to die out like slavery, and as a crime. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 17)
The Cataclysmic school of thought, which was espoused by Leo Tolstoy in his epic novel War and Peace, sees war as a bane on humanity – whether avoidable or inevitable – which serves little purpose outside of causing destruction and suffering, and which may cause drastic change to society, but not in any teleological sense. Tolstoy's view may be placed under the subcategory of global cataclysmic philosophy of war. Another subcategory of the cataclysmic school of thought is the ethnocentric cataclysmic, in which this view is focused specifically on the plight of a specific ethnicity or nation, for example the view in Judaism of war as a punishment from God on the Israelites in certain books of the Tenakh (Old Testament). As the Tenakh (in certain books) sees war as an ineluctable act of God, so Tolstoy especially emphasizes war as something that befalls man and is in no way under the influence of man's "free will", but is instead the result of irresistible global forces. (On War, Rapoport's introduction 16)
The Eschatological school of thought sees all wars (or all major wars) as leading to some goal, and asserts that some final conflict will someday resolve the path followed by all wars and result in a massive upheaval of society and a subsequent new society free from war (in varying theories the resulting society may be either a utopia or a dystopia). There are two subsets of this view: the Messianic and the Global theory. The Marxist concept of a communist world ruled by the proletariat after a final worldwide revolution is an example of the global theory, and the Christian concept of an Armageddon war which will usher in the second coming of Christ and the final defeat of Satan is an example of a theory that could fall under Global or Messianic. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 15)
The messianic eschatological philosophy is derived from the Jewish-Christian concept of a Messiah, and sees wars as culminating in unification of humanity under a single faith or a single ruler. Crusades, Jihads, the Nazi concept of a Master Race and the 19th century American concept of Manifest Destiny may also fall under this heading. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 15) (See main articles for more information: Christian eschatology, Jewish eschatology)
The Political school of thought, of which Clausewitz was a proponent, sees war as a tool of the state. On page 13 Rapoport says,
Clausewitz views war as a rational instrument of national policy. The three words "rational", "instrument" and "national" are the key concepts of his paradigm. In this view, the decision to wage war "ought" to be rational, in the sense that it ought to be based on estimated costs and gains of war. Next, war "ought" to be instrumental, in the sense that it ought to be waged in order to achieve some goal, never for its own sake; and also in the sense that strategy and tactics ought to be directed towards just one end, namely towards victory. Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective.
He later characterizes the philosophy behind the Vietnam War and other Cold War conflicts as "Neo-Clausewitzian". Rapoport also includes Machiavelli as an early example of the political philosophy of war (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13). Decades after his essay, the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Ethical categories
Another possible system for categorizing different schools of thought on war can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see external links, below), based on ethics. The SEP describes three major divisions in the ethics of war: the Realist, the Pacifist, and the Just War Theory. In a nutshell:
Realists will typically hold that systems of morals and ethics which guide individuals within societies cannot realistically be applied to societies as a whole to govern the way they, as societies, interact with other societies. Hence, a state's purposes in war is simply to preserve its national interest. This kind of thinking is similar to Machiavelli's philosophy, and Thucydides and Hobbes may also fall under this category.
Pacifism however, maintains that a moral evaluation of war is possible, and that war is always found to be immoral. Generally, there are two kinds of modern secular pacifism to consider: (1) a more consequentialist form of pacifism (or CP), which maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it; and (2) a more deontological form of pacifism (or DP), which contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings. Henry Ford and others were famous advocates of pacifistic diplomatic methods instead of war.
Nonviolence also holds that a moral evaluation of war is a duty, and that war is always found to be immoral. Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Leo Tolstoy were all famous advocates of power of truth, lawfulness, soft power, nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience methods instead of war and to prevent war. Gandhi said he disliked more cowardice than violence.
Just War Theory, along with pacifism, holds that morals do apply to war. However, unlike pacifism, according to Just War Theory it is possible for a war to be morally justified. The concept of a morally justified war underlies much of the concept International Law, such as the Geneva Conventions. Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, and Hugo Grotius are among the philosophers who have espoused some form of a just war philosophy. One common Just War Theory evaluation of war is that war is only justified if 1.) waged in a state or nation's self-defense, or 2.) waged in order to end gross violations of human rights. Political philosopher John Rawls advocated these criteria as justification for war.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.19, 21:37:54
Philosophy of war
The Political school of thought, of which Clausewitz was a proponent, sees war as a tool of the state. On page 13 Rapoport says,
Clausewitz views war as a rational instrument of national policy. The three words "rational", "instrument" and "national" are the key concepts of his paradigm. In this view, the decision to wage war "ought" to be rational, in the sense that it ought to be based on estimated costs and gains of war. Next, war "ought" to be instrumental, in the sense that it ought to be waged in order to achieve some goal, never for its own sake; and also in the sense that strategy and tactics ought to be directed towards just one end, namely towards victory. Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective.
He later characterizes the philosophy behind the Vietnam War and other Cold War conflicts as "Neo-Clausewitzian". Rapoport also includes Machiavelli as an early example of the political philosophy of war (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13). Decades after his essay, the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks.
However this all falls apart when the true objectives are not honestly stated. In the case of the Vietnam war the objective was the elimination of the Buddhists. So in effect the Vietnam war accomplished its objectives.
The case of 9-11 was a state sponsored event. How could this be construed as preventing future attacks?
Ron
Quote"Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this. That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one."—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School
Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: "What's the difference between a politician and a psychopath?"
The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/from-democracy-to-pathocr_b_9566896.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/from-democracy-to-pathocr_b_9566896.html)
QuoteThroughout history, psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and assorted antisocial-personality-disordered individuals have ruled societies.
Psychopaths and sociopaths often exhibit glibness and superficial charm, have a grandiose sense of self-worth, are pathological liars, display extreme narcissism, are deceitful, cunning and manipulative, exhibit a lack of remorse or guilt, show a callous disregard for the feelings of others, have no conscience, lack empathy, and fail to accept responsibility for their actions.
(is the above a good description of the Donald?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADecI4xw-yg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADecI4xw-yg)
In a competitive world, the people who act immorally, who have no regard for truth, are going to have an advantage over those who play by the rules. The result is that those who achieve positions of power will be the most ruthless, the most sociopathic, the ones without conscience.
In societies run by psychopaths, ambitious individuals and sycophants, who are not clinically psychopathic, are induced to model themselves after powerful psychopaths in order to achieve power. The result: psychopaths breed more psychopaths.
http://www.pathocracy.net/ (http://www.pathocracy.net/)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.19, 22:37:48
However this all falls apart when the true objectives are not honestly stated. In the case of the Vietnam war the objective was the elimination of the Buddhists. So in effect the Vietnam war accomplished its objectives.
The case of 9-11 was a state sponsored event.
Submit or be murdered, it is the way of the religious triumvirate attempting to conquer the world through multiculturalism, fascism and perpetual war disguised as "humanitarian intervention".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3845811/pensioner-travels-10-miles-on-mobility-scooter-to-say-sorry-to-hero-imam-of-finsbury-park-mosque-attack/
He said: "You don't have to apologise because this criminal doesn't represent you and he doesn't represent Britain.
"They're a fringe group of criminals and extremists, likewise ISIS [Islamic State], they don't represent Muslims, these people don't represent Brits. And we're part of Britain, too."
You don't live in Britain mate, Britain is a Judeo-Christian lie. You are squatting on English land and hospitality, and the English people want their country back.
Teenage girl found chopped up in freezer in suspected honor killinghttps://newsline.com/teenage-girl-found-chopped-up-in-freezer-in-suspected-honor-killing/
The perpetrator is believed to be the uncle of the 19-year-old and step-father of the other victim.
"The girls had got mixed up with a gang of guys. One wanted to marry one of the boys and her Pakistani family couldn't take that," a family friend of the owners told the tabloid.
"Whoever did this cut her up Jack the Ripper style."
A neighbor, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Daily Mail a man was arrested when he tried to flee the country from Dover.
"Relatives told me that the man was Asian and was caught at Dover trying to leave the country.
"I heard he kidnapped them both and chopped one of them up and put her in the freezer. I heard he slit the other one's throat."
Police had been called to the address earlier over fears for the welfare of the two women.
Palestine's Refusal to Comply ~ By John Pilger
http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/07/19/palestines-refusal-to-comply-by-john-pilger/
When I first went to Palestine as a young reporter in the 1960s, I stayed on a kibbutz. The people I met were hard-working, spirited and called themselves socialists. I liked them. One evening at dinner, I asked about the silhouettes of people in the far distance, beyond our perimeter.
"Arabs", they said, "nomads". The words were almost spat out. Israel, they said, meaning Palestine, had been mostly wasteland and one of the great feats of the Zionist enterprise was to turn the desert green.
They gave as an example their crop of Jaffa oranges, which was exported to the rest of the world. What a triumph against the odds of nature and humanity's neglect.
It was the first lie. Most of the orange groves and vineyards belonged to Palestinians who had been tilling the soil and exporting oranges and grapes to Europe since the eighteenth century. The former Palestinian town of Jaffa was known by its previous inhabitants as "the place of sad oranges".
On the kibbutz, the word "Palestinian" was never used. Why, I asked. The answer was a troubled silence.
All over the colonised world, the true sovereignty of indigenous people is feared by those who can never quite cover the fact, and the crime, that they live on stolen land.
Denying people's humanity is the next step – as the Jewish people know only too well. Defiling people's dignity and culture and pride follows as logically as violence.
In Ramallah, following an invasion of the West Bank by the late Ariel Sharon in 2002, I walked through streets of crushed cars and demolished houses, to the Palestinian Cultural Centre. Until that morning, Israeli soldiers had camped there. I was met by the centre's director, the novelist, Liana Badr, whose original manuscripts lay scattered and torn across the floor. The hard-drive containing her fiction, and a library of plays and poetry had been taken by Israeli soldiers. Almost everything was smashed, and defiled.
Not a single book survived with all its pages; not a single master tape from one of the best collections of Palestinian cinema.
The soldiers had urinated and defecated on the floors, on desks, on embroideries and works of art. They had smeared faeces on children's paintings and written – in shit – "Born to kill". Liana Badr had tears in her eyes, but she was unbowed. She said, "We will make it right again."
What enrages those who colonise and occupy, steal and oppress, vandalise and defile is the victims' refusal to comply. And this is the tribute we all should pay the Palestinians. They refuse to comply. They go on. They wait – until they fight again. And they do so even when those governing them collaborate with their oppressors.
In the midst of the 2014 Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer never stopped reporting. He and his family were stricken; he queued for food and water and carried it through the rubble. When I phoned him, I could hear the bombs outside his door. He refused to comply.
Mohammed's reports, illustrated by his graphic photographs, were a model of professional journalism that shamed the compliant and craven reporting of the so-called mainstream in Britain and the United States. The BBC notion of objectivity – amplifying the myths and lies of authority, a practice of which it is proud – is shamed every day by the likes of Mohamed Omer.
For more than 40 years, I have recorded the refusal of the people of Palestine to comply with their oppressors: Israel, the United States, Britain, the European Union.
Since 2008, Britain alone has granted licences for export to Israel of arms and missiles, drones and sniper rifles, worth £434 million.
Those who have stood up to this, without weapons, those who have refused to comply, are among Palestinians I have been privileged to know:
My friend, the late Mohammed Jarella, who toiled for the United Nations agency UNRWA, in 1967 showed me a Palestinian refugee camp for the first time. It was a bitter winter's day and schoolchildren shook with the cold. "One day ..." he would say. "One day ..."
Mustafa Barghouti, whose eloquence remains undimmed, who described the tolerance that existed in Palestine among Jews, Muslims and Christians until, as he told me, "the Zionists wanted a state at the expense of the Palestinians."
Dr. Mona El-Farra, a physician in Gaza, whose passion was raising money for plastic surgery for children disfigured by Israeli bullets and shrapnel. Her hospital was flattened by Israeli bombs in 2014.
Dr. Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, whose clinics for children in Gaza – children sent almost mad by Israeli violence – were oases of civilization.
Fatima and Nasser are a couple whose home stood in a village near Jerusalem designated "Zone A and B", meaning that the land was declared for Jews only. Their parents had lived there; their grandparents had lived there. Today, the bulldozers are laying roads for Jews only, protected by laws for Jews only.
It was past midnight when Fatima went into labour with their second child. The baby was premature; and when they arrived at a checkpoint with the hospital in view, the young Israeli soldier said they needed another document.
Fatima was bleeding badly. The soldier laughed and imitated her moans and told them, "Go home". The baby was born there in a truck. It was blue with cold and soon, without care, died from exposure. The baby's name was Sultan.
For Palestinians, these will be familiar stories. The question is: why are they not familiar in London and Washington, Brussels and Sydney?
In Syria, a recent liberal cause – a George Clooney cause – is bankrolled handsomely in Britain and the United States, even though the beneficiaries, the so-called rebels, are dominated by jihadist fanatics, the product of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the destruction of modern Libya.
And yet, the longest occupation and resistance in modern times is not recognised. When the United Nations suddenly stirs and defines Israel as an apartheid state, as it did this year, there is outrage – not against a state whose "core purpose" is racism but against a UN commission that dared break the silence.
"Palestine," said Nelson Mandela, "is the greatest moral issue of our time."
Why is this truth suppressed, day after day, month after month, year after year?
In Israel – the apartheid state, guilty of a crime against humanity and of more international law-breaking than any other – the silence persists among those who know and whose job it is to keep the record straight.
In Israel, so much journalism is intimidated and controlled by a groupthink that demands silence on Palestine while honourable journalism has become dissidence: a metaphoric underground.
A single word – "conflict" – enables this silence. "The Arab-Israeli conflict", intone the robots at their tele-prompters. When a veteran BBC reporter, a man who knows the truth, refers to "two narratives", the moral contortion is complete.
There is no conflict, no two narratives, with their moral fulcrum. There is a military occupation enforced by a nuclear-armed power backed by the greatest military power on earth; and there is an epic injustice.
The word "occupation" may be banned, deleted from the dictionary. But the memory of historical truth cannot be banned: of the systemic expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. "Plan D" the Israelis called it in 1948.
The Israeli historian Benny Morris describes how David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, was asked by one of his generals: "What shall we do with the Arabs?" The prime minister, wrote Morris, "made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand". "Expel them!" he said.
Seventy years later, this crime is suppressed in the intellectual and political culture of the West. Or it is debatable, or merely controversial. Highly-paid journalists and eagerly accept Israeli government trips, hospitality and flattery, then are truculent in their protestations of independence. The term, "useful idiots", was coined for them.
In 2011, I was struck by the ease with which one of Britain's most acclaimed novelists, Ian McEwan, a man bathed in the glow of bourgeois enlightenment, accepted the Jerusalem Prize for literature in the apartheid state.
Would McEwan have gone to Sun City in apartheid South Africa? They gave prizes there, too, all expenses paid. McEwan justified his action with weasel words about the independence of "civil society".
Propaganda – of the kind McEwan delivered, with its token slap on the wrists for his delighted hosts – is a weapon for the oppressors of Palestine. Like sugar, it insinuates almost everything today.
Understanding and deconstructing state and cultural propaganda is our most critical task. We are being frog-marched into a second cold war, whose eventual aim is to subdue and balkanise Russia and intimidate China.
When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin spoke privately for more than two hours at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, apparently about the need not to go to war with each other, the most vociferous objectors were those who have commandeered liberalism, such as the Zionist political writer of the Guardian.
"No wonder Putin was smiling in Hamburg," wrote Jonathan Freedland. "He knows he has succeeded in his chief objective: he has made America weak again." Cue the hissing for Evil Vlad.
These propagandists have never known war but they love the imperial game of war. What Ian McEwan calls "civil society" has become a rich source of related propaganda. Take a term often used by the guardians of civil society – "human rights". Like another noble concept, "democracy", "human rights" has been all but emptied of its meaning and purpose.
Like "peace process" and "road map", human rights in Palestine have been hijacked by Western governments and the corporate NGOs they fund and which claim a quixotic moral authority.
So when Israel is called upon by governments and NGOs to "respect human rights" in Palestine, nothing happens, because they all know there is nothing to fear; nothing will change.
Mark the silence of the European Union, which accommodates Israel while refusing to maintain its commitments to the people of Gaza – such as keeping the lifeline of the Rafah border crossing open: a measure it agreed to as part of its role in the cessation of fighting in 2014. A seaport for Gaza – agreed by Brussels in 2014 – has been abandoned.
The UN commission I have referred to – its full name is the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia – described Israel as, and I quote, "designed for the core purpose" of racial discrimination.
Millions understand this. What the governments in London, Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv cannot control is that humanity at street level is changing perhaps as never before.
People everywhere are stirring and are more aware, in my view, than ever before. Some are already in open revolt. The atrocity of Grenfell Tower in London has brought communities together in a vibrant almost national resistance.
Thanks to a people's campaign, the judiciary is today examining the evidence of a possible prosecution of Tony Blair for war crimes. Even if this fails, it is a crucial development, dismantling yet another barrier between the public and its recognition of the voracious nature of the crimes of state power – the systemic disregard for humanity perpetrated in Iraq, in Grenfell Tower, in Palestine. Those are the dots waiting to be joined.
For most of the 21st century, the fraud of corporate power posing as democracy has depended on the propaganda of distraction: largely on a cult of "me-ism" designed to disorientate our sense of looking out for others, of acting together, of social justice and internationalism.
Class, gender and race were wrenched apart. The personal became the political and the media the message. The promotion of bourgeois privilege was presented as "progressive" politics. It wasn't. It never is. It is the promotion of privilege, and power.
Among young people, internationalism has found a vast new audience. Look at the support for Jeremy Corbyn and the reception the G20 circus in Hamburg received. By understanding the truth and imperatives of internationalism, and rejecting colonialism, we understand the struggle of Palestine.
Mandela put it this way: "We know only too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."
At the heart of the Middle East is the historic injustice in Palestine. Until that is resolved, and Palestinians have their freedom and homeland, and Israelis & Palestinians have equality before the law, there will be no peace in the region, or perhaps anywhere.
What Mandela was saying is that freedom itself is precarious while powerful governments can deny justice to others, terrorise others, imprison and kill others, in our name. Israel certainly understands the threat that one day it might have to be normal.
That is why its ambassador to Britain is Mark Regev, well known to journalists as a professional propagandist, and why the "huge bluff" of charges of anti-Semitism, as Ilan Pappe called it, was allowed to contort the Labour Party and undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader. The point is, it did not succeed.
Events are moving quickly now. The remarkable Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) is succeeding, day by day; cities and towns, trade unions and student bodies are endorsing it. The British government's attempt to restrict local councils from enforcing BDS has failed in the courts.
These are not straws in the wind. When the Palestinians rise again, as they will, they may not succeed at first – but they will eventually if we understand that they are us, and we are them.
This is an abridged version of John Pilger's address to the Palestinian Expo 2017 in London. John Pilger's film, 'Palestine Is Still the Issue', can be viewed on this website.
http://johnpilger.com/videos/palestine-is-still-the-issue
The Reign of Propaganda. Unfettered Lies Turned into Self-evident Truths
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-reign-of-propaganda-unfettered-lies-turned-in-self-evident-truths/5600348
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
If truth has a chance it is in a different country than America.
Masters of propaganda from its inventor, Jewish public relations expert Edward Louis James Bernays, to the Nazi Minister of Propaganda Paul Joseph Goebbels, agree that a lie can be turned into truth by constant repetition.
The more pure the lie, the more complete the success in turning it into The Truth. Lies partly based in fact or half-truths open themselves to factual challenge. For a propagandist the best lie is a lie unfettered by even a distant relationship to truth. Such a lie can be turned into such self-evident truth that no evidence is necessary. As Nikki Haley and Hillary Clinton put it:
"Evidence! We don't need any stinking evidence. We know Russia hacked our election!"
For the typical American, who doesn't know anything, the confidence of the former Secretary of State and "rightful President of the USA" and the confidence of President Donald Trump's own Ambassador to the United Nations are sufficient to convince them that the lie that Russia stole the US presidency for Trump is true. We all know it. Why? Because we have all heard it endlessly repeated for many months. As one acquaintance said:
"If it were false, surely the media would have exposed it."
This insouciant naivete is characteristic of Western populations.
As Bernays and Goebbels knew, one good propagandist can control the opinion of the targeted group, whether it is a gender or a nation.
Initially for Benays the targeted group was American women. As a propagandist for an American tobacco company, "the father of spin" promoted female smoking as a sign of feminist independence. He called cigarettes "Torches of Freedom." He also provided the propaganda that enabled the United Fruit Company to have the US Government overthrow the elected government of Guatemala in 1954.
Goebbels turned Germans into servants of the Third Reich, an accomplishment the neoconservatives have yet to attain in the United States, but they are still working at it.
The neoconservatives, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, and the US presstitutes have succeeded in blocking Trump from withdrawing from Syria and from normalizing relations with Russia. They have succeeded in this by using their fabrication, "Russia-gate," to put President Trump in a box. If Trump now normalizes relations with Russia, it will be presented to the world by the presstitutes as proof that the Putin/Trump conspiracy against Western democracy is real. If Trump were to normalize relations, thereby removing "the threat" that justifies the power and profit of the military/security complex's budget, he would likely be impeached as a traitor to the USA. Trump's tweets would be overwhelmed by the onslaught of the presstitutes.
Americans, British, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Indians, and everyone else need to understand that Washington's hostility toward Russia is in the service of powerful interest groups. These interest groups are more powerful than the President of the US.
Israel and its design on the Middle East is one of these powerful interest groups. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said,
"No American president can stand up to Israel."
The neoconservatives, who serve both the Zionist state of Israel and the US military/security complex, are another of the powerful interest groups that constrain the American government. That the neocons are firmly allied with Israel and the military/security complex increases their power and influence. President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 in his last public address to the American people that the power of the military/industrial complex made it a threat to American democracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knBEQnuJNiI
Eisenhower's warning was 56 years ago. With the President of the United States concerned about the military/industrial complex 56 years ago, try to imagine how much more this power is entrenched after the decades of the Cold War and "Soviet Threat." The power of the military/security complex is the premier power in Washington.
Eisenhower's speech is the best speech any American President has ever delivered. It is only 14 minutes and 4 seconds long; yet it covers everything. There is awareness that we can be victims of our own success. Whatever their public position, neoconservatives have no alternative but to hate President Eisenhower with a passion, because he compared the threat to America from the military/industrial complex to the threat from the Soviet Union.
Americans need to wise up, as do the Russians, Chinese, Europeans and everyone else over whom the neoconservatives intend to exercise hegemony regardless of the cost. The total budget of the US military/security complex has been estimated at $1.1 trillion, a figure that is 70% of Russia's estimated 2017 GDP. It is larger than the GDP of Mexico and Turkey. It is 45% of the GDP of France or England, and 32% of the GDP of Germany. There are 195 countries in the world. Only 14 of them have A Gross Domestic Product larger than the budget of the US military/security complex.
Washington's wars in the Middle East involve many interests, including mundane ones such as who controls pipeline locations and energy flows. It also involves Israel's interests. Twice Israel has sent its army into southern Lebanon for the purpose of occupying and annexing the water resources of southern Lebanon, and twice the militia Hezbollah has defeated and driven out the Israeli army, the fighting capability of which is overrated. Hezbollah receives financial and military support from Syria and Iran. Using their neoconservative allies and the orchestrated-by- propaganda American hatred of Muslims, Israel intends to use the US military to put Syria and Iran in the same state of chaos as Iraq and Libya. If deprived of outside support, Hezbollah can finally be defeated by the Israeli army. With Syria and Iran in chaos, the Russophobic neoconservatives can send jihadism into the Russian Federation to break up the biggest constraint on US unilateralism.
If we consider the combined power of these interest groups—the US military/security complex with an annual budget greater than the GDP of most countries, the neoconservatives with their ideology of US world hegemony and alliance with both Democratic and Republican parties, and Israel which has the US government in its pocket and brags about it—how is it possible for President Trump to do as he said he would do and normalize relations with Russia and withdraw from the US interventions in the Middle East? The prospect of Trump succeeding is remote.
If the Russian government fails to understand that President Trump is not the one who is in charge, Russia will be destroyed along with America and the rest of the world.
US contributed to ISIS creation, now tries to claim victory over it – Iraqi VP talks tough
http://dieselgasoil.com/news/us-contributed-to-isis-creation-now-tries-to-claim-victory-over-it-iraqi-vp-talks-tough/
The recapture of Mosul is an achievement of the Iraqi people while the US is trying to highjack it and claims it was them who "led that war," Iraq's Vice President Nouri al-Maliki has told the RIA Novosti news agency.
"Yes, they supported us with aviation, but the main credit goes to the Iraqi soldiers, people's militia, Iraqi air force," al-Maliki stated in his interview with the Russian news agency.
He added that he "regrets and denies [Americans] claiming the victory [in Mosul] is their achievement."
"In reality, this is the victory of the Iraqi army," al-Maliki said, revealing that the victory came a high cost, with some 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers having been either killed or wounded.
The Iraqi military did everything possible "not to destroy the city more than it was necessary in the circumstances of war," he said, adding, that as a result, the battle for Mosul lasted for nine months.
"We could have surrounded the city, but then its residents would have suffered from famine."
There were some 5,000 terrorists in Iraq, with between 2,000 and 3,000 of them having been killed. Others are still hiding or have fled with the refugees, according to the Iraqi vice-president.
"The victory is yet not final," the top Iraqi official said, explaining that there are "still small terrorist hubs in the city," as well as terrorist "sleeper cells" across the country.
"There are sleeper cells in Baghdad, from time to time they take action and perform bombings... That's not worrying in a military sense. Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] is unable to advance or capture territories, they will not be able to hold the occupied regions, but from the security point of view there are still sleeper cells and lone wolves, used by IS," al-Maliki said.
While the US has provided support to the Iraqi army and allied forces, it has contributed to the emergence of IS in the first place, al-Maliki claimed, adding that Washington now seeks to establish military bases on Iraqi territory in order to maintain influence in the region.
"IS resembles the Taliban which was created by the US administration to counter the USSR in Afghanistan. The same way, IS was created to counter the Iraqi stance, which did not agree to blockade Syria, was against no-fly zones in Syria and against American military bases," he stated.
"The Iraqi society is against foreign military bases on the country's territory," al-Maliki told RIA, adding that he has already warned the Americans against "coming back to Iraq and setting up bases here."
'Illegitimate coalition' must pay for destroying Syria – Damascus to UN
http://www.thevoicetimes.com/illegitimate-coalition-must-pay-destroying-syria-damascus-un/
Syria wants the US and its allies to pay for the destruction of Syrian infrastructure and to bear legal responsibility for "illegitimately" bombing civilian targets, Damascus has told the UN, demanding that the American-led coalition strikes stop.
The Syrian "Government insists that these attacks must come to an end, and that the members of this illegitimate coalition must bear the political and legal responsibility for the destruction of infrastructure in the Syrian Arab Republic, including responsibility for compensation," the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations said in letters addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.
Stating that the ongoing US-led anti-terrorist airstrikes "continue to claim the lives of hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians," Damascus claimed that the bombings had led to a "near-total destruction" of homes and vital infrastructure, including the "utter destruction" of oil and gas facilities.
The attacks, along with US and EU-imposed economic restrictions on Syria "are impeding the maintenance of those economic facilities and jeopardizing the prospects for development and reconstruction" in the country, the letters, written last week, said.
To support their claims, Syria'correspondence referred to two recent cases where the coalition's jets destroyed oil and gas facilities. Damascus also said the May 27 bombardment of Hasu Albu Awf village in the Hasakah governorate, "completely" destroyed many homes and killed at least eight civilians, "most of them children."
On Friday, the US-led coalition announced the demolition of a number of oil and gas facilities in various parts of Syria which allegedly belonged to the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group.
Targeting the terrorists' illegal oil trade and jihadist infrastructure has been a cornerstone of both American and Russian strategies in Syria. But while Moscow coordinates its strikes with the Syrian government, the Washington-led operation has been harshly criticized for its indiscriminate bombing practices and doing so without communicating with Syrian government forces.
Damascus' letters to the UN once again underlined that the American air campaign is being conducted in violation of international law, as it lacks any form of consent or authorization from the Syrian government.
Raqqa, known as the stronghold of IS, has been the main focus of the US operation in Syria, where Washington is guiding and supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
While the US-led Operation Inherent Resolve this month confirmed a total of 603 civilian deaths in the US-led air campaign in Syria and Iraq, Airwars, a UK-based group that monitors airstrikes and civilian casualties, claimed this week that it tracked "more than 700 likely civilian deaths" in Raqqa alone – even before the battle for the city began in June.
However, there is little chance that the document would lead to any repercussions for Washington, international relations professor Jamal Wakeem told RT.
"I don't believe that the United Nations will take any action against the United States, because we know it has been the tradition of the UN not to act against any aggression done by the US against any country," Wakeem said.
Even if the UN moves forward with Syria's claims, "the US, as a permanent member of the UN [Security] Council, would veto any resolution that could be proposed against it," Wakeem added.
Nevertheless, Syria's move "could affect the US, not on a political, but on a moral level," the professor said.
Having just read John Wight's latest article on Dunkirk it feels appropiate to hear from Winston himself:
ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: "The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews." Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli's confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews.
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilisation.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
"National" Jews.
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, "I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith." This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the "National Jews" in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews.
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.22, 17:08:18
Having just read John Wight's latest article on Dunkirk it feels appropiate to hear from Winston himself:
ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
SOME people like Jews and some do not;
One of the most evil men in history!
QuoteOf the many myths that befog the modern political mind, none is so corrupting of the understanding or so incongruent with historical fact as the notion that the wealthy and the powerful do not conspire.
They do.
They conspire continually, habitually, effectively, diabolically and on a scale that beggars the imagination. To deny this conspiracy fact is to deny both overwhelming empirical evidence and elementary reason.
Nevertheless, for the astute observer of the 'Great Game' of politics, it is an unending source of wonderment to stumble across ever more astounding examples of the monstrous machinations of which wealthy and powerful elites are capable. Indeed, it is precisely here that authors Docherty and Macgregor enter the fray and threaten to take our breath away entirely.
Thus, the official, canonized history of the origins of the First World War, so they tell us, is one long, unmitigated lie from start to finish. Even more to the conspiratorial point is the authors' thesis that – and to paraphrase a later Churchill who figures prominently in this earlier story – never were so many murdered, so needlessly, for the ambitions and profit of so few.
In demolishing the many shibboleths surrounding the origins of the 'Great War' (including 'German responsibility', 'British peace efforts', 'Belgian neutrality' and the 'inevitability' of the war), Docherty and Macgregor point the finger at what they argue is the real source of the conflict: a more or less secret cabal of British imperialists whose entire political existence for a decade and a half was dedicated to the fashioning of a European war in aid of destroying the British Empire's newly emerging commercial, industrial and military competitor, Germany.
In short, far from "sleepwalking into a global tragedy, the unsuspecting world", Docherty and Macgregor contend, "was ambushed by a secret cabal of warmongers" originating not in Berlin, but "in London".
I must confess at this juncture to a certain bias in granting credence to such a striking thesis, this if only on general principle alone. After all, one straight look at present day political reality is to look square into the maw of Orwell's nightmare. Moreover, three decades of independent journalism have led me to conclude not only that virtually nothing of what is presented as 'news' is remotely true, but that the conventional writing and presentation of history itself is as phoney as a three dollar bill. Still, one does demand a credible argument or two. Let's look at a few of those contained in 'Hidden History'.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hidden-history-the-secret-origins-of-the-first-world-war/5600090 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/hidden-history-the-secret-origins-of-the-first-world-war/5600090)
Ron
Secular morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality
Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein also states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits."[1]:45 An example is the non-denominational Kural text of Valluvar, an ancient Indian theistic poet-philosopher whose work remains secular.[2][3][4] Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.
A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. According to some, this idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 According to others, the idea goes back as far as 4,000 years, with the ancient Egyptians' 42 Principles of Ma'at.[5] There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counterstrategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists."[1]:7
Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior, such as the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other".[6]:401 Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior. Various commentators, such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Christopher Hitchens are among those who have asserted this view.
Secular moral frameworks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Consequentialism
"Consequentialists", as described by Peter Singer, "start not with moral rules, but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further those goals."[7]:3 Singer also notes that utilitarianism is "the best-known, though not the only, consequentialist theory."[7]:3 Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris describes a utilitarian science of morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
Freethinking
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Secular humanism
Secular humanism focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently evil or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.
Positions on religion and morality
The subject of secular morality has been discussed by prominent secular scholars as well as popular culture-based atheist and anti-religious writers. These include Paul Chamberlain's Can We Be Good Without God? (1996), Richard Holloway's Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics (1999), Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? (2002), Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil (2004), Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006), Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (2007), Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What A Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe (2010), and Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2011).
Morality requires religious tenets
According to Greg Epstein, "the idea that we can't be 'good without God' " has been with us for nearly 2,000 years.[1]:5 This idea is seen in various holy books, for example in Psalms 14 of the Christian Bible: "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good ... not even one."[8] And this idea is still present today. "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[9]:115 For example, Christian writer and medievalist C. S. Lewis made the argument in his popular book Mere Christianity that if a supernatural, objective standard of right and wrong does not exist outside of the natural world, then right and wrong becomes mired in the is-ought problem. Thus, he wrote, preferences for one moral standard over another become as inherently indefensible and arbitrary as preferring a certain flavor of food over another or choosing to drive on a certain side of a road.[10]:3–28 In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[11] Peter Singer states that, "Traditionally, the more important link between religion and ethics was that religion was thought to provide a reason for doing what is right, the reason being that those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the rest roast in hell."[7]:4
Proponents of theism argue that without a God or gods it is impossible to justify moral behavior on metaphysical grounds and thus to make a coherent case for abiding by moral standards. C. S. Lewis makes such an argument in Mere Christianity. Peter Robinson, a political author and commentator with Stanford's Hoover Institution, has commented that, if an inner moral conscience is just another adaptive or evolved feeling in the human mind like simple emotional urges, then no inherent reason exists to consider morality as over and above other urges.[12] According to Thomas Dixon, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[9]
Morality does not rely on religion
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
— Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930
Various commentators have stated that morality does not require religion as a guide. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that, "it is not hard to imagine a society of people that has no religion but has a morality, as well as a legal system, just because it says that people cannot live together without rules against killing, etc., and that it is not desirable for these all to be legally enforced. There have also certainly been people who have had a morality but no religious beliefs."[6]:400 Bernard Williams, an English philosopher, stated that the secular "utilitarian outlook"—a popular ethical position wherein the morally right action is defined as that action which effects the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people—is "non-transcendental, and makes no appeal outside human life, in particular not to religious considerations."[13]:83 Williams also argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[13]:64–65
Socrates' "Euthyphro dilemma" is often considered one of the earliest refutations of the idea that morality requires religion. This line of reasoning is described by Peter Singer:
"Some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of 'good' is nothing other than 'what God approves'. Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods' approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbors, torture would have been good and helping our neighbors bad. Some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?"[7]:3–4
Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, dismisses the question of whether God is needed to be good "because that question does not need to be answered—it needs to be rejected outright," adding, "To suggest that one can't be good without belief in God is not just an opinion ... it is a prejudice. It may even be discrimination."[1]:ix This is in line with the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics which states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[6]:401 Others share this view. Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion".[7][a] Atheistic philosopher Julian Baggini stated that "there is nothing to stop atheists believing in morality, a meaning for life, or human goodness. Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief."[14]:3 He also states that "Morality is more than possible without God, it is entirely independent of him. That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong.[14]:37
Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge:
"I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it... Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone... Why don't we just assume that we do have some internal compass?"[12]
Philosopher Daniel Dennett says that secular organizations need to learn more 'marketing' lessons from religion—and from effective secular organizations like the TED conferences. This is partly because Dennett says that the idea that people need God to be morally good is an extremely harmful, yet popular myth. He believes it is a falsehood that persists because churches are currently much better at organizing people to do morally good work.[15] In Dennett's words:
"What is particularly pernicious about it [the myth] is that it exploits a wonderful human trait; people want to be good. They want to lead good lives... So then along come religions that say 'Well you can't be good without God' to convince people that they have to do this. That may be the main motivation for people to take religions seriously—to try to take religions seriously, to try and establish an allegiance to the church—because they want to lead good lives."[15]
Religion is a poor moral guide
Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath[16] and those caught performing acts of homosexuality,[17] respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong."[18]:281
The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted,"[1]:63 suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. Greg M. Epstein notes a similar theme in reverse. Famous apologies by Christians who have "sinned" (such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Swaggart) "must embolden some who take enormous risks for the thrill of a little immoral behavior: their Lord will forgive them, if they only ask nicely enough when—or if—they are eventually caught. If you're going to do something naughty, you're going to do it, and all the theology in the world isn't going to stop you."[1]:115–116 Some survey and sociological literature suggests that theists do no better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[e]
Evidential findings
Cases can also be seen in nature of animals exhibiting behavior we might classify as "moral" without religious directives to guide them. These include "detailed studies of the complex systems of altruism and cooperation that operate among social insects" and "the posting of altruistic sentinels by some species of bird and mammal, who risk their own lives to warn the rest of the group of imminent danger."[9]:117
Greg Epstein states that "sociologists have recently begun to pay more attention to the fact that some of the world's most secular countries, such as those in Scandinavia, are among the least violent, best educated, and most likely to care for the poor".[19] He adds that, "scientists are beginning to document, though religion may have benefits for the brain, so may secularism and Humanism."[19]
On April 26, 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects' pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people also had lower scores when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[20][21]
A number of studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear. A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[22] Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[23][c] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[24][d] In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[25] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Other views
Some non-religious nihilistic and existentialist thinkers have affirmed the prominent theistic position that the existence of the personal God of theism is linked to the existence of an objective moral standard, asserting that questions of right and wrong inherently have no meaning and, thus, any notions of morality are nothing but an anthropogenic fantasy. Agnostic author and Absurdist philosopher Albert Camus discussed the issue of what he saw as the universe's indifference towards humankind and the meaninglessness of life in his prominent novel The Stranger, in which the protagonist accepts death via execution without sadness or feelings of injustice. In his philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that human beings must choose to live defiantly in spite of their longing for purpose or direction and the apparent lack of evidence for God or moral imperatives.[citation needed] The atheistic existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre proposed that the individual must create his own essence and therefore must freely and independently create his own subjective moral standards by which to live.
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.23, 16:50:08
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion
Morality and religionMorality and religion is the relationship between religious views and morals. Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. These include the Triple Jems of Jainism, Judaism's Halacha, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Canon Law, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, and Zoroastrianism's "good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others.[1] These frameworks are outlined and interpreted by various sources such as holy books, oral and written traditions, and religious leaders. Many of these share tenets with secular value frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.
Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not necessarily depend upon religion, though for some, this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] In the views of others, the two can overlap. According to one definition, morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[2]
Value judgments can vary greatly between religions, past and present. People in various religious traditions, such as Christianity, may derive ideas of right and wrong from the rules and laws set forth in their respective authoritative guides and by their religious leaders.[4] Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory.[2] Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from some of the broadest canons of religious works.[5] There has been interest in the relationship between religion and crime and other behavior that does not adhere to contemporary laws and social norms in various countries. Studies conducted in recent years have explored these relationships, but the results have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.[6] The ability of religious faiths to provide value frameworks that are seen as useful is a debated matter. Religious commentators have asserted that a moral life cannot be led without an absolute lawgiver as a guide. Other observers assert that moral behavior does not rely on religious tenets, and secular commentators point to ethical challenges within various religions that conflict with contemporary social norms.
Relationship between religion and moralityWithin the wide range of ethical traditions, religious traditions co-exist with secular value frameworks such as humanism, utilitarianism, and others. There are many types of religious values. Modern monotheistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity (and to a certain degree others such as Sikhism) define right and wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective gods and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Polytheistic religious traditions tend to be less absolute. For example, within Buddhism, the intention of the individual and the circumstances play roles in determining whether an action is right or wrong.[7] Barbara Stoler Miller points out a further disparity between the morals of religious traditions, stating that in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life. For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of Hinduism most difficult to understand."[8]
According to Stephen Gaukroger: "It was generally assumed in the 17th century that religion provided the unique basis for morality, and that without religion, there could be no morality."[9] This view slowly shifted over time. In 1690, Pierre Bayle asserted that religion "is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality".[9] Modern sources separate the two concepts. For example, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics says that,
For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion is their morality. For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligious. Even for some religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they may not be.[10]
Richard Paula and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking assert that, "Most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law." They separate the concept of ethics from these topics, stating:
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our criticism.[11]
They note problems that could arise if religions defined ethics, such as:[11]
religious practices like "torturing unbelievers or burning them alive" potentially being labeled "ethical"
the lack of a common religious baseline across humanity because religions provide different theological definitions for the idea of sin
They further note that various documents, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights lay out "transcultural" and "trans-religious" ethical concepts and principles—such as slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder, assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation—which require no reliance on religion (or social convention) for us to understand they are "ethically wrong".[11]
Armin Geertz suggests that "the age-old assumption that religion produces morals and values is neither the only, nor the most parsimonious, hypothesis for religion".[12]
Religious frameworksReligions provide different ways of dealing with moral dilemmas. For example, there is no absolute prohibition on killing in Hinduism, which recognizes that it "may be inevitable and indeed necessary" in certain circumstances.[13] In Christian traditions, certain acts are viewed in more absolute terms, such as abortion or divorce. In the latter case, a 2008 study by the Barna Group found that some denominations have a significantly higher divorce rate than those in non-religious demographic groups (atheists and agnostics). However Catholics and Evangelical Christians had the lowest divorce rates and the agnostic/atheist group had by far the lowest number of married couples to begin with.[14]
According to Thomas Dixon, "Many today ... argue that religious beliefs are necessary to provide moral guidance and standards of virtuous conduct in an otherwise corrupt, materialistic, and degenerate world."[15] In the same vein, Christian theologian Ron Rhodes has remarked that "it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good."[16] Thomas Dixon states, "Religions certainly do provide a framework within which people can learn the difference between right and wrong."[15]
Religion and social dimensionsAccording to global research done by Gallup on people from 145 countries, adherents of all the major world religions who attended religious services in the past week have higher rates of generosity such as donating money, volunteering, and helping a stranger than do their coreligionists who did not attend services (non-attenders). Even for people who were nonreligious, those who said they attended religious services in the past week exhibited more generous behaviors.[17] Another global study by Gallup on people from 140 countries showed that highly religious people are more likely to help others in terms of donating money, volunteering, and helping strangers despite them having, on average, lower incomes than those who are less religious or nonreligious.[18]
One study on pro-social sentiments showed that non-religious people were more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as lending their possessions and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train. Religious people were less inclined when it came to seeing how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in other ways, such as in giving money or food to a homeless person and to non-believers.[19][20]
A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[21][22] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[21] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[21] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[23]
Some scientific studies show that the degree of religiosity is generally associated with higher ethical attitudes[24][25][26][27] — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[28]
The overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear. A 2001 review of studies on this topic found "The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime."[29] Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[30] however, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological and theoretical problems undermine any findings or conclusions taken from Paul's research.[31] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[32] His conclusion is that a "complex relationship" exists between religiosity and homicide "with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it".
Some works indicate that some societies with lower religiosity have lower crime rates—especially violent crime, compared to some societies with higher religiosity.[33] Phil Zuckerman notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world," enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world." [34] However, Zuckerman noted that none of these correlations mean that atheism and non-religiosity cause social well-being, instead existential security is what allows for atheism and non-religion to thrive in these societies.[35]
Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[36] with some studies establishing this connection.[37] A meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[38] However, in his books about the materialism in Americas Evangelical Churches Ron Sider accuses fellow Christians of failing to do better than their secular counterparts in the percentage adhering to widely held moral standards (e.g., lying, theft and sexual infidelity).[39]
A Georgia State University study published in the academic journal Theoretical Criminology suggests that religion helps criminals to justify their crimes and might "encourage" it.[40] The research concluded that "many street offenders anticipate an early death, making them less prone to delay gratification, more likely to discount the future costs of crime, and thus more likely to offend".[41]
Criticism of religious valuesReligious values can diverge from commonly-held contemporary moral positions, such as those on murder, mass atrocities, and slavery. For example, Simon Blackburn states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system, and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".[42] In regard to Christianity, he states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[43] He provides examples such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[44] Blackburn notes morally suspect themes[which?] in the Bible's New Testament as well.[45]
Philosopher David Hume stated that, "The greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."[46]
Bertrand Russell said, "There are also, in most religions, specific ethical tenets which do definite harm. The Catholic condemnation of birth control, if it could prevail, would make the mitigation of poverty and the abolition of war impossible. The Hindu beliefs that the cow is a sacred animal and that it is wicked for widows to remarry cause quite needless suffering."[47] He asserts that
You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs....You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world.[48]
According to Paul Copan, Jewish laws in the bible show an evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing forced slavery and identifying slaves as persons and not property.[49]
According to Bertrand Russell, "Clergymen almost necessarily fail in two ways as teachers of morals. They condemn acts which do no harm and they condone acts which do great harm."[50] He cites an example of a clergyman who was warned by a physician that his wife would die if she had another (her tenth) child, but impregnated her regardless, which resulted in her death. "No one condemned him; he retained his benefice and married again. So long as clergymen continue to condone cruelty and condemn 'innocent' pleasure, they can only do harm as guardians of the morals of the young."[51]
Russell further states that, "The sense of sin which dominates many children and young people and often lasts on into later life is a misery and a source of distortion that serves no useful purpose of any sort or kind."[52] Russel allows that religious sentiments have, historically, sometimes led to morally acceptable behavior, but asserts that, "in the present day, [1954] such good as might be done by imputing a theological origin to morals is inextricably bound up with such grave evils that the good becomes insignificant in comparison."[53]
Secular moralityThere are number of secular value frameworks, such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, and utilitarianism. Yet, there have been opposing views about the ability of both religious and secular moral frameworks to provide useful guides to right and wrong actions.
Various non-religious commentators have supported the ability of secular value frameworks to provide useful guides. Bernard Williams argued that, "Either one's motives for following the moral word of God are moral motives, or they are not. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra. But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all ... we reach the conclusion that any appeal to God in this connection either adds to nothing at all, or it adds the wrong sort of thing."[55] Other observers criticize religious morals as incompatible with modern social norms. For example, popular atheist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that we now consider morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history.[56] According to Paul Copan, the position of the Bible to slaves is a positive one for the slaves in that Jewish laws imposed a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treated slaves as persons, not property.[49]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.23, 17:36:51
Morality and religion
snip
For example, popular atheist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that we now consider morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history.[56]
The atheist Richard Dawkins sounds a trifle confused here as:
(1) the so called Holocaust is a lie
(2) all early tribes and nations practised slavery ... it was the Christians that abolished slavery
I was raised in the Anglican church but by the time I was in my early '20's I had reached the conclusion that I didn't need religion to be "good". That i could be good on my own terms and escape the hypocrisy of the church.
However this wiki seems to be incomplete in not recognising Spirituality.
"Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves and typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such it is a universal human experience --- something that touches us all."
Ron
@ronee
Quote(2) all early tribes and nations practised slavery ... it was the Christians that abolished slavery
I think you failed to see the broad strokes in Evo's excellent argument. One cannot claim to be a saint with a checkerd past just as one cannot claim to be modest while continually building grandiose monuments (churches) to perpetuate one's own beliefs for profit while real people across the street starve. In fact the church has no claim to abolishing slavery and it was the slaves themselves who pressured government to act.
What is a slave...
QuoteSlavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.
You see if they do believe an all knowing all seeing bearded man in a white dress created everything from nothing no less than 6000 years ago then according to the scripture god owns them and their soul. So yes religion directly implies they agree to be a common slave not unlike any other form of slave by definition. They are owned as property and told what to do and if they do not do as told they are supposedly going to burn in hell as a form of torture. As we all know this violates the "Geneva Convention" thus God as most imagine him must be in-compassionate, immoral, vindictive and has committed what we know as crimes against humanity.
Obviously one cannot say I love you however if you do fall prey to your weakness and do harm or judge others or do not obey the words in this book then you must burn in hell for eternity... that's not love ronee that's petty, illegal and quit immature because ... it's 2017.
No offense but Evo destroyed your argument on so many levels I don't think you actually comprehend what he posted. I think you have to read it in full with an open mind to really appreciate the depth of it.
It serves no purpose to argue with the stubborn...
Alas, a self completed paint job in the mind is not the biggest of the big picture.
Christianity is the only view that allows choice of the two ways of mankind. All others are of feel good enterprises. Christianity is not a religion. It is a set of instructions to live by. Men of the past have perverted it with their lusts of power and have placed a skewed layer on their minions and puppets.
Reality is a voice operated, amplifying echo chamber. You speak and receive. The God of the Bible states this. It is up to us to decide for good or evil.
What do you speak of and what is your return? Jesus came and then practiced the operation of the device in front of hundreds of thousands of witnesses.
You can ask for anything except for one thing: to be God. Mind your thoughts for they too can operate this realm.
Quit arguing and give it a try. Otherwise quit arguing. Ping pong blather makes no game. It just wastes precious time away from doing the right thing.
@GK
QuoteChristianity is the only view that allows choice of the two ways of mankind. All others are of feel good enterprises. Christianity is not a religion. It is a set of instructions to live by. Men of the past have perverted it with their lusts of power and have placed a skewed layer on their minions and puppets.
It always comes out like this doesn't it?. We can talk with someone for years and pretend to know them and we can speak of common sense, of building real things of practical value which could help real people in the future. Then one night they claim to believe bigfoot was an alien who came to Earth riding a rainbow colored unicorn and... the illusion of understanding and a sense of commonalty just seems to evaporate into thin air along with the truth.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.07.24, 04:26:01
@ronee
I think you failed to see the broad strokes in Evo's excellent argument. One cannot claim to be a saint with a checkerd past just as one cannot claim to be modest while continually building grandiose monuments (churches) to perpetuate one's own beliefs for profit while real people across the street starve. In fact the church has no claim to abolishing slavery and it was the slaves themselves who pressured government to act.
What is a slave...
You see if they do believe an all knowing all seeing bearded man in a white dress created everything from nothing no less than 6000 years ago then according to the scripture god owns them and their soul. So yes religion directly implies they agree to be a common slave not unlike any other form of slave by definition. They are owned as property and told what to do and if they do not do as told they are supposedly going to burn in hell as a form of torture. As we all know this violates the "Geneva Convention" thus God as most imagine him must be in-compassionate, immoral, vindictive and has committed what we know as crimes against humanity.
Obviously one cannot say I love you however if you do fall prey to your weakness and do harm or judge others or do not obey the words in this book then you must burn in hell for eternity... that's not love ronee that's petty, illegal and quit immature because ... it's 2017.
No offense but Evo destroyed your argument on so many levels I don't think you actually comprehend what he posted. I think you have to read it in full with an open mind to really appreciate the depth of it.
If there was any logic or intelligence in your post?
But as you are the one who deletes my posts on other threads I guess it is to be expected.
Sad.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.24, 03:09:25
The atheist Richard Dawkins sounds a trifle confused here as:
snip
(2) all early tribes and nations practised slavery ... it was the Christians that abolished slavery
snip
Ron
This,number two, was not meant as as an endorsement of Christianity, rather just as a recognition of truth.
QuoteAlthough many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism)
Ron
Christians also created hospitals, refuge centers and rescue organizations. This is an endorsement. Our lives are impacted everyday by these entities.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2017.07.24, 16:31:17
Christians also created hospitals, refuge centers and rescue organizations. This is an endorsement. Our lives are impacted everyday by these entities.
People created hospitals, refuge centers and rescue organisations. This is a fact. Our lives are impacted everyday by the subjective value structure designation,'Christian', which is not a morally polarised construct.
In contrast, The Everymen decry immorality.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2017.07.24, 16:31:17
Christians also created hospitals, refuge centers and rescue organizations. This is an endorsement. Our lives are impacted everyday by these entities.
Sorry GK, I meant 'not an endorsement of the dogmatic church'. It was not the church that abolished slavery
rather as in the quote:
QuoteChristians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements
Thanks for the come back
Ron
Read it and weep: QE, the largest transfer of wealth in history
https://www.sott.net/article/357192-Read-it-and-weep-QE-the-largest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history
Dan Glazebrook
It appears that the massive, almost decade-long transfer of wealth to the rich known as 'quantitative easing' is coming to an end.
Of the world's four major central banks - the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan - two have already ended their policy of buying up financial assets (the Fed and the BoE), and the ECB plans to stop doing so in December. Indeed, the Fed is expected to start selling off the $3.5 trillion of assets it purchased during three rounds of QE within the next two months.
Given that - judged by its official aims - QE has been a total failure, this makes perfect sense. By 'injecting' money into the economy, QE was supposed to get banks lending again, boosting investment and driving up economic growth. But overall bank lending in fact fell following the introduction of QE in the UK, whilst lending to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) - responsible for 60 percent of employment - plummeted.
As Laith Khalaf, a senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, has noted: "Central banks have flooded the global economy with cheap money since the financial crisis, yet global growth is still in the doldrums, particularly in Europe and Japan, which have both seen colossal stimulus packages thrown at the problem."
Even Forbes admits that QE has "largely failed in reviving economic growth".
This is, or should be, unsurprising. QE was always bound to fail in terms of its stated aims, because the reason banks were not funneling money into productive investment was not because they were short of cash - on the contrary, by 2013, well before the final rounds of QE, UK corporations were sitting on almost £1/2trillion of cash reserves - but rather because the global economy was (and is) in a deep overproduction crisis. Put simply, markets were (and are) glutted and there is no point investing in glutted markets.
This meant that the new money created by QE and 'injected' into financial institutions - such as pension funds and insurance companies - was not invested into productive industry, but rather went into stock markets and real estate, driving up prices of shares and houses, but generating nothing in terms of real wealth or employment.
Holders of assets such as stocks and houses, therefore, have done very well out of QE, which has increased the wealth of the richest 5 percent of the UK population by an average of £128,000 per head.
How can this be? Where does this additional wealth come from? After all, while money - contrary to Tory sloganeering - can indeed be created 'out of thin air', which is precisely what QE has done, real wealth cannot. And QE has not produced any real wealth. Yet the richest 5 percent now have an extra £128,000 to spend on yachts, mansions, diamonds, caviar and so on. So where has it come from?
The answer is simple. The wealth which QE has passed to asset-holders has come, first of all, directly out of workers' wages. QE, by effectively devaluing the currency, has reduced the buying power of money, leading to an effective decrease in real wages, which, in the UK, still remain 6 percent below their pre-QE levels. The money taken out of workers' wages therefore forms part of that £128,000 dividend. But it has also come from new entrants to the markets inflated by QE - primarily, first time buyers and those just reaching pension age.
Those buying a house (which QE has made more expensive), for example, will likely have to work thousands of additional hours over the course of their mortgage in order to pay this increased cost. It is those extra hours that are creating the wealth which subsidizes the spending spree for the richest 5 percent. Of course, these increased house prices are paid by anyone purchasing a house, not only first time buyers - but the additional cost for existing homeowners is compensated for by the rise in price of their existing house (or by their shares for those wealthy enough to hold them).
QE also means that newly retiring pensioners are forced to subsidize the 5 percent. New retirees use their pension pot to purchase an 'annuity' - a bundle of stocks and shares generating dividends which serve as an income. However, as QE has inflated share prices, the number of shares they can buy with this pot is reduced. And, as share price increases do not increase dividends, this means reduced pension payments.
In truth, the story that QE was about encouraging investment and boosting employment and growth was always a fantastical yarn designed to disguise what was really going on - a massive transfer of wealth to the rich.
As economist Dhaval Joshi put it in 2011: "The shocking thing is, two years into an ostensible recovery, [UK] workers are actually earning less than at the depth of the recession. Real wages and salaries have fallen by £4bn. Profits are up by £11bn. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most unequal of ways."
In March this year, the Financial Times noted that while Britain's GDP had recovered to pre-crisis levels by 2014, real wages were still 10 percent lower than they had been in 2008. "The contraction of UK real wages was reversed in 2015," they added, "but it is not going to last". They were right. The same month the article was published, real wages began to fall again, and have been doing so ever since.
It is the same story in Japan, where, notes Forbes, "household income actually contracted since the implementation of QE".
QE has had a similar effect on the global South: enriching the holders of assets at the expense of the 'asset-poor'. Just as the influx of new money created bubbles in the housing and stock markets, it also created commodity price bubbles as speculators rushed to buy up stocks of, for example, oil and food. For some oil producing countries this has had a positive effect, providing them a windfall of cash to spend on social programs, as was initially the case in, for example, Venezuela, Libya and Iran. In all three cases, the empire has had to resort to various levels of militarism to counter these unintended consequences. But oil price hikes are, of course, detrimental to non-oil-producing countries - and food price hikes are always devastating.
In 2011, the UK's Daily Telegraph highlighted "the correlation between the prices of food and the Fed's purchase of US Treasuries (i.e. its quantitative easing programs)...We see how the food price index broadly stabilized through late 2009 and early 2010, then rose again from mid-2010 as quantitative easing was re-started ...with prices rising about 40 percent over an eight month period."
These price hikes pushed 44 million people into poverty in 2010 alone - leading, argued the Telegraph, to the unrest behind the so-called Arab Spring. Former World Bank president Robert Zoellick commented at the time that: "Food price inflation is the biggest threat today to the world's poor...one weather event and you start to push people over the edge."
Such are the costs of quantitative easing.
The BRICS economies were also critical of QE for another reason: they saw it as an underhand method of competitive currency devaluation. By reducing the value of their own currencies, the 'imperial triad' of the US, Europe and Japan were effectively causing everyone else's currencies to appreciate, thereby damaging their exports. Forbes wrote in 2015, "The effects are already being felt in the most dynamic exporter in the world, the East Asian economies. Their exports in US dollar terms moved dramatically from 10 percent year-on-year growth to a contraction of 12 percent in the first half of this year; and the results are the same whether China is excluded or not."
The main benefit of QE to the developing world is supposed to have been the huge inflows of capital it triggered. It has been estimated that around 40 percent of the money generated by the Fed's first QE credit expansion ('QE1') went abroad - mostly to the so-called 'emerging markets' of the global South - and around one third from QE2. However, this is not necessarily the great boon it seems. Much of the money went, as we have seen, into buying up commodity stocks (making basic items such as food unaffordable for the poor) rather than investing in new production, and much also went into buying up stocks of currency, again causing an export-damaging appreciation. Worse than this, an influx of so-called 'hot money' (footloose speculative capital, as opposed to long term investment capital) makes currencies particularly volatile and vulnerable to, for example, rises in interest rates abroad.
Should interest rates rise again in the US and Europe, for example, this is likely to trigger a mass exodus of capital from the emerging markets, potentially prefiguring a currency collapse. Indeed, it was an influx of 'hot money' into Asian currency markets very similar to that seen during QE which preceded the Asian currency crisis of 1997.
It is precisely this vulnerability which is likely to be tested - if not outright exploited - by the coming end of QE and accompanying rise of interest rates.
VATICAN IN AWE: 1500 YEAR OLD BIBLE CONFIRMS THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT CRUCIFIED
http://zonnews.com/mudo/3335-vatican-in-awe-1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified.html
Gospel of Barnabas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, which claims to be by the biblical Barnabas who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish. The Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.[1] Barnabas is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together, with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.
The text of this Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbās al-Aqqād),[2] to be late and pseudepigraphical.[3] However, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier, apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic,[4] Ebionite[5] or Diatessaronic[6]), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.
This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.24, 20:53:07
VATICAN IN AWE: 1500 YEAR OLD BIBLE CONFIRMS THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT CRUCIFIED
http://zonnews.com/mudo/3335-vatican-in-awe-1500-year-old-bible-confirms-that-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified.html
Gospel of Barnabas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, which claims to be by the biblical Barnabas who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish. The Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript.[1] Barnabas is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together, with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.
The text of this Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbās al-Aqqād),[2] to be late and pseudepigraphical.[3] However, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier, apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic,[4] Ebionite[5] or Diatessaronic[6]), redacted to bring it more in line with Islamic doctrine. Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.
This work should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas.
Quote
Christianity is a Hoax
"the New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it...are all fictional."
And so begins one of the most amazing little pamphlets that I've come across in many an aeon. Its conclusions, if true, are astounding, for they shake the foundations of history and make a mockery of the wits and intellects of a great host of epoch bending sages, philosophers, and theologians. Thus the gospel according to one Abelard Reuchelin, an earnest researcher of historic genealogies who specialized in ancient families. he began to zero in on one family in particular, the Piso family of Roman Patricians, who dominated the Roman aristocracy over several generations, producing caesars, consuls, generals, statesmen, philosophers, historians, scholars and bishops of the early Church. blood and marriage relations within the Piso family included Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Trajan, Vitellius, Vespasian, Julius Caesar's uncle Lucius Piso, Galba Caesar, and on and on. Rome was essentially ruled by the same tribe directly for over two hundred years, and indirectly via the Church up to the present.
what did Mssr. Abelard discover, then? merely that the authorship of the New Testament, and hence Christianity, was an ongoing Piso family project for over two generations, utilizing some of the best literary minds of the age as a battering ram against a series of alarmingly effective Jewish revolutions primarily in Judea, but also spreading to Egypt. the Pharisee party was in a powerful geopolitical position to choke trade routes and a powerful ideological position to challenge a variety of what they viewed as idolatries, with a monotheism that was at its core anti slavery. Roman abuses and the abuses of their puppet regimes had created a tinderbox that could easily be fanned into a full scale insurrection of the Eastern provinces. It was obvious to the patrician strategists that the Jewish ideology had to be countered on its own terms. similar to the fostering of American pacifism in the 1930's by Germany, a messianic splinter religion was planted within Judea which preached a pacifist message. the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the subsequent Epistles, the personages including the Christ figure, the apostles, the later important converts, Simon Peter, Saul/Paul, etc. were fabricated out of various Eastern mythologies, and in some cases, the biographies of the conspirators, themselves.
The case for this argument is made stronger by a glaring and obvious body of supporting historic fact, although fact by omission. one of the great conundrums to Biblical research has been the nagging lack of independent contemporary documentation making any reference whatsoever to a nascent Galilean religion. All extant literature dating from before 100 A.D. which makes reference to early Christianity is from the pen of the conspirators, often writing under pseudonyms. Reuchelin claims that the contemporary Jewish General and historian Flavius Josephus is, in fact, Arius Calpurnius Piso.
However the real dogbone to this bare cupboard of references to early Christianity is to be found in the strange silence that surrounds researches into the famous Dead Sea Scrolls; leather, parchment and metal scrolls written in Hebrew which have been unearthed in the hundreds, often complete and in excellent condition. here are a records of religious events, important commentaries and chronicles by a sect of Essene scribes and scholars writing in Judea for a hundred years up to 70 A.D. And nowhere is mention made of a new religion, a Messiah, a worker of miracles, a preaching to multitudes, a trial and crucifixion. Nothing. this silence is a great embarrassment to Biblical scholars and is treated extremely gingerly by the Biblical academic community.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/piso.htm (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/piso.htm)
Ron
Former Prime minister of Malaysia: Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/51232
16/10/03 20:39
Speaking at the opening of a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Malaysia today (Thursday), the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad urged Moslems to unite against the Jews and against Israel. However, he said that it should be done by emulating the Jews themselves, who "survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."
While naming Israel as "the enemy allied with most powerful nations," Mohammad claimed that "the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.... [T]hey have gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone, we must use our brains also."
Turning to peace treaties with the Jews and others, he reiterated the Moslem view that such treaties are tactical, and are a prelude to victory, rather than peace: "The Koran tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True, the treaty offered to us is not favorable. But we can negotiate. The Prophet did, and in the end he triumphed."
In light of these comments by a non-Arab Moslem leader, Tovia Singer will examine the question "is Islam a religion of peace?" with former PLO terrorist-turned staunch Zionist, Walid Shoebat, on tomorrow's Tovia Singer Show. The show can be heard live in Israel on Friday October 17, 5:00am - 7:00am (Thursday, October 16, 11:00pm EST - Friday, 1:00am EST) on Arutz-7 Israel National Radio or through the Internet at http://www.toviasingershow.com.
ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism
A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: "The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews." Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli's confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews.
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilisation.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
"National" Jews.
There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, "I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith." This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the "National Jews" in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews.
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
English people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ("family of the Angles"). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[6] England is one of the countries of the United Kingdom.
Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.
Today many English people have recent forebears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.
The English people are the source of the English language, the Westminster system, the common law system and numerous major sports such as cricket, football,[8] rugby union, rugby league and tennis. These and other English cultural characteristics have spread worldwide, in part as a result of the former British Empire.
British Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It originated with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area.[4] As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.[6] A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America and India.
The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence caused Britain to lose some of its oldest and most populous colonies. British attention soon turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century.[7] Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace"), a period of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon and adopted the role of global policeman.[8][9][10][11] In the early 19th century, the Industrial Revolution began to transform Britain; by the time of the Great Exhibition in 1851 the country was described as the "workshop of the world".[12] The British Empire expanded to include India, large parts of Africa and many other territories throughout the world. Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its own colonies, its dominance of much of world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[13][14]
In Britain, political attitudes favoured free trade and laissez-faire policies and a gradual widening of the voting franchise. During the 19th Century, Britain's population increased at a dramatic rate, accompanied by rapid urbanisation, which caused significant social and economic stresses.[15] To seek new markets and sources of raw materials, the Conservative Party under Benjamin Disraeli launched a period of imperialist expansion in Egypt, South Africa, and elsewhere. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became self-governing dominions.[16]
By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on the military, financial and manpower resources of Britain. Although the British Empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after World War I, Britain was no longer the world's pre-eminent industrial or military power. In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in Southeast Asia were occupied by Imperial Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige helped to accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence as part of a larger decolonisation movement in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997 marked for many the end of the British Empire.[17][18][19][20] Fourteen overseas territories remain under British sovereignty.
After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. The United Kingdom is now one of 16 Commonwealth nations, a grouping known informally as the Commonwealth realms, that share a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.
Origins (1497–1583)
The foundations of the British Empire were laid when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. In 1496, King Henry VII of England, following the successes of Spain and Portugal in overseas exploration, commissioned John Cabot to lead a voyage to discover a route to Asia via the North Atlantic.[6] Cabot sailed in 1497, five years after the European discovery of America, but he made landfall on the coast of Newfoundland, and, mistakenly believing (like Christopher Columbus) that he had reached Asia,[21] there was no attempt to found a colony. Cabot led another voyage to the Americas the following year but nothing was ever heard of his ships again.[22]
No further attempts to establish English colonies in the Americas were made until well into the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, during the last decades of the 16th century.[23] In the meantime the Protestant Reformation had turned England and Catholic Spain into implacable enemies.[6] In 1562, the English Crown encouraged the privateers John Hawkins and Francis Drake to engage in slave-raiding attacks against Spanish and Portuguese ships off the coast of West Africa[24] with the aim of breaking into the Atlantic slave trade. This effort was rebuffed and later, as the Anglo-Spanish Wars intensified, Elizabeth I gave her blessing to further privateering raids against Spanish ports in the Americas and shipping that was returning across the Atlantic, laden with treasure from the New World.[25] At the same time, influential writers such as Richard Hakluyt and John Dee (who was the first to use the term "British Empire")[26] were beginning to press for the establishment of England's own empire. By this time, Spain had become the dominant power in the Americas and was exploring the Pacific Ocean, Portugal had established trading posts and forts from the coasts of Africa and Brazil to China, and France had begun to settle the Saint Lawrence River area, later to become New France.[27]
Plantations of Ireland
Although England trailed behind other European powers in establishing overseas colonies, it had been engaged during the 16th century in the settlement of Ireland with Protestants from England and Scotland, drawing on precedents dating back to the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169.[28][29] Several people who helped establish the Plantations of Ireland also played a part in the early colonisation of North America, particularly a group known as the West Country men.[30]
Racial antisemitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism
Racial antisemitism is a form of antisemitism or prejudice against Jews on the basis belief that Jews are a racial or ethnic group, rather than prejudice against Judaism as a religion.[1] The definition is based on the premise that Jews constitute a distinctive race or ethnic group, whose traits or characteristics are in some way abhorrent or inherently inferior or otherwise different to that of the rest of society. The abhorrence may be expressed in the form of stereotypes or caricatures. Racial antisemitism may present Jews, as a group, as being a threat in some way to the values or safety of society. Racial antisemitism could be seen as worse than religious antisemitism because for religious antisemites conversion was an option and once converted the 'Jew' was gone. With racial antisemitism a Jew could not get rid of their Jewishness.[2]
According to William Nichols, religious antisemitism may be distinguished from modern antisemitism based on racial or ethnic grounds. "The dividing line was the possibility of effective conversion . . . a Jew ceased to be a Jew upon baptism." However, with racial antisemitism, "Now the assimilated Jew was still a Jew, even after baptism ... . From the Enlightenment onward, it is no longer possible to draw clear lines of distinction between religious and racial forms of hostility towards Jews... Once Jews have been emancipated and secular thinking makes its appearance, without leaving behind the old Christian hostility towards Jews, the new term antisemitism becomes almost unavoidable, even before explicitly racist doctrines appear."[3]
In the context of the Industrial Revolution, following the emancipation of the Jews and the Haskalah (the Jewish Enlightenment), Jews rapidly urbanized and experienced a period of greater social mobility. With the decreasing role of religion in public life tempering religious antisemitism, a combination of growing nationalism, the rise of eugenics, and resentment at the socio-economic success of the Jews, and the influx of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, soon led to the newer, and often more virulent, racist antisemitism.[4][citation needed]
Scientific racism, the ideology that biology played a role in group behavior and characteristics, was highly respected and accepted as fact between the years of 1870 and 1940. It was not only antisemites that believed in race science but highly educated Jews, among others, as well. This acceptance of race science made it possible for antisemites to clothe their hatred of Jews in scientific theory.[5]
The logic of racial antisemitism was extended in Nazi Germany, where racial antisemitic ideas were turned into law, which looked at the "blood" or ethnicity of a person, and not their current religious affiliations, and their fate would be determined purely on that basis. When added to its views on the Jewish racial traits which the Nazi pseudoscience devised, led to the Holocaust as a way of eradicating conjured up "Jewish traits" from the world.
Limpieza de sangre
A first appearance of racial antisemitism can be found in the Middle Ages alongside religious antisemitism. Though the limpieza de sangre and ("purity of blood") laws of medieval Spain and New Spain affected all non-Christians in society, it had particular impact on Jewish converts to Catholicism who continued to bear some of the disabilities to which they had previously been subject, and even grandchildren of a convert (who may even not know of the heritage) could be stigmatized for their "inferior" blood. The laws tainted Jewish converts to Catholicism, who were denied equal rights and status as Christians, This inferior status continued to apply to the convert's descendants, whose sincerity to their new faith was always in question before the Inquisition, and always had to be able to prove their blood line.
Racial antisemitism has existed alongside religious antisemitism since the Middle Ages, if not earlier. In Spain even before the Edict of Expulsion of 1492, Spanish Jews who converted to Catholicism (conversos in Spanish), and their descendants, were called New Christians. They were frequently accused of lapsing to their former religious practices ("Crypto-Jews"). To isolate conversos, the Spanish nobility developed an ideology of "cleanliness of blood". The conversos were called "New Christians" to indicate their inferior status in society. That ideology was a form of racism, as in the past there were no grades of Christianity and a convert had equal standing. Cleanliness of blood was an issue of ancestry, not of personal religion. The first statute of purity of blood appeared in Toledo in 1449,[6] where an anti-converso riot lead to conversos being banned from most official positions. Initially these statutes were condemned by the monarchy and the Church. However, the New Christians came to be hounded and persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition after 1478, the Portuguese Inquisition after 1536, the Peruvian Inquisition after 1570 and the Mexican Inquisition after 1571, as well as the Inquisition in Colombia after 1610.
In Portugal, the legal distinction between "New" and "Old" Christians continued until the issue of a legal decree by the Marquis of Pombal in 1772.
Nationalism and antisemitism
Racial antisemitism was preceded, especially in Germany, by antisemitism arising from Romantic nationalism. As racial theories developed, especially from the mid nineteenth-century onwards, these nationalist ideas were subsumed within them. But their origins were quite distinct from racialism. On the one hand they derived from an exclusivist interpretation of the 'Volk' ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder. This led to antisemitic writing and journalism in the second quarter of the 19th century of which Richard Wagner's Das Judentum in der Musik (Jewry in Music) is perhaps the most notorious example. On the other hand, radical socialists such as Karl Marx (himself of Jewish descent) identified Jews as being both victims and enforced perpetrators of the Capitalist system – e.g. in his article On the Jewish Question. From sources such as these, and encouraged by the broad acceptance of racial theories as the century continued, antisemitism entered the vocabularies and policies of both the right and the left in political thought.
Germany experienced strong industrial growth following its unification in 1871. Romantic nostalgia coalesced with the rising industrial middle class to form the Völkisch movement. Proponents became concerned with race: pre-Christian German pagan traditions and customs. Terms such as "teutonic" and "aryan" entered the vocabulary. Industrialist Theodor Fritsch financed publication of texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and reprints of Henry Ford's "The International Jew." The Germanenorden of 1912 was one such party to emerge from this movement.
Concept of a "semitic race"
In Medieval Europe, all Asian peoples were thought of as descendants of Shem. By the 19th century, the term Semitic was confined to the ethnic groups who have historically spoken Semitic languages or had origins in the Fertile Crescent, as the Jews in Europe did. These peoples were often considered to be a distinct race. However, some antisemitic racial theorists of the time argued that the Semitic peoples arose from the blurring of distinctions between previously separate races. This supposed process was referred to as semiticization by the race-theorist Arthur de Gobineau.
Gobineau himself did not consider the Semites (decedents of Shem) to be of a lesser race. He broke people up into three races: white, black, and yellow. The Semites, like the Aryans (and Hamites) came from Asia and were white. Over time each of the groups had mixed with black blood. The Aryans had stayed pure longer and it was not until more recent times that they had mixed. It was this mixing of races that would lead to man's downfall.[7] This idea of racial "confusion" was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg.[8][citation needed]It was used by the Nazi's to perpetuate the idea that the Jews were going to destroy Germany.[7][citation needed] The term semiticization was first used by Gobineau to label the blurring of racial distinctions that, in his view, had occurred in the Middle East. Gobineau had an essentialist model of race based on the three distinct racial groups, though he had no clear account of how this division arose. When these races mixed this caused "degeneration". Since the point at which these three supposed races met was in the Middle East, Gobineau argued that the process of mixing and diluting races occurred there, and that Semitic peoples embodied this "confused" racial identity.
This concept suited the interests of antisemites, since it provided a theoretical model to rationalise racialised antisemitism. Variations of the theory are to be found in the writings of many antisemites in the late 19th century. The Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg developed a variant of the theory in his writings, arguing that Jewish people were not a "real" race. According to Rosenberg, their evolution came about from the mixing of pre-existing races rather than from natural selection. The theory of semiticization was typically associated with other longstanding racist fears about the dilution of racial difference through miscegenation, manifested in negative images of mulattos and other mixed groups.
The rise of racial antisemitism
Modern European antisemitism has its origins in 19th century theories—now mostly considered as pseudo-scientific, but then accepted as credible—that said that the Semitic peoples, including the Jews, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they would not be able to assimilate. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, low cunning, and especially lack of patriotism. Later, Nazi propaganda also dwelt on supposed physical differences, such as the shape of the "Jewish nose".[9][10][11][12]
While enlightened European intellectual society of that period viewed prejudice against people on account of their religion to be declassé and a sign of ignorance, because of this supposed 'scientific' connection to genetics they felt fully justified in prejudice based on nationality or 'race'. In order to differentiate between the two practices, the term antisemitism was developed to refer to this 'acceptable' bias against Jews as a nationality, as distinct from the 'undesirable' prejudice against Judaism as a religion. Concurrently with this usage, some authors[who?] in Germany began to use the term 'Palestinians' when referring to Jews as a people, rather than as a religious group. Similar custom is still displayed in the use in academic circles of the term "Hebrew" in preference to the term "Jewish".
Actually, it is questionable whether Jews looked significantly different from the general population in which they lived. This was especially true in places like Germany, France and Austria where the Jewish population tended to be more secular (or at least less Orthodox) than that of Eastern Europe, and did not wear clothing (such as a yarmulke) that would particularly distinguish their appearance from the non-Jewish population. Many anthropologists of the time such as Franz Boas tried to use complex physical measurements like the cephalic index and visual surveys of hair/eye color and skin tone of Jewish vs. non-Jewish European populations to prove that the notion of separate "Jewish" and "Aryan" races was a myth. The 19th and early 20th century view of race should be distinguished from the efforts of modern population genetics to trace the ancestry of various Jewish groups, see Y-chromosomal Aaron.
The advent of racial antisemitism was also linked to the growing sense of nationalism in many countries. The nationalist context viewed Jews as a separate and often "alien" nation within the countries in which Jews resided, a prejudice exploited by the elites of many governments.[citation needed]
Racial antisemitic legislation
In Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 prohibited sexual relations and marriage between any Aryan and Jew (such relations under Nazi ideology was a crime punishable under the race laws as Rassenschande or "racial pollution"), and made it that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were no longer citizens of their own country (their official title became "subject of the state"). This meant that they had no basic citizens' rights, e.g., to vote. In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them having any influence in politics, higher education and industry. On 15 November 1938, Jewish children were banned from going to normal schools. By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been persuaded to sell out to the Nazi government. This further reduced their rights as human beings; they were in many ways officially separated from the German populace. Similar laws existed in Bulgaria- The Law for protection of the nation, Hungary, Romania, and Austria.
On the Jewish Question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
"On the Jewish Question" is a work by Karl Marx, written in 1843, and first published in Paris in 1844 under the German title "Zur Judenfrage" in the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher. It was one of Marx's first attempts to develop what would later be called the materialist conception of history.
The essay criticizes two studies[1][2] by Marx's fellow Young Hegelian Bruno Bauer on the attempt by Jews to achieve political emancipation in Prussia. Bauer argued that Jews could achieve political emancipation only by relinquishing their particular religious consciousness, since political emancipation requires a secular state, which he assumes does not leave any "space" for social identities such as religion. According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the "Rights of Man". True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.
Marx uses Bauer's essay as an occasion for his own analysis of liberal rights, arguing that Bauer is mistaken in his assumption that in a "secular state" religion will no longer play a prominent role in social life, and giving as an example the pervasiveness of religion in the United States, which, unlike Prussia, had no state religion. In Marx's analysis, the "secular state" is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it. The removal of religious or property qualifications for citizens does not mean the abolition of religion or property, but only introduces a way of regarding individuals in abstraction from them.[3] On this note Marx moves beyond the question of religious freedom to his real concern with Bauer's analysis of "political emancipation". Marx concludes that while individuals can be "spiritually" and "politically" free in a secular state, they can still be bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality, an assumption that would later form the basis of his critiques of capitalism.
A number of scholars and commentators regard "On the Jewish Question", and in particular its second section, which addresses Bauer's work "The Capacity of Present-day Jews and Christians to Become Free", as antisemitic;[4][5][6][7][8][9][excessive citations] however, a number of others disagree.[10][11][12][13][excessive citations]
The argument between Bauer and Marx
In Marx's view, Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation. As noted above, political emancipation in a modern state does not require the Jews (or, for that matter, the Christians) to renounce religion; only complete human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion, but that is not yet possible "within the hitherto existing world order".
In the second part of the essay, Marx disputes Bauer's "theological" analysis of Judaism and its relation to Christianity. Bauer has stated that the renouncing of religion would be especially difficult for Jews, because Judaism is, in his view, a primitive stage in the development of Christianity.[clarification needed] Hence, to achieve freedom by renouncing religion, the Christians would have to surmount only one stage, whereas the Jews would need to surmount two. In response to this, Marx argues that the Jewish religion does not need to be attached to the significance it has in Bauer's analysis, because it is only a spiritual reflection of Jewish economic life. This is the starting point of a complex and somewhat metaphorical argument which draws on the stereotype of the Jew as a financially apt "huckster" and posits a special connection between Judaism as a religion and the economy of contemporary bourgeois society. Thus, the Jewish religion does not need to disappear in society, as Bauer argues, because it is actually a natural part of it.[clarification needed] Having thus figuratively equated "practical Judaism" with "huckstering and money", Marx concludes, that "the Christians have become Jews"; and, ultimately, it is mankind (both Christians and Jews[14] that needs to emancipate itself from ("practical") Judaism.
The second part of Marx's essay is frequently cited as evidence of Marx' antisemitism:[4][15]
Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.
Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
...
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.
...
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.
History of essay publication
"Zur Judenfrage" was first published by Marx and Arnold Ruge in February 1844 in the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher, a journal which ran only one issue.[citation needed] From December 1843 to October 1844, Bruno Bauer published the monthly Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (General Literary Gazette) in Charlottenburg (now Berlin). In it, he responded to the critique of his own essays on the Jewish question by Marx and others. Then, in 1845, Friedrich Engels and Marx published a polemic critique of the Young Hegelians titled The Holy Family. In parts[16] of the book, Marx again presented his views dissenting from Bauer's on the Jewish question and on political and human emancipation.
A French translation appeared 1850 in Paris in Hermann Ewerbeck's book Qu'est-ce que la bible d'après la nouvelle philosophie allemande? (What is the Bible according to the new German philosophy?).
In 1879, historian Heinrich von Treitschke published an article "Unsere Aussichten" ("Our Prospects"), in which he demanded that the Jews should assimilate to German culture, and described Jewish immigrants as a danger for Germany. This article would stir a controversy, to which the newspaper Sozialdemokrat, edited by Eduard Bernstein, reacted by republishing almost the entire second part of "Zur Judenfrage" in June and July 1881.
The whole essay was republished in October 1890 in the Berliner Volksblatt, then edited by Wilhelm Liebknecht.[17]
In 1926, an English translation by H. J. Stenning, with the title "On the Jewish Question", appeared in a collection of essays by Marx.[18]
A translation of "Zur Judenfrage" was published together with other articles of Marx in 1959 under the title A World Without Jews.[19] The editor Dagobert D. Runes intended to show Marx's alleged antisemitism.[20] This edition has been criticized because the reader is not told that its title is not from Marx, and for distortions in the text.[21]
A manuscript of the essay has not been transmitted.[17]
Interpretations
Hyam Maccoby has argued that "On the Jewish Question" is an example of what he considers to be Marx's "early antisemitism". According to Maccoby, Marx argues in the essay that the modern commercialized world is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Maccoby has suggested that Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used the Jews as a "yardstick of evil". Maccoby writes that in later years, Marx limited what he considers to be antipathy towards Jews to private letters and conversations because of strong public identification with antisemitism by his political enemies both on the left (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin) and on the right (aristocracy and the Church).[6] Bernard Lewis has described "On the Jewish Question" as "one of the classics of antisemitic propaganda".[7] According to several scholars, Marx considered Jews to be the embodiment of capitalism and the representation of all its evils.[8]
Abram Leon in his book The Jewish Question (published 1946)[22] examines Jewish history from a materialist outlook. According to Leon, Marx's essay states that one "must not start with religion in order to explain Jewish history; on the contrary: the preservation of the Jewish religion or nationality can be explained only by the 'real Jew', that is to say, by the Jew in his economic and social role".
A notable expert on anti-Semitism, Robert Wistrich, stated "the net result of Marx's essay is to reinforce a traditional anti-Jewish stereotype – the identification of the Jews with money-making – in the sharpest possible manner".[23]
Isaac Deutscher (1959)[24] compares Marx with Elisha ben Abuyah, Baruch Spinoza, Heinrich Heine, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, and Sigmund Freud, all of whom he thinks of as heretics who transcend Jewry, and yet still belong to a Jewish tradition. According to Deutscher, Marx's "idea of socialism and of the classless and stateless society" expressed in the essay is as universal as Spinoza's ethics and God.
Shlomo Avineri (1964),[25] while regarding Marx's antisemitism as a well-known fact, points out that Marx's philosophical criticism of Judaism has often overshadowed his forceful support for Jewish emancipation as an immediate political goal. Avineri notes that in Bauer's debates with a number of Jewish contemporary polemicists, Marx entirely endorsed the views of the Jewish writers against Bauer.[25] In a letter to Arnold Ruge, written March 1843,[26] Marx writes that he intended to support a petition of the Jews to the Provincial Assembly. He explains that with the fact that while he dislikes Judaism as a religion, he also remains unconvinced by Bauer's view (that the Jews should not be emancipated before they abandon Judaism). However, he also clarifies in the letter that his support of the petition is merely tactical, to further his efforts at weakening the Christian state.
In his book For Marx (1965), Louis Althusser claims that "in On the Jewish Question, Hegel's Philosophy of the State, etc., and even usually in The Holy Family that "... Marx was merely applying the theory of alienation, that is, Feuerbach's theory of 'human nature', to politics and the concrete activity of man, before extending it (in large part) to political economy in the Manuscripts".[27] He opposes a tendency according to which "Capital is no longer read as 'On the Jewish Question', 'On the Jewish Question' is read as 'Capital'".[28] For Althusser, the essay "is a profoundly "ideological text", "committed to the struggle for Communism", but without being Marxist; "so it cannot, theoretically, be identified with the later texts which were to define historical materialism".[29]
David McLellan, however, has argued that "On the Jewish Question" must be understood in terms of Marx's debates with Bruno Bauer over the nature of political emancipation in Germany. According to McLellan, Marx used the word "Judentum" in its colloquial sense of "commerce" to argue that Germans suffer, and must be emancipated from, capitalism. The second half of Marx's essay, McLellan concludes, should be read as "an extended pun at Bauer's expense".[10]
Hal Draper (1977)[30] observed that the language of Part II of "On the Jewish Question" followed the view of the Jews' role given in Jewish socialist Moses Hess' essay "On the Money System".
Stephen Greenblatt (1978)[31] compares the essay with Christopher Marlowe's play The Jew of Malta. According to Greenblatt, "both writers hope to focus attention upon activity that is seen as at once alien and yet central to the life of the community and to direct against that activity the antisemitic feeling of the audience". Greenblatt is attributing Marx a "sharp, even hysterical, denial of his religious background".
Yoav Peled (1992)[32] sees Marx "shifting the debate over Jewish emancipation from the plane of theology ... to the plane of sociology", thereby circumventing one of Bauer's main arguments. In Peled's view, "this was less than a satisfactory response to Bauer, but it enabled Marx to present a powerful case for emancipation while, at the same time, launching his critique of economic alienation". He concludes that "the philosophical advances made by Marx in 'On the Jewish Question' were necessitated by, and integrally related to, his commitment to Jewish emancipation".
Others argue that "On the Jewish Question" is primarily a critique of liberal rights, rather than a criticism of Judaism, and that apparently antisemitic passages such as "Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist" should be read in that context.[13]
For sociologist Robert Fine (2006)[33] Bauer's essay "echoed the generally prejudicial representation of the Jew as 'merchant' and 'moneyman'", whereas "Marx's aim was to defend the right of Jews to full civil and political emancipation (that is, to equal civil and political rights) alongside all other German citizens". Fine argues that "[the] line of attack Marx adopts is not to contrast Bauer's crude stereotype of the Jews to the actual situation of Jews in Germany", but "to reveal that Bauer has no inkling of the nature of modern democracy".
While sociologist Larry Ray in his reply (2006)[34] acknowledges Fine's reading of the essay as an ironic defence of Jewish emancipation, he points out the polyvalence of Marx's language. Ray translates a sentence of "Zur Judenfrage" and interprets it as an assimilationist position "in which there is no room within emancipated humanity for Jews as a separate ethnic or cultural identity", and which advocates "a society where both cultural as well as economic difference is eliminated". Here Ray sees Marx in a "strand of left thinking that has been unable to address forms of oppression not directly linked to class".
The political-scientist Professor Iain Hamphsher-Monk wrote in his textbook: "This work ["On The Jewish Question"] has been cited as evidence for Marx's supposed antisemitism, but only the most superficial reading of it could sustain such an interpretation."[12] Also, McLellan and Francis Wheen argue readers should interpret "On the Jewish Question" in the deeper context of Marx's debates with Bruno Bauer, author of The Jewish Question, about Jewish emancipation in Germany. Francis Wheen says: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians". Although he claimed to be an atheist, Bruno Bauer viewed Judaism as an inferior civilization.[35]
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "antisemitism" to Marx as an anachronism because when Marx wrote "On the Jewish Question", virtually all major philosophers had expressed similar views, and the word "antisemitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era, according to Sacks.[11]
Reference to Müntzer
In part II of the essay, Marx refers to Thomas Müntzer:
The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.
It is in this sense that [in a 1524 pamphlet] Thomas Münzer declares it intolerable
that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.[15]
In his Apology, in large parts an attack on Martin Luther, Müntzer says:
Look ye! Our sovereign and rulers are at the bottom of all usury, thievery, and robbery; they take all created things into possession. The fish in the water, birds in the air, the products of the soil – all must be theirs (Isaiah v.)[36]
The appreciation of Müntzer's position has been interpreted as a sympathetic view of Marx towards animals.[37]
Church attendance drops to lowest rate EVER as UK faces 'anti-Christian' culture
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/634204/UK-Christian-Religion-Attendance-Church-Islam
AN 'anti-Christian' culture in Britain has been blamed for church attendance plummeting to its lowest number ever.
Only 1.4 per cent of the entire British population attends Anglican services on Sunday morning, in a rapid seven per cent drop in five years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed a change in social attitudes as the overall average attendance dropped by 22,000 to 764,700 in 2014.
And the 'weekly attendance' which shows the numbers of worshippers gathering for extra services between Monday and Saturday, has fallen below one million.
Numbers are now so low they are just one third of the figure in the 1960s.
Elderly people dying has been one of the main factors in the drop in attendees according to the church. It estimates death of members can account for a one per cent drop every year.
Attendance at Evangelical churches has improved in some areas with congregations growingly strongly.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, addressed leaders of the Anglican church at a crisis meeting over the split over homosexuality.
In a plea to archbishops in Africa the archbishop asked churches not to completely break off communion with more liberal branches, adding it would be "easy to paint a gloomy picture" of the Church's prospects.
He said: "The culture is becoming anti-Christian, whether it is on matters of sexual morality, or the care for people at the beginning or end of life.
"The Church of England educates more than 1million children in our schools. We are involved in almost all the food banks as, for the first time since the 1930s, we have hunger in this country. We are still a major part of the glue that holds society together."
Bishop of Norwich, the Rt Rev Graham James, said: "The 2014 figures are not in any way a surprise. While the recent trend of the past decade continues, it has been anticipated and is being acted on radically."
"The story is not one of inevitable decline. During 2013 to 2014 some diocese continued to increase their attendance. In the past 12 months alone there are examples of growth and new churches across the country."
Sexual ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics
Sexual ethics or sex ethics (also called sexual morality) is the study of human sexuality and the expression of human sexual behavior. Sexual ethics seeks to understand and evaluate the moral conduct of interpersonal relationships and sexual activities from social, cultural, and philosophical perspectives. Historically, the prevailing notions of what was deemed as sexually ethical has been tied to religious values.[1] Sexual ethics involve issues, such as gender identification, sexual orientation, the imbalance of power in relationships, consent, sexual relations, and procreation.
Terminology and philosophical context
The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, but sometimes ethics is reserved for interpersonal interactions and morality is used to cover both interpersonal and inherent questions.[2]
However, not all approaches to applied ethics agree that there is an inherent morality:
Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is inherently right or wrong, and that all value judgments are either human constructs or meaningless.
Moral relativism is the meta-ethical view that moral judgments are subjective. In some cases this is merely descriptive, in other cases this approach is normative – the idea that morality should be judged in the context of each culture's convictions and practices.
Moral universalism is the meta-ethical view that moral judgments are objectively true or false, that everyone should behave according to the same set of normative ethics.
In philosophic terminology, hedonism is the idea that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, making selfish pleasures their primary goal. This may be combined with nihilism in a selfish morality, or with utilitarianism to seek maximization of happiness for everyone. Some religions derive a normative sexual ethics from their texts or teachings, and these range from nihilistic utilitarianism to more complex, fixed systems for determining right and wrong.
Many practical questions arise regarding human sexuality, such as whether sexual norms should be enforced by law, given social approval, or changed. Answers to these questions can be considered on a scale from social liberalism to social conservatism. Considerable controversy continues over which system of ethics or morality best promotes human happiness, and which, if any, is inherently right.
Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
Aristotle
Aristotle saw many vices as excesses or deficits in relation to some virtue, as cowardice and rashness relate to courage. Some attitudes and actions – such as envy, murder, and theft – he saw as wrong in themselves, with no question of a deficit/excess in relation to the mean.[1]
Religion and sexuality
Immorality is often but not always closely linked with both religion and sexuality.[2] Max Weber saw rational articulated religions as engaged in a long-term struggle with more physical forms of religious experience linked to dance, intoxication and sexual activity.[3] Durkheim pointed out how many primitive rites culminated in an abandonment of the distinction between licit and immoral behavior.[4]
Freud's dour conclusion was that "In every age immorality has found no less support in religion than morality has".[5]
Sexual immorality
Coding of sexual behavior has historically been a feature of all human societies, as too has the policing of breaches of its mores – sexual immorality – by means of formal and informal social control.[6] Interdictions and taboos among primitive societies[7] were arguably no less severe than in traditional agrarian societies.[8] In the latter, the degree of control might vary from time to time and region to region, being least in urban settlements;[9] however, only the last three centuries of intense urbanisation, commercialisation and modernisation have broken with the restrictions of the pre-modern world,[10] in favor of a successor society of fractured and competing sexual codes and subcultures, where sexual expression is integrated into the workings of the commercial world.[11]
Nevertheless, while the meaning of sexual immorality has been drastically redefined in recent times, arguably the boundaries of what is acceptable remain publicly policed and as highly charged as ever, as the decades-long debates over reproductive rights after Roe v. Wade, or 21st-century controversy over child images on Wikipedia and Amazon would tend to suggest.[12]
Modernity
Michel Foucault considered that the modern world was unable to put forward a coherent morality[13] – an inability underpinned philosophically by emotivism. Nevertheless, modernism has often been accompanied by a cult of immorality,[14] as for example when John Ciardi acclaimed The Naked Lunch as "a monumentally moral descent into the hell of narcotic addiction".[15]
Immoral psychoanalysis
Psychoanalysis received much early criticism for being the unsavory product of an immoral town – Vienna; psychoanalysts for being both unscrupulous and dirty-minded.[16]
Freud himself however was of the opinion that "anyone who has succeeded in educating himself to truth about himself is permanently defended against the danger of immorality, even though his standard of morality may differ".[17]
Literary references
When questioned by a proof-reader whether his description of Meleager as the immoral poet should be immortal poet, T. E. Lawrence replied: "Immorality I know. Immortality I cannot judge. As you please: Meleager will not sue us for libel".[18]
De Quincey set out an (inverted) hierarchy of immorality in his study On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts: "if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to procrastination and incivility...this downward path".[19]
Mores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores
Mores (/ˈmɔːreɪz/, especially in UK English, sometimes /ˈmɔːriːz/;[1] from Latin mōrēs, [ˈmoːreːs], plural form of singular mōs, meaning "manner", "custom", "usage", "habit") is a term introduced into English by William Graham Sumner (1840–1910), an early U.S. sociologist, to refer to social norms that are widely observed and are considered to have greater moral significance than others. Mores include an aversion for societal taboos, such as incest.[2] The mores of a society usually predicate legislation prohibiting their taboos. Often, countries will employ specialized vice squads or vice police engaged in suppressing specific crimes offending the societal mores.
Folkways, in sociology, are norms for routine or casual interaction. This includes ideas about appropriate greetings and proper dress in different situations.[2]
In short, mores "distinguish the difference between right and wrong, while folkways draw a line between right and rude".[2]
Both "mores" and "folkways" are terms coined by William Graham Sumner in 1906.[2][3]
Terminology
The English word morality comes from the same Latin root "mōrēs", as does the English noun moral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality. Rather, morality can be seen as a subset of mores, held to be of central importance in view of their content, and often formalized in some kind of moral code.
The Greek terms equivalent to Latin mores are ethos (ἔθος, ἦθος, "character") or nomos (νόμος, "law"). As with the relation of mores to morality, ethos is the basis of the term ethics, nomos give the suffix -onomy, as in astronomy.
Anthropology
The meaning of all these terms extend to all customs of proper behavior in a given society, both religious and profane, from more trivial conventional aspects of custom, etiquette or politeness—"folkways" enforced by gentle social pressure, but going beyond mere "folkways" or conventions in including moral codes and notions of justice—down to strict taboos, behavior that is unthinkable within the society in question, very commonly including incest and murder, but also the commitment of outrages specific to the individual society such as blasphemy. Such religious or sacral customs may vary.
While cultural universals are by definition part of the mores of every society (hence also called "empty universals"), the customary norms specific to a given society are a defining aspect of the cultural identity of an ethnicity or a nation. Coping with the differences between two sets of cultural conventions is a question of intercultural competence.
Differences in the mores of various nations are at the root of ethnic stereotype, or in the case of reflection upon one's own mores, autostereotypes.
Ex-Mossad chief: Jewish spies were instrumental in Balfour Declaration
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ex-Mossad-chief-Jewish-spies-were-instrumental-in-Balfour-Declaration-500553
Efraim Halevy highlights role of NILI espionage network in creation of Israel.
The Jewish espionage network NILI played a vital role in the formation of the Balfour Declaration that helped pave the way for the establishment of Israel, according to a new study written by former Mossad head Efraim Halevy.
The Balfour Declaration, dated November 2, 1917, was sent by then-British foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild. It expressed Britain's support for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel.
The text of the letter was incorporated into the Treaty of Sèvres with the Ottoman Empire and the Mandate for Palestine.
Chaim Weizmann – president of the Jewish Federation in England at the time of the declaration's publication and later Israel's first president – has always been credited for his instrumental role in securing the declaration. But in an edition of the British Jewish magazine Fathom dedicated to commemorating the 100 year anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Halevy emphasizes the role played by the Jewish underground movement, then headed by Aaron Aaronsohn.
Halevy points to an official publication by the British Secret Intelligence Service reviewing the intelligence activity of Britain in the years 1909-1949 that states – based on documents from the era – during the First World War, NILI spies collected "abundant military information through Palestine and South Syria" in an effort to recruit Britain, after winning the war, to the cause of establishing a home for the Jews of the world in what was then known as Palestine.
Halevy further notes that in May 2017, a British intelligence officer stationed in Paris wrote to the director of the Eastern Mediterranean Special Intelligence Bureau: "You certainly seem to be getting good stuff through Mack." Mack was the code-name for Aaronsohn among British intelligence personnel.
Twenty years later Colonel Walter Gibbon, who was in charge of Near East intelligence in the War Office at the time, suggested it was "largely owing to the information provided by the Aaronsohn network that General Allenby was able to conduct his campaign in Palestine so successfully."
Edmund Allenby led the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign against the Ottoman Empire in the conquest of Palestine.
Halevy notes that the most prominent evidence of Aaronsohn and his men's contribution to the Balfour Declaration is that only two Zionist leaders were invited to the British cabinet's October 31, 1917, final discussion over the Jewish issue in post-Ottoman Palestine: Aaronsohn and Weizmann.
A document compiled in 1922 by MP William Ormsby Gore summarizing the circumstances leading to the Balfour Declaration, mentioned that Sykes was furthered by director of military intelligence Gen. Macdunagh, as all the most useful and helpful intelligence from Palestine – then still occupied by Turkey – was obtained through and given with zeal by Zionist Jews who were from the first pro-British."
NILI, Halevy, writes, "proved how a handful of determined people can transcend their immediate condition, and through the power of their convictions, win over powerful international figures to support their cause."
"As we approach the hundred year anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, we should also highlight those who helped bring it about," Halevy concludes.
The USS Liberty Attack In A Nutshell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBB6CqCGWh8
The Five Dancing Israelis - 9/11/2001 - Our Purpose Was To Document The Event
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs
If you are Jew you must watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWfwK3Xc_Y4
Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire
An empire is defined as "an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government, usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire or Roman Empire".[1]
An empire can be made solely of contiguous territories such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or of territories far remote from the homeland, such as a colonial empire. Aside from the more formal usage, the term "empire" can also be used to refer to a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), a political organisation controlled by a single individual (a political boss) or a group (political bosses).[2] The term "empire" is associated with other words such as imperialism, colonialism, and globalization. Empire is often used to describe a displeasure to overpowering situations.[3]
An imperial political structure can be established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force or (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power. The former method provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter method provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion.[4] Territorial empires (e.g. the Mongol Empire and Median Empire) tend to be contiguous areas. The term, on occasion, has been applied to maritime empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian and British empires) with looser structures and more scattered territories. Empires are usually larger than kingdoms.
This aspiration to universality resulted in conquest by converting 'outsiders' or 'inferiors' into the colonialized religion. This association of nationality and race became complex and has had a more intense drive for expansion.[5]
Definition
An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture.[6] This is in contrast to a federation, which is an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. An empire is a large political party who rules over territories outside of its original borders.
Definitions of what physically and politically constitute an empire vary. It might be a state affecting imperial policies or a particular political structure. Empires are typically formed from diverse ethnic, national, cultural, and religious components.[7] Empire and colonialism are used to refer to relationships between powerful state or society versus a less powerful one.
Tom Nairn and Paul James define empires as polities that "extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value".[8]
Sometimes, an empire is a semantic construction, such as when a ruler assumes the title of "emperor". That ruler's nation logically becomes an "empire", despite having no additional territory or hegemony. Examples of this form of empire are the Central African Empire, or the Korean Empire proclaimed in 1897 when Korea, far from gaining new territory, was on the verge of being annexed by the Empire of Japan, the last to use the name officially. Among the last of the empires in the 20th century were the Central African Empire, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Manchukuo, the German Empire, and Korea.
The terrestrial empire's maritime analogue is the thalassocracy, an empire composed of islands and coasts which are accessible to its terrestrial homeland, such as the Athenian-dominated Delian League.
Furthermore, empires can expand by both land and sea. Stephen Howe notes that empires by land can be characterized by expansion over terrain, "extending directly outwards from the original frontier" [9] while an empire by sea can be characterized by colonial expansion and empire building "by an increasingly powerful navy".[10]
Characteristics
Empires originated as different types of states, although they commonly began as powerful monarchies. Ideas about empires have changed over time, ranging from public approval to universal distaste. Empires are built out of separate units with some kind of diversity – ethnic, national, cultural, religious – and imply at least some inequality between the rulers and the ruled. Without this inequality, the system would be seen as commonwealth.
Many empires were the result of military conquest, incorporating the vanquished states into a political union, but imperial hegemony can be established in other ways. The Athenian Empire, the Roman Empire, and the British Empire developed at least in part under elective auspices. The Empire of Brazil declared itself an empire after separating from the Portuguese Empire in 1822. France has twice transitioned from being called the French Republic to being called the French Empire while it retained an overseas empire.
Weaker states may seek annexation into the empire. An example is the bequest of Pergamon to the Roman Empire by Attalus III. The Unification of Germany as the empire accreted to the Prussian metropole was less a military conquest of the German states than their political divorce from the Austrian Empire. Having convinced the other states of its military prowess, and having excluded the Austrians, Prussia dictated the terms of imperial membership.
Politically, it was typical for either a monarchy or an oligarchy, rooted in the original core territory of the empire, to continue to dominate. If governmental authority was maintained by controlling water supplies, vital to colonial subjects, such régimes were called hydraulic empires.
Europeans began applying the designation of "empire" to non-European monarchies, such as the Qing Empire and the Mughal Empire, as well as the Maratha Empire, eventually leading to the looser denotations applicable to any political structure meeting the criteria of "imperium".
Some empires styled themselves as having greater size, scope, and power than the territorial, politico-military, and economic facts support. As a consequence, some monarchs assumed the title of "emperor" (or its corresponding translation, tsar, empereur, kaiser,shah etc.) and renamed their states as "The Empire of ...."
Empires were seen as an expanding power, administration, ideas and beliefs followed by cultural habits from place to place. Empires tend to impose their culture on the subject states to strengthen the imperial structure. This can have notable effects that outlast the empire itself, both positive and negative.
Empire versus nation state
Empires have been the dominant international organization in world history:
The fact that tribes, peoples, and nations have made empires points to a fundamental political dynamic, one that helps explain why empires cannot be confined to a particular place or era but emerged and reemerged over thousands of years and on all continents.[53]
Empires ... can be traced as far back as the recorded history goes; indeed, most history is the history of empires... It is the nation-state—an essentially 19th-century ideal—that is the historical novelty and that may yet prove to be the more ephemeral entity.[54]
Our field's fixation on the Westphalian state has tended to obscure the fact that the main actors in global politics, for most of time immemorial, have been empires rather than states ... In fact, it is a very distorted view of even the Westphalian era not to recognize that it was always at least as much about empires as it was states. Almost all of the emerging European states no sooner began to consolidate than they were off on campaigns of conquest and commerce to the farthest reaches of the globe... Ironically, it was the European empires that carried the idea of the sovereign territorial state to the rest of the world...[55]
Empire has been the historically predominant form of order in world politics. Looking at a time frame of several millennia, there was no global anarchic system until the European explorations and subsequent imperial and colonial ventures connected disparate regional systems, doing so approximately 500 years ago. Prior to this emergence of a global-scope system, the pattern of world politics was characterized by regional systems. These reginal systems were initially anarchic and marked by high levels of military competition. But almost universally, they tended to consolidate into regional empires... Thus it was empires—not anarchic state systems—that typically dominated the regional systems in all parts of the world... Within this global pattern of regional empires, European political order was distinctly anomalous because it persisted so long as an anarchy.[56]
Similarly, Anthony Pagden, Eliot A. Cohen, Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper estimate that "empires have always been more frequent, more extensive political and social forms than tribal territories or nations have ever been."[57] Many empires endured for centuries, while the age of the ancient Egyptian, Chinese and Japanese Empires is counted in millennia. "Most people throughout history have lived under imperial rule."[58]
Empires have played a long and critical part in human history... [Despite] efforts in words and wars to put national unity at the center of political imagination, imperial politics, imperial practices, and imperial cultures have shaped the world we live in ... Rome was evoked as a model of splendor and order into the Twentieth century and beyond... By comparison, the nation-state appears as a blip on the historical horizon, a state form that emerged recently from under imperial skies and whose hold on the world's political imagination may well prove partial or transitory... The endurance of empire challenges the notion that the nation-state is natural, necessary, and inevitable....[59]
Political scientist Hedley Bull wrote that "in the broad sweep of human history...the form of states system has been the exception rather than the rule."[60] His colleague Robert Gilpin confirmed this conclusion for the pre-modern period:
The history of interstate relations was largely that of successive great empires. The pattern of international political change during the millennia of the pre-modern era has been described as an imperial cycle... World politics was characterized by the rise and decline of powerful empires, each of which in turn unified and ordered its respective international system. The recurrent pattern in every civilization of which we have knowledge was for one state to unify the system under its imperial domination. The propensity toward universal empire was the principal feature of pre-modern politics.[61]
Historian Michael Doyle who undertook an extensive research on empires extended the observation into the modern era:
Empires have been the key actors in world politics for millennia. They helped create the interdependent civilizations of all the continents... Imperial control stretches through history, many say, to the present day. Empires are as old as history itself... They have held the leading role ever since.[62]
Universal empire
Expert on warfare Quincy Wright generalized on what he called "universal empire"—empire unifying all the contemporary system:
Balance of power systems have in the past tended, through the process of conquest of lesser states by greater states, towards reduction in the number of states involved, and towards less frequent but more devastating wars, until eventually a universal empire has been established through the conquest by one of all those remaining.[63]
German Sociologist Friedrich Tenbruck finds that the macro-historic process of imperial expansion gave rise to global history in which the formations of universal empires were most significant stages.[64] A later group of political scientists, working on the phenomenon of the current unipolarity, in 2007 edited research on several pre-modern civilizations by experts in respective fields. The overall conclusion was that the balance of power was inherently unstable order and usually soon broke in favor of imperial order.[65] Yet before the advent of the unipolarity, world historian Arnold Toynbee and political scientist Martin Wight had drawn the same conclusion with an unambiguous implication for the modern world:
When this [imperial] pattern of political history is found in the New World as well as in the Old World, it looks as if the pattern must be intrinsic to the political history of societies of the species we call civilizations, in whatever part of the world the specimens of this species occur. If this conclusion is warranted, it illuminates our understanding of civilization itself.[66]
Most states systems have ended in universal empire, which has swallowed all the states of the system. The examples are so abundant that we must ask two questions: Is there any states system which has not led fairly directly to the establishment of a world empire? Does the evidence rather suggest that we should expect any states system to culminate in this way? ...It might be argued that every state system can only maintain its existence on the balance of power, that the latter is inherently unstable, and that sooner or later its tensions and conflicts will be resolved into a monopoly of power.[67]
The earliest thinker to approach the phenomenon of universal empire from a theoretical point of view was Polybius (2:3):
In previous times events in the world occurred without impinging on one another ... [Then] history became a whole, as if a single body; events in Italy and Libya came to be enmeshed with those in Asia and Greece, and everything gets directed towards one single goal.
Fichte, having witnessed the battle at Jena in 1806 when Napoleon overwhelmed Prussia, described what he perceived as a deep historical trend:
There is necessary tendency in every cultivated State to extend itself generally... Such is the case in Ancient History ... As the States become stronger in themselves and cast off that [Papal] foreign power, the tendency towards a Universal Monarchy over the whole Christian World necessarily comes to light... This tendency ... has shown itself successively in several States which could make pretensions to such a dominion, and since the fall of the Papacy, it has become the sole animating principle of our History... Whether clearly or not—it may be obscurely—yet has this tendency lain at the root of the undertakings of many States in Modern Times... Although no individual Epoch may have contemplated this purpose, yet is this the spirit which runs through all these individual Epochs, and invisibly urges them onward.[68]
Fichte's later compatriot, Geographer Alexander von Humboldt (1769 –1859), in the mid-Nineteenth century observed a macro-historic trend of imperial growth in both Hemispheres: "Men of great and strong minds, as well as whole nations, acted under influence of one idea, the purity of which was utterly unknown to them."[69] The imperial expansion filled the world circa 1900.[70][71] Two famous contemporary observers—Frederick Turner and Halford Mackinder described the event and drew implications, the former predicting American overseas expansion[72] and the latter stressing that the world empire is now in sight.[73]
Friedrich Ratzel, writing at the same time, observed that the "drive toward the building of continually larger states continues throughout the entirety of history" and is active in the present.[74] He drew "Seven Laws of Expansionism." His seventh law stated: "The general trend toward amalgamation transmits the tendency of territorial growth from state to state and increases the tendency in the process of transmission." He commented on this law to make its meaning clear: "There is on this small planet sufficient space for only one great state."[75]
Two other contemporaries—Kang Yu-wei and George Vacher de Lapouge—stressed that imperial expansion cannot indefinitely proceed on the definite surface of the globe and therefore world empire is imminent. Kang Yu-wei in 1885 believed that the imperial trend will culminate in the contest between Washington and Berlin[76] and Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 estimated that the final contest will be between Russia and America in which America is likely to triumph.[77]
The above envisaged contests indeed took place, known to us as World War I and II. Writing during the Second, political scientists Derwent Whittlesey, Robert Strausz-Hupé and John H. Herz concluded: "Now that the earth is at last parceled out, consolidation has commenced."[78] In "this world of fighting superstates there could be no end to war until one state had subjected all others, until world empire had been achieved by the strongest. This undoubtedly is the logical final stage in the geopolitical theory of evolution."[79]
The world is no longer large enough to harbor several self-contained powers ... The trend toward world domination or hegemony of a single power is but the ultimate consummation of a power-system engrafted upon an otherwise integrated world.[80]
Writing in the last year of the War, German Historian Ludwig Dehio drew a similar conclusion:
[T]he old European tendency toward division is now being thrust aside by the new global trend toward unification. And the onrush of this trend may not come to rest until it has asserted itself throughout our planet... The global order still seems to be going through its birth pangs ... With the last tempest barely over, a new one is gathering.[81]
The year after the War and in the first year of the nuclear age, Albert Einstein and British Philosopher Bertrand Russell, known as prominent pacifists, outlined for the near future a perspective of world empire (world government established by force). Einstein believed that, unless world government is established by agreement, an imperial world government would come by war or wars.[82] Russell expected a third World War to result in a world government under the empire of the United States.[83] Three years later, another prominent pacifist, Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, generalized on the ancient Empires of Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Greece to imply for the modern world: "The analogy in present global terms would be the final unification of the world through the preponderant power of either America or Russia, whichever proved herself victorious in the final struggle."[84] In 1951, Hans Morgenthau concluded that the "best" outcome of World War III would be world empire:
Today war has become an instrument of universal destruction, an instrument that destroys the victor and the vanquished ... At worst, victor and loser would be undistinguishable under the leveling impact of such a catastrophe... At best, the destruction on one side would not be quite as great as on the other; the victor would be somewhat better off than the loser and would establish, with the aid of modern technology, his domination over the world.[85]
Expert on earlier civilizations, Toynbee, further developed the subject of World War III leading to world empire:
The outcome of the Third World War ... seemed likely to be the imposition of an ecumenical peace of the Roman kind by the victor whose victory would leave him with a monopoly on the control of atomic energy in his grasp... This denouement was foreshadowed, not only by present facts, but by historical precedents, since, in the histories of other civilizations, the time of troubles had been apt to culminate in the delivery of a knock-out blow resulting in the establishment of a universal state...[86]
The year this volume of A Study of History was published, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles announced "a knock-out blow" as an official doctrine, a detailed Plan was elaborated and Fortune magazine mapped the design.[87] Section VIII, "Atomic Armaments," of the famous National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), approved by President Harry Truman in 1951, uses the term "blow" 17 times, mostly preceded by such adjectives as "powerful," "overwhelming," or "crippling." Another term applied by the strategists was "Sunday punch."[88]
One of the most sweeping universal conquests in world history was performed by Qin in 230-221 BC. Chinese classic Sima Qian (d. 86 BC) described the event (6:234): "Qin raised troops on grand scale" and "the whole world celebrated a great bacchanal." Herman Kahn of the RAND Corporation criticized to an assembled group of SAC officers their war plan (SIOP-62). He did not use the term bacchanal but he invented on the occasion an associating word: "Gentlemen, you do not have a war plan. You have a wargasm!"[89] History did not completely repeat itself but it passed close.
Circumscription theory
According to the circumscription theory of Robert Carneiro, "the more sharply circumscribed area, the more rapidly it will become politically unified."[90] The Empires of Egypt,[91][92] China[93] and Japan are named the most durable political structures in human history. Correspondingly, these are the three most circumscribed civilizations in human history. The Empires of Egypt (established by Narmer c. 3000 BC) and China (established by Cheng in 221 BC) endured for over two millennia. German Sociologist Friedrich Tenbruck, criticizing the Western idea of progress, emphasized that China and Egypt remained at one particular stage of development for millennia. This stage was universal empire. The development of Egypt and China came to a halt once their empires "reached the limits of their natural habitat."[94] Sinology does not recognize the Eurocentric view of the "inevitable" imperial fall;[95][96] Egyptology[97][98] and Japanology pose equal challenges.
Carneiro explored the Bronze Age civilizations. Stuart J. Kaufman, Richard Little and William Wohlforth researched the next three millennia, comparing eight civilizations. They conclude: The "rigidity of the borders" contributed importantly to hegemony in every concerned case.[99] Hence, "when the system's borders are rigid, the probability of hegemony is high."[100]
The circumscription theory was stressed in the comparative studies of the Roman and Chinese Empires. The circumscribed Chinese Empire recovered from all falls, while the fall of Rome, by contrast, was fatal. "What counteracted this [imperial] tendency in Europe ... was a countervailing tendency for the geographical boundaries of the system to expand." If "Europe had been a closed system, some great power would eventually have succeeded in establishing absolute supremacy over the other states in the region."[101]
The ancient Chinese system was relatively enclosed, whereas the European system began to expand its reach to the rest of the world from the onset of system formation... In addition, overseas provided outlet for territorial competition, thereby allowing international competition on the European continent to ... trump the ongoing pressure toward convergence.[102]
His 1945 book on the four centuries of the European power struggle, Ludwig Dehio titled The Precarious Balance. He explained the durability of the European states system by its overseas expansion: "Overseas expansion and the system of states were born at the same time; the vitality that burst the bounds of the Western world also destroyed its unity."[103] Edward Carr causally linked the end of the overseas outlet for imperial expansion and World Wars. In the Nineteenth century, he wrote during the Second World War, imperialist wars were waged against "primitive" peoples. "It was silly for European countries to fight against one another when they could still ... maintain social cohesion by continuous expansion in Asia and Africa. Since 1900, however, this has no longer been possible: "the situation has radically changed." Now wars are between "imperial powers."[104] John H. Herz outlined one "chief function" of the overseas expansion and the impact of its end:
[A] European balance of power could be maintained or adjusted because it was relatively easy to divert European conflicts into overseas directions and adjust them there. Thus the openness of the world contributed to the consolidation of the territorial system. The end of the 'world frontier' and the resulting closedness of an interdependent world inevitably affected the system's effectiveness.[105]
Some later commentators drew similar conclusions:
For some commentators, the passing of the Nineteenth century seemed destined to mark the end of this long era of European empire building. The unexplored and unclaimed "blank" spaces on the world map were rapidly diminishing ... and the sense of "global closure" prompted an anxious fin-de-siècle debate about the future of the great empires... The "closure" of the global imperial system implied ... the beginning of a new era of intensifying inter-imperial struggle along borders that now straddled the globe.[106]
The opportunity for any system to expand in size seems almost a necessary condition for it to remain balanced, at least over the long haul. Far from being impossible or exceedingly improbable, systemic hegemony is likely under two conditions: "when the boundaries of the international system remain stable and no new major powers emerge from outside the system."[107] With the system becoming global, further expansion is precluded. The geopolitical condition of "global closure"[108] will remain to the end of history. Since "the contemporary international system is global, we can rule out the possibility that geographic expansion of the system will contribute to the emergence of a new balance of power, as it did so many times in the past."[109] As Quincy Wright had put it, "this process can no longer continue without interplanetary wars."[110]
One of leading experts on world-system theory, Christopher Chase-Dunn, noted that the circumscription theory is applicable for the global system, since the global system is circumscribed.[111][112] In fact, within less than a century of its circumscribed existence the global system overcame the centuries-old balance of power and reached the unipolarity. Given "constant spatial parameters" of the global system, its unipolar structure is neither historically unusual nor theoretically surprising.[113]
Present
Chalmers Johnson argues that the US globe-girding network of hundreds of military bases already represents a global empire in its initial form:
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. Commonly, preparedness for a possible resumption of hostilities will be invoked. Over time, if a nation's aims become imperial, the bases form the skeleton of an empire.[114]
Simon Dalby associates the network of bases with the Roman imperial system:
Looking at these impressive facilities which reproduce substantial parts of American suburbia complete with movie theatres and restaurant chains, the parallels with Roman garrison towns built on the Rhine, or on Hadrian's wall in England, where the remains are strikingly visible on the landscape, are obvious ... Less visible is the sheer scale of the logistics to keep garrison troops in residence in the far-flung reaches of empire ... That [military] presence literally builds the cultural logic of the garrison troops into the landscape, a permanent reminder of imperial control.[115]
Kenneth Pomeranz and Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson share the above-cited views: "With American military bases in over 120 countries, we have hardly seen the end of empire." This "vast archipelago of US military bases ... far exceeds 19th-century British ambitions. Britain's imperium consisted of specific, albeit numerous, colonies and clients; the American imperial vision is much more global..."[116]
Conventional maps of US military deployments understate the extent of America's military reach. A Defense Department map of the world, which shows the areas of responsibility of the five major regional commands, suggests that America's sphere of military influence is now literally global ... The regional combatant commanders—the 'pro-consuls' of this imperium—have responsibility for swaths of territory beyond the wildest imaginings of their Roman predecessors.[117]
Another Harvard Historian Charles S. Maier opens his Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors with these words: "What a substratum for empire! Compared with which, the foundation of the Macedonian, the Roman and the British, sink into insignificance."[118]
One of the most accepted distinctions between earlier empires and the American Empire is the latter's "global" or "planetary" scope.[119] French former Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine wondered: "The situation is unprecedented: What previous empire subjugated the entire world...?"[120] Historian Paul Kennedy, who made his name in the 1980s with his prediction of the imminent US "imperial overstretch," in 2002 acknowledged about the present world system:
Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power. The Pax Britannica was run on the cheap. Napoleon's France and Philip II's Spain had powerful foes and were part of a multipolar system. Charlemagne's empire was merely western European in stretch. The Roman Empire stretched further afield, but there was another great empire in Persia and a larger one in China. There is ... no comparison.[121]
Walter Russell Mead observes that the United States attempts to repeate "globally" what the ancient empires of Egypt, China and Rome had each accomplished on a regional basis.[122] Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Leeds, Zygmunt Bauman, concludes that due to its planetary dimension, the new empire cannot be drawn on a map:
The new 'empire' is not an entity that could be drawn on a map... Drawing a map of the empire would also be a pointless exercise because the most conspicuously 'imperial' trait of the new empire's mode of being consists in viewing and treating the whole of the planet ... as a potential grazing ground...[123]
Times Atlas of Empires numbers 70 empires in the world history. Niall Ferguson lists numerous parallels between them and the United States. He concludes: "To those who would still insist on American exceptionalism, the historian of empires can only retort: as exceptional as all the other 69 empires."[124] Fareed Zakaria stressed one element not exceptional for the American Empire--the concept of exceptionalism. All dominant empires thought they were special.[125]
Future
In 1945, Historian Ludwig Dehio predicted global unification due to the circumscription of the global system, although he did not use this term. Being global, the system can neither expand nor be subject to external intrusion as the European states system had been for centuries:
In all previous struggles for supremacy, attempts to unite the European peninsula in a single state have been condemned to failure primarily through the intrusion of new forces from outside the old Occident. The Occident was an open area. But the globe was not, and, for that very reason, ultimately destined to be unified... And this very process [of unification] was clearly reflected in both World Wars.[126]
Fifteen years later, Dehio confirmed his hypothesis: The European system owed its durability to its overseas outlet. "But how can a multiple grouping of world states conceivably be supported from outside in the framework of a finite globe?"[127]
During the same time, Quincy Wright developed a similar concept. Balance-of-power politics has aimed less at preserving peace than at preserving the independence of states and preventing the development of world empire. In the course of history, the balance of power repeatedly reemerged, but on ever-wider scale. Eventually, the scale became global. Unless we proceed to "interplanetary wars," this pattern can no longer continue. In spite of significant reversals, the "trend towards world unity" can "scarcely be denied." World unity appears to be "the limit toward which the process of world history seems to tend."[128]
Five scholars—Hornell Hart,[129] Raoul Naroll,[130] Louis Morano,[131] Rein Taagepera[132] and the author of the circumscription theory Robert Carneiro[133][134]—researched expanding imperial cycles. They worked with historical atlases but the advent of YouTube provided us with a better visualization.[70][71] They reached the same conclusion—that a world empire is pre-determined—and attempted to estimate the time of its appearance. Naroll and Carneiro found that this time is close at hand: around the year 2200 and 2300 respectively.
The founder of the Paneuropean Union, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, writing yet in 1943, drew a more specific and immediate future imperial project: After the War America is bound "to take over the command of the skies." The danger of "the utter annihilation of all enemy towns and lands" can "only be prevented by the air superiority of a single power ... America's air role is the only alternative to intercontinental wars." Despite his outstanding anti-imperialism, Coudenhove-Kalergi detailed:
No imperialism, but technical and strategic problems of security urge America to rule the skies of the globe, just as Britain during the last century ruled the seas of the world... Pacifists and anti-imperialists will be shocked by this logic. They will try to find an escape. But they will try in vain... At the end of the war the crushing superiority of American plane production will be an established fact... The solution of the problem ... is by no means ideal, nor even satisfactory. But it is the minor evil...[135]
Coudenhove-Kalergi envisaged a kind of Pax Americana modeled on "Pax Romana":
During the third century BC the Mediterranean world was divided on five great powers—Roma and Carthage, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. The balance of power led to a series of wars until Rome emerged the queen of the Mediterranean and established an incomparable era of two centuries of peace and progress, the 'Pax Romana'... It may be that America's air power could again assure our world, now much smaller than the Mediterranean at that period, two hundred years of peace...[136]
This period would be necessary transitory stage before World State is eventually established, though he did not specify how the last transformation is expected to occur. Coudenhove-Kalergi's follower in the teleological theory of World State, Toynbee, supposed the traditional way of universal conquest and emphasized that the world is ripe for conquest: "...Hitler's eventual failure to impose peace on the world by the force of arms was due, not to any flaw in his thesis that the world was ripe for conquest, but to an accidental combination of incidental errors in his measures..." But "in falling by so narrow a margin to win the prize of world-dominion for himself, Hitler had left the prize dangling within the reach of any successor capable of pursuing the same aims of world-conquest with a little more patience, prudence, and tact." With his "revolution of destruction," Hitler has performed the "yeoman service" for "some future architect of a Pax Ecumenica... For a post-Hitlerian empire-builder, Hitler derelict legacy was a gift of the Gods."[137]
The next "architect of a Pax Ecumenica," known more commonly as Pax Americana, demonstrated "more patience, prudence, and tact." Consequently, as President Dwight Eisenhower put it, the NATO allies became "almost psychopathic" whenever anyone talked about a US withdrawal.[138] According to a much debated thesis, the United States became "empire by invitation."[139] The period discussed in the thesis (1945-1952) ended precisely the year Toynbee theorized on "some future architect of a Pax Ecumenica."
Dissociating America from Rome, Eisenhower gave a pessimistic forecast. In 1951, before he became President, he had written on West Europe: "We cannot be a modern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our legions if for no other reason than that these are not, politically, our frontiers. What we must do is to assist these [West European] peoples." Two years later, he wrote: When it was decided to deploy US divisions to Europe, no one had "for an instant" thought that they would remain there for "several decades"—that the United States could "build a sort of Roman Wall with its own troops and so protect the world."[140]
Eisenhower assured Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev on Berlin in 1959: "Clearly we did not contemplate 50 years in occupation there." It lasted, remarks Marc Trachtenberg, from July 1945 to September 1994, 10 months short of 50 years.[141] Notably, when the US troops eventually left, they left eastward. Confirming the theory of the "empire by invitation," with their first opportunity East European states extended the "invitation."
Chalmers Johnson regards the global military reach of the United States as empire in its "initial" form.[142] Dimitri Simes finds that most of the world sees the United States as a "nascent" imperial power.[143] Some scholars concerned how this empire would look in its ultimate form. The ultimate form of empire was described by Michael Doyle in his Empires. It is empire in which its two main components—the ruling core and the ruled periphery—merged to form one integrated whole. At this stage the empire as defined ceases to exist and becomes world state. Doyle examplifies the transformation on the case of the Roman Emperor Caracalla whose legislation in AD 212 extended the Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Mediterranean world.[144]
International Relations scholar Alexander Wendt in his 2003 article "Why the World State is Inevitable..." supposed the pathway of universal conquest and subsequent consolidation provided the conquering power recognizes all conquered members.[145] Replying on criticism, Wendt invoked the example of the Roman Empire: A "world empire would be an unstable equilibrium, still subject to the struggle for recognition." However, conquest can "produce a proper 'state' if, as a result of internal reform, the world empire eventually recognizes all of its members (like the Roman Empire did, for example)."[146]
To the case of Caracalla, Toynbee added the Abbasid cosmopolitan reformation of 750 AD. Both "were good auguries for the prospect that, in a post-Modern chapter of Western history, a supranational commonwealth originally based on the hegemony of a paramount power over its satellites might eventually be put on the sounder basis of a constitutional partnership in which all the people of all the partner states would have their fare share in the conduct of common affairs."[147]
Historian Maks Ostrovski finds above mentioned cosmopolitan reformations to be the characteristic fate of persistent empires. When such a reformation occurs in our world, he writes, the green card would be abolished since all earth inhabitants would have it by birth. This cosmopolitan World State, as the records of earlier circumscribed civilizations suggest, will last millennia.[148]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.26, 16:55:27
Historian Maks Ostrovski finds above mentioned cosmopolitan reformations to be the characteristic fate of persistent empires. When such a reformation occurs in our world, he writes, the green card would be abolished since all earth inhabitants would have it by birth. This cosmopolitan World State, as the records of earlier circumscribed civilizations suggest, will last millennia.[148]
Yes, that is true for the planned mongrel slave underclass.
Sociopathically engineered to be of a low IQ, and taught to embrace moral debasement of the self as enlightenment.
sociopathhttp://www.dictionary.com/browse/sociopath
noun, Psychiatry.
1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.26, 16:22:26
Ex-Mossad chief: Jewish spies were instrumental in Balfour Declaration
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ex-Mossad-chief-Jewish-spies-were-instrumental-in-Balfour-Declaration-500553
Efraim Halevy highlights role of NILI espionage network in creation of Israel.
snip
A couple of excerpts....
Quote"Motto: All Jews for one and one for all. The union which we desire to found will not be a French, English, Irish or German union, but a Jewish one, a universal one. Other peoples and races are divided into nationalities; we alone have not co-citizens, but exclusively co-religionaries. A Jew will under no circumstances become the friend of a Christian or a Moslem before the moment arrives when the light of the Jewish faith, the only religion of reason, will shine all over the world. Scattered amongst other nations, who from time immemorial were hostile to our rights and interests, we desire primarily to be and to remain immutably Jews.
Our nationality is the religion of our fathers, and we recognize no other nationality. We are living in foreign lands, and cannot trouble about the mutable ambitions of the countries entirely alien to us, while our own moral and material problems are endangered. The Jewish teaching must cover the whole earth. No matter where fate should lead, through scattered all over the earth, you must always consider yourselves members of a Chosen Race.
If you realize that the faith of your Fathers is your only patriotism, if you recognize that, notwithstanding the nationalities you have embraced, you always remain and everywhere form one and only nation, if you believe that Jewry only is the one and only religious and political truth, if you are convinced of this, you, Jews of the Universe, then come and give ear to our appeal and prove to us your consent...
Our cause is great and holy, and its success is guaranteed. Catholicism, our immemorial enemy, is lying in the dust, mortally wounded in the head. The net which Judaism is throwing over the globe of the earth is widening and spreading daily, and the momentous prophecies of our Holy Books are at least to be realized. The time is near when Jerusalem will become the house of prayer for all nations and peoples, and the banner of Jewish mono-deity will be unfurled and hoisted on the most distant shores. Our might is immense, learn to adopt this might for our cause. What have you to be afraid of? The day is not distant when all the riches and treasures of the earth will become the property of the Jews." (Adolphe Cremieux, Founder of Alliance Israelite Universelle, The Manifesto of 1869, published in the Morning Post, September 6, 1920).
"The principal end, which is Jewish world-domination, is not yet reached. But it will be reached and it is already closer than masses of the so-called Christian States imagine. Russian Czarism, the German Empire and militarism are overthrown, all peoples are being pushed towards ruin. This is the moment in which the true domination of Jewry has its beginning." (Judas Schuldbuch, The Wise Men of Zion)
"I am not an American citizen of Jewish faith. I am a Jew. I have been an American for sixty-three years, but I have been a Jew for 4000 years." (Rabbi Stephen S. Wise) a leader of the American Jewish Congress
Jews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.... The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively nullify moral laws that bind the behavior of normal nations. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of Gush Emunim's most prolific ideologues, argues that the divine commandments to the Jewish people "transcend the human notions of national rights." He explains that while God requires other nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews. Gush Emunim, (Right Wing Jewish group)
"The life of a Goi and all his physical powers belong to a Jew." (A. Rohl. Die Polem. p.20) (It is an axiom of the Rabbis that a Jew may take anything that belongs to Christians for any reason whatsoever, even by fraud; nor can such be called robbery since it is merely taking what belongs to him.)
KOL NIDRE: It is the prologue of the Day of Atonement services in the synagogues. It is recited three times by the standing congregation in concert with chanting rabbis at the alter. After the recital of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer the Day of Atonement religious ceremonies follow immediately. The Day of Atonement religious observances are the highest holy days of the "Jews" and are celebrated as such throughout the world. The official translation into English of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is as follows:
"All vows, obligations, oaths, anathemas, whether called 'konam,' 'konas,' or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement unto the next, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths." (emphasis added)
The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer are referred to in the Talmud in the Book of Nedarim, 23a-23b as follows:
"And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, every vow which I make in the future shall be null (1). (His Vows are then invalid) providing that he remembers this at the time of the vow."
/quote]
https://mynameisjoecortina.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/why-jews-are-to-be-considered-dangerous-to-the-well-being-of-all-non-jews-part-one/[ (https://mynameisjoecortina.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/why-jews-are-to-be-considered-dangerous-to-the-well-being-of-all-non-jews-part-one/[)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.28, 01:26:05
A couple of excerpts....
snip
Ron
Quote"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." –George Orwell
With Germany being one of the acknowledged leaders of the European Union, the German people — though still haunted by the spectre of a Nazi past while being blackmailed by a pernicious "Holocaust Industry" — nonetheless have a responsibility to themselves and the rest of humanity to unconditionally condemn and oppose any racial ideology that asserts its own people are "superior" and/or "God's chosen." This onerous responsibility has recently become even more pressing as a consequence of the world leadership vacuum created by the United States — an already morally decrepit superpower subservient to the dictates of an Apartheid Jewish State — which recently further diminished its world standing and relinquished any semblance of national character and fortitude by electing a deranged buffoon for President.
In fairness, however, the reality of the U.S. now resembling George Orwell's 1984 — with a government persecuting individualism and independent thinking as a "thoughtcrime" to be enforced by a "Thought Police" [AIPAC] — cannot be blamed entirely on the unstatesmanlike buffoonery of the incumbent President. This is because subservience to the pro-Israel lobby has over a period of many decades become the hallmark of successive U.S. governments as has just occurred with the condemnation of a State Department report blaming Israel for terrorism and claiming that Palestinians rarely incite attacks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/haunted-by-the-spectre-of-a-nazi-past-the-german-people-cannot-ignore-the-crimes-committed-by-israel/5600952 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/haunted-by-the-spectre-of-a-nazi-past-the-german-people-cannot-ignore-the-crimes-committed-by-israel/5600952)
Ron
Labeling theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory
Labeling theory is the theory of how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent to an act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms.[1] The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. A stigma is defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.[2]
Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis.[2] Labeling theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was extremely influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity.
Theoretical basis
Labeling theory had its origins in Suicide, a book by French sociologist Émile Durkheim. He found that crime is not so much a violation of a penal code as it is an act that outrages society. He was the first to suggest that deviant labeling satisfies that function and satisfies society's need to control the behavior.
As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions which each person has with the community. The labeling theory suggests that people obtain labels from how others view their tendencies or behaviors. Each individual is aware of how they are judged by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and functions in social interactions and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present.
This theoretically builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power of the group: to designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the individual's self-image is affected.
Labeling theory concerns itself mostly not with the normal roles that define our lives, but with those very special roles that society provides for deviant behavior, called deviant roles, stigmatic roles, or social stigma. A social role is a set of expectations we have about a behavior. Social roles are necessary for the organization and functioning of any society or group. We expect the postman, for example, to adhere to certain fixed rules about how he does his job. "Deviance" for a sociologist does not mean morally wrong, but rather behavior that is condemned by society. Deviant behavior can include both criminal and non-criminal activities.
Investigators found that deviant roles powerfully affect how we perceive those who are assigned those roles. They also affect how the deviant actor perceives himself and his relationship to society. The deviant roles and the labels attached to them function as a form of social stigma. Always inherent in the deviant role is the attribution of some form of "pollution" or difference that marks the labeled person as different from others. Society uses these stigmatic roles to them to control and limit deviant behavior: "If you proceed in this behavior, you will become a member of that group of people."
Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized will depend on the significance of the moral or other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it may be criminalized depending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the community. In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer" may have some unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic countries, zina is a crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for all concerned.
Stigma is usually the result of laws enacted against the behavior. Laws protecting slavery or outlawing homosexuality, for instance, will over time form deviant roles connected with those behaviors. Those who are assigned those roles will be seen as less human and reliable. Deviant roles are the sources of negative stereotypes, which tend to support society's disapproval of the behavior.
George Herbert Mead
One of the founders of social interactionism, George Herbert Mead focused on the internal processes of how the mind constructs one's self-image. In Mind, Self, and Society (1934),[3] he showed how infants come to know persons first and only later come to know things. According to Mead, thought is both a social and pragmatic process, based on the model of two persons discussing how to solve a problem. Mead's central concept is the self, the part of an individual's personality composed of self-awareness and self-image.[4] Our self-image is, in fact, constructed of ideas about what we think others are thinking about us. While we make fun of those who visibly talk to themselves, they have only failed to do what the rest of us do in keeping the internal conversation to ourselves. Human behavior, Mead stated, is the result of meanings created by the social interaction of conversation, both real and imaginary.
Frank Tannenbaum
Frank Tannenbaum is considered the grandfather of labeling theory. His Crime and Community (1938),[5] describing the social interaction involved in crime, is considered a pivotal foundation of modern criminology. While the criminal differs little or not at all from others in the original impulse to first commit a crime, social interaction accounts for continued acts that develop a pattern of interest to sociologists.
Tannenbaum first introduced the idea of 'tagging'.[6] While conducting his studies with delinquent youth, he found that a negative tag or label often contributed to further involvement in delinquent activities. This initial tagging may cause the individual to adopt it as part of their identity. The crux of Tannenbaum's argument is that the greater the attention placed on this label, the more likely the person is to identify themselves as the label.
Kerry Townsend writes about the revolution in criminology caused by Tannenbaum's work:
"The roots of Frank Tannenbaum's theoretical model, known as the "dramatization of evil" or labeling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this time, the 'New Deal' legislation had not defeated the woes of the Great Depression, and, although dwindling, immigration into the United States continued.[7] The social climate was one of disillusionment with the government. The class structure was one of cultural isolationism; cultural relativity had not yet taken hold. 'The persistence of the class structure, despite the welfare reforms and controls over big business, was unmistakable.'[8] The Positivist School of Criminological thought was still dominant, and in many states, the sterilization movement was underway. The emphasis on biological determinism and internal explanations of crime were the preeminent force in the theories of the early thirties. This dominance by the Positivist School changed in the late thirties with the introduction of conflict and social explanations of crime and criminality...
"One of the central tenets of the theory is to encourage the end of labeling process. In the words of Frank Tannenbaum, "the way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil", the justice system attempts to do this through diversion programs. The growth of the theory and its current application, both practical and theoretical, provide a solid foundation for continued popularity.":[9]
Edwin Lemert
It was sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951) who introduced the concept of "secondary deviance". The primary deviance is the experience connected to the overt behavior, say drug addiction and its practical demands and consequences. Secondary deviation is the role created to deal with society's condemnation of the behavior of a person.
With other sociologists of his time, Lemert saw how all deviant acts are social acts, a result of the cooperation of society. In studying drug addiction, Lemert observed a very powerful and subtle force at work. Besides the physical addiction to the drug and all the economic and social disruptions it caused, there was an intensely intellectual process at work concerning one's own identity and the justification for the behavior: "I do these things because I am this way."
There might be certain subjective and personal motives that might first lead a person to drink or shoplift. But the activity itself tells us little about the person's self-image or its relationship to the activity. Lemert writes: "His acts are repeated and organized subjectively and transformed into active roles and become the social criteria for assigning status.....When a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based on it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary".[10]
Howard Becker
While it was Lemert who introduced the key concepts of labeling theory, it was Howard Becker who became their successor. He first began describing the process of how a person adopts a deviant role in a study of dance musicians, with whom he once worked. He later studied the identity formation of marijuana smokers. This study was the basis of his Outsiders published in 1963. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes:
"...social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label."[11]
While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to justify his actions. He wrote: "To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation."[12]
Becker's immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do."[12]
Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20 years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded "structuring perspective".[13]
Albert Memmi
In The Colonizer and the Colonized (1965) Albert Memmi described the deep psychological effects of the social stigma created by the domination of one group by another. He wrote:
"The longer the oppression lasts, the more profoundly it affects him (the oppressed). It ends by becoming so familiar to him that he believes it is part of his own constitution, that he accepts it and could not imagine his recovery from it. This acceptance is the crowning point of oppression."[14]
In Dominated Man (1968), Memmi turned his attention to the motivation of stigmatic labeling: it justifies the exploitation or criminalization of the victim. He wrote:
"Why does the accuser feel obliged to accuse in order to justify himself? Because he feels guilty toward his victim. Because he feels that his attitude and his behavior are essentially unjust and fraudulent....Proof? In almost every case, the punishment has already been inflicted. The victim of racism is already living under the weight of disgrace and oppression.... In order to justify such punishment and misfortune, a process of rationalization is set in motion, by which to explain the ghetto and colonial exploitation."[15]
Central to stigmatic labeling is the attribution of an inherent fault: It is as if one says, "There must be something wrong with these people. Otherwise, why would we treat them so badly?"
Erving Goffman
Perhaps the most important contributor to labeling theory was Erving Goffman, President of the American Sociological Association, and one of America's most cited sociologists. His most popular books include The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,[16] Interaction Ritual,[17] and Frame Analysis.[18]
His most important contribution to labeling theory, however, was Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity published in 1963.[19] Unlike other authors who examined the process of adopting a deviant identity, Goffman explored the ways people managed that identity and controlled information about it.
Among Goffman's key insights were the following:
The modern nation state's heightened demand for normalcy. Today's stigmas are the result not so much of ancient or religious prohibitions, but of a new demand for normalcy. He wrote: "The notion of the 'normal human being' may have its source in the medical approach to humanity, or in the tendency of large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as the nation state, to treat all members in some respects as equal. Whatever its origins, it seems to provide the basic imagery through which laymen currently conceive themselves.[20]
Living in a divided world. Deviants divide their worlds into 1. forbidden places where discovery means exposure and danger, 2. places where people of that kind are painfully tolerated, and 3. places where one's kind is exposed without need to dissimulate or conceal.[21]
Dealing with others is fraught with great complexity and ambiguity. He wrote: "When normals and stigmatized do in fact enter one another's immediate presence, especially when they attempt to maintain a joint conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of sociology; for, in many cases, these moments will be the ones when the causes and effects of stigma will be directly confronted by both sides....[22]
"What are unthinking routines for normals can become management problems for the discreditable....The person with a secret failing, then, must be alive to the social situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore likely to be alienated from the simpler world in which those around them apparently dwell."[23]
Society's demands are filled with contradictions. On the one hand, a stigmatized person may be told that he is no different from others. On the other hand, he must declare his status as "a resident alien who stands for his group."[24] "It requires that the stigmatized individual cheerfully and unselfconsciously accept himself as essentially the same as normals, while at the same time he voluntarily withholds himself from those situations in which normals would find it difficult to give lip service to their similar acceptance of him..." One has to convey the impression that the burden of the stigma is not too heavy yet keep himself at the required distance. "A phantom acceptance is allowed to provide the base for a phantom normalcy."[25]
Familiarity need not reduce contempt. In spite of the common belief that openness and exposure will decrease stereotypes and repression, the opposite is true. "Thus, whether we interact with strangers or intimates, we will still find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the contact, even here putting us in our place."[26]
David Matza
In On Becoming Deviant (1969),[27] sociologist David Matza gives the most vivid and graphic account of the process of adopting a deviant role. The acts of authorities in outlawing a proscribed behavior can have two effects, keeping most out of the behavior, but also offering new opportunities for creating deviant identities. He says the concept of "affinity" does little to explain the dedication to the behavior. "Instead, it may be regarded as a natural biographical tendency born of personal and social circumstances that suggests but hardly compels a direction or movement."[28] What gives force to that movement is the development of a new identity. He writes:
"To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, a deviant, is to further compound and hasten the process of becoming that very thing...."[29] In shocked discovery, the subject now concretely understands that there are serious people who really go around building their lives around his activities--stopping him, correcting him, devoted to him. They keep records on the course of his life, even develop theories on how he got that way.... Pressed by such a display, the subject may begin to add meaning and gravity to his deviant activities. But he may do so in a way not especially intended by agents of the state...."[30]
"The meaningful issue of identity is whether this activity, or any of my activities can stand for me, or be regarded as proper indications of my being. I have done a theft, been signified a thief. am I a thief? To answer affirmatively, we must be able to conceive a special relationship between being and doing--a unity capable of being indicated. That building of meaning has a notable quality."[31]
The "criminal"
As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or "felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s). Related prevention policies include client empowerment schemes, mediation and conciliation, victim-offender forgiveness ceremonies (restorative justice), restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society's most serious offenses.[32]
Some offenses, including the use of violence, are universally recognized as wrong. Hence, labeling either habitual criminals or those who have caused serious harm as "criminals" is not constructive. Society may use more specific labels such as "murderer" or "rapist" or "child abuser" to demonstrate more clearly after the event the extent of its disapproval, but there is a slightly mechanical determinism in asserting that the application of a label will invariably modify the behavior of the one labeled. Further, if one of the functions of the penal system is to reduce recidivism, applying a long-term label may cause prejudice against the offender, resulting in the inability to maintain employment and social relationships.
The "mentally ill"
The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the "mentally ill". Labeling theory was first applied to the term "mentally ill" in 1966 when Thomas J. Scheff published Being Mentally Ill. Scheff challenged common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not consistently fulfilled by those who are diagnosed with them because all of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled because the "mentally ill" believe they are supposed to act a certain way so, over time, come to do so.[33]
Scheff's theory had many critics, most notably Walter Gove. Gove consistently argued an almost opposite theory; he believed that society has no influence at all on "mental illness". Instead, any societal perceptions of the "mentally ill" come about as a direct result of these people's behaviors. Most sociologists' views of labeling and mental illness have fallen somewhere between the extremes of Gove and Scheff. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both common sense and research findings, that society's negative perceptions of "crazy" people has had some effect on them. It seems that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong the issues termed "mental illness", but it is rarely the full cause.[34]
Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict, or prostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976). Additionally, Page's 1977 study found that self declared "ex-mental patients" are much less likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill. However, labeling has not been proven to be the sole cause of any symptoms of mental illness.
Peggy Thoits discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental illness in her article, "Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness". Working off Thomas Scheff's (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also claims that "people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant become deviant".[35] This statement can be broken down into two processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other differential treatment from society based on the individual's label. Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable, dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill.
The label of "mentally ill" may help a person seek help, for example psychotherapy or medication. Labels, while they can be stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If one believes that "being mentally ill" is more than just believing one should fulfill a set of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff – see above – would argue[citation needed]), then one would probably also agree that there are some who are labeled "mentally ill" who need help. It has been claimed that this could not happen if "we" did not have a way to categorize (and therefore label) them, although there are actually plenty of approaches to these phenomena that don't use categorical classifications and diagnostic terms, for example spectrum or continuum models. Here, people vary along different dimensions, and everyone falls at different points on each dimension.
Proponents of hard labeling, as opposed to soft labeling, believe that mental illness does not exist, but is merely deviance from norms of society, causing people to believe in mental illness. They view them as socially constructed illnesses and psychotic disorders.[36]
The "homosexual"
The application of labeling theory to homosexuality has been extremely controversial. It was Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues who pointed out the big discrepancy between the behavior and the role attached to it. They had observed the often negative consequences of labeling and repeatedly condemned labeling people as homosexual:
"It is amazing to observe how many psychologists and psychiatrists have accepted this sort of propaganda, and have come to believe that homosexual males and females are discretely different from persons who respond to natural stimuli. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds... It would clarify our thinking if the terms could be dropped completely out of our vocabulary....[37]
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual... Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into pigeonholes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.[38]
"The classification of sexual behavior as masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual, is, therefore, unfortunate if it suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept each kind of sexual activity. There is nothing known in the anatomy or physiology of sexual response and orgasm which distinguishes masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual reactions....[39]
"In regard to sexual behavior, it has been possible to maintain this dichotomy only by placing all persons who are exclusively heterosexual in a heterosexual category and all persons who have any amount of experience with their own sex, even including those with the slightest experience, in a homosexual category.... The attempt to maintain a simple dichotomy on these matters exposes the traditional biases which are likely to enter whenever the heterosexual or homosexual classification of an individual is involved".[40]
Erving Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity distinguished between the behavior and the role assigned to it. He wrote:
"The term 'homosexual' is generally used to refer to anyone who engages in overt sexual practices with a member of his own sex, the practice being called 'homosexuality.' This usage appears to be based on a medical and legal frame of reference and provides much too broad and heterogenous a categorization for use here. I refer only to individuals who participate in a special community of understanding wherein members of one's own sex are defined as the most desirable sexual objects, and sociability is energetically organized around the pursuit and entertainment of these objects."[41]
Labeling theory was also applied to homosexuality by Evelyn Hooker[42][43][44] and by Leznoff and Westley, who published the first sociological study of the gay community.[45] Erving Goffman and Howard Becker used the lives of gay-identified persons in their theories of labeling and interactionism. Simon and Gagnon likewise wrote: "It is necessary to move away from the obsessive concern with the sexuality of the individual, and attempt to see the homosexual in terms of the broader attachments that he must make to live in the world around him."[46]
British sociologist Mary McIntosh reflected the enthusiasm of Europeans for labeling theory in her 1968 study, "The Homosexual Role".
"The vantage-point of comparative sociology enables us to see that the conception of homosexuality as a condition is, itself, a possible object of study. This conception and the behavior it supports operate as a form of social control in a society in which homosexuality is condemned...
"It is interesting to notice that homosexuals themselves welcome and support the notion that homosexuality as a condition. For just as the rigid categorization deters people from drifting into deviancy, so it appears to foreclose on the possibility of drifting back into normalcy and thus removes the element of anxious choice. It appears to justify the deviant behavior of the homosexual as being appropriate for him as a member of the homosexual category. The deviancy can thus be seen as legitimate for him and he can continue in it without rejecting the norm of society."[47]
Sara Fein and Elaine M. Nuehring were among the many who supported the application of labeling theory to homosexuality. They saw the gay role functioning as a "master status" around which other roles become organized. This brings a whole new set of problems and restrictions:
"Placement in a social category constituting a master status prohibits individuals from choosing the extent of their involvement in various categories. Members of the stigmatized group lose the opportunity to establish their own personal system of evaluation and group membership as well as the ability to arrive at their own ranking of each personal characteristic.... For example, newly self-acknowledged homosexual individuals cannot take for granted that they share the world with others who hold congruent interpretations and assumptions; their behavior and motives, both past and present, will be interpreted in light of their stigma."[48]
Perhaps the strongest proponent of labeling theory was Edward Sagarin. In his book, Deviants and Deviance, he wrote, "There are no homosexuals, transvestites, chemical addicts, suicidogenics, delinquents, criminals, or other such entities, in the sense of people having such identities."[49] Sagarin's position was roundly condemned by academics in the gay community. Sagarin had written some gay novels under the pseudonym of Donald Webster Cory. According to reports, he later abandoned his gay identity and began promoting an interactionist view of homosexuality.[50]
A number of authors adopted a modified, non-deviant, labeling theory. They rejected the stigmatic function of the gay role, but found it useful in describing the process of coming out and reconciling one's homosexual experiences with the social role. Their works included:
Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg, Homosexuals and the Military, 1971.[51]
Barry Dank, "Coming Out in the Gay World," 1971.[52]
Sue Hammersmith and Martin Weinberg, "Homosexual Identity: Commitment, Adjustment, and Significant Others," 1973.[53]
Martin Weinberg and Colin Williams, in "Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations," 1974.[54]
Carol A. B. Warren, in Identity and Community in the Gay World, 1974.[55]
Michael Shively and John DeCecco, "Components of Sexual Identity," 1977.[56]
Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, 1978.[57]
Thomas Weinberg, "On 'Doing' and 'Being' Gay: Sexual Behavior and Homosexual Male Self-Identity." 1978.[58]
Vivienne Cass (Cass identity model), "Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model," 1979.[59]
Richard Troiden, "Becoming Homosexual: A model of Gay Identity Acquisition," 1979.[60]
Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg, and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981.[61]
Eli Coleman, "Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process", 1982.[62]
Barry Adam, in his Survival of Domination: Inferiorization of Everyday Life, took those authors to task for ignoring the force of the oppression in creating identities and their inferiorizing effects. Drawing upon the works of Albert Memmi, Adam showed how gay-identified persons, like Jews and blacks, internalize the hatred to justify their limitations of life choices. He saw the gravitation towards ghettos was evidence of the self-limitations. He wrote:
"A certain romantic liberalism runs through the literature, evident from attempts to paper over or discount the very real problems of inferiorization. Some researchers seem bent on 'rescuing' their subjects from 'defamation' by ignoring the problems of defeatism and complicit self-destruction. Avoidance of dispiriting reflection upon the day-to-day practice of dominated people appears to spring from a desire to 'enhance' the reputation of the dominated and magically relieve their plight. Careful observation has been sacrificed to the 'power of positive thinking.'"[63]
Strong defense of labeling theory also arose within the gay community. Dan Slater of the Los Angeles Homosexual Information Center said, "There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. There is no such thing as gay pride or anything like that. Homosexuality is simply based on the sex act. Gay consciousness and all the rest are separatist and defeatist attitudes going back to centuries-old and out-moded conceptions that homosexuals are, indeed, different from other people."[64]
In a later article, Slater stated the gay movement was going in the wrong direction:
"Is it the purpose of the movement to try to assert sexual rights for everyone or create a political and social cult out of homosexuality?.... Persons who perform homosexual acts or other non-conforming acts are sexually free. They want others enlightened. They want hostile laws changed, but they resent the attempt to organize their lives around homosexuality just as much as they resent the centuries-old attempt to organize their lives around heterosexuality.[65]
William DuBay, in Gay Identity: The Self Under Ban,[66] describes gay identity as one strategy for dealing with society's oppression. It solves some problems but creates many more, replacing a closet of secrecy with one of gay identity. A better strategy, he suggests, is to reject the label and live as if the oppression did not exist. Quoting Goffman, he writes, "But of course what is a good adjustment for the individual can be an even better one for society."[25]
DuBay contends that the attempt to define homosexuality as a class of persons to be protected against discrimination as defined in the statutes has not reduced the oppression. The goal of the movement instead should be to gain acceptance of homosexual relationships as useful and productive for both society and the family. The movement has lost the high moral ground by sponsoring the "flight from choice" and not taking up the moral issues. "Persons whom we confine to back rooms and bars other societies have honored as tenders of children, astrologers, dancers, chanters, minstrels, jesters, artists, shamans, sacred warriors and judges, seers, healers, weavers of tales and magic."[67]
DuBay refers to the "gay trajectory," in which a person first wraps himself in the gay role, organizing his personality and his life around sexual behavior. He might flee from his family and home town to a large gay center. There, the bedeviling force of the stigma will introduce him to more excessive modes of deviance such as promiscuity, prostitution, alcoholism, and drugs. Many resist such temptations and try to normalize their life, but the fast lanes of gay society are littered with the casualties of gay identity. Some come to reject the label entirely. "Accomplishing the forbidden, they are neither gay nor straight. Again learning to choose, they develop the ability to make the ban ambiguous, taking responsibility and refusing explanations of their behaviors."[68]
John Henry Mackay writes about a gay hustler in Berlin adopting such a solution: "What was self-evident, natural, and not the least sick did not require an excuse through an explanation.... It was love just like any other love. Whoever could not or would not accept it as love was mistaken."[69]
Modified labeling theory
Bruce Link and colleagues have conducted several studies which point to the influence that labeling can have on mental patients. Through these studies, which took place in 1987, 1989, and 1997, Link advanced a "modified labeling theory" indicating that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that those labeled as having a mental disorder are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. They come to both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and this potentially damages their quality of life.[70]
Modified labeling theory has been described as a "sophisticated social-psychological model of 'why labels matter'". In 2000, results from a prospective two-year study of patients discharged from a mental hospital (in the context of deinstitutionalization) showed that stigma was a powerful and persistent force in their lives, and that experiences of social rejection were a persistent source of social stress. Efforts to cope with labels, such as not telling anyone, educating people about mental distress/disorder, withdrawing from stigmatizing situations, could result in further social isolation and reinforce negative self-concepts. Sometimes an identity as a low self-esteem minority in society would be accepted. The stigma was associated with diminished motivation and ability to "make it in mainstream society" and with "a state of social and psychological vulnerability to prolonged and recurrent problems". There was an up and down pattern in self-esteem, however, and it was suggested that, rather than simply gradual erosion of self-worth and increasing self-deprecating tendencies, people were sometimes managing, but struggling, to maintain consistent feelings of self-worth. Ultimately, "a cadre of patients had developed an entrenched, negative view of themselves, and their experiences of rejection appear to be a key element in the construction of these self-related feelings" and "hostile neighbourhoods may not only affect their self-concept but may also ultimately impact the patient's mental health status and how successful they are".[71]
Frame of reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements.
In n dimensions, n+1 reference points are sufficient to fully define a reference frame. Using rectangular (Cartesian) coordinates, a reference frame may be defined with a reference point at the origin and a reference point at one unit distance along each of the n coordinate axes.
In Einsteinian relativity, reference frames are used to specify the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon or phenomena under observation. In this context, the phrase often becomes "observational frame of reference" (or "observational reference frame"), which implies that the observer is at rest in the frame, although not necessarily located at its origin. A relativistic reference frame includes (or implies) the coordinate time, which does not correspond across different frames moving relatively to each other. The situation thus differs from Galilean relativity, where all possible coordinate times are essentially equivalent.
Different aspects of "frame of reference"
The need to distinguish between the various meanings of "frame of reference" has led to a variety of terms. For example, sometimes the type of coordinate system is attached as a modifier, as in Cartesian frame of reference. Sometimes the state of motion is emphasized, as in rotating frame of reference. Sometimes the way it transforms to frames considered as related is emphasized as in Galilean frame of reference. Sometimes frames are distinguished by the scale of their observations, as in macroscopic and microscopic frames of reference.[1]
In this article, the term observational frame of reference is used when emphasis is upon the state of motion rather than upon the coordinate choice or the character of the observations or observational apparatus. In this sense, an observational frame of reference allows study of the effect of motion upon an entire family of coordinate systems that could be attached to this frame. On the other hand, a coordinate system may be employed for many purposes where the state of motion is not the primary concern. For example, a coordinate system may be adopted to take advantage of the symmetry of a system. In a still broader perspective, the formulation of many problems in physics employs generalized coordinates, normal modes or eigenvectors, which are only indirectly related to space and time. It seems useful to divorce the various aspects of a reference frame for the discussion below. We therefore take observational frames of reference, coordinate systems, and observational equipment as independent concepts, separated as below:
An observational frame (such as an inertial frame or non-inertial frame of reference) is a physical concept related to state of motion.
A coordinate system is a mathematical concept, amounting to a choice of language used to describe observations.[2] Consequently, an observer in an observational frame of reference can choose to employ any coordinate system (Cartesian, polar, curvilinear, generalized, ...) to describe observations made from that frame of reference. A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as well.[3] Which is not to dispute that some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.
Choice of what to measure and with what observational apparatus is a matter separate from the observer's state of motion and choice of coordinate system.
Here is a quotation applicable to moving observational frames R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}} and various associated Euclidean three-space coordinate systems [R, R′, etc.]:[4]
" We first introduce the notion of reference frame, itself related to the idea of observer: the reference frame is, in some sense, the "Euclidean space carried by the observer". Let us give a more mathematical definition:... the reference frame is... the set of all points in the Euclidean space with the rigid body motion of the observer. The frame, denoted R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}}, is said to move with the observer.... The spatial positions of particles are labelled relative to a frame R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}} by establishing a coordinate system R with origin O. The corresponding set of axes, sharing the rigid body motion of the frame R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}}, can be considered to give a physical realization of R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}}. In a frame R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}}, coordinates are changed from R to R′ by carrying out, at each instant of time, the same coordinate transformation on the components of intrinsic objects (vectors and tensors) introduced to represent physical quantities in this frame. "
and this on the utility of separating the notions of R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}} and [R, R′, etc.]:[5]
" As noted by Brillouin, a distinction between mathematical sets of coordinates and physical frames of reference must be made. The ignorance of such distinction is the source of much confusion... the dependent functions such as velocity for example, are measured with respect to a physical reference frame, but one is free to choose any mathematical coordinate system in which the equations are specified. "
and this, also on the distinction between R {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {R}}} {\mathfrak {R}} and [R, R′, etc.]:[6]
" The idea of a reference frame is really quite different from that of a coordinate system. Frames differ just when they define different spaces (sets of rest points) or times (sets of simultaneous events). So the ideas of a space, a time, of rest and simultaneity, go inextricably together with that of frame. However, a mere shift of origin, or a purely spatial rotation of space coordinates results in a new coordinate system. So frames correspond at best to classes of coordinate systems. "
and from J. D. Norton:[7]
" In traditional developments of special and general relativity it has been customary not to distinguish between two quite distinct ideas. The first is the notion of a coordinate system, understood simply as the smooth, invertible assignment of four numbers to events in spacetime neighborhoods. The second, the frame of reference, refers to an idealized system used to assign such numbers ... To avoid unnecessary restrictions, we can divorce this arrangement from metrical notions. ... Of special importance for our purposes is that each frame of reference has a definite state of motion at each event of spacetime....Within the context of special relativity and as long as we restrict ourselves to frames of reference in inertial motion, then little of importance depends on the difference between an inertial frame of reference and the inertial coordinate system it induces. This comfortable circumstance ceases immediately once we begin to consider frames of reference in nonuniform motion even within special relativity....More recently, to negotiate the obvious ambiguities of Einstein's treatment, the notion of frame of reference has reappeared as a structure distinct from a coordinate system. "
The discussion is taken beyond simple space-time coordinate systems by Brading and Castellani.[8] Extension to coordinate systems using generalized coordinates underlies the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations[9] of quantum field theory, classical relativistic mechanics, and quantum gravity.[10][11][12][13][14]
Psychology of religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to religious traditions, as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. It attempts to accurately describe the details, origins, and uses of religious beliefs and behaviors. Although the psychology of religion first arose as a self-conscious discipline as recently as the late 19th century, all three of these tasks have a history going back many centuries before that.[1]
In contrast to neurotheology, the psychology of religion studies only psychological rather than neural states.
Many areas of religion remain unexplored by psychology. While religion and spirituality play a role in many people's lives, it is uncertain how they lead to outcomes that are at times positive, and at other times negative.
Overview
The challenge for the psychology of religion is essentially threefold: (1) to provide a thoroughgoing description of the objects of investigation, whether they be shared religious content (e.g., a tradition's ritual observances) or individual experiences, attitudes, or conduct; (2) to account in psychological terms for the rise of such phenomena; and (3) to clarify the outcomes—the fruits, as William James put it—of these phenomena, for individuals and for the larger society.[1]
The first, descriptive task naturally requires a clarification of one's terms, above all, the word religion. Historians of religion have long underscored the problematic character of this term, noting that its usage over the centuries has changed in significant ways, generally in the direction of reification.[2] The early psychologists of religion were fully aware of these difficulties, typically acknowledging that the definitions they were choosing to use were to some degree arbitrary.[3] With the rise of positivistic trends in psychology over the course of the 20th century, especially the demand that all phenomena be measured, psychologists of religion developed a multitude of scales, most of them developed for use with Protestant Christians.[4] Factor analysis was also brought into play by both psychologists and sociologists of religion, in an effort to establish a fixed core of dimensions and a corresponding set of scales. The justification and adequacy of these efforts, especially in the light of constructivist and other postmodern viewpoints, remains a matter of debate.
In the last several decades, especially among clinical psychologists, a preference for the terms "spirituality" and "spiritual" has emerged, along with efforts to distinguish them from "religion" and "religious." Especially in the United States, "religion" has for many become associated with sectarian institutions and their obligatory creeds and rituals, thus giving the word a negative cast; "spirituality," in contrast, is positively constructed as deeply individual and subjective, as a universal capacity to apprehend and accord one's life with higher realities.[5] In fact, "spirituality" has likewise undergone an evolution in the West, from a time when it was essentially a synonym for religion in its original, subjective meaning.[6] Pargament (1997) suggests that rather than limiting the usage of "religion" to functional terms, a search for meaning, or substantive terms, anything related to the sacred, we can consider the interplay of these two vantage points. He proposes that religion can be considered the process of searching for meaning in relationship with the sacred.[7] Today, efforts are ongoing to "operationalize" these terms, with little regard for their history in their Western context, and with the apparent realist assumption that underlying them are fixed qualities identifiable by means of empirical procedures.[8]
Schnitker and Emmons theorized that the understanding of religion as a search for meaning makes implications in the three psychological areas of motivation, cognition and social relationships. The cognitive aspects relate to God and a sense of purpose, the motivational ones to the need to control, and the religious search for meaning is also weaved into social communities.[9]
History
William James
American psychologist and philosopher William James (1842–1910) is regarded by most psychologists of religion as the founder of the field.[10] He served as president of the American Psychological Association, and wrote one of the first psychology textbooks. In the psychology of religion, James' influence endures. His Varieties of Religious Experience is considered to be the classic work in the field, and references to James' ideas are common at professional conferences.
James distinguished between institutional religion and personal religion. Institutional religion refers to the religious group or organization, and plays an important part in a society's culture. Personal religion, in which the individual has mystical experience, can be experienced regardless of the culture. James was most interested in understanding personal religious experience.
In studying personal religious experiences, James made a distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness. Individuals predisposed to healthy-mindedness tend to ignore the evil in the world and focus on the positive and the good. James used examples of Walt Whitman and the "mind-cure" religious movement to illustrate healthy-mindedness in The Varieties of Religious Experience. In contrast, individuals predisposed to having a sick-souled religion are unable to ignore evil and suffering, and need a unifying experience, religious or otherwise, to reconcile good and evil. James included quotations from Leo Tolstoy and John Bunyan to illustrate the sick soul.
William James' hypothesis of pragmatism stems from the efficacy of religion. If an individual believes in and performs religious activities, and those actions happen to work, then that practice appears the proper choice for the individual. However, if the processes of religion have little efficacy, then there is no rationality for continuing the practice.
Other early theorists
G. W. F. Hegel
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) described all systems of religion, philosophy, and social science as expressions of the basic urge of consciousness to learn about itself and its surroundings, and record its findings and hypotheses. Thus, religion is only a form of that search for knowledge, within which humans record various experiences and reflections. Others, compiling and categorizing these writings in various ways, form the consolidated worldview as articulated by that religion, philosophy, social science, etc. His work The Phenomenology of Spirit was a study of how various types of writing and thinking draw from and re-combine with the individual and group experiences of various places and times, influencing the current forms of knowledge and worldviews that are operative in a population. This activity is the functioning of an incomplete group mind, where each individual is accessing the recorded wisdom of others. His works often include detailed descriptions of the psychological motivations involved in thought and behavior, e.g., the struggle of a community or nation to know itself and thus correctly govern itself. In Hegel's system, Religion is one of the major repositories of wisdom to be used in these struggles, representing a huge body of recollections from humanity's past in various stages of its development.
Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) gave explanations of the genesis of religion in his various writings. In Totem and Taboo, he applied the idea of the Oedipus complex (involving unresolved sexual feelings of, for example, a son toward his mother and hostility toward his father) and postulated its emergence in the primordial stage of human development.
In Moses and Monotheism, Freud reconstructed biblical history in accordance with his general theory. His ideas were also developed in The Future of an Illusion. When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it "is a fantasy structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity."
Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion, Freud believed, is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself.
Carl Jung
The Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875–1961) adopted a very different posture, one that was more sympathetic to religion and more concerned with a positive appreciation of religious symbolism. Jung considered the question of the metaphysical existence of God to be unanswerable by the psychologist and adopted a kind of agnosticism.[11]
Jung postulated, in addition to the personal unconscious (roughly adopting Freud's concept), the collective unconscious, which is the repository of human experience and which contains "archetypes" (i.e. basic images that are universal in that they recur regardless of culture). The irruption of these images from the unconscious into the realm of consciousness he viewed as the basis of religious experience and often of artistic creativity. Some of Jung's writings have been devoted to elucidating some of the archetypal symbols, and include his work in comparative mythology.
Alfred Adler
Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler (1870–1937), who parted ways with Freud, emphasised the role of goals and motivation in his Individual Psychology. One of Adler's most famous ideas is that we try to compensate for inferiorities that we perceive in ourselves. A lack of power often lies at the root of feelings of inferiority. One way that religion enters into this picture is through our beliefs in God, which are characteristic of our tendency to strive for perfection and superiority. For example, in many religions God is considered to be perfect and omnipotent, and commands people likewise to be perfect. If we, too, achieve perfection, we become one with God. By identifying with God in this way, we compensate for our imperfections and feelings of inferiority.
Our ideas about God are important indicators of how we view the world. According to Adler, these ideas have changed over time, as our vision of the world – and our place in it – has changed. Consider this example that Adler offers: the traditional belief that people were placed deliberately on earth as God's ultimate creation is being replaced with the idea that people have evolved by natural selection. This coincides with a view of God not as a real being, but as an abstract representation of nature's forces. In this way our view of God has changed from one that was concrete and specific to one that is more general. From Adler's vantage point, this is a relatively ineffective perception of God because it is so general that it fails to convey a strong sense of direction and purpose.
An important thing for Adler is that God (or the idea of God) motivates people to act, and that those actions do have real consequences for ourselves and for others. Our view of God is important because it embodies our goals and directs our social interactions.
Compared to science, another social movement, religion is more efficient because it motivates people more effectively. According to Adler, only when science begins to capture the same religious fervour, and promotes the welfare of all segments of society, will the two be more equal in peoples' eyes.
Gordon Allport
In his classic book The Individual and His Religion (1950), Gordon Allport (1897–1967) illustrates how people may use religion in different ways.[12] He makes a distinction between Mature religion and Immature religion. Mature religious sentiment is how Allport characterized the person whose approach to religion is dynamic, open-minded, and able to maintain links between inconsistencies. In contrast, immature religion is self-serving and generally represents the negative stereotypes that people have about religion. More recently, this distinction has been encapsulated in the terms "intrinsic religion", referring to a genuine, heartfelt devout faith, and "extrinsic religion", referring to a more utilitarian use of religion as a means to an end, such as church attendance to gain social status. These dimensions of religion were measured on the Religious Orientation Scale of Allport and Ross (1967). A third form of religious orientation has been described by Daniel Batson. This refers to treatment of religion as an open-ended search (Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993). More specifically, it has been seen by Batson as comprising a willingness to view religious doubts in a positive manner, acceptance that religious orientation can change and existential complexity, the belief that one's religious beliefs should be shaped from personal crises that one has experienced in one's life. Batson refers to extrinsic, intrinsic and quest respectively as religion-as-means, religion-as-end and religion-as-quest, and measures these constructs on the Religious Life Inventory (Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993).
Erik H. Erikson
Erik Erikson (1902–1994) is best known for his theory of psychological development, which has its roots in the psychoanalytic importance of identity in personality. His biographies of Gandhi and Martin Luther reveal Erikson's positive view of religion. He considered religions to be important influences in successful personality development because they are the primary way that cultures promote the virtues associated with each stage of life. Religious rituals facilitate this development. Erikson's theory has not benefited from systematic empirical study, but it remains an influential and well-regarded theory in the psychological study of religion.
Erich Fromm
The American scholar Erich Fromm (1900–1980) modified the Freudian theory and produced a more complex account of the functions of religion. In his book Psychoanalysis and Religion he responded to Freud's theories by explaining that part of the modification is viewing the Oedipus complex as based not so much on sexuality as on a "much more profound desire", namely, the childish desire to remain attached to protecting figures. The right religion, in Fromm's estimation, can, in principle, foster an individual's highest potentialities, but religion in practice tends to relapse into being neurotic.[13]
According to Fromm, humans have a need for a stable frame of reference. Religion apparently fills this need. In effect, humans crave answers to questions that no other source of knowledge has an answer to, which only religion may seem to answer. However, a sense of free will must be given in order for religion to appear healthy. An authoritarian notion of religion appears detrimental.[14]
Rudolf Otto
Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) was a German Protestant theologian and scholar of comparative religion. Otto's most famous work, The Idea of the Holy (published first in 1917 as Das Heilige), defines the concept of the holy as that which is numinous. Otto explained the numinous as a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self." It is a mystery (Latin: mysterium tremendum) that is both fascinating (fascinans) and terrifying at the same time; A mystery that causes trembling and fascination, attempting to explain that inexpressible and perhaps supernatural emotional reaction of wonder drawing us to seemingly ordinary and/or religious experiences of grace. This sense of emotional wonder appears evident at the root of all religious experiences. Through this emotional wonder, we suspend our rational mind for non-rational possibilities.
It also sets a paradigm for the study of religion that focuses on the need to realise the religious as a non-reducible, original category in its own right. This paradigm was under much attack between approximately 1950 and 1990 but has made a strong comeback since then.
Modern thinkers
Autobiographal accounts of 20th-century psychology of religion as a field have been supplied by numerous modern psychologists of religion, primarily based in Europe, but also by several US-based psychologists such as Ralph W. Hood and Donald Capps.[15]
Allen Bergin
Allen Bergin is noted for his 1980 paper "Psychotherapy and Religious Values," which is known as a landmark in scholarly acceptance that religious values do, in practice, influence psychotherapy.[16][17] He received the Distinguished Professional Contributions to Knowledge award from the American Psychological Association in 1989 and was cited as challenging "psychological orthodoxy to emphasize the importance of values and religion in therapy."[18]
Robert Emmons
Robert Emmons offered a theory of "spiritual strivings" in his 1999 book, The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns.[19] With support from empirical studies, Emmons argued that spiritual strivings foster personality integration because they exist at a higher level of the personality.
Ralph W. Hood Jr.
Ralph W. Hood Jr. is a professor of psychology at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He is a former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and a former co-editor of the Archive for the Psychology of Religion and The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. He is Past President of Division 36 of the American Psychological Association and a recipient of its William James Award. He has published several hundred articles and book chapters on the psychology of religion and has authored, co-authored, or edited thirteen volumes, all dealing with the psychology of religion.[20]
Kenneth Pargament
Kenneth Pargament is noted for his book Psychology of Religion and Coping (1997; see article),[21] as well as for a 2007 book on religion and psychotherapy, and a sustained research program on religious coping. He is professor of psychology at Bowling Green State University (Ohio, US), and has published more than 100 papers on the subject of religion and spirituality in psychology. Pargament led the design of a questionnaire called the "RCOPE" to measure Religious Coping strategies.[22] Pargament has distinguished between three types of styles for coping with stress:[23] 1) Collaborative, in which people co-operate with God to deal with stressful events; 2) Deferring, in which people leave everything to God; and 3) Self-directed, in which people do not rely on God and try exclusively to solve problems by their own efforts. He also describes four major stances toward religion that have been adopted by psychotherapists in their work with clients, which he calls the religiously rejectionist, exclusivist, constructivist, and pluralist stances.[21][24]
James Hillman
James Hillman, at the end of his book Re-Visioning Psychology, reverses James' position of viewing religion through psychology, urging instead that we view psychology as a variety of religious experience. He concludes: "Psychology as religion implies imagining all psychological events as effects of Gods in the soul.[25]"
Julian Jaynes
Julian Jaynes, primarily in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, proposed that religion (and some other psychological phenomena such as hypnosis and schizophrenia) is a remnant of a relatively recent time in human development, prior to the advent of consciousness. Jaynes hypothesized that hallucinated verbal commands helped non-conscious early man to perform tasks promoting human survival. Starting about 10,000 BCE, selective pressures favored the hallucinated verbal commands for social control, and they came to be perceived as an external, rather than internal, voice commanding the person to take some action. These were hence often explained as originating from invisible gods, spirits, ancestors, etc.[26]
Hypotheses on the role of religion
There are three primary hypotheses on the role of religion in the modern world.
Secularization
The first hypothesis, secularization, holds that science and technology will take the place of religion.[27] Secularization supports the separation of religion from politics, ethics, and psychology. Taking this position even further, Taylor explains that secularization denies transcendence, divinity, and rationality in religious beliefs.[28]
Religious transformation
Challenges to the secularization hypothesis led to significant revisions, resulting in the religious transformation hypothesis.[29] This perspective holds that general trends towards individualism and social disintegration will produce changes in religion, making religious practice more individualized and spiritually focused.[30] This in turn is expected to produce more spiritual seeking, although not exclusive to religious institutions.[31] Eclecticism, which draws from multiple religious/spiritual systems and New Age movements are also predicted to result.[32][33]
Cultural divide
In response to the religious transformation hypothesis, Ronald Inglehart piloted the renewal of the secularization hypothesis. His argument hinges on the premise that religion develops to fill the human need for security. Therefore, the development of social and economic security in Europe explains its corresponding secularization due to a lack of need for religion.[34] However, religion continues in the third world where social and economic insecurity are rampant. The overall effect is expected to be a growing cultural disparity.[35]
The idea that religiosity arises from the human need for security has also been furthered by studies examining religious beliefs as a compensatory mechanism of control. These studies are motivated by the idea that people are invested in maintaining beliefs in order and structure to prevent beliefs in chaos and randomness[36][37]
In the experimental setting, researchers have also tested compensatory control in regard to individuals' perceptions of external systems, such as religion or government. For example, Kay and colleagues[38] found that in a laboratory setting, individuals are more likely to endorse broad external systems (e.g., religion or sociopolitical systems) that impose order and control on their lives when they are induced with lowered levels of personal control. In this study, researchers suggest that when a person's personal control is lessened, their motivation to believe in order is threatened, resulting in compensation of this threat through adherence to other external sources of control.
Psychometric approaches to religion
Since the 1960s psychologists of religion have used the methodology of psychometrics to assess ways in which a person may be religious. An example is the Religious Orientation Scale of Allport and Ross,[39] which measures how respondents stand on intrinsic and extrinsic religion as described by Allport. More recent questionnaires include the Age-Universal I-E Scale of Gorsuch and Venable,[40] the Religious Life Inventory of Batson, Schoenrade and Ventis,[41] and the Spiritual Experiences Index-Revised of Genia.[42] The first provides an age-independent measure of Allport and Ross's two religious orientations. The second measures three forms of religious orientation: religion as means (intrinsic), religion as end (extrinsic), and religion as quest. The third assesses spiritual maturity using two factors: Spiritual Support and Spiritual Openness.
Religious orientations and religious dimensions
Some questionnaires, such as the Religious Orientation Scale, relate to different religious orientations, such as intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness, referring to different motivations for religious allegiance. A rather different approach, taken, for example, by Glock and Stark (1965), has been to list different dimensions of religion rather than different religious orientations, which relates to how an individual may manifest different forms of being religious. Glock and Stark's famous typology described five dimensions of religion – the doctrinal, the intellectual, the ethical-consequential, the ritual, and the experiential. In later work these authors subdivided the ritual dimension into devotional and public ritual, and also clarified that their distinction of religion along multiple dimensions was not identical to distinguishing religious orientations. Although some psychologists of religion have found it helpful to take a multidimensional approach to religion for the purpose of psychometric scale design, there has been, as Wulff (1997) explains, considerable controversy about whether religion should really be seen as multidimensional.
Questionnaires to assess religious experience
What we call religious experiences can differ greatly. Some reports exist of supernatural happenings that it would be difficult to explain from a rational, scientific point of view. On the other hand, there also exist the sort of testimonies that simply seem to convey a feeling of peace or oneness – something which most of us, religious or not, may possibly relate to. In categorizing religious experiences it is perhaps helpful to look at them as explicable through one of two theories: the Objectivist thesis or the Subjectivist thesis.
An objectivist would argue that the religious experience is a proof of God's existence. However, others have criticised the reliability of religious experiences. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes asked how it was possible to tell the difference between talking to God in a dream, and dreaming about talking to God.[43]
The Subjectivist view argues that it is not necessary to think of religious experiences as evidence for the existence of an actual being whom we call God. From this point of view, the important thing is the experience itself and the effect that it has on the individual.[44]
Developmental approaches to religion
Many have looked at stage models, like those of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, to explain how children develop ideas about God and religion in general.
The most well known stage model of spiritual or religious development is that of James W. Fowler, a developmental psychologist at the Candler School of Theology, in his Stages of Faith.[45] He follows Piaget and Kohlberg and has proposed a holistic staged development of faith (or spiritual development) across the lifespan.
The book-length study contains a framework and ideas which have generated a good deal of response from those interested in religion[who?], so it appears to have face validity. James Fowler proposes six stages of faith development: 1. Intuitive-projective 2. Symbolic Literal 3. Synthetic Conventional 4. Individuating 5. Paradoxical (conjunctive) 6. Universalising. Although there is evidence that children up to the age of twelve years do tend to be in the first two of these stages[citation needed], adults over the age of sixty-one show considerable variation in displays of qualities of Stages 3 and beyond[citation needed], most adults remaining in Stage 3 (Synthetic Conventional). Fowler's model has generated some empirical studies, and fuller descriptions of this research (and of these six stages) can be found in Wulff (1991).
Fowler's scientific research has been criticized for methodological weaknesses. Of Fowler's six stages, only the first two found empirical support[citation needed], and these were heavily based upon Piaget's stages of cognitive development. The tables and graphs in the book were presented in such a way that the last four stages appeared to be validated, but the requirements of statistical verification of the stages were not met. His study was not published in a journal, so was not peer-reviewed. Other critics[who?] of Fowler have questioned whether his ordering of the stages really reflects his own commitment to a rather liberal Christian Protestant outlook, as if to say that people who adopt a similar viewpoint to Fowler are at higher stages of faith development. Nevertheless, the concepts Fowler introduced seemed to hit home with those in the circles of academic religion[who?], and have been an important starting point for various theories and subsequent studies[citation needed].
Other theorists in developmental psychology have suggested that religiosity comes naturally to young children. Specifically, children may have a natural-born conception of mind-body dualism, which lends itself to beliefs that the mind may live on after the body dies. In addition, children have a tendency to see agency and human design where there is not, and prefer a creationist explanation of the world even when raised by parents who do not.[46][47]
Researchers have also investigated attachment system dynamics as a predictor of the religious conversion experience throughout childhood and adolescence. One hypothesis is the correspondence hypothesis,[48] which posits that individuals with secure parental attachment are more likely to experience a gradual conversion experience. Under the correspondence hypothesis, internal working models of a person's attachment figure is thought to perpetuate his or her perception of God as a secure base. Another hypothesis relating attachment style to the conversion experience is the compensation hypothesis,[49] which states that individuals with insecure attachments are more likely to have a sudden conversion experience as they compensate for their insecure attachment relationship by seeking a relationship with God. Researchers have tested these hypotheses using longitudinal studies and individuals' self narratives of their conversation experience. For example, one study investigating attachment styles and adolescent conversions at Young Life religious summer camps resulted in evidence supporting the correspondence hypothesis through analysis of personal narratives and a prospective longitudinal follow-up of Young Life campers, with mixed results for the compensation hypothesis.[50]
Evolutionary and cognitive psychology of religion
Evolutionary psychology is based on the hypothesis that, just like the cardiac, pulmonary, urinary, and immune systems, cognition has a functional structure with a genetic basis, and therefore appeared through natural selection. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure should be universally shared among humans and should solve important problems of survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand cognitive processes by understanding the survival and reproductive functions they might serve.
Pascal Boyer is one of the leading figures in the cognitive psychology of religion, a new field of inquiry that is less than fifteen years old, which accounts for the psychological processes that underlie religious thought and practice. In his book Religion Explained, Boyer shows that there is no simple explanation for religious consciousness. Boyer is mainly concerned with explaining the various psychological processes involved in the acquisition and transmission of ideas concerning the gods. Boyer builds on the ideas of cognitive anthropologists Dan Sperber and Scott Atran, who first argued that religious cognition represents a by-product of various evolutionary adaptations, including folk psychology, and purposeful violations of innate expectations about how the world is constructed (for example, bodiless beings with thoughts and emotions) that make religious cognitions striking and memorable.
Religious persons acquire religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a Zen Buddhist will not become an evangelical Christian or a Zulu warrior without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure seems required – this person will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. Boyer says cognitive science can help us to understand the psychological mechanisms that account for these manifest correlations and in so doing enable us to better understand the nature of religious belief and practice.
Boyer moves outside the leading currents in mainstream cognitive psychology and suggests that we can use evolutionary biology to unravel the relevant mental architecture. Our brains are, after all, biological objects, and the best naturalistic account of their development in nature is Darwin's theory of evolution. To the extent that mental architecture exhibits intricate processes and structures, it is plausible to think that this is the result of evolutionary processes working over vast periods of time. Like all biological systems, the mind is optimised to promote survival and reproduction in the evolutionary environment. On this view all specialised cognitive functions broadly serve those reproductive ends.
For Steven Pinker the universal propensity toward religious belief is a genuine scientific puzzle. He thinks that adaptationist explanations for religion do not meet the criteria for adaptations. An alternative explanation is that religious psychology is a by-product of many parts of the mind that evolved for other purposes.
Religion and prayer
Religious practice oftentimes manifests itself in some form of prayer. Recent studies have focused specifically on the effects of prayer on health. Measures of prayer and the above measures of spirituality evaluate different characteristics and should not be considered synonymous.
Prayer is fairly prevalent in the United States. About 75% of the United States reports praying at least once a week.[51] However, the practice of prayer is more prevalent and practiced more consistently among Americans who perform other religious practices.[52] There are four primary types of prayer in the West. Poloma and Pendleton,[53][54] utilized factor analysis to delineate these four types of prayer: meditative (more spiritual, silent thinking), ritualistic (reciting), petitionary (making requests to God), and colloquial (general conversing with God). Further scientific study of prayer using factor analysis has revealed three dimensions of prayer.[55] Ladd and Spilka's first factor was awareness of self, inward reaching. Their second and third factors were upward reaching (toward God) and outward reaching (toward others). This study appears to support the contemporary model of prayer as connection (whether to the self, higher being, or others).
Dein and Littlewood (2008) suggest that an individual's prayer life can be viewed on a spectrum ranging from immature to mature. A progression on the scale is characterized by a change in the perspective of the purpose of prayer. Rather than using prayer as a means of changing the reality of a situation, a more mature individual will use prayer to request assistance in coping with immutable problems and draw closer to God or others. This change in perspective has been shown to be associated with an individual's passage through adolescence.[56]
Prayer appears to have health implications. Empirical studies suggest that mindfully reading and reciting the Psalms (from scripture) can help a person calm down and focus.[57][58] Prayer is also positively correlated with happiness and religious satisfaction (Poloma & Pendleton, 1989, 1991). A study conducted by Franceis, Robbins, Lewis, and Barnes (2008) investigated the relationship between self-reported prayer frequency and measures of psychoticism and neuroticism according to the abbreviated form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A). The study included a sample size of 2306 students attending Protestant and Catholic schools in the highly religious culture of Northern Ireland. The data shows a negative correlation between prayer frequency and psychoticism. The data also shows that, in Catholic students, frequent prayer has a positive correlation to neuroticism scores.[59] Ladd and McIntosh (2008) suggest that prayer-related behaviors, such as bowing the head and clasping the hands together in an almost fetal position, are suggestive of "social touch" actions. Prayer in this manner may prepare an individual to carry out positive pro-social behavior after praying, due to factors such as increased blood flow to the head and nasal breathing.[60] Overall, slight health benefits have been found fairly consistently across studies.[61]
Three main pathways to explain this trend have been offered: placebo effect, focus and attitude adjustment, and activation of healing processes.[62] These offerings have been expanded by Breslan and Lewis (2008) who have constructed a five pathway model between prayer and health with the following mediators: physiological, psychological, placebo, social support, and spiritual. The spiritual mediator is a departure from the rest in that its potential for empirical investigation is not currently feasible. Although the conceptualizations of chi, the universal mind, divine intervention, and the like breach the boundaries of scientific observation, they are included in this model as possible links between prayer and health so as to not unnecessarily exclude the supernatural from the broader conversation of psychology and religion.[63] (However, whether the activation of healing processes explanation is supernatural or biological, or even both, is beyond the scope of this study and this article.)
Religion and ritual
Another significant form of religious practice is ritual.[64] Religious rituals encompass a wide array of practices, but can be defined as the performance of similar actions and vocal expressions based on prescribed tradition and cultural norms.[65] Examples include the Jewish Bar Mitzvah, Christian Holy Eucharist, Hindu Puja, and Muslim Salat and Hajj.
Scheff suggests that ritual provides catharsis, emotional purging, through distancing.[66] This emotional distancing enables an individual to experience feelings with an amount of separation, and thus less intensity. However, the conception of religious ritual as an interactive process has since matured and become more scientifically established. From this view, ritual offers a means to catharsis through behaviors that foster connection with others, allowing for emotional expression.[67] This focus on connection contrasts to the separation that seems to underlie Scheff's view.
Additional research suggests the social component of ritual. For instance, findings suggest that ritual performance indicates group commitment and prevents the uncommitted from gaining membership benefits.[68] Ritual may aid in emphasizing moral values that serve as group norms and regulate societies.[69] It may also strengthen commitment to moral convictions and likelihood of upholding these social expectations.[70] Thus, performance of rituals may foster social group stability.
Religion and health
There is considerable literature on the relationship between religion and health. More than 3000 empirical studies have examined relationships between religion and health, including more than 1200 in the 20th century,[71] and more than 2000 additional studies between 2000 and 2009.[72]
Psychologists consider that there are various ways in which religion may benefit both physical and mental health, including encouraging healthy lifestyles, providing social support networks and encouraging an optimistic outlook on life; prayer and meditation may also help to benefit physiological functioning.[73] Nevertheless, religion is not a unique source of health and well-being, and there are benefits to nonreligiosity as well.[74] The journal "American Psychologist" published important papers on this topic in 2003.[75] Haber, Jacob and Spangler have considered how different dimensions of religiosity may relate to health benefits in different ways.[76]
Religion and physical health
Some studies indicate that religiosity appears to positively correlate with physical health.[77] For instance, mortality rates are lower among people who frequently attend religious events and consider themselves both religious and spiritual.[78] One possibility is that religion provides physical health benefits indirectly. Church attendees present with lower rates of alcohol consumption and improvement in mood, which is associated with better physical health.[79] Kenneth Pargament is a major contributor to the theory of how individuals may use religion as a resource in coping with stress, His work seems to show the influence of attribution theory. Additional evidence suggests that this relationship between religion and physical health may be causal.[80] Religion may reduce likelihood of certain diseases. Studies suggest that it guards against cardiovascular disease by reducing blood pressure, and also improves immune system functioning.[81] Similar studies have been done investigating religious emotions and health. Although religious emotions, such as humility, forgiveness, and gratitude confer health benefits, it is unclear if religious people cultivate and experience those emotions more frequently than non-religious peoples.[82]
However, randomized controlled trials of intercessory prayer have not yielded significant effects on health. These trials have compared personal, focused, committed and organized intercessory prayer with those interceding holding some belief that they are praying to God or a god versus any other intervention. A Cochrane collaboration review of these trials concluded that 1) results were equivocal, 2) evidence does not support a recommendation either in favor or against the use of intercessory prayer and 3) any resources available for future trials should be used to investigate other questions in health research.[83] In a case-control study done following 5,286 Californians over a 28-year period in which variables were controlled for (i.e. age, race/ethnicity, gender, education level), participants who went to church on a frequent basis (defined as attending a religious service once a week or more) were 36% less likely to die during that period.[84] However, this can be partly be attributed to a better lifestyle since religious people tend to drink and smoke less and eat a healthier diet.
Another study detailing the connection between religion and physical health was done in Israel as a prospective cohort case study. In a study done of almost 4,000 Israelis, over 16 years (beginning in 1970), death rates were compared between the experimental group (people belonging to 11 religious kibbutzim) versus the control group (people belonging to secular kibbutzim). Some determining factors for the groups included the date the kibbutz was created, geography of the different groups, and the similarity in age. It was determined that "belonging to a religious collective was associated with a strong protective effect".[85] Not only do religious people tend to exhibit healthier lifestyles, they also have a strong support system that secular people would not normally have. A religious community can provide support especially through a stressful life event such as the death of a loved one or illness. There is the belief that a higher power will provide healing and strength through the rough times which also can explain the lower mortality rate of religious people vs. secular people.
Religion and personality
Some studies have examined whether there is a "religious personality." Research suggests that people who identify as religious are more likely to be high on agreeableness and conscientiousness, and low on psychoticism, but unrelated to other Big Five traits. However, people endorsing fundamentalist religious beliefs are more likely to be low on Openness.[86] Similarly, people who identify as spiritual are more likely to be high on Extroversion and Openness, although this varied based on the type of spirituality endorsed.[87]
Religion and mental health
Evidence suggests that religiosity can be a pathway to both mental health and mental disorder. For example, religiosity is positively associated with mental disorders that involve an excessive amount of self-control and negatively associated with mental disorders that involve a lack of self-control.[88] Other studies have found indications of mental health among both the religious and the secular. For instance, Vilchinsky & Kravetz found negative correlations with psychological distress among religious and secular subgroups of Jewish students.[89] In addition, intrinsic religiosity has been inversely related to depression in the elderly, while extrinsic religiosity has no relation or even a slight positive relation to depression.[90][91] Religiosity has been found to mitigate the negative impact of injustice and income inequality on life satisfaction.[92][93]
The link between religion and mental health may be due to the guiding framework or social support that it offers to individuals.[94] By these routes, religion has the potential to offer security and significance in life, as well as valuable human relationships, to foster mental health. Some theorists have suggested that the benefits of religion and religiosity are accounted for by the social support afforded by membership in a religious group.[95]
Religion may also provide coping skills to deal with stressors, or demands perceived as straining.[96] Pargament's three primary styles of religious coping are 1) self-directing, characterized by self-reliance and acknowledgement of God, 2) deferring, in which a person passively attributes responsibility to God, and 3) collaborative, which involves an active partnership between the individual and God and is most commonly associated with positive adjustment.[97][98] This model of religious coping has been criticized for its over-simplicity and failure to take into account other factors, such as level of religiosity, specific religion, and type of stressor.[99] Additional work by Pargament involves a detailed delineation of positive and negative forms of religious coping, captured in the BREIF-RCOPE questionnaire which have been linked to a range of positive and negative psychological outcomes.[100][101]
Spirituality has been ascribed many different definitions in different contexts, but a general definition is: an individual's search for meaning and purpose in life. Spirituality is distinct from organized religion in that spirituality does not necessarily need a religious framework. That is, one does not necessarily need to follow certain rules, guidelines or practices to be spiritual, but an organized religion often has some combination of these in place. People who report themselves to be spiritual people may not observe any specific religious practices or traditions.[102] Studies have shown a negative relationship between spiritual well-being and depressive symptoms. In one study, those who were assessed to have a higher spiritual quality of life on a spiritual well-being scale had less depressive symptoms.[103] Cancer and AIDS patients who were more spiritual had lower depressive symptoms than religious patients. Spirituality shows beneficial effects possibly because it speaks to one's ability to intrinsically find meaning in life, strength, and inner peace, which is especially important for very ill patients.[102] Studies have reported beneficial effects of spirituality on the lives of patients with schizophrenia, major depression, and other psychotic disorders. Schizophrenic patients were less likely to be re-hospitalized if families encouraged religious practice, and in depressed patients who underwent religiously based interventions, their symptoms improved faster than those who underwent secular interventions. Furthermore, a few cross-sectional studies have shown that more religiously involved people had less instance of psychosis.[104]
Research shows that religiosity moderates the relationship between "thinking about meaning of life" and life satisfaction. For individuals scoring low and moderately on religiosity, thinking about the meaning of life is negatively correlated with life satisfaction. For people scoring highly on religiosity, however, this relationship is positive.[96] Religiosity has also been found to moderate the relationship between negative affect and life satisfaction, such that life satisfaction is less strongly influenced by the frequency of negative emotions in more religious (vs less religious) individuals.[105]
Religion and prejudice
To investigate the salience of religious beliefs in establishing group identity, researchers have also conducted studies looking at religion and prejudice. Some studies have shown that greater religious attitudes may be significant predictors of negative attitudes towards racial or social outgroups.[106][107] These effects are often conceptualized under the framework of intergroup bias, where religious individuals favor members of their ingroup (ingroup favoritism) and exhibit disfavor towards members of their outgroup (outgroup derogation). Evidence supporting religious intergroup bias has been supported in multiple religious groups, including non-Christian groups, and is thought to reflect the role of group dynamics in religious identification. Many studies regarding religion and prejudice implement religious priming both in the laboratory and in naturalistic settings[108][109] with evidence supporting the perpetuation of ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in individuals who are high in religiosity.
Religion and drugs
The American psychologist James H. Leuba (1868–1946), in A Psychological Study of Religion, accounts for mystical experience psychologically and physiologically, pointing to analogies with certain drug-induced experiences. Leuba argued forcibly for a naturalistic treatment of religion, which he considered to be necessary if religious psychology were to be looked at scientifically. Shamans all over the world and in different cultures have traditionally used drugs, especially psychedelics, for their religious experiences. In these communities the absorption of drugs leads to dreams (visions) through sensory distortion.
William James was also interested in mystical experiences from a drug-induced perspective, leading him to make some experiments with nitrous oxide and even peyote. He concludes that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others they are certainly ideas to be considered, but hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such.
Religion and psychotherapy
Clients' religious beliefs are increasingly being considered in psychotherapy with the goal of improving service and effectiveness of treatment.[110] A resulting development was theistic psychotherapy. Conceptually, it consists of theological principles, a theistic view of personality, and a theistic view of psychotherapy.[111] Following an explicit minimizing strategy, therapists attempt to minimize conflict by acknowledging their religious views while being respectful of client's religious views.[112] This is argued to up the potential for therapists to directly utilize religious practices and principles in therapy, such as prayer, forgiveness, and grace. In contrast to such an approach, psychoanalyst Robin S. Brown argues for the extent to which our spiritual commitments remain unconscious. Drawing from the work of Jung, Brown suggests that "our biases can only be suspended in the extent to which they are no longer our biases".[113]
Pastoral psychology
One application of the psychology of religion is in pastoral psychology, the use of psychological findings to improve the pastoral care provided by pastors and other clergy, especially in how they support ordinary members of their congregations. Pastoral psychology is also concerned with improving the practice of chaplains in healthcare and in the military. One major concern of pastoral psychology is to improve the practice of pastoral counseling. Pastoral psychology is a topic of interest for professional journals such as Pastoral Psychology, the Journal of Psychology and Christianity, and the Journal of Psychology and Theology. In 1984, Thomas Oden severely criticized mid-20th-century pastoral care and the pastoral psychology that guided it as having entirely abandoned its classical/traditional sources, and having become overwhelmingly dominated by modern psychological influences from Freud, Rogers, and others.[114] More recently, others have described pastoral psychology as a field that experiences a tension between psychology and theology.[115]
Other views
A 2012 paper suggested that psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms may be possible explanations for revelatory driven experiences and activities such as those of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Saint Paul.[116]
Subjective vs. Objective: What's the Difference?
https://www.difference.wiki/subjective-vs-objective/
Key Difference
Subjective perspective or information or piece of writing is the detailed explanation of something containing more than facts, thus including assumptions, personal thoughts, feelings, emotions, opinions etc. Objective on the other hand is a different perspective or information or writing that is totally based upon the facts and is to the point and is precise in nature holding the main theme and essence of particular subject or matter. Objective is measureable and observable whereas subjective cannot be measured.
What is Subjective?
Subjective is the perceptive, any information or the writing which is based upon the personal opinions, ideas, assumptions, imagination, feelings, emotions etc. Anything or information is said to be subjective whenever it is explained it detail along with detailed examples, overview, review, personal opinion, public opinion, historical background etc. People with the artistic nature are tend to attract more towards the subjective part and they themselves propose information or writings that are subjective in nature. Subjective is the detailed information and verdict about any particular thing or topic along with the personal opinion, imaginary things, creativity etc. The work seen around us every day in form of reviews, comments on social media or public forums, short moral based stories, long novels, seasons and even the biographies of famous men, all of these are subjective in nature.
What is Objective?
Objective is totally opposite to the subjective in all terms and nature. An objective perspective, writing or information is such that possess facts and authentic information in them. These facts pass through various experimental stages and are tested again and again, then they are accepted widely as a whole to be correct. Objective piece of work or information is extracted after series of experiments, we can say that the drawn conclusions from experiments and other are objective in nature. Objective information is kind of information that everyone needs to accept and agree. For example the text books for the education purpose are objective in nature and every student reading and learning them also agree with the information present in them. Similarly the information that we access from Encyclopedias and various other authentic sources, all such stuff falls in the category of objective because of their precise nature, to the point and relevant approach and facts based knowledge. Newspapers and news reports possess the information that is from authentic source and is fact in nature, that is also example of objective perspective and information. Objective perspective or information is mainly involve in decision making and enable people to judge well and decide on the basis of accurate information and precise facts.
Subjective vs. Objective
Subjective is the written piece of information or perception that contains ideas, personal opinions, imagination, creativity, detail, analysis, depth and various other things mixed up together.
Objective is the written piece of information or perception that is based on facts, it is precise, accurate, short and to the point.
Subjective information is most of the time based on personal ideas and assumptions.
Objective approach demonstrate the facts and conclusions.
Subjective information maybe agreed or disagreed as they are own opinions.
Objective information is tested conclusion accepted all over.
Objective information is used for decision making.
Subjective information is used for exploring and widening the scope of mind.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.28, 21:54:32
Objective information is used for decision making.
and Subjective information isn't ?
Trump: 'In America We Don't Worship Government, We Worship God'https://www.teaparty.org/trump-america-dont-worship-government-worship-god-236696/
The economist
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQDkRI-GbI8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQDkRI-GbI8)
We cannot point total blame at any one entity, even if we wanted to.
What we must do is learn to understand the game being played, and who the players are.
Classifications of religious movements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_religious_movements#Cult_typology
"He also gives six groups in the applications of analysis: Theosophy, Wisdom of the Soul, Spiritualism, New Thought, Scientology, and Transcendental Meditation."
This amused me because Bruce Campbell puts Spiritualism and Scientology in the same group! ;D
Value (ethics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics)
In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action may be regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense), and an action of low in value, or somewhat relatively low in value, may be regarded as "bad".[citation needed] What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good" (noun sense).
Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what "ought" to be. "Equal rights for all", "Excellence deserves admiration", and "People should be treated with respect and dignity" are representative of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior. Types of values include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.
Altruism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. The word was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from the Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3]
Altruism in biological organisms can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action. Steinberg suggests a definition for altruism in the clinical setting, that is "intentional and voluntary actions that aim to enhance the welfare of another person in the absence of any quid pro quo external rewards".[4]
Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty, in that whilst the latter is predicated upon social relationships, altruism does not consider relationships. Much debate exists as to whether "true" altruism is possible in human psychology. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic[disambiguation needed] reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as "benefits". The actor also may not be expecting a reward.
The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is usually contrasted with egoism, which is defined as acting to the benefit of one's self.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.31, 18:39:13
We cannot point total blame at any one entity, even if we wanted to.
What we must do is learn to understand the game being played, and who the players are.
Classifications of religious movements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_religious_movements#Cult_typology
"He also gives six groups in the applications of analysis: Theosophy, Wisdom of the Soul, Spiritualism, New Thought, Scientology, and Transcendental Meditation."
This amused me because Bruce Campbell puts Spiritualism and Scientology in the same group! ;D
I don't think anyone was trying to point the finger of blame at any one entity in that video?
What was being pointed out was the Control Paradigm's time table and the various entities involved.
Interesting that Campbell left out Satanism? After all the Church of Rome is known as the 'Whore of Babylon' and if you examine the role of the Black Pope and the Jesuits you will understand why. And Trump just happens to be a Jesuit.
I have to disagree with Vose's suggestion that Trump is the Pied Piper, I would suggest that Trump's role is more that of the Joker.
Further I would suggest the with the evolving strength of Russia, Iran and China the Control Paradigm's timetable is being radically upset, Syria for example has not gone to plan... and mushroom clouds might well be their answer to get things back on track.
Ron
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.31, 19:19:17
Altruism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. The word was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of egoism.[1][2] He derived it from the Italian altrui, which in turn was derived from Latin alteri, meaning "other people" or "somebody else".[3]
Satanism, Cannibalism, Spirit Cooking....
Roman Catholic Church, "Take, eat, this is my body..."
Ritual sacrifice: JFK, Dealey Plaza,... Diana, Pont de I'Alma tunnel
David Spangler quote: "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer.
No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
Ron
I didn't reference, I was not talking about the video, just a general comment.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.31, 20:21:54
I didn't reference, I was not talking about the video, just a general comment.
OK, I misunderstood
Ron
Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is the social behavior and norms found in human societies. Culture is a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of phenomena that are transmitted through social learning in human societies.
Some aspects of human behavior, such as language, social practices such as kinship and marriage, expressive forms such as art, music, dance, ritual, and religion, and technologies such as tool usage, cooking, shelter, and clothing are said to be cultural universals, found in all human societies. The concept of material culture covers the physical expressions of culture, such as technology, architecture and art, whereas the immaterial aspects of culture such as principles of social organization (including practices of political organization and social institutions), mythology, philosophy, literature (both written and oral), and science comprise the intangible cultural heritage of a society.[1]
In the humanities, one sense of culture as an attribute of the individual has been the degree to which they have cultivated a particular level of sophistication in the arts, sciences, education, or manners. The level of cultural sophistication has also sometimes been seen to distinguish civilizations from less complex societies. Such hierarchical perspectives on culture are also found in class-based distinctions between a high culture of the social elite and a low culture, popular culture, or folk culture of the lower classes, distinguished by the stratified access to cultural capital. In common parlance, culture is often used to refer specifically to the symbolic markers used by ethnic groups to distinguish themselves visibly from each other such as body modification, clothing or jewelry. Mass culture refers to the mass-produced and mass mediated forms of consumer culture that emerged in the 20th century. Some schools of philosophy, such as Marxism and critical theory, have argued that culture is often used politically as a tool of the elites to manipulate the lower classes and create a false consciousness, and such perspectives are common in the discipline of cultural studies. In the wider social sciences, the theoretical perspective of cultural materialism holds that human symbolic culture arises from the material conditions of human life, as humans create the conditions for physical survival, and that the basis of culture is found in evolved biological dispositions.
When used as a count noun, "a culture" is the set of customs, traditions, and values of a society or community, such as an ethnic group or nation. Culture is the set of knowledge acquired over time. In this sense, multiculturalism values the peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between different cultures inhabiting the same planet. Sometimes "culture" is also used to describe specific practices within a subgroup of a society, a subculture (e.g. "bro culture"), or a counterculture. Within cultural anthropology, the ideology and analytical stance of cultural relativism holds that cultures cannot easily be objectively ranked or evaluated because any evaluation is necessarily situated within the value system of a given culture.
Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
There is no scholarly consensus over the definition of "religion".[1][2] Conventionally, a "religion" is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".[3]
Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the "divine",[4] "sacred things",[5] "faith",[6] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings"[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the Universe and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[9] There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide.[10] About 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[11]
With the onset of the modernisation of and the scientific revolution in the western world, some aspects of religion have cumulatively been criticized. The religiously unaffiliated demographic include those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[12] The study of religion encompasses a wide variety of academic disciplines, including theology, comparative religion and social scientific studies. Theories of religion offer various explanations for the origins and workings of religion.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.07.31, 20:39:24
OK, I misunderstood
It's ok, emotion blinded you. That's what we are doing here, discussing and having the opportunity to remove emotional decision making from our future actions.
There are also two frames of references between me and you. There is the frame where I am doing my thing, there is the frame where I am altering doing my thing taking into account your relationship, and there is the frame where I am observing this all from. Hold on a minute is that two or three frame of references's ?
:)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective
ob·jec·tive (əb-jĕk′tĭv)
adj.
1.
a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
3. Medicine Relating to or being an indicator of disease, such as a physical sign, laboratory test, or x-ray that can be observed or verified by someone other than the person being evaluated.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective
sub·jec·tive (səb-jĕk′tĭv)
adj.
1.
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (John Hoberman).
b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient.
4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
5. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
6. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.07.31, 20:47:22
It's ok, emotion blinded you. That's what we are doing here, discussing and having the opportunity to remove emotional decision making from our future actions.
There are also two frames of references between me and you. There is the frame where I am doing my thing, there is the frame where I am altering doing my thing taking into account your relationship, and there is the frame where I am observing this all from. Hold on a minute is that two or three frame of references's ?
:)
LOL, I couldn't have said it better.
However, it helps to answer the question, "why are we here?" if the answer is, "to experience life"
So I would say that part of that is to accept and experience 'emotions' as long as this doesn't lead to emotion dominating ones life.
A big part of my life drive, shall we say, has been to see how things work. Now this applies not just to mechanical things but how the world operates also. There was a script running when I came here and it is fascinating to examine it in detail and see how it all plays out. Thus I try to do this as an observer with minimal emotional involvement.
Ron
White Genocide by Design: The Role of the Mass Media in the Destruction of the European People
https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/white-genocide-by-design-the-role-of-the-mass-media-in-the-destruction-of-the-european-people/
By FRANKLIN RYCKAERT
Introduced by Lasha Darkmoon
"Miscegenation cannot be commanded, but it can be promoted. Depriving Whites of the possibility to be among themselves in terms of residence, study, work and recreation is one thing. Suggesting miscegenation in films, TV series and commercials is another thing. There is nowadays hardly any form of media that is not full of this race mixing propaganda, mostly in subliminal form, and it is the Jews who control the media."
— Franklin Ryckaert
LD: This meticulously researched article by Franklin Ryckaert, illustrated by a revealing 50-minute video at the end, presents the following thesis: it was soon after the Holocaust, perceived by Jews collectively as the single greatest tragedy in their long history, that a decision was taken for the "Final Solution" of the European problem: namely, the systematic elimination of the Jews' perceived relentless oppressors.
Who were these relentless oppressors?
They were of course the Jews' European antagonists, the people who had expelled them from their White homelands over a hundred times in past centuries, subjecting them to constant pogroms and persecutions over the years. In a cataclysmic climax of anti-Semitic violence, one of these European nations had finally destroyed six million of them during the second half of World War Two. At any rate, so runs the widely accepted mainstream narrative.
How were the Jews to go about rectifying the wrongs of history, or to put it another way, how were they to get even? Answer: through "soft genocide", a slow and subtle non-violent way of getting rid of their enemies, who, it was thought, would be too stupid to notice their own demise. Or better still, too impotent to do anything about it.
This soft genocide basically consists in breeding the White race out of existence by promoting multiculturalism and mass immigration from the Third World into our White homelands. Inevitably, over the course of time, this would lead to the mongrelization of Whites through interbreeding with the darker races of Africa, Asia and the Islamic people of the Middle East. An added bonus would be a marked decline in the general IQ of the neo-European mongrel race, a race of dark-skinned Untermenschen such as cheerfully envisaged by the founder of the pan-European Union, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi:
Der Mensch der fernen Zukunft wird Mischling sein. Die heutigen Rassen und Kasten werden der zunehmen-den Überwindung von Raum, Zeit und Vorurteil zum Opfer fallen. Die eurasisch-negroide Zukunftsrasse, äußerlich der altägyptischen ähnlich, wird die Vielfalt der Völker durch eine Vielfalt der Persönlichkeiten ersetzen.
The man of the far future will be mixed race. Today's races and castes will fall victim to the increasing overcoming of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid future race, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
To prepare the world for this "huge transformation", meaning White genocide euphemistically presented as "multiculturalism", it was first necessary for international Jewry, with their vast financial resources, to gain almost complete control over the mass media. Few will now doubt that the Jews have already achieved this, given that they admit it themselves, especially in the case of Hollywood.
As a consequence of Jewish media control, we are now subjected to constant streams of anti-White propaganda, both overt and subliminal, designed to make Whites feel bad about themselves as well non-Whites to regard Whites with increasing contempt and hostility. Whites are not only made to feel guilty about the Holocaust and the crimes of colonialism but to regard themselves as an essentially flawed race, as morally repugnant and fit only for history's garbage dump — in short, as white trash.
The soft genocide of Whites is now being carried out before our very eyes, on a daily basis, as the hordes of the Third World keep pouring into our White homelands in a never-ending tide. Our end days are fast approaching, unless we can act quickly to turn the tide back and regain our lost lands. [LD]
WHITE GENOCIDE BY DESIGN: THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE
Jews are now perceived in many quarters as "supremacists", a description they will naturally find offensive. Because of their "chosenness", however, it would appear that many Jews feel entitled not only to monopolize the wealth of the world but also to appropriate its power. This is clearly articulated by their prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament where the Jew is told that foreign kings "shall minister unto thee" and that he will one day "suck the milk of the Gentiles":
And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.
Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isaiah 60: 10-12, 16; emphasis added.
Following this promise, throughout history the Jews have tried to appropriate much of the wealth and the power of the world. Unsurprisingly they came into continuous conflict with the whole world as a result. They have been expelled from several countries more than a hundred times. Instead of readjusting their behavior, the Jews developed a persecution complex : the whole world is against them "for no reason". Because it was mostly European countries that expelled them, the Jews came to consider Europeans as their greatest enemies.
After WWII and the intense Holocaust propaganda it brought in its wake — see Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering — the organized Jewish community became convinced that Europeans were a threat to them as a race and that they should therefore be neutralized as a race; in other words, that GENOCIDE of the European people, now better known as "White genocide", would be the "final solution" to the European problem.
But how could a small ethnic group of only 15 million people like the Jews exterminate ONE BILLION people of European descent spread out all over the world ? The Jews came to the conclusion that it would be possible to neutralize Europeans racially, not by physically exterminating them, but by causing them to mix with other races, thus losing their racial characteristics for good. Mulattoes, Mestizos and Eurasians are no more Europeans, and the Jews believe such people can be more easily manipulated by them than full-blood Europeans. Thus after the second World War the Jews concocted a plan to create conditions that would lead on a mass scale to miscegenation and the interbreeding of Europeans with other races. The effective means of achieving this would be through non-white immigration into white countries. This is a "soft" genocide, "soft" because no killing or violence is involved.
— § —
So the Jews decided to commit a "soft" genocide on Europeans. There are 4 things necessary to make such an endeavor a success : (1) lowering the white birthrate; (2) opening all white countries to mass non-white immigration; (3) neutralizing the opposition; (4) promoting miscegenation.
Lowering the white birth rate
At present the birthrate of Europeans is 1.6 children per woman. That is below the 2,1 necessary for replacement. This cannot be blamed on the Jews, but is a correlate of economical development. Developed East Asian countries have a similar low birthrate.
There are however a number of activities that tend to lower the birthrate even further. Jews are prominent in all these activities, which are: the promotion of transgenderism, homosexuality, pornography, promiscuity, birth control, abortion and feminism. Feminism is the greatest additional contributor to the low birthrate of Europeans and Jews are disproportionally dominant in this movement. (see List of Jewish feminists)
Opening all white countries to mass non-white immigration
European countries were never meant to be immigration countries, and the traditional immigration countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina also, until recently accepted only European immigrants. That has changed dramatically since the mid 1960s and many white countries receive now more non-white than white immigrants. They are expected to become majority non-white within a few decades. The name "Muhammad" is now the most popular name for newly born boys in many big cities of Western Europe. It can be demonstrated that in all cases Jewish lobbying was behind this change in immigration policies.
(See extensive endnote, with numerous links, on Jewish influence in shaping immigration policy in the US, Canada, Australia, Britain, Sweden and Ireland).
The recent "refugee" crisis, as is becoming increasingly clear to many who were unaware of this fact before, is also of Jewish making. The destruction of Libya and the attempt to destroy Syria happened all according to the Oded Yinon Plan, an Israeli plan to weaken all Muslim countries from Morocco to Pakistan, in order to facilitate Israel's regional hegemony. All those "Syrian refugees" (80% of whom are neither Syrian nor refugees), are directed – not to the rich Arabian Gulf states, let alone to Israel – but to Europe and other white countries. Jewish organizations, the ubiquitous George Soros, and even an Israeli "humanitarian" organization called IsraAid are heavily involved.
Neutralizing the opposition
Since the Jewish plan to flood all white countries with non-white immigrants has been such a smashing success, the Jews and their lackeys need to prevent the indigenous Whites from resisting their acute demographic dispossession and they resort to various means to neutralize the opposition.
Following are the means they use : (1) argumentation, (2) prohibition, (3) discrimination, (4) denigration, (5) racial disnormativation.
(1) Argumentation: Arguments in favor of mass non-white immigration are of economical, cultural and moral kinds. Immigration from the Third World is allegedly necessary for work the indigenous workers refuse to do, for the payment of pensions, for care of the elderly or for filling the gaps of a growing economy. These arguments are all bogus. Any society develops an economy commensurate with its own size, therefore it can by definition supply a workforce sufficient for its needs. Third World immigration, it is alleged, would also be culturally enriching. In reality the bulk of immigrants have low education, are hostile to their new country and concentrate in ghettos without integrating. Accepting refugees from the Third World would be a "moral obligation" even though such refugees could be temporally housed in camps within their own region and repatriated after the crisis is over.
If "positive" arguments fail, then objectors to immigration always can be accused of "racism", as if not every ethnic group has legitimate ethnic rights, among which is the right to remain the majority in its own territory. The accusation of "racism" is the strongest weapon in this battle.
(2) Prohibition: Criticism of the presence or (mis)behavior of immigrants is severely punished by Orwellian "Human Rights Commissions", "Racial Equality Commissions", "Anti-Discrimination Commissions" etc. that only exist to nip in the bud any resistance to the agenda of race replacement. In Sweden even criticism of the government's immigration policy is now punishable.
(3) Discrimination: Immigrants and minorities are favoured over Whites when it comes to housing and jobs. They get benefits Whites don't get (because they are already "privileged"). Since the money for these benefits must come from somewhere Whites are more taxed than non-Whites, making the formation of a family more difficult for them, while non-Whites can afford bigger families.
Thus Whites have to toil for their bare existence and in the process work for their own dispossession.
(4) Denigration: To demoralize the indigenous population, its history is denied, its heroes denigrated and its culture declared as without value. National symbols such as flags are forbidden because they would be "offensive" to immigrants. Christian symbols are not allowed because they would be "offensive" to Muslims.
(5) Racial disnormativation: You will not find the word "disnormativation" in a dictionary, because I have myself invented it. I use this term in combination with the adjective "racial" to denote the policy of replacing persons who are "normative" for a people of a certain race with people of a different race, thus causing a sense of alienation. In white countries persons who are normative, such as anchormen on TV, misses in beauty contests etc., are replaced by people of color, by preference Blacks.
The selection of Barak Obama as president of the US was in effect such an act of racial disnormativation, orchestrated by Jews of course. Racial disnormativation has also penetrated the world of films, TV series and commercials. One would get the impression that at least half of the population consists of Blacks, judging from their absurd overrepresentation in the media. This is done on purpose to demoralize the white population in order to make them accept their dispossession.
Promoting miscegenation
Miscegenation cannot be commanded, but it can be promoted. Depriving Whites of the possibility to be among themselves in terms of residence, study, work and recreation is one thing. Suggesting miscegenation in films, TV series and commercials is another thing. There is nowadays hardly any form of media that is not full of this race mixing propaganda, mostly in subliminal form, and it is the Jews who control the media.
Following is a video with a collection of scenes from commercials and films in which the Jewish plan to exterminate the white race by "soft" genocide is hidden in suggestive subliminal messages. The real purpose of these productions is not to sell goods or to entertain, but to promote the inglorious end of the white race through miscegenation, dispossession and race war.
The commercials sell the ideas of homosexuality, interracial adoption, marriages between white women and black men and the production of Mulatto children until they form the majority. The films sell the ideas of "evil white racism"(especially of Southerners), the total dispossession of Whites, the surrender to a mass invasion of "refugees", race war and murder of "Nazis" by Jews.
In the commercials the idea of homosexual marriage is sold as a "normal" variety of marriage, first between two white men and then between a white and a black man. Such couples are then allowed to form a "family", first by adopting children of their own race, and then by adopting interracially. This is a combination of three Jewish agendas : 1) degrading normal marriage, 2) promoting sterility of Whites, 3) promoting race mixing.
The major part of the commercials is about the subliminal promotion of marriages between white women and black men and the production of Mulatto children.
Normally, differences in race form a formidable obstacle to marriage. That can only be overcome by creating a very strong attraction. Men are mainly attracted by the beauty and loveliness of women. White men don't find black women particularly attractive, therefore the Jews have concentrated their efforts on white women.
Women are not in the first place attracted by the handsomeness of men, but by their strength and competence. There are sound biological reasons for this fact. In order to give birth to children and raise them, women need men who can protect them and provide for them. A woman therefore seeks a protector and a provider in a man, so if a man of another race seems to be stronger and more competent than a man of her own race, a woman is inclined to go for that man of the other race.
And so it is that White woman are being brainwashed, day after day by the mass media, into finding black men far stronger and more sexually dynamic than the men of their own race.
The Jews understand this and in the numerous commercials and films they produce they always depict the white man as cowardly, weak, foolish, stupid and boring in contrast to the black man who is depicted as strong, masculine, intelligent, fascinating. The white woman then goes for the black man, eventually marries him and produces mulatto children — by which the "soft" genocide of the white race is inexorably achieved.
Following are the recurrent themes in the mass media, which the video below will help to illustrate:
1. White men are weak
Examples : A clumsy white man always types with caps but can't help himself. A clumsy white worker nearly hits his own feet with a drill. A weak feminized white man is scolded by his wife for being a total loser. A white man poses for a group photo with blacks. The black photographer gestures him to step back a little. The clumsy white man tries to do that but falls backwards. All blacks laugh.
2. White men are inferior to blacks
Examples : A big, dominant, successful black man juxtaposed to a weak looking white man. A black stern looking highway patrol officer follows a smallish white man, driving incorrectly. A black woman lectures high-handedly clumsy whites about the need for a lawyer in tricky situations. A well dressed black gentleman sitting in an easy-chair in the lounge of a hotel, has his shoes polished by a submissive white man.
3. A white woman choses a superior black man over an inferior white man
Example : A white man and a black man go to a restaurant. The clumsy white man doesn't know what to order (he is "incompetent"). The black man knows exactly what to order (he is "competent"). The white waitress is charmed by the competent black man. She says :"That's hot". The white man asks : "What's hot, the chilli or the chicken?" The waitress indicates that it's the black man that is "hot".
4. A white woman is married to a black man
Examples : A black man is sitting in a romantic pose with his white wife on a bed. They eat white cream. A song sounds in which the words love, joy, and happiness occur. Everything is sweet and romantic.
A happy coal-black bridegroom and his white bride dance in the wood, embrace each other closely, stand in the surf of the sea, reach with their arms to the sun. Beautiful music sounds. Every thing is sweet and romantic.
5. A black and white couple has a mulatto child
Example : A little mulatto girl discusses the merits of cheerios with her white mother, while her black father sleeps on the couch. The mulatto girl is cute and disarmingly charming. This mixed family is depicted as perfectly normal.
6. The whole family, father, mother and children consists of mulattoes
Example : The scene of an all-mulatto family. The mother and all four children have afros. They are presented as the "typical" American family. Notice that the Jews, who don't want Whites to have many children, suddenly suggest a big family. That is because they want the whole white population to become mulatto.
As for the films, Steven Spielberg's Dream Works Studios produced films with as theme "evil white racists" (Amistad, The Help, Lincoln), "bigotted whites" (Meet the Parents, Stepford Wives, Anchorman) and a film about a black American president (Deep Impact) to prepare the American public for what the Jews would later orchestrate in reality.
The Weinstein Brothers are more revengeful in the anti-white themes of their films. They too produced films with the "evil white racists" theme (The Great Debaters, You don't mess with the Zohan, The Butler, The Equalizer, Crossing Over) but then went over to the "anti-white revenge" theme (Mandela, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds).
Inglorious Basterds is no more than a rather pathetic Jewish revenge fantasy.
All in all, Jewish commercials and films contain both overt and subliminal anti-white propaganda, with a thinly disguised wish to cause a "soft" white genocide by mixing Whites with Blacks or other races. The end result is mongrelization or a race of half breeds. Whites have already begun to die out and disappear from our traditional white homelands, as you can see from the picture below:
ENDNOTE on Jewish influence
in shaping immigration policy
# For the US, see : Kevin MacDonald : Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965 : A Historical Review.
# For Canada, see : YouTube : The Jewish Lobby in Canada : Immigration, Communism & Civil Rights Movement.
# For Australia, see : The Occidental Observer, Brenton Sanderson : The War on White Australia : a Case Study in the Culture of Critique. (Parts 1-5).
# For the UK, see : [1] The Occidental Observer, July 12, 2015, Andrew Joyce, The SS Empire Windrush : The Jewish Origins of Muliticultural Britain, and [2] : A conclusive report on the undeniable & self-evident Jewish promotion of malicious genocidal anti-European mass-immigration policies through governmental level lobbying. englishnews.org/.
# For Sweden, see : Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, January 14, 2013, The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Sweden.
# For Ireland, see : The Occidental Observer, March 2, 2013, Camillus, The Misplaced Minister : Ireland and Israel's Alan Shatter. For an absolutely saddening impression of modern "diverse" Dublin, see YouTube : Dublin Diversity (DIEversity).
This important video should not be missed. It illustrates in dramatic pictorial terms all the points made in the article above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4Ojbi6lXQI
The Promise to Abraham
"...and they shall possess the gate of their enemies" Gen.22:17
http://www.ivernainternational.com/teaching/pdf/ThePromisetoAbraham.pdf
Jane Vaughn
January 2006
When you read the Bible "devotionally," you're not reading to study per se, but you still are reading to hear God's voice. I was reading in Genesis, the stories of Abraham. In Chapter 22, we revisit the event of Abraham's offering of Isaac to the Lord. God saw that Abraham had withheld nothing from Him. In verse 17, God restates His promise of blessing and multiplication of Abraham's descendants (seed). I found I had underscored the beginning phrases in an earlier reading, but this time, I heard something else. Isn't God good? I had neglected the third aspect of blessing, the final phrase of verse 17: "and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."
I immediately thought of spiritual warfare, and was delighted to find another scripture to add to my cache of warfare verses. Amazing truth! As the spiritual seed of Abraham, weChristians are rightful recipients of the blessings of Abraham. We can inherit these promises of God! So! If "I" (or any believer in Jesus Christ) possess the gate of "my" enemy, what does that mean? What is it that is significant about the gates? God impressed on me that the answer to these inquiries would be life-changing!
In ancient times, in Israel and other eastern cultures, the gates of a city were busy places – for the whole population. The gate was the place of important business transactions. Recall when Boaz, in the story of Ruth, wanted to do the right and "legal" thing for her, went to the elders who sat at the gate of the city (Ru.4:1). A life altering business transaction occurred there that changed Ruth's life forever. So, the gate was the place of legal business transactions. (see also Gen.23:10,18; Deut.21:19).
The gate was also the place of justice. Kings sat in the gate to meet with their subjects, and make legal decisions. Princes and judges sat at the gates and discharged their duties. Court was held there, disputes settled. Priests and prophets delivered discourses, admonitions, prophecies, and counsel at the gate. (2Kngs.7:1; 22:10; Neh.8:1,3; Jer.17:19,20; 36:10; 38:7).
It was the place of public speaking. The people gathered at the gate – or in the courtyard of the gate – for conversation, to share local news, and for discussions of all subjects. It was a likely place for people to congregate informally or formally because of the normal construction (massive vaulted stone structures often with covered courtyards) that offered a cool place to escape the heat of the deserts in the Mideast. It was a place of rest as well.
Furthermore, the gates and the vicinity around them served as the marketplace of the town (2Kngs.7:1). This was the best location for the sale of local produce and crops as everyone who passed through the city had to enter and exit through the gate. The gate to a city was a busy place.
The gate became a symbol of strength, power, and dominion (Ps.24:7), but it was also the weakest point of defense (2Chr.14:7; 26:9; 32:5; Ps.48:12) and therefore heavily defended. Watchtowers were constructed above the corners of the gates as lookout posts – a place where watchmen could see when an enemy was approaching and call the city to alert. At night the gates were closed, barred and guarded (Josh.2:5,7; Neh.7:3), secured by locks with big keys.
To possess the gate was to possess the city! The Israelites, the seed of Abraham, were promised power or dominion over the cities of their enemies (Gen.22:17; 24:60).
Here was my initial thought concerning spiritual warfare: this Scripture in Genesis seems to be quite important – a divine Truth, if you will. In natural wartimes, to possess the gate meant possession of the city and we know – as it goes in the natural, so it goes in the spiritual. An awesome thought! So – if I possess the gate of the enemy, he has no business messing with me! I am the seed of Abraham – I've been bought and washed by the Blood of Jesus Christ – I am a child of the King – I possess the gate of the enemy. Hallelujah! Victory is assured through the promise of God!
The next day, God brought me back to this glorious verse. What He revealed was, I think, even more extraordinary and personally freeing than the first part of the revelation! He reminded me that I am, too often, my most fierce "enemy!" I had to agree. (Does that fit you as well?) More times than not, our biggest battles are with our own personages.
Who I am today is a result of years of lifeevents. We have a whole history of experiences behind us, both positive and negative – and, unfortunately, we seem to allow the negatives of our past to dictate more often and more powerfully than all of the positives put together. We are subconsciously controlled by lingering and unresolved hurt feelings, slights, rejections, unforgiveness, camouflaged resentments or bitterness, and the memory of hurtful "words" spoken to us, against us, or about us.
I believe a legitimate extension of the scripture in Genesis can be applied to the battles I have with myself
– my known weaknesses, my past (that stretches into my present), my selfimage (often formed based on words others have said), my goals (visions and dreams for the future), my perceptions of events (past and present), and my selftalk (the conversation I have all day long with myself). I believe we can say, GOD SAYS – I possess my own gates – or, I CAN possess them! It is through His revelation, His power, His enabling, His everythingIneed – but I can take hold of my own gates and possess my own "city" – I have that right. I amnot a "victim" of my past or present circumstances.
I am a city, if you will. I possess my gates. You are a city – and if you are born again you can possess your gates. We can control who (or what) enters in through our gates. Jerusalem had 15 gates at one time, and they each had a name. The name often reflected the major use of a gate or something in particular about it. For instance, the Sheep Gate, near the Pool of Bethesda, was the primary entrance through which sheep were brought to the Temple for offerings. The East Gate was on the eastern wall.
In the Bible, gates are spoken of as being broken indicating an inability to perform their function. They were removed meaning there was no defense against invasion. They were burned – marred, scarred – by an enemy of the past when the defenses were breached. And they were barred indicating a guarded and defended wall. Nehemiah returned with the people of Israel (a remnant of the whole) and began to rebuild the walls (that would be the physical security surrounding a city – they were tall and thick and made of stone). Then they had to repair the gates and hang them in their fortified places.
If I can see myself as a city – what would be my gates? First of all, my eyes are like gates. They allow things to "come in." It has been suggested that everything we see is logged or filed in the brain somewhere for later retrieval. That can be good, or it can be very detrimental. I need to be careful what I allow my eyes to let into my soul. If I look at pornography? What about read trashy books? Or Rrated movies that have that rating for a reason – which the world has decided is racy or violent, at best. What amI filling up on through my eyegates?
Jesus said, "The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be light (or "healthy"), thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be defective (or "evil"), thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Mt.6:22,23). Case in point – I amreminded of the little Sunday School song, "Oh, be careful little eyes what you see!" That's so true.
James said, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when that lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death"
(Jas.1:14,15). Lust is an intense craving or longing, especially for what is forbidden. We usually think in terms of sexual impurity when we speak of lust, but we can actually lust for power, or things, or whatever webelieve will satisfy our cravings. "Lust when it is conceived..." Where is something "conceived" – an idea? A thought? It usually comes fromsomething we have taken in through our eyegates.
We could look at most of our 5 senses as gates. Our ears – what we hear – listen to – record in our memories through hearing. We know that "faith cometh by hearing, hearing the Word of God"
(Rom.10:17). So, it is not the gate that is "evil" – it is the unguarded gate, the broken gate, the open gate that we must be careful to watch. Be your own watchman – on the walls. Don't allow just anything to come into your being unchecked and unchallenged.
Have you considered "passive learning?" I understand that to be what we learn by passive experience – by simply being exposed to things of life – not in a formal learning environment. I see a grave danger here in things like background music – the radio playing softly in the background would be an example. Instrumental music or a Christian station would not be a threat, but just leaving contemporary stations (including the "oldies!") playing in elevators or stores or doctors' offices or in your car – or in a plug from one's ear to an iPod – being exposed to the lyrics of certain types of music can and does desensitize us to the dangers being lodged in the subconscious. Extreme position? I doubt it. Really.
Women should guard their eargates from exposure to gossip. You can receive prayer requests without having to know all the gory details. Men should be watchful concerning the kinds of humor that pervades the masculine arena. We're admonished (advised) by Paul to not participate in certain kinds of activities. He lists some of them in Ephesians 5, beginning at verse 3. We would expect to (and do) discover the obvious: immorality, impurity, greed. But he continues in the next verse (v.4): "there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks." People know that's wrong. My husband and I even have had people apologize to us before they tell a crude joke that's supposed to be funny! I mean people in the church, but not in a church setting.
Guard your ears. Be aware of what's lying in wait for you in terms of passive hearing. Passive in the fact that you do not actively participate or seek it out – but you hear it all the same. Ask God to cleanse you fromthat exposure and do not allow such things to cause you to compromise a righteous lifechoice.
The mouth – a gate. Things particularly come out of our mouths about which the Lord cautions us. In Matthew 12, speaking to the Pharisees Jesus says, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things, but I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (verses 3437). That is quite a statement, and gives us good reason to guard what sort of communication leaves our lips. James says it this way: "Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be."
What about guarding what enters the mouthgate? I had never thought of this – ever – until the Lord opened my eyes to it just this week. We could think in terms of illegal drugs or alcohol – or – I have struggled with my weight for 50 years! That's a lifetime of losing battles... It is the one area of my life that I have consistently been defeated. I've tried diets that work while you're actively on them – I've counted calories and carbs and fats and sugar.... I've tried various forms of strenuous exercise (competitive racquetball, swimming laps, jogging, etc.) – same thing. As soon as you let up at all... defeat. I have begged God to work a miracle in my naturally sleepy metabolism. And I have shed a lot of tears over the failures. Just being honest here.
I have tried to deal with spiritual issues – current and past: abiding more, walking in the Spirit more, joined Bible studies on weight loss, and how to handle stress. I've tried facing the sins of selfindulgence and lack of selfcontrol and lust for food, even greed. I have endeavored to do everything I could think of
– I have confessed and repented and bound and cast out and attempted to crucify; I've even "let go and let God." J And, in this area, I have experienced no "lasting fruit" (Jn.15:16) over the long term– 50 years.
But – I never considered this aspect – of possessing this gate. I can only hope this is the key for ME that God has finally granted. I know it is Truth! (Jn.8:32). And I'm on to it! J I'm now actively conscious of what's going into my mouth. My goal is to possess the gate. My hope and expectation is that I will experience the weight loss that has eluded me thus far.
We also could talk about heart issues as gates – what do I store up in my heart as treasure? What do I store up that's not treasure? How have I established my life priorities? We could even discuss our hands and feet as forms of gates... What do I do that gets me into trouble? Where do I go? What do I neglect? How do I spend my leisure time? How do I fill my day? And I think as important as any is the mind. What are you listening to? Whose voice are you heeding? Are you capturing your thoughts and checking themagainst the things God would say?
Gates. Do I actually possess my own gates? It is my inheritance as the seed of Abraham. It's my "right." It's my privilege. It's MY responsibility. I know that occupation of the enemy's land is a process (De.2:31). I know the Israelites were to leave "no survivors" when they went in to possess the Land (De.2:34). I know we must bring every thought captive and make them bow to the Kingship of Jesus (2Cor.10:4,5). I know the Promise of God to the Israelites was that He would give them the Land, but they had to go in to possess it, and that meant battles. Victory was sweet – defeat was devastating.
God promised them, "I will be with you, I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and of good courage..." (Josh.1:5b6a). Let's remember that the fulfillment of the promises of God is accomplished by meeting the conditions indicated. In Joshua, there were these instructions to the Israelites: "...that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses, My servant, commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper wherever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed; for the LORD thy God is with thee wherever thou goest." (Josh.1:79). Notice "then."
That is Old Testament – old covenant – under the Law. Thank God we live this side of the Cross! We are not to be bound by the legalisms of "religion" (Gal.5:1). So what is it we have in common with them? I believe the similarities are that we are to love God with our whole hearts. And that means we're to follow in the ways of Jesus – out of love and gratitude for all He has provided for us. Be like Jesus, relying only on what the Father says and does and directs. Then we shall walk in the inheritance that belongs to us – including possessing the gates of our enemies!
The Power of the Subjective Form: Feelings as Perceptive Devices for Care and Connection
https://processandfaith.org/the-power-of-the-subjective-form-feelings-as-perceptive-devices-for-care-and-connection/
by Dr. Arlette Poland
Whitehead teaches us that perception involves several layers of activity. Neuroscience has recently proven his concepts to be accurate. The most simple of examples is our eyesight. Our eyes are not really what see the world. It is the brain that really 'sees.' Our eyes perceive upside down and the brain interprets the perceived world. That means our interpretation is the key to our experience of the world. I think this is what Whitehead wanted us to understand. I also think that this is what the Buddha wanted us to realize.
Science of Mind, teachings that were founded by Ernest Holmes in the 20th century, adds that our thoughts or this activity of perception via the device of subjective form not only determines our experience of the world but also significantly creates our world. In short, our thinking is creative of the world. How is that for power!?!
These ideas might prove to be good reasons to investigate how our perceptions are formed and even more importantly how they are or could be changed. After all these perceptions, subjective form for feeling, decide how or if we accept or reject information. In every moment, new information is made available and our subjective form, our perceptive device, decides how or if that new information fits into something already known. Are we stuck in the same patterns and thinking or can we extricate ourselves from habit thinking, perceiving, feeling?
According to Whitehead, novelty or change is the making of life itself. If there is no novelty, then there is no life. We could call this evolution a la Whitehead. Here Whitehead lines up well with Buddhism in that both advocate not only to explore carefully the device of perception but also to decide to alter the thinking towards acceptance of the new.
The subjective form, according to Whitehead, is the perceiving tool for the becoming event in the activity of becoming called concrescence, or becoming concrete. The subjective form is already in existence. It is waiting for the new information. The subjective form could be thought of as the color of the glasses we wear when we prehend (experience and comprehend) all that new information.
If our glasses are fogged with many labels that are fixed, we are likely stuck in thinking a certain way. If we hate the color yellow, then anything yellow might be 'bad.' The flower is yellow. Now we hate the flower!
Labels are only that ... labels. For us to accept the responsibility for the creative power of our thinking, it is time that we use either Whitehead and/or a form of meditation to explore and constantly update our subjective forms, our world view, our labels.
It is time to focus on the opportunities for greater care and connection for self and others. Such focus means the development of subjective forms and labels that are consistent with this focus. Now.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.01, 21:23:58
Labels are only that ... labels. For us to accept the responsibility for the creative power of our thinking, it is time that we use either Whitehead and/or a form of meditation to explore and constantly update our subjective forms, our world view, our labels.
For awhile there I was afraid they were stuck in just the five senses. But then. a brief glimpse of
meditation, alright, the spiritual aspect of the inner mind is being acknowledged.
We come from somewhere and when we die we return to that somewhere. All the clues lie strewn about us and even a brief study of the paranormal should open the door. Edgar Cayce, the Seth Material, NDE's, out of body travel are all hard to label if we stick to just the five senses. Even dowsing is easier to understand if we acknowledge that we are energy in an energy world.
The body is/has seven major chakras for survival in this world but we bump into the "other" world lightly though alcohol but most definitely through the psychedelics. Crudely through LSD, more comprehensively through Magic Mushrooms or Ayahusca, and most effectively through DTM. Then we realize our true nature, our labels can be reset. We begin to see the illusion for what it is. The hollowness and horror of the man made religions becomes overwhelming.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.02, 15:08:09
most effectively through DTM.
I have, other than than some early use of Mary Jane, never used any psychedelics so don;t get me wrong, I am not recommending their use, merely insisting that we need to accept the results of their use as proof of "other worlds" and our spiritual nature.
QuoteWhen the DMT (dimethyltryptamine) is synthesized into crystalline form, it can be vaporized and inhaled. This is the most common method of ingestion. In this form, its peak effects last just 15 minutes or less. But DMT often causes the perception of time to shift so those 15 minutes can feel like hours, or even years. User's descriptions of their DMT journeys often include such powerful themes as psychic death and rebirth, meeting strange entities, grappling with eternity, traveling to different dimensions and feeling both overwhelming terror and unconditional love.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-mind-blowing-experiences-dmt (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-mind-blowing-experiences-dmt)
Quote"I was transported to that extremely alien-like realm that I had been to so many times before. I felt like I was being schooled on existence. A teacher entity that seemed to have some sort of almost condescending power over me was trying to convince me that 'they' constructed our reality completely, and tried to get me to agree that this reality was not under our control; it was being constructed and predetermined by an outside force completely. Even though I had lost complete touch with reality, I did not listen blindly. I was skeptical. ([It was] not that I disbelieved it, but I didn't believe it either... I always like to keep an open mind when it comes to these sorts of existential matters). The entity was so persistent about trying to convince me! I remained neutral on the matter, but courteous and attentive all the same...
Ron
This reality is an immersive classroom so well done that the participants believe it is real. And this is the process. All beliefs in higher beings are aware of life immortal. Reality is the process by which the participant is tested to see if they have the mental clarity and fortitude to withstand any lesson they are exposed to.
And this reality is a voice controlled, amplifying echo chamber, just like being in a classroom. You raise your hands and ask out loud(pray) for a response. All the faiths do this. Think about it. Jesus said 'You have not because you ask not.' Just change the labels and it truly looks like the matrix classroom. And we call Jesus 'Teacher'. I guess the Holy Ghost is a teacher's aide. Sleep must be recess. Places of worship are assembly halls. God must be the principle. The hierarchy is the same here as there. The students / disciples were amazed at what Jesus could do. Well duh. The teacher has a lot of things they can do that the student has never been exposed to. Why He even lets you argue your point. Your life is your seat in the classroom. How well do you participate?
Taking psychodelics allows you to be a fly on the wall either in the class room or outside.
Now back to this 9/11 thingy:
2001 I worked for D.O.D. As I get ready for work I listen to Christian talk radio. Same routine: Get up, go to bathroom, turn on radio. Only this time there is dead air. And I mean dead air. But there is a slight sniffle sound. Really low volume. I turn up volume. I can hear the sniffling going on off mike so to speak. As someone who knows electronics this just baffles my mind. The station is there but dead air. A real taboo in radio. This I know. I just woke and am awakening to a new realm of interpretation. I flip the station selector and hear other shows. But I quickly turn back to KLOVE. I want to know what is going on with this station. The OCD in me is more intrigued by this presentation. Then the show host, John Rivers comes on and says in a weepy tone "If you haven't turned on your TV you better go this now.' What? The radio is telling me to turn the TV on? Never in my wildest dreams could I have understood this. The radio goes silent. I run and turn on the TV.
As I stood there it was only a minute or two when the seond plane hit and then the towers fell. The sequence of events were to many to absorb. My foray into OU started in 2006 so I was not thinking energy levels or obscure technologies. I was on the 'participant' path. For what I could take in I was overwhelmed. Everybody was. I was in tears and had to go to work to be accounted for. I fell for the brainwashing propaganda hook line and sinker.
I wasn't till later in ~2011 that I saw Dr Judy wood. Having studied Tesla intensely for years I became very aware. Dr wood showed things that we saw on 9/11 that totally escaped everyone. The lack of fire, piles of combustible trash, whole file cabinets and no toilets showed me the jig was up. All pop metal was disintegrated. Hmm. All crystalline material vanished yet combustibles are intact. And car tires were intact. Microwaves!
The bottom line is the refuse displayed is the same as what happens in a microwave oven.
I seethed with anger now knowing I was duped. But I couldn't have put two and two together back then. But afterward...
I became aware of a much larger and empirical game being played upon the public. From that moment on 'How high can one go up the chain of information?' became my awareness focus. We have been placed at the bottom of the rabbit hole from birth and told, trained, and coerced to never look up.
Update on John Rivers. He fell prey to depression as a wounded Viet Nam vet and succumbed to taking pain pills. It went bad for a while. He was off radio for good. He did recover but stayed out of the public eye. As a patriot he was too embedded into the lie to over come the agony of the 911 event. It happens to the best.
"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." The term 'red pill' refers to a human that is aware of the true nature of the
Matrix.
Jeremiah 33:3:
QuoteCall unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
Same as it ever was...
Quote from: giantkiller on 2017.08.03, 17:17:59
Taking psychodelics allows you to be a fly on the wall either in the class room or outside.
"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." The term 'red pill' refers to a human that is aware of the true nature of the Matrix.
Excellent post GK, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Having come late to EA's thread I have wondered how the 9-11 thing turned out here... and the group conclusions.
9-11 was one of "their" most elaborate schemes to date, so very well planed and executed... but, never the less, with just enough glitches as to all fall apart on proper examination.
Titanic was so well done as to fool people for decades. Whereas JFK, Oklahoma City, the London Bombing, the Boston marathon, Chernobyl, Fukushima, all started to unravel almost immediately. Are people getting smarter? Or are "they" just getting more clumsy and arrogant?
Looking back on 9-11 the unravelling was a piece of cake actually because there must be at least 100 anomalies that just don't add up. And the same cast of characters, or their front groups, the Jesuits, Mossad, CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5/6, keep coming up
Ron
This is not my thread, I have no moderator rights here.
I reluctantly participate because I need to alert my people, and every people, to an insidious threat that has desires on our total global genocide.
It's a very upsetting time.
Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state/
On December 14, Tom Suárez spoke at The House of Lords, London, at the invitation of Baroness Jenny Tonge. Drawing from his recently published book State of Terror, he addressed the centennial of the Balfour Declaration and his views on the way toward ending today's Israel-Palestine "conflict". The following are Suárez's remarks. The book was reviewed here by David Gerald Fincham.
Good evening, thank you so much for taking time out of what I know are your busy schedules to be here now. My thanks to Jenny Tonge for making this meeting possible; and I would like to thank three people without whom the book would not exist: Karl Sabbagh, my publisher; Ghada Karmi, who inspired the book; and my partner, Nancy Elan, who was my constant alter-ego during my research and without whom I surely would have given up.
My work is based principally on declassified source documents in the National Archives in Kew. When I have had to rely on published works, I have trusted established historians who cite first-hand sources. Everything I will say here tonight is based on such source material.
Our topic is of course the so-called "conflict" in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalised. But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—"our" meaning the United States and Europe. It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.
We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration. The British role in Palestine was a case of 'hit & run': The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people's land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.
Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century. Bigots were Zionism's avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists. Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.
The London Standard's correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that
...the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that 'anti-Semitism' was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.
Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people's land. They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.
They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.
For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive. As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is "a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic".
By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.
First-hand accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief Association. He was so horrified by what he found that he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on
a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.
A few years later, the Balfour Declaration's deliberately ambiguous wording was being finalized. Sceptics—and the British Cabinet—were assured that it did not mean a Zionist state. Yet simultaneously, Weizmann was pushing to create that very state immediately. He demanded that his state extend all the way to the Jordan River within three or four years of the Declaration—that is, by 1921—and then expand beyond it.
In their behind-the-scenes meetings, Weizmann and Rothschild treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly complained to the British that the settlers were not being treated preferentially enough over the Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.
In correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies by slandering the Palestinians and Jews—that is, the Middle East's indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human, and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine—if the "Arabs" had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew down to the level of a "native".
With the establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and armed Palestinian resistance—which included terrorism—began. Zionist terror became the domain of formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of its messianic goals—Palestinian, Jew, or British. These terror organizations operated from within the Zionist settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements, what would become the Israeli government.
There was no substantive difference between the acknowledged terror organizations—most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang—and the Jewish Agency, and its terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated, collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.
The relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what they could to shield it.
The fascist nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews. Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of all three major organizations, and by extension, the Jewish Agency.
Britain's wake-up call regarding the Zionists' indoctrination of children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers. Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done something of this sort, but this time the British caught the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.
Teenagers, both boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks. Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and the students themselves were blocked from advancement if they resisted, even being taught to betray their own parents if those parents tried to instill some moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations—that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate—were Jews.
From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians' failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to 'defend' themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel's default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
As late as the fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the Palestinians' failure to respond to its provocation, but when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror.
Throughout the Mandate period, the takeover and ethnic cleansing of Palestine remained Zionism's unwavering goal. As but one illustration, I will summarize a key meeting of twenty people held in London on the 9th of September, 1941.
"To be treated as most secret" is the red ink heading of the transcript. Present were Weizmann, who had called the meeting, David Ben-Gurion, and other Zionist leaders such as Simon Marks (of Marks & Spencer); and the prominent non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen. Discussing the path to the proposed Jewish State, the conversation ran along the lines of George Orwell's still-to-be-published Animal Farm, in which all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Anthony de Rothschild began by stressing that there would be no "discrimination ... against any group of its citizens" in the Jewish state, not even "to meet immediate needs". Weizmann and Ben-Gurion also assured the sceptics: "Arabs"—Palestinians—would have equal rights. However, they clarified that within that absolute equality, Jewish settlers would have to have special privileges. Weizmann's 'absolute equality' included the transfer of most non-Jews out of Palestine while permitting "a certain percentage of Arab and other elements" to remain in his Jewish state, the insinuation being as a pool of cheap labour.
Anthony de Rothschild's vision of equality and non-discrimination was equally compelling: it "depended on turning an Arab majority into a minority", and to achieve this, there would be "no equal rights" for non-Jews.
Cohen found the scheme dangerous, submitting that the Zionists were "starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started". Cohen did not stop there: he suggested that if a state with equality for everyone were indeed intended, the state should be named with a neutral geographic term. He suggested ... 'Palestine'. The others were horrified at this idea, arguing that if the state had a non-Jewish name, "they would never get a Jewish majority", in effect acknowledging the use of messianic fundamentalism as a calculated political strategy.
In another obvious but rarely spoken admission, Ben-Gurion clarified that the 'Jewish state' was not based on Judaism; it was, rather, based on being a 'Jew', that is, by the Zionists' racial definition.
Asked about borders of his settler state, Weizmann continued in the same surreal manner. He replied that he would consider the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission four years earlier, in 1937, but that "the line" (the Partition) "would be the Jordan". This was nonsensical: the Jordan was the Commission's eastern border for the two states, and so Weizmann's 'partition' meant 100% for his state, 0% for the Palestinians. He went further still: he would "very much" like to "cross the Jordan", that is, take Transjordan along with Palestine.
At the end of the meeting Weizmann sought to put his proposals into effect officially in the name of all Jews worldwide. Those against his proposals were, in his word, "antisemites".
Meanwhile, World War II was raging. What was the Jewish Agency's reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv, the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day 1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather than join the war effort. Another reaction was to conduct a massive theft ring of Allied weapons and munitions, "as if", as one British military record put it, "paid by Hitler himself".
Much has been written on the collaboration between the Zionists and fascists during the war, the best known of course being the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi boycott. One of the least known was Lehi's attempted collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly concluded 'Jerusalem Agreement' of late 1940, Lehi would help the fascists win the war, and in return the fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.
If this sounds like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s—most catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient community and move its population to Israel as ethnic fodder.
Violence targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as is commonly thought. Even some of the Irgun's bombings of Palestinian markets killed more people than the King David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack was the Jewish Agency's bombing of the immigrant ship Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.
The Jewish Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them. The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all aboard in order to get the survivors to remain—which, indeed, they did.
In further violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine, posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist myth.
This was no aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist project: Persecuted Jews served the political project, not the other way around.
Another major tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President Roosevelt's provisional success in establishing a half million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt's aide Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt to save the program, he was, in his words, "thrown out of parlours and accused of treason"— 'treason', because he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.
Nor were those already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their homes was the number he cited to the NY Times as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of his own record of the trip.
Herzog railed against the fierce resistance he met in every country by horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the children. But Herzog used his political clout to circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the children, Herzog
met the Prime Minister of France from whom I demanded promulgation of a law which would oblige every family to declare the particulars of the children it houses,
so that those of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine—quite a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who had just been spared the Nazis.
Herzog's justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is "much worse than physical murder". Yet even this ghastly justification fails to explain what was actually taking place, because at the same time Herzog was 'rescuing' Jewish orphans from this fate "much worse than physical murder", his Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive homes in England for young survivors still in the camps. The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the children were needed to serve the settler project as demographic fodder.
To that end, the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps, despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then severed from the rest of humanity into these brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free thought.
The camps nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee found them in a delirious state, threatening mass suicide if they did not go to Palestine. Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had always been the favored destination, were again met with threats of mass suicide.
DPs were also groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and Allied troops to their deaths.
German Jewish immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the Zionists' exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.
Weltsch warned that Zionist leaders
have not yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction of the Jews ... We who have been here only a few years, we know what Nazism is.
Zionists, rather, are "taking part in the crash of European Jewry only as spectators", fighting the British and keeping Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting comfortable and rich from their political project in Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central Europe, he said, have no representation among the Zionist ruling establishment. If they did,
we would have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler and Nazism.
But—and I am still quoting Weltsch—
They do not want to fight against Hitler because his fascist methods are also theirs ... They do not want our young men to join the [Allied] Forces ... day after day they are sabotaging the English War Effort.
These German Jewish immigrants were shunned by the Zionists, their publications and presses bombed. Even Kiosks were bombed for selling non-Hebrew papers to German Jewish immigrants.
In 1943, a man whom British records describe as "a Jew whose integrity is not open to question" risked his life to warn the British about the threat of Zionism. For his safety, he was referred to only by the code-name 'Z'.
Z described Zionism as a parallel movement to Nazism. He warned that the Zionist indoctrination of Jewish youth was producing a society of extremists who will use any method necessary to achieve Zionist goals; and he pointed out that, as fascism in Europe has demonstrated, such a society is very difficult to undo once it has taken root. The result, I'm afraid, is what we, or more accurately the Palestinians, are facing today in the so-called 'conflict'.
How trustworthy is this anonymous testimony? I found at the National Archives a private letter in which Z is identified — he was J.S. Bentwich, the Senior Inspector of Jewish Schools in Palestine.
Zionists
would have got further towards rescuing the unfortunates in Axis Europe, had they not complicated the question by always dragging Palestine into the picture
—so judged a report by US Intelligence in the Middle East, dated the 4th of June, 1943, entitled "Latest Aspects of the Palestine Zionist-Arab Problem". It described "Zionism in Palestine" as
a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism,
and stated that anti-Semitism was essential to it. Whereas
assimilated Jews in Europe and America are noted for being ... stout opponents of racialism and discrimination,
Zionism has bred the opposite mentality in Palestine,
a spirit closely akin to Nazism, namely, an attempt to regiment the community, even by force, and to resort to force to get what they want.
US intelligence assailed "the crude conception" being spread of the Palestinian people as "a nomad tent-dweller ... with a little seasonal agriculture", as being "too absurd to need refutation". The report noted the irony that it was from them that Zionist settlers learned the cultivation of Jaffa oranges. Whereas the Palestinians were self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on massive external financing, and should Jews overseas ever tire of supporting the settlers, "the venture will collapse like a pricked balloon". The conclusion of this early US intelligence report was however naïve, or at least premature: now that the world "has seen the lengths to which the Nazi creed has carried the nations", it reasoned that the Zionists "are due to find themselves an anachronism".
After the war, the Jewish Agency discussed its enemies. They were democracy; the Atlantic Charter, which of course became the basis for the United Nations; Reconstruction; and the fall in anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism having always been Zionism's drug, without which it would be irrelevant. The Agency sought to exploit anti-Semitism and blamed declining anti-Semitism in the United States on America's so-called "democratic attitude".
Nor was this merely a post-war abuse. Even as Jews were still being carted off to the death camps, the New Zionist Organization's Arieh Altman was typical in arguing that anti-Semitism must "form the foundation of Zionist propaganda", and the Defence Security Officer in Palestine, Henry Hunloke, reported that it was important for the Jewish Agency to "stir up anti-Semitism ... in order to force Jews ... to come to Palestine".
Now, today, when anything approaching this topic is raised, it is twisted by some into the pejorative misstatement that the speaker—in this case, me—is blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.
NO. Rather, it is the simple fact that Zionism requires anti-Semitism, is addicted to it, and seeks to insure that it, or at least the appearance of it, never ends. One need look no further than the satisfaction among many Zionists today at the true anti-Semitism of the incoming US administration of Donald Trump, with Israeli journalists like Yaron London openly applauding this anti-Semitism as welcome news. More about that in a few minutes.
I also mentioned Reconstruction. As one former settlement member, a man named Newton, explained, Zionist leaders were afraid that with the improvement of conditions in Europe the pressure on Palestine would subside. Any improvement in Europe was an anathema to their plans.
What was the Jewish Agency's reaction to Britain's role in defeating the worst enemy Jewry has ever known? It saw an opportunity for extortion. The war had devastated Britain's economy; but when Britain turned to the US for a long term loan to recuperate from its battle against the Nazis, the Agency tried to pressure Washington to deny the loan unless Britain acceded to Zionist demands. The loan was of course ultimately approved, but still in 1948 Zionists assailed US Congressmen for being pro- Marshall Plan, and the Truman administration itself dangled the loan in front of British officials when they tried to bring attention to Zionist atrocities.
By 1946, Zionist terrorism had become the defining daily challenge of life in Palestine, and one hundred thousand British troops proved unable to contain it. Anyone or anything that kept Palestine a functioning society was a target of the Zionists. Trains, roads, bridges, communications, oil facilities, and Coast Guard stations were constantly being bombed. Utility workers, telephone repairmen, railway workers, bomb disposal personnel were murdered. Police were long a favoured target and were gunned down by the dozens.
Among the smaller terror organizations that popped up was one specifically dedicated to Zionists' long-running fear of Jews befriending non-Jews, the ultimate fear of course being polluting what for the Zionists was the pure Jewish race. As a sample of its methods, the terror group doused a disobedient Jewish girl with acid, severely injuring her and blinding her in one eye.
Zionist terror was aided by the Jewish Agency's phenomenal intelligence network. The Agency had informers all the way to high-placed sympathetic US officials that fed them intelligence, such that the British learned not even to trust direct messages to US President Truman.
When the UN's Palestine committee, UNSCOP, visited Palestine in the summer of 1947, the Agency had replaced the committee members' drivers with spies; had replaced the waiters at the main restaurant they frequented with spies; and most productively, sent five young women to serve at what was called a "theatre network" of house attendants at the building where the members, all men, were being housed. The young women were required to be smart and educated, but above all, in the Agency's word, to be "daring". Whatever 'daring' meant, they extracted a wealth of information from the key people who were deliberating Palestine's future.
Jewish sex workers were involuntarily recruited as spies. They were told that upon the Zionist victory they would be executed for 'sleeping with the enemy', but might be spared if they cooperated now. The practice was so widespread that a standard questionnaire was printed up that the women were to fill out after each British customer. [note: see document detail, above]
To demonstrate the degree to which Jewish Agency plants infiltrated the government and everyday life, a couple of months after one coast guard station was attacked and bombed by the Hagana, it blew up again ... but the British were baffled, because this time there had been no attack. They discovered that the construction crew that had rebuilt the station after the previous attack were Hagana, and had simply embedded explosives in the reconstruction, to be detonated when desired.
But the worst problem of infiltration was in the military service, where deadly sabotage by Zionist plants who had joined the forces led, tragically, to orders to remove all Jews from service in Palestine, because there was no way to tell the Zionists from the Jews.
By 1948, this problem spread to key medical personnel. After the Jewish Agency poisoned the water supply of Acre with typhoid in order to expedite the ethnic cleansing of this city that lies on the Palestinian side of Partition, the bacteriologist hired by the British proved to be a Hagana plant or sympathizer, an obstacle to the availability of the vaccine. [Note: see document detail, below. For the injection of typhoid into the aqueduct at Acre, see e.g., Ilan Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing, pp 100-101, and Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion's Scandals, pp 10-11]
Selling terror required effective marketing, and for that the Agency harnessed the plight of European Jews at the same time it was exploiting them. A very brief look at the iconic Zionist immigrant story is illustrative—that is of course the USS Warfield, renamed the Exodus for the obvious Biblical iconography.
The Exodus was sold to the world as the desperate attempt of 4,515 Holocaust survivors to reach their last hope of safety and a new life, their promised land. The British, instead, forced them back, not just to Europe, but to their ultimate nightmare: Germany.
That was the story the US and European public got.
In truth, the Exodus was a monstrous propaganda event, grand theatre, not for benefit but at the expense of Jewish survivors. The Jewish Agency knew that Exodus passengers would be turned back, for, among other reasons, their flooding of Palestine with settlers was a tactic to force its political goals. And remember that the entire Exodus cargo of immigrants equalled less than one percent of President Roosevelt's resettlement plan that the Zionists sabotaged. The DPs themselves were products of the Zionist camps and had been rehearsed to repeat, as one witness described it, whatever Zionist mumbo-jumbo was demanded of them.
As for the return to Germany, it was the Jewish Agency, not the British, that forced the DPs back to Germany. Attempts were being made to find new homes for the Exodus passengers elsewhere—Denmark was one possibility—but this was sabotaged by Ben-Gurion, because it would spoil the Exodus plot.
There was in fact already an alternative to Germany. All the Exodus DPs had the right to disembark in Southern France rather than Germany, but the Agency used violence to prevent them from leaving. The Exodus show required the pathetic spectacle of their forced return to Germany.
The British decided to call the Agency's bluff. They visited Golda Meir (then Meyerson), and spoke as though it went without saying that the Agency would do anything to spare the DPs the horrific return to Germany. They said that perhaps the DPs do not realize that they are free to disembark in southern France if they wish, or do not believe the British, and suggested that the Agency send a representative to tell them. Meir refused. To paraphrase Israeli Professor Idith Zertal, the greater the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust, the greater their political and media effectiveness for the Zionists.
A few months after the Exodus affair, the UN recommended partition, with the assumption that a Zionist state would follow. This decision was directly influenced by the certainty of continuing Zionist terror if they did not, as was the disproportionately large land area the UN gave the Zionists.
According to British Cabinet papers, giving the Zionists so much land up front was an attempt to delay the Zionists' expansionist wars. They knew they couldn't stop Israeli expansionism, but they hoped to delay it. This appeasement of course failed: within a few months of Resolution 181, the Zionist armies were already waging their first expansionist war, confiscating more than half of the Palestinian side of Partition.
But in a consummately Orwellian irony, the fact that the British were occupying Palestine enabled Zionist leaders to juxtapose their settler project as a liberation movement against British colonizers, and thus for their 1948 terror campaign of expropriation and ethnic cleansing to be spun instead as a war of 'independence' or 'emancipation'.
This so-called war of independence was in truth, to quote the British High Commissioner at the time, "operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children". Its broadcasts boasting of their successes, "both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany". The Zionists were "jubilant" he reported, with "their campaign of calculated aggression coupled with brutality".
British intelligence, meanwhile, reported that "the internal machinery of the Jewish State and all the equipment of a totalitarian regime is complete, including a Custodian of Enemy Property to handle Arab lands".
In the Yishuv itself, "persecution of Christian Jews", by which I assume they meant converts, "and others who offend against national discipline has shown a marked increase and in some cases has reached mediaeval standards".
All this, to be sure, was before any Arab resistance.
Finally, on the 15th of May, 1948, Britain fled the scene of its crime, for which the Palestinians have been paying ever since. The post-statehood period continued full throttle with the same violent messianic goals, evolving with the new dynamics.
Now, there is no point in my having taken up your time here, no point any tree wasting its paper on this book, unless I thought that it had some value in the collective effort toward ending the conflict. So ... How do I think that this book, how do I think my approach, might be constructive?
The historical record makes plain what should already have been obvious from the present reality—that Israel's and Zionism's pretenses regarding Jews and Judaism, and in particular its pretense of being a response to anti-Semitism and Jewish persecution, is a fraud. Indeed quite the opposite, it thrives by exacerbating and capitalizing on these, and has turned them into a cynical, deadly business.
Exposing this, in my opinion, is Israel's—and the conflict's—Achilles Heel. And this should be a simple case of the Emperor's New Clothes—except that every time the child points out that the Emperor is naked, he or she is labelled an anti-Semite and silenced.
The US and other governments empower the conflict for their own geopolitical reasons, but why do the publics of those allegedly democratic countries give their tacit acquiescence?
Israel has one of the world's largest militaries, but its most powerful weapon, the one without which all its others would be impotent, is its Narrative, its creation myth, its auto-biography.
Under the Twilight Zone of this Narrative, Israel is not merely a political entity like any other nation-state, but is transformed into the Old Testament kingdom whose name it adopted for that strategic purpose, striking a powerful chord in the collective Western sub-conscious.
We all know the Narrative more or less, but in order for that Narrative to be ever-present, Israel has crammed it into a 3-word mantra: 'The Jewish State'.
This phrase—Israel's self-identity—is a unique construct in the modern world. It is qualitatively distinct from any other country's relationship with any other religion or cultural group. Judaism is not Israel's state religion in the sense of a national faith that any nation might adopt. Rather, it presents itself as THE Jewish state, the metaphysical embodiment of Jewry itself, of Judaism, Jewish history, culture, persecution, and most cynical and exploitative of all, the Holocaust.
No country claims it is the Catholic state. Costa Rica, for example, is a Catholic state; it does not suggest that it owns Catholicism, Catholics, or historic Christian martyrdom. We do not have the British government issuing guidelines as to when criticism of the Costa Rican government becomes anti-Catholic hate speech. Norway is a Lutheran state; Tunisia is one of several nations that maintains Islam as a national faith; Cambodia is a Buddhist state. Israel, in contrast, would never acknowledge even the possibility of another Jewish state because it has body-snatched everything Jewish, and holds it hostage to empower its crimes.
Criticise Israeli terror, you will instead hit this three-word human shield—'The Jewish State'— that Israel hides behind.
What other country on this earth is permitted this perverse tribal claim over a religious or cultural group? This self-proclaimed exceptionalism should strike us as bizarre—even weird—yet we continue to be party to it.
We hear a lot about anti-Semitism these days, and there is of course anti-Semitism in the world, as there are all varieties of bigotry. But let's just blurt out the obvious: Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence anyone who seeks to end the horror.
This smear campaign has been compared to the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s, but it is in truth much worse, because whereas Communism is merely a political and economic theory that one can argue for or against, anti-Semitism is inherently evil. In other words, with McCarthyism, one could ultimately respond by saying, Well, let's say I am a communist, so what?
Zionism's abuse of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word, makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots throughout the centuries were powerless.
Meanwhile, as we are seeing more bluntly than ever in the United States, true anti-Semitism is embraced by Zionists because it is invariably pro-Israel.
One hundred years ago, MP Edwin Montagu accused the British government of anti-Semitism for colluding with the Zionists. History has proven him correct. If Israel is forced to stop this anti-Semitic abuse, if it is forced to come out from hiding behind its human shield, the conflict will be seen for what it is and so could not continue. Israel-Palestine will become a democratic, secular country of equals.
And what more poetic year than the Balfour centennial for that to happen.
Thank you.
QuoteOur topic is of course the so-called "conflict" in Israel-Palestine
Lets cut through the climate change bullshit, shall we?
Its the same thing. Keep repeating the same diatribe and eventually the listeners will create their own diatribe to sound effected, belonging, caring. Snowflakes listen to anything then make shit up to show they, in some grand sense, care about what is going on.
It is written over and over again in the Bible that God commanded the Hebrews to slay all Canaanite offshoots. Why is this so?
Because God was trying to cleanse His/this petri dish of viral bacteria. The infection that was put in place by another non owner.
The rest of time is pure utter friggin noise. Clammer if you will. You're diseased thinking is a product of a massive swirl of false diatribe.
We now live in a world where the survivors have come to believe that everyone is their friend if they care. Slit you own throat, idiot.
The offspring of the fallen ones are way past your doorstep and you don't even have an effin clue you're in trouble.
This final year of Jubilee ends September 23, 2017. The celebration is over. The surviving masses that are aware, understand and KNOW what the hell has happened because there were no great men to do what was commanded, will be taken aside as those who want and breed trouble are given their just due. This was spoken into existence in this chamber and will echo into the ears of those who believe this reality is real.
Time for Truth:
The Israelites gave the Palestinians the Gaza Strip. It was fertile, had a sound infrastructure and businesses. Now, under the Cockroaches, it is a wasted land of demise. Look it up.
Signed,
Critically abrasive.
p.s. There are no Republicans.
But, when one examines the landscape and those who
exist upon it, the question is: "Who really are the Cockroaches?"
Terrorism begets terrorism. Those who must defend themselves
learn.
Quoteand tried to get me to agree that this reality was not under our control; it was being constructed and predetermined by an outside force completely.
Interesting video to go with this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WDr7gM0yU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WDr7gM0yU)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.04, 02:23:37
Interesting video to go with this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WDr7gM0yU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12WDr7gM0yU)
Ron
That is way deep, undeniable and irrefutable. As it is written 'All will be revealed.' And this shows it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -- Marcus Aurelius
Wise words indeed.
Robert Day was for many years the Vice President of the Institute for Scientific Information, the world's largest commercial producer of information services covering the professional literature. Day has written a number of articles and reports on various phases of scientific writing, editing, and publishing. The following selection is from his book How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, considered definitive in its field.
"What Is a Scientific Paper? "
Robert A. Day
DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER
A scientific paper is a written and published report describing original research results. That short definition must be qualified, however, by noting that a scientific paper must be written in a certain way and it must be published in a certain way, as defined by three centuries of developing tradition, editorial practice, scientific ethics, and the interplay of printing and publishing procedures.
To properly define "scientific paper," we must define the mechanism that creates a scientific paper, namely, valid publication. Abstracts, theses, conference reports, and many other types of literature are published, but such publications do not normally meet the test of valid publication. Further, even if a scientific paper meets all of the other tests, it is not validly published if it is published in the wrong place. That is, a relatively poor research report, but one that meets the tests, is validly published if accepted and published in the right place (a primary journal, usually); a superbly prepared research report is not validly published if published in the wrong place. Most of the government report literature and conference literature, as well as house organs and other ephemeral publications, do not qualify as primary literature.
Many people have struggled with the definition of "valid publication," from which is derived the definition of "scientific paper." The Council of Biology Editors (CBE), an authoritative professional organization (in biology, at least) dealing with such problems, arrived at the following definition....
An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers (1) to assess observations, (2) to repeat experiments, and (3) to evaluate intellectual processes; moreover, it must be sus- ceptible to sensory perception, essentially permanent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and available for regular screening by one or more of the major recognized secondary services (e.g., currently, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Bibliography of Agriculture, etc., in the United States and similar facilities in other countries).
At first reading, this definition may seem excessively complex, or at least verbose. But those of us who had a hand in drafting it weighed each word carefully, and we doubt that an acceptable definition could be provided in appreciably fewer words. Because it is important that students, authors, editors, and all others concerned understand what a scientific paper is and what it is not, let us work our way through this definition to see what it really means.
"An acceptable primary scientific publication" starts out as the defined substantive, but this gives way to "the first disclosure," which the rest of the paragraph defines. Certainly, first disclosure of new research data often takes place via oral presentation at a scientific meeting. But, the thrust of the CBE statement is that disclosure is more than disgorgement by the author; effective first disclosure is accomplished only when the disclosure takes a form that allows the peers of the author to comprehend (either now or in the future) that which is disclosed.
Thus, sufficient information must be presented so that potential users of the data can (i) assess observations, (ii) repeat experiments, and (iii) evaluate intellectual processes. (Are the author's conclusions justified by the data?) Then, the disclosure must be "susceptible to sensory perception." This may seem an awkward phrase, because in normal practice it simply means publication; however, this definition provides for disclosure not just in terms of visual materials (printed journals, microfilm, microfiche) but also perhaps in nonprint, nonvisual forms. For example, "publication" in the form of audio cassettes, if that publication met the other tests provided in the definition, would constitute effective publication. In the future, it is quite possible that first disclosure will be entry into a computer database.
Regardless of the form of publication, that form must be essentially perrnanent, must be made available to the scientific community without restriction, and must be made available to the information retrieval system (Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus, Science Citation index, etc.). Thus, publications such as newsletters and house organs, many of which are of value for their news or other features, cannot serve as repositories for scientific knowledge.
To restate the CBE definition in simpler but not more accurate terms, a scientific paper is (i) the first publication of original research results, (ii) in a form whereby peers of the author can repeat the experiments and test the conclusions, and (iii) in a journal or other source document which is readily available within the scientific community. To understand this definition, however, we must add an important caveat. In modern science (since about the 1930s) the part of the definition that refers to "peers of the author" is accepted as meaning prepublication peer review. Thus, by definition, scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed publications.
I have belabored this question of definition for two very good reasons. First, the entire community of science has long labored with an inefficient, costly system of scientific communication precisely because it (authors, editors, publishers) has been unable or unwilling to define primary publication. As a result, much of the literature is buried in meeting abstracts, obscure conference reports, government publications, or in books or journals of minuscule circulation. Other papers, in the same or slightly altered form, are published twice or more often; occasionally, this is the result of poor ethics on the part of the author, but more often it is the lack of definition as to which conference reports, books, and compilations are (or should be) primary publications and which are not. Redundancy and confusion result.
Second, a scientific paper is, by definition, a particular kind of document containing certain specified kinds of information. A scientific paper "demands exactly the same qualities of thought as are needed for the rest of science: logic, clarity, and precision." If the graduate student or the budding scientist (and even some of those scientists who have already published many papers) can fully grasp the significance of this definition, the writing task should be a good deal easier. Confusion results from an amorphous task. The easy task is the one in which you know exactly what must be done and in exactly what order it must be done.
ORGANIZATION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER
A scientific paper is a paper organized to meet the needs of valid publication. A scientific paper is, or should be, highly stylized, with distinctive and clearly evident component parts. Each scientific paper should have, in proper order, its Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion. Any other order will pose hurdles for the reader and probably the writer. "Good organization is the key to good writing."
I have taught and recommended this prescribed order for many years. Until recently, however, there have been several somewhat different systems of organization that were preferred by some journals and some editors. The tendency toward uniformity has increased since 1972, when the order cited above was prescribed as a standard....
This order is so eminently logical that, increasingly, it is used for many other types of expository writing. Whether one is writing an article about chemistry, archeology, economics, or crime in the streets, an effective way to proceed is to answer these four questions, in order: (i) 'What was the problem? Your answer is the Introduction. (ii) How did you study the problem? Your answer is the Materials and Methods. (iii) What did you find? Your answer is the Results. (iv) What do these findings mean? Your answer is the Discussion. . . .
The well-written scientific paper should report its original data in an organized fashion and in appropriate language....
In short, I take the position that the preparation of a scientific paper has almost nothing to do with writing, per se. It is a question of organization. A scientific paper is not "literature. " The preparer of a scientific paper is not really an "author" in the literary sense. In fact, I go so far as to say that, if the ingredients are properly organized, the paper will virtually write itself.
Some of my old-fashioned colleagues think that scientific papers should be "literature," that the style and flair of an author should be clearly evident, and that variations in style encourage the interest of the reader. I disagree. I think scientists should indeed be interested in reading literature, and perhaps even in writing literature, but the communication of research results is a more prosaic procedure. As Booth put it, "Grandiloquence has no place in scientific writing. " Today, the average scientist, to keep up with a field, must examine the data reported in a very large number of papers. Therefore, scientists and, of course, editors must demand a system of reporting data that is uniform, concise, and readily understandable.
I once heard it said: "A scientific paper is not designed to be read. It is designed to be published. " Although this was said in jest, there is much truth to it. And, actually, if the paper is designed to be published, it will also be in a prescribed form that can be read and its contents can be grasped quickly and easily by the reader.
LANGUAGE OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER
In addition to organization, the second principal ingredient of a scientific paper should be appropriate language.... I keep emphasizing proper use of English, because in this area most scientists have trouble.
If scientific knowledge is at least as important as any other knowledge, then it must be communicated effectively, clearly, in words of certain meaning. The scientist, to succeed in this endeavor, must therefore be literate. David B. Truman, when he was Dean of Columbia College, said it well: "In the complexities of contemporary existence the specialist who is trained but uneducated, technically skilled but culturally incompetent, is a menace."
Although the ultimate goal of scientific research is publication, it has always been amazing to me that so many scientists neglect the responsibilities involved. A scientist will spend months or years of hard work to secure his data, and then unconcernedly let much of their value be lost because of his lack of interest in the communication process. The same scientist who will overcome tremendous obstacles to carry out a measurement to the fourth decimal place will be in deep slumber while a secretary is casually changing his micrograms per milliliter to milligrams per milliliter and while the printer slips in an occasional pounds per barrel.
Language need not be difficult. In scientific writing, we say: "The best English is that which gives the sense in the fewest short words" (a dictum printed for some years in the "Instructions to Authors" of the Journal of Bacteriology). Literary tricks, metaphors and the like, divert attention from the message to the style. They should be used rarely, if at all, in scientific writing. Justin Leonard, assistant conservation director of Michigan, once said: "The Ph.D. in science can make journal editors quite happy with plain, unadorned, eighth- grade level composition" (Bio-Science, September 1966).
OTHER DEFINITIONS
At this point, we have defined a scientific paper.... Before we proceed, however, a few related definitions may be helpful.
Let us preserve "scientific paper" as the term for an original research report. How should this be distinguished from research reports that are not original, or not scientific, or somehow fail to qualify as scientific papers? Let us look at several specific terms: "review paper," "conference report," and "meeting abstract. "
A review paper may review almost anything, most typically the recent work in a defined subject area or the work of a particular individual or group. Thus, the review paper is designed to summarize, analyze, evaluate, or synthesize information that has already been published (research reports in primary journals). Although much or all of the material in a review paper has previously been published, the spectre of dual publication does not normally arise because the review nature of the work is usually obvious (often in the title of the publication, such as Microbiological Reviews, Annual Review of Biochemistry, ete.).
A conference report is a paper published in a book or journal as part of the proceedings of a symposium, national or international congress, workshop, round table, or the like. Such conferences are normally not designed for the presentation of original data, and the resultant proceedings (book or journal) do not qualify as primary publications. Conference presentations are often review papers, presenting reviews of the recent work of particular scientists or recent work in particular laboratories. Some of the material reported at some conferences (especially the exciting ones) is in the form of preliminary reports, in which new, original data are reported, often accompanied by interesting specu- lation. But, usually, these preliminary reports do not qualify, nor are they intended to qualify, as scientific papers. Later, often much later, such work is validly published in a primary journal; by this time, the loose ends have been tied down, all essential experimental details are recorded (so that a competent worker could repeat the experiments), and the speculations are now recorded as conclusions.
Therefore, the vast conference literature that appears in print normally is not primary. If original data are presented in such contributions, the data can and should be published (or republished) in an archival (primary) journal. Otherwise, the information may be in essence lost. If publication in a primary journal follows publication in a conference report, there may be copyright and permission problems affecting portions of the work , but the more fundamental problem of dual publication normally does not and should not arise.
Meeting abstracts, like conference proceedings, are of several widely varying types. Conceptually, however, they are similar to conference reports in that they can and often do contain information. They are not primary publications, nor should publication of an abstract be considered as a bar to later publication of the full report.
In the past, there has been little confusion regarding the typical one-paragraph abstracts published as part of the program or distributed along with the program of a national meeting or international congress. It was usually understood that the papers presented at these meetings would later be submitted for publication in primary journals. More recently, however, there has been a strong trend towards extended abstracts (or "synopties"). Because publishing all of the full papers presented at a large meeting, such as a major international congress, is very expensive and because such publication is still not a substitute for the valid publication offered by the primary journal, the movement to extended abstracts makes a great deal of sense. The extended abstract can supply virtually as much information as a full paper; basically, what it lacks is the experimental detail. However, precisely because it lacks experimental detail, it cannot qualify as a scientific paper.
Those of us who are involved with publishing these materials see the importance of careful definition of the different types of papers. More and more publishers, conference organizers, and individual scientists are beginning to agree on these basic definitions and their general acceptance of such definitions will greatly clarify both primary and secondary communication of scientific information.
I have tried to answer the question "What is a scientific paper?" Perhaps a better answer, certainly a more succinct one, was provided by the wag who described a drug as "any substance which, when injected into a laboratory rat, produces a scientific paper."*
*This final paragraph is from the first edition.
QuoteI have tried to answer the question "What is a scientific paper?" Perhaps a better answer, certainly a more succinct one, was provided by the wag who described a drug as "any substance which, when injected into a laboratory rat, produces a scientific paper."*
Ahhhaah! This just sums it all up! With such a high populus of people going for their doctorates there has got to be useless studies out there pertaining to the search to quantify nothing as a new mantra.
Great posts.
Dogma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma is an official system of principles or tenets of a church, such as Roman Catholicism,[1] or a philosophy such as Stoicism.
Dogma is transliterated in the 17th century from Latin (Latin dogma) meaning "philosophical tenet", derived from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good."[2][3]
Dogma refers to positions such as those of a philosopher or of a philosophical school, or in a pejorative sense referring to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.[4][5] More generally it is applied to some strong belief that the ones adhering to it are not willing to rationally discuss. This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism, and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone. In Pyrrhonist philosophy "dogma" refers to assent to a proposition about a non-evident matter.
1. Introduction to the World War 3 predictions
The world has been experiencing an increasing trend of natural disasters, terrorist activities, war and political upheavals over the recent past. There is no respite from this trend and it does not show any signs of slowing down. Many may feel a sense of helplessness they see the world lurch forward uncontrollably towards an uncertain future. A number of seers such as Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, etc. have predicted turbulent and distressing times ahead of cataclysmic proportions.
SSRF conducted spiritual research to find out whether there are events in the spiritual dimension behind these alarming trends and what lies ahead for humanity. The purpose of this article is to provide information uncovered through spiritual research about:
The spiritual forces at work that are orchestrating worldwide events such as World War 3 and the increase in natural disasters.
Measures that can be taken by humanity to minimise the impact of these events or to protect oneself in the event of a World War.
2. World War 3 predictions and the subtle battle
Unknown to most people, the universe is in the midst of a subtle-battle of epic proportions. Most of this battle is being fought in the spiritual dimension between forces of good and evil. The physical plane, i.e., Earth is also being affected by the events in the spiritual dimension. The consequences of the subtle-battle are mainly in the form of seeds sown for further rapid and progressive deterioration of the world at various levels. This works in two ways:
It decreases the overall sāttviktā in the world.
It strengthens the hold of the forces of evil on humankind.
Since 1993, negative subtle forces (powerful negative energies) began to sow the seeds for the degradation of society and acceleration of unrighteousness. In many ways, society had already set in place the process of degradation (i.e., the increase in Raja-Tama). This was due to a rise in man's materialistic nature and lack of Righteousness owing to a lack of spiritual practice. Aided by higher-level negative energies, the downslide of society quickly increased in intensity and speed. Over time these seeds would take root and increase the Raja-Tama (spiritual impurity) in society. As society continued to become more and more unrighteous, they played right into the hands of negative energies increasing the Raja and Tama in the environment. An increase in Raja and Tama has a destabilising effect on people and the environment. This current trend will culminate in the increased intensity of natural disasters and the Third World War.
In the following table, (see article) examples of a few mechanisms have been provided that have already been set into motion from the subtle regions by higher level negative energies. From 2015, we have provided a rough guideline about events that will unfold. As the run up to World War 3 reaches its final stages, the timeline for specific events may change depending on various factors
3. Prediction about the severity of World War 3
As stated earlier, the battle in the physical realm, i.e., on Earth is mostly due to events in the spiritual dimension. Hence awareness about the battle's root causes is limited only to those who are spiritually evolved through the medium of advanced sixth sense. In fact, only a fraction of the battle will be experienced on Earth at the physical level. However, this fraction itself will be catastrophic enough and will be the cause of mass destruction. Humankind will experience this fraction of the battle in the form of increased natural disasters and World War 3 where weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons will be used. The rise in natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and volcanoes will be primarily due to the rise in spiritual impurity fuelled by unrighteousness on Earth. Spiritual research on this phenomenon has been covered in the article on Natural disasters – a spiritual perspective. The people and events that will precipitate World War 3 will be under the control of higher level negative energies known as subtle-sorcerers (māntriks).
4.1 World War 3 predictions - Who is behind World War 3 and what will trigger it?
The Third World War will be triggered mainly due to religious fanaticism. Higher-level negative energies will use this vulnerability in people to push them over the edge and instigate nations to go to war with each other. In all the three World Wars (i.e., from World War 1 to World War 3) powerful negative energies from progressively lower regions of Hell have been the actual root cause of events that have instigated countries to go to war with each other. The following points elaborate on which subtle negative forces from the regions of Hell were responsible for instigating the World Wars.
World War 1: Subtle-sorcerers (māntriks) from the 2nd region of Hell.
World War 2: Subtle-sorcerers primarily from the 3rd region of Hell took part in the orchestration of the Second World War. Hitler for example throughout his tenure in power was possessed by a subtle-sorcerer from the 5th region of Hell. This was also the reason for his dramatic rise to power. Throughout his reign the subtle-sorcerer was fully manifest.
World War 3: Subtle-sorcerers from the 4th region of Hell will be behind the Third World War that will play out in the physical realm. However, in the subtle-battle, subtle-sorcerers from the 7th region of Hell will take part. In the years 2017-2023, subtle-sorcerers from the 6th and 7th region of Hell will be involved in the subtle battle.
The Third World War will begin in 2015 and continue for about 9 years till 2023. The wars that will be fought within that period will all be linked. However, it may not be obvious to the world. Towards the end of this period, weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons will be used. There will be an unprecedented loss of life where approximately 50% of the population will perish. Some countries will be affected more than others. Needless to say, in a highly-interconnected world, all countries will be affected.
4.2 Role of India in World War 3
From times immemorial, India has been the spiritual leader of the world. Spiritual research has revealed that in the battle that is unfolding, India will hold centre stage from a spiritual perspective. Saints of the highest level in India are doing all they can to increase the Sattva component in the world so that it will help reduce the intensity of World War 3. During the war, negative subtle forces will instigate neighbouring countries to attack India to destabilise the pivotal role that it will play. Approximately 50% of the Indian population will perish as a result.
Continued at:
http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-research/global-issues/world-war-3-predictions/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl6mDv8HD1QIVDnF-Ch3lxwzqEAMYASAAEgJ1rPD_BwE (http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-research/global-issues/world-war-3-predictions/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl6mDv8HD1QIVDnF-Ch3lxwzqEAMYASAAEgJ1rPD_BwE)
These authors point to India, Edgar Cayce pointed to Russia but please note that Islam, Judaism and the Holy Roman Catholic Church are not mentioned. (having been corrupted, satanism?)
Ron
Christopher Bollyn interview (https://youtu.be/BqQu1OkAgaI) - Christopher explains how 9/11
was an array of crimes within crimes and why it is an ongoing
crime.
Christopher is an exemplary researcher for the cause of Truth
who demonstrates how Science should be done.
Those who pursue Truth too effectively face considerable risk.
Quote from: muDped on 2017.08.06, 22:32:59
Christopher Bollyn interview (https://youtu.be/BqQu1OkAgaI) - Christopher explains how 9/11
was an array of crimes within crimes and why it is an ongoing
crime.
Christopher is an exemplary researcher for the cause of Truth
who demonstrates how Science should be done.
Those who pursue Truth too effectively face considerable risk.
An excellent interview, thanks. I have seen his work before. What touched me here was his comments on Building six. This my favourite smoking gun. The earlier photos showed the smoke blackened ground floor windows.... before the planes hit! But much of this evidence has since been 'sanitized'. The number of people complicit in 9-11 who are now highly placed in government follows the Israeli pattern. Terrorists make for good government...right.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.07, 15:30:05
An excellent interview, thanks. I have seen his work before. What touched me here was his comments on Building six. This my favourite smoking gun.
WTC 7 is better.. there is real time video evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the free fall collapse into it's own footprint was a planned way in advance, controlled demolition.
Controlled Demolition Expert on 9/11https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
Danny Joenko of a Dutch Controlled Demolition Company will not lose his job for giving his honest opinion on the 9/11 issue. More and more experts are joining AE911Truth.org as they research more and more of the evidence.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.07, 22:54:42
Danny Joenko of a Dutch Controlled Demolition Company will not lose his job for giving his honest opinion on the 9/11 issue.
He didn't lose his job, he lost his life shortly afterwards. It coincided with the release of an AE911Truth major presentation [dvd release?] iirc ('if i remember correctly')
Phone Call With Danny Jowenko- Died 3 days later After PressTV interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk
Jeff Hill (from Canada)- made this call in Canada to Germany (Danny Jowenko). Three days after PressTV did an interview with Dr. Sabrosky who mentioned Danny Jowenko - Danny was killed in a strange car accident. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko, one of world's leading building demolition experts, was killed in a one-car accident last week when his car slammed into a tree. Jowenko received international attention as the expert who unequivocally described the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 911 as a "demolition."
Jowenko made the judgment before he knew it was WTC7 he was watching on the video. He commented:
"This is a controlled demolition which was carried out by a team of experts."Bronn hits Podrickhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfoeBwdlOPg
In the part of the script where Bronn and Podrick meet again, it is disclosed that there are two forms of fighting.. honourable and dishonourable. Bronn offers Podrick the opportunity to learn, which is accepted. There is a lovely bit of dialogue leading up to this section of the scene, but it is definately 18+, so I just post the relevant clipped.
Podrick surprises Tyrion and Bronn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02QgSGH5mQA
;D
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.07, 22:54:42
WTC 7 is better.. there is real time video evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the free fall collapse into it's own footprint was a planned way in advance, controlled demolition.
Everyone does building 7. For me building six is more cerebral... same conclusion, one just has to work (think) harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxpsiEbnXfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxpsiEbnXfA)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.08, 02:28:16
Everyone does building 7.
Yep.. because look how obvious it is!
https://mindbendingtruth.com/2015/09/10/did-you-know-that-a-third-tower-collapsed-on-911/
http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/
WTC 7 STUDYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w4Vrsjs_cLg#t=414
The thing about WTC 7 is that it proves the government narrative is false, which is the point.
PROOF BBC & CNN Knew WTC 7 Would Collapsehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARvjQOZH4
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.08, 13:39:39
Yep.. because look how obvious it is!
https://mindbendingtruth.com/2015/09/10/did-you-know-that-a-third-tower-collapsed-on-911/
http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/
WTC 7 STUDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w4Vrsjs_cLg#t=414
The thing about WTC 7 is that it proves the government narrative is false, which is the point.
PROOF BBC & CNN Knew WTC 7 Would Collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARvjQOZH4
Easy mate, I wasn't disputing building seven, just that the main facts already speak for themselves.
Building seven is just the icing on the cake, if that can be said from an investigators point of view.
Building six adds the mystery of the unknown to the mix, were the firemen already fighting the fire there before the first "plane" struck? was it a Jdam that made the hole? As far as I know no one has down a complete time line for building six from moving the records out the night before to where all the center section went?
Ron
Facts VS Beliefs
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/facts-vs-beliefs.7278074/
I"M NOT LOOKING FOR A DEBATE.
I'm not exactly a new Christian but one that has struggled with the same question for many years. I was brought up on facts, and that it is facts we trust, not beliefs, not theories or anything else. It's facts that are right, and if it doesnt have a fact about it, then we havent worked it out yet.
Now as you can imagine this contradicts what Christianity is all about. I know it is about a faith in God, and that we believe that Jesus came down, died on the cross for our sins, and then rose again 3 days later.
But I can't believe because this thing in the back of my mine says there is no facts about it. I have tried to pretend it isn't there and believe anyway, tried looking in the Bible and cant find answers there. I running out of faith, and running out of ideas on how to overcome the fact there are no facts.
Pure gold..
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.08, 15:29:03
Easy mate, I wasn't disputing building seven, just that the main facts already speak for themselves.
Building seven is just the icing on the cake, if that can be said from an investigators point of view.
Building six adds the mystery of the unknown to the mix, were the firemen already fighting the fire there before the first "plane" struck? was it a Jdam that made the hole? As far as I know no one has down a complete time line for building six from moving the records out the night before to where all the center section went?
Ron
A picture:
(https://s1.postimg.org/4392sm6tr/Buildingsix.jpg)
Ron
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.08, 15:48:56
I running out of faith
That problem can be solved on a national level by importing it, and make the 'faithless' pay for it's continued growth via the oppressive taxation without representation model. Simple.
The True Cost of Europe's Muslim "Enrichment"https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6915/europe-muslim-enrichment
The United Nations, in 2000, advocated the "replacement" of Europe's population by Muslim migrants. There seems to be an economic premise underlying this view: that importing the Muslim world en masse into Europe is mutually beneficial. For decades, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled "enrichment." Shouting "Islamophobia" does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a country actually made richer by it.
Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men, and 75% for women.
Those using an economic rationale to implement Europe's demographic transformation fail to recognize the complexities of Islam: they ignore the fundamentalist revival that has been ongoing for over a century. One feature of this growing embrace of literalism is a belief -- validated by scripture -- that Muslims are entitled to idly profit from the productivity of infidels.
The idea that with time, Islam's religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe, is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants already outnumber indigenous Europeans.
The "blind eye" turned towards polygamy in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany has ensured that some Muslim men have upwards of 20 children by multiple wives, almost always at state expense. This suggests that families with fundamentalist views are outbreeding their more moderate coreligionists.
Here we go... "shock and awe' has been replaced with,"Fire and Furry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipoKAyCcXXc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipoKAyCcXXc)
"like the world has never seen" ... WW3?
Ron
Disappointing behavior by The Don isn't it?
He's acting more and more like a childish bully.
Hopefully, the Adults who advise him will be able
to knock some sense into him.
The war the neocons are aiming for isn't going to
go as they expect. America is going to finally get
some of what its been throwing out upon the nations
they've regime-changed and destroyed.
Could happen quite soon.
Quote from: muDped on 2017.08.09, 05:58:39
Disappointing behavior by The Don isn't it?
He's acting more and more like a childish bully.
Hopefully, the Adults who advise him will be able
to knock some sense into him.
What do you expect from a Chickenhawk ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.
The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so. Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict.
Donald Trump's Own Secret: Vietnam Draft Recordshttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-vietnam-draft-records-secret-documents-deferments/story?id=13492639
Newly released documents suggest that a young Donald Trump received several deferments that could have allowed him to avoid service in Vietnam, contrasting claims he made this week that he missed the draft solely because he had a high lottery number.
Trump did not mince words when proposing how best to deal with trading with the Chinese, saving his most profane language for that issue.
"Listen you mother---ers, we're going to tax you 25 percent," he said.
(Corrected abcnews typo.. 2percent.. c'mon gimme a break!)
In a two horse rigged race The Donald was still a better choice than Hillary, she finds murder exhilarating:
Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.09, 15:26:24
The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so. Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict.
To offer personal contrast, at the outbreak of WW2 in defense of the realm, my two grandads volunteered for service to stand against the perceived NAZI menace. They both served in Burma for the duration of the war, one was an aircraft engineer, the other SF.
It is serendipitously ironic that two generations later I became an intelligence trained soldier (blackballed), who through a twist of manipulated fate, became an aircraft engineer specialising in airframes and engines.
In conclusion it is self evident that a volunteer is worth three pressed men, and Everyman Stands in the Face of Tyranny.
2003 invasion of Iraqhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 20 March to 1 May 2003 and signalled the start of the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States (prior to 19 March, the mission in Iraq was called Operation Enduring Freedom, a carryover from the War in Afghanistan).[20] The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally fought war which included the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces with the implicit assistance of the United Kingdom, alongside Australia and Poland.
160,000 troops were sent by the Coalition into Iraq, during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. About 130,000 were sent from the USA alone, with about 28,000 British soldiers, Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by 18 February.[21] The coalition forces also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.
According to U.S. President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, the coalition mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[22] Others place a much greater emphasis on the impact of the September 11 attacks, and the role this played in changing U.S. strategic calculations, and the rise of the freedom agenda.[23][24] According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[25]
In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans had approved of military action against Iraq; however, 63% wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than go to war, and 62% believed the threat of terrorism directed against the U.S. would increase due to war.[26] The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, and New Zealand.[27][28][29] Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading the country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's 12 February 2003 report. On 15 February 2003, a month before the invasion, there were worldwide protests against the Iraq War, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[30] According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between 3 January and 12 April 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[31]
The invasion was preceded by an airstrike on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad on 20 March 2003. The following day, coalition forces launched an incursion into Basra Province from their massing point close to the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. While the special forces launched an amphibious assault from the Persian Gulf to secure Basra and the surrounding petroleum fields, the main invasion army moved into southern Iraq, occupying the region and engaging in the Battle of Nasiriyah on 23 March. Massive air strikes across the country and against Iraqi command and control threw the defending army into chaos and prevented an effective resistance. On 26 March, the 173rd Airborne Brigade was airdropped near the northern city of Kirkuk, where they joined forces with Kurdish rebels and fought several actions against the Iraqi Army to secure the northern part of the country.
The main body of coalition forces continued their drive into the heart of Iraq and met with little resistance. Most of the Iraqi military was quickly defeated and Baghdad was occupied on 9 April. Other operations occurred against pockets of the Iraqi army, including the capture and occupation of Kirkuk on 10 April, and the attack and capture of Tikrit on 15 April. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the central leadership went into hiding as the coalition forces completed the occupation of the country. On 1 May, an end of major combat operations was declared, ending the invasion period and beginning the military occupation period.
I was there.Chindits Special Force Burma 1942-1944http://www.chindits.info/
The Chindits were the largest of the allied Special Forces of the 2nd World War. They were formed and lead by Major General Orde Wingate DSO. The Chindits operated deep behind enemy lines in North Burma in the War against Japan. For many months they lived in and fought the enemy in the jungles of Japanese occupied Burma, totally relying on airdrops for their supplies.
There were two Chindits expeditions into Burma, the first in February 1943 Operation Longcloth, consisted of a force of 3,000 men who marched over 1,000 miles during the campaign. The second expedition, Operation Thursday, in March 1944 was on a much larger scale. It was the second largest airborne invasion of the war and consisted of a force of 20,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers with air support provided by the 1st Air Commando USAAF. Tragically their leader, General Wingate, was killed a few weeks after the launch of Operation Thursday.
2004 marked the 60th anniversary of the 2nd Chindit campaign. To commemorate this occasion, Chindit veteran Bill Hills (7th Bn Leicester Regt., 14th Brigade) produced the below card for the Chindits Old Comrades Association.
THE CHINDITSDuring the 1939/45 War a Special force was trained in Commando methods to infiltrate behind the Japanese lines in Burma. They were known as the CHINDITS, a name given to them by their leader, Major-General Orde C. Wingate, D.S.O.
After the initial expedition in 1943 the full force was marched or landed in the jungle on makeshift air-strips by glider or Dakota aircraft 200 miles behind enemy lines in March 1944.
The mission was successful and called Operation Thursday, this eventually started the rot, which led to the Japanese surrender.
The force suffered many casualties killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Many of the survivors still suffer today from the hardship, rigours and strain of the two long arduous campaigns, when the only contact with base was by radio, all supplies came by air-drop.
The Chindits were very much an International Force, which include British, Burma Rifles, Hong Kong Volunteers, Gurkhas and West African Serviceman. The R.A.F. and First Air Commando , U.S.A.A.F. provided air support.
The Chindit badge on the front of this card illustrates a Chinthe, a symbolic guardian of Burmese temples, a mythical beast, half lion, half-flying griffin.
Evangelical adviser says Trump has God's authority to take out Kim Jong Un
http://nypost.com/2017/08/09/evangelical-adviser-says-trump-has-gods-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un/
By Mark Moore
An evangelical adviser to President Trump said the commander-in-chief has God's authority to take out North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
"When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil. In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un," Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress said in a statement.
Jeffress, who campaigned for Trump and held a church service at the inauguration, released the statement to the Christian Broadcasting Network after the president said North Korea's threats would be met by "fire and fury."
"I'm heartened to see that our president — contrary to what we've seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors — will not tolerate any threat against the American people," the statement said.
The passage in Romans says the "one in authority is God's servant for your good."
"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience," the Bible passage says.
Jeffress, who once said former President Barack Obama was laying the groundwork for the Antichrist, praised Trump in January for winning the election and said the "demonization" of Christians during the Obama administration was coming to an end.
Admiral Says He Would Obey Trump Order to Nuke China
http://www.newser.com/story/246336/admiral-says-he-would-obey-trump-order-to-nuke-china.html
Pacific Fleet says commander was answering 'ridiculous' question
The US Pacific Fleet commander said Thursday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief. Adm. Scott Swift was responding to a hypothetical question at an Australian National University security conference following a major joint US-Australian military exercise off the Australian coast, the AP reports. The drills were monitored by a Chinese intelligence-gathering ship off northeast Australia. Asked by an academic in the audience whether he would carry out a nuclear attack on China next week if Trump ordered it, Swift replied: "The answer would be: yes."
"Every member of the US military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us," Swift said. "Any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem," he added. Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. Charlie Brown later said Swift's answer reaffirmed the principle of civilian control over the military. Swift "was not addressing the premise of the question, he was addressing the principle of civilian authority of the military," Brown said. "The premise of the question was ridiculous."
Let's try and get this narrative straight..
Trump is declaring that America worships God not Government, while being advised by fellow people of faith that he has Gods authority to murder the leader of a sovereign country, and presumably every living thing in NK.
Trump is doing all this while bragging about the strength of his nuclear arsenal, and threatening to reign down fire and fury, the likes of which the world has never seen.
He has military officers willing and ready to unleash a nuclear holocaust at any moment, there is no requirement to ask "WHY?", just to obey and execute the order.
When Tony Blair acted on blind faith without the support of any facts at all he sacked Iraq, and murdered so many people.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.10, 16:17:45
When Tony Blair acted on blind faith without the support of any facts at all he sacked Iraq, and murdered so many people.
The current Prime Minister of the UK is a woman of faith:
Theresa May: Christianity is 'part of me'https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Theresa-May-Christianity-is-part-of-me
Politicians should not flaunt their religion, the Home Secretary has said.Theresa May's been speaking about her strong Christian faith and being brought up by a father who was a vicar.
Speaking on the BBC's Desert Island Discs Ms May said faith was important to her and that she was still a practicing member of the Anglican Church.
"It [Christian faith] is part of me. It is part of who I am and therefore how I approach things," she said.
But the minister said it was right faith wasn't as prominent in UK politics as it is in countries like America.
"I think it's right that we don't flaunt these things here in British politics.
But it is a part of me it's there and it obviously helps to frame my thinking and my approach."It's the first time she's spoken about her faith and talked about being brought up in a vicarage by her father Revd Hubert Brasier.
She said: "Obviously everything did revolve very much around the Church.
Britain's new Prime Minister declares, 'Je Suis Juif'https://www.darkmoon.me/2016/britains-new-prime-minister-declares-je-suis-juif/
LD: According to Haaretz, Theresa May is "probably the most pro-Israel and Jew-friendly prime minister in British history." She is described by Haaretz as "extremely supportive." May has said effusively, "Without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain."
So here we have two women, both of them devout Zionists, hand in glove with the land-grabbing Israelis guilty of war crimes in Gaza, who are about to assume the mantle of power in their respective countries: the warmonger Hillary Clinton in America and Theresa May in Britain — a woman who made no attempt whatever while Home Secretary to stem the tide of illegal immigrants into Britain.
Interesting times ahead.
Interesting indeed.. of strong christian faith, who self identifies as a Jew, and just happened to have the keys to the Home Office for most of this decade. During her tenure the Saudi funded radicalisation mosques have massively increased and terrorist mass murder has reached unprecedented levels.
http://abrahams-legacy.org/
Hebrews 2:16 For surely it is not with angels that he is
concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.
The identification of the descendants of Abraham is an important factor in understanding bible prophecy. The truth is that there are a great number of nations that are descended from Abraham and heir to the promises made by God to Abraham. However, not only those promises to Abraham but also the earlier Birthright promises and blessings made by Noah to his sons.
The Tribal origin of these nations and also the identity of the English-Speaking people presents us with the necessary keys to unlocking both history and Biblical Prophecy. These keys provides us with the reason for the remarkable present privileges of the sons of Abraham and foretell the upcoming destruction of both America & Great Britain and the re-organisation of the world order.
Many people will be surprised to discover their true ethnic origins and the fact that ultimately all nations will be involved within the greater family of Abraham.
For this understanding we have to look at the Genetic Origin of the Nations. From there we can see how the nations are spread out over the world. The intermingling of the nations is not simply one of YDNA and mtDNA intermix. People are not aware for example that those of British and West European/Scandinavian descent are not only R1b and R1a sons of Japheth but they are also a large proportion of Haplogroup (Hg.) I Semites. Thus God enlarged Japheth and he was to dwell in the tents of Shem to fulfil his birthright promise.
Also the largest number of Jews now living are resident in the United States and British Commonwealth. The majority of these people are actually either Japhethites or Hamites converted to Judaism over the ages. All of the Hg. I and J sub groups came from the original Hebrew genetic structure which was the foundation of both the I and J Semites. This is now called the IJ supergroup. To that supergroup are added other Semites and the sons of Ham and the Sons of Japheth in both the United States and the British Commonwealth of Nations to fulfil prophecy.
CCG first demonstrated this Hg. IJ link historically and identified the nations in the first edition of the paper Genetic Origin of the Nations (No. 265) (see History of the Nations and the genetics and genealogies on that link below). This IJ link was later confirmed by the scientists at S2 and S22 of the YDNA structure. To avoid the consequences of this discovery, the Evolutionists called Hg. I "Proto-Semitic" and placed it back 30,000 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. The mix of Hebrews and Japhethites in the Isles began in Ireland some three thousand odd years ago with the arrival of the Semitic I1a (Isles)Tuatha De Danaan or Tribe of the Danites and spread to Britain where the majority of that group are now found. The intermix has continued ever since.The interweaving of YDNA and mtDNA is occurring all over the world but that is not the way God is operating through Christ to bring the greatest union about.
The union is more importantly a spiritual union. The entire world is being called into the body of Israel which Christ made into his body as part of the sons of Abraham and the extension of the Temple of God. Thus we must not simply think on a physical level but also on a spiritual level.
God is accomplishing this union but he will also deal with these key or marker elements of the Sons of Abraham as nations to bring them to repentance first. Scripture cannot be broken.
"And Joseph saw that he was putting his right hand on the head of Ephraim and it was evil in his sight; and he took hold of his father's hand to move it to turn it from Ephraim's head to the head of Manasseh. And Joseph said to his father: Not so my father! For this one is the firstborn. Put your right hand on his head. And his father refused and said: I know my son I know. He also shall be a people and he shall become great. But his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become the fullness of the nations (Gentiles)" (Gen 48:17-19 Green's Interlinear cf. also Rom. 11).
This prophecy placed the fullness or conversion of the Gentiles in the seed of Ephraim. The sons of Japheth would interbreed with them first and become the greater part of them. Then the Commonwealth that they established would become the basis for the conversion of all nations to Jesus Christ in the Last Days and their admission to the nation of Israel under God and Christ as a cohesive body.
Muslim Professor at CA University: "Genocide" of White Racists "Morally Required"
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/
Mohammed Abed, a California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) tenure-track professor of ethics, social & political philosophy, and classical Islamic philosophy believes that genocide of white racists is "morally required".
Mohammed Abed claims that sometimes you just have to commit genocide to save the world from the evil people...like white racists.
David Cole broke down Abed's academic paper "The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered" which was originally published in 2006. Cole says in a Taki's Mag post:
Abed reasons, it's sometimes "morally required" to commit genocide, and he hasn't been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.
Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper's abstract: "Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral."
Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:
Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.
Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his "moral genocide":
One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group's way of life is a "moral and political imperative." And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual's affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.
Interestingly and to no one's shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?
Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?... Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?
Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it's morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.
Northern Africa, Indonesia, Iran, just to name a few, were't originally Islamic nations. They were conquered by Islamic armies. Europe will suffer the same fate as millions of Muslims flood in and out-populate the indigenous people. This Muslim invasion is a Hijrah which is jihad by emigration. Abed knows exactly what is happening, as a Hijrah is a highly meritorious act and it promises Muslims great rewards in heaven.
The Sons of Abraham
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-middle-east-in-bible-prophecy/the-sons-of-abraham
It's impossible to understand the present Middle East without a knowledge of the three great religions that emanate from the area—Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
These three faiths all trace their spiritual roots back to the same individual, Abraham. The towering historical figures behind these three religions—Moses, Jesus Christ and Muhammad—were all direct descendants of Abraham.
Abraham, born in the Mesopotamian city of Ur, was the son of Terah, a descendant of Shem, a son of Noah. Born almost 4,000 years ago, Abraham's impact on the Middle East is still with us to this day. As a descendant of Noah's son Shem, Abraham and his descendants were a Semitic people. In Genesis 11 we see that Shem's great-grandson Eber (verse 14-16) was a direct ancestor of Abraham, and it is from Eber that the term Hebrew comes.
Called "the father of the faithful" (compare Romans 4:11), Abraham obeyed God's instruction to leave his native Ur and move to Haran. As Stephen, the devout first martyr of the Christian era, put it: "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, 'Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you' " (Acts 7:2-3).
Both Ur and Haran were cities in Mesopotamia, which refers to the area between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Haran was a natural stopping-off point for Abraham and Sarah, who were about to be sent by God to a new land, a significant turning point in the history of the region.
We read of this move in Genesis 12:1-4, following the death of Abraham's father, Terah. Again, notice his example of unquestioning obedience: "Now the LORD had said to Abram [this being his original name, which was later expanded to Abraham]: 'Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing ...' So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him ..." Hebrews 11:8 adds: "And he went out, not knowing where he was going."
God was working with Abraham to establish him and his descendants in the land of Canaan (later called the Promised Land and often referred to as the Holy Land). At the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe, this area was ideal for God's chosen people, who were to be an example to the rest of the world (Deuteronomy 4:5-8).
On arriving in the new land, God promised Abraham that He would give the land to his descendants (Genesis 12:7). "And the LORD said to Abram,... 'Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever' " (Genesis 13:14-15).
God added: "And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered" (Genesis 13:16). Significantly, God later changed Abram's name to Abraham (Genesis 17:5). His earlier name meant "high (exalted) father." God renamed him "father of a multitude," saying, "I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you" (Genesis 13:6).
At the time these prophecies must have seemed ironic to Abraham, for his wife Sarah was barren. Her infertility was to be very significant in the development of the modern Middle East.
God promised Abraham in Genesis 15:4 that he would have an heir: "one who will come from your own body." Impatient, Sarah told Abraham to take her Egyptian handmaid Hagar and to produce a child by her. This took place "after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan" (Genesis 16:1-3).
Abraham's first son is born
"So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes" (Genesis 16:4). The relationship between Sarah and Hagar quickly deteriorated and Hagar fled.
But a divine message was given to Hagar, telling her to return. It also reassured her that her son would have many descendants—but descendants with traits that would be evident throughout their history: "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count ... You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael ['God hears'], for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis 16:10-12, New International Version).
This description of Hagar's descendants is significant because many of today's Arabs are Ishmaelites—descendants of this same Ishmael, whose father was Abraham. Muhammad, the founder and prophet of Islam, was descended from Kedar, one of the 12 sons of Ishmael (Ismail in Arabic). Today 22 nations in the Middle East and North Africa are Arabic nations, most of whose people are adherents of Islam. An additional 35 countries are members of the Islamic Conference, most of them with Islamic governments, but whose people are of different descent.
Even before Ishmael's descendants arrived in the area, the term arab was used to denote the peoples of the Arabian peninsula. With the spread of Islam, Arabs and the Arabic language today encompass a vast region.
The divinely prophetic words spoken to Hagar are still of great significance today. The prophecy that Ishmael "will be a wild donkey of a man" is not meant as an insult. The wild donkey was the aristocrat of the wild beasts of the desert, the preferred prey of hunters. The prophecy is a reference to how Ishmael's descendants would emulate the lifestyle of the wild donkey, leading a free and noble existence in the desert.
"His hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him" similarly refers to this independent lifestyle. Ishmael's descendants have always resisted foreign domination. "He will live in hostility towards all his brothers" is a reference to the enmity that has historically existed among the Arabs and between the Arabs and the other sons of Abraham.
Abraham's second son
Fourteen years after the birth of Ishmael, God blessed Abraham with another son, this time by his wife Sarah. He told them to name their son Isaac (meaning "laughter" for the incredulous reaction they had when told they would have a son at their advanced age as well as the joy that he would later bring to his parents, Genesis 17:17-19; Genesis 18:10-15; Genesis 21:5-6). Isaac in turn fathered Jacob, also named Israel, the father of the Israelites. Ishmael's and Isaac's descendants are therefore cousins.
"So the child [Isaac] grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac' " (Genesis 21:8-10).
This displeased Abraham, who had grown to love Ishmael. "But God said to Abraham, '... Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called" (Genesis 21:12). God further reassured Abraham: "Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman [Ishmael], because he is your seed" (Genesis 21:13). "So God was with the lad; and he grew and dwelt in the wilderness ..." (Genesis 21:20).
It cannot be said that Ishmael hated Isaac. But after 14 years as an only child, Isaac's arrival fundamentally changed Ishmael's relationship with his father, Abraham. Afterward, Ishmael felt envy and rivalry toward his half brother, feelings that tribally have survived down through the centuries and which affect the politics of the Middle East today.
Isaac's two sons
Further family complications were ahead. Isaac, in turn, had two sons, Jacob and Esau, twins by his wife Rebekah. Even before they were born, "the children struggled together within her" (Genesis 25:22). God explained: "Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger" (Genesis 25:23). Both brothers were to father great nations, a blessing from God to Abraham's grandsons.
Normally the firstborn would receive the birthright, but here it was to be different. The Bible records that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew (Genesis 25:29-34), showing how little it meant to him. Sometime later, Jacob tricked his father into giving him the birthright blessing (chapter 27). For this, "Esau hated Jacob" (Genesis 27:41).
Again, the consequences of this are with us to this day.The descendants of Esau (also called Edom, Genesis 25:30) intermarried with Ishmael's descendants, their bitterness and resentment against Jacob's descendants intensifying through the centuries. Esau's grandson Amalek (Genesis 36:12) was the father of the Amalekites, who became bitter foes of the descendants of Jacob, the 12 tribes of Israel. A prophecy about Amalek foretold endless war between them "from generation to generation" (Exodus 17:16). Some scholars believe that many of today's Palestinians are largely the descendants of the Amalekites.
Let's now turn to the remarkable story of the tribes of Israel—their prophesied rise and fall.
The United States and Great Britain will Fall with the State of Israel
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/seven-prophectic-signs-before-jesus-returns/5-the-united-states-and-great
"Israel" was the new name God gave the biblical patriarch Jacob in Genesis 32. The 12 tribes of Israel were descended from his 12 sons. These tribes later formed a united kingdom.
It's been almost 3,000 years since the kingdom of Israel was split in two. Ten of the 12 tribes of Israel rebelled against King Rehoboam, the son of King Solomon and grandson of King David. The Bible continued to refer to these 10 tribes as Israel while the other two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) that remained loyal to David's descendants were known as the kingdom of Judah or simply Judah.
Sometimes Israel is referred to as the northern kingdom and Judah as the southern kingdom. Dominant among the northern tribes were to be the descendants of Jacob's son Joseph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh—prophesied by Jacob to be the chief nations of the world in the last days (Genesis 49:1, Genesis 49:22-26; compare Deuteronomy 33:13-17).
About 200 years after the kingdom split, the northern tribes of Israel fell to Assyria and were deported by the Assyrians to the northern parts of their empire. Often referred to now as the lost tribes, they later migrated northwest across Europe, eventually settling in new homelands far from the Middle East.
The kingdom of Judah fell to Babylon more than a century after Israel's deportation, but its people were not lost to history. We know them today as the Jews.
The name Ephraim is sometimes used representatively in Scripture for the entire northern kingdom, though it can also refer solely to the descendants of Joseph's son of that name—prophesied to become a "multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19). Remarkably, this promise to Ephraim was fulfilled in the British Empire and Commonwealth.
Ephraim's older brother Manasseh was also prophesied to become a great nation (same verse), separating himself from the multitude of nations. This prophecy would be fulfilled in the formation, growth and dominance of the United States of America.
In a revealing prophecy regarding the United States and Britain, Jacob (Israel) said, "Let my name be named upon them" (Genesis 48:16). References to "Israel" in end-time prophecy often refer to the United States or the English-speaking countries of the British Empire or both. Sometimes "Israel" can mean all 12 tribes. We have to look at specific verses in their context to see which is meant. (To investigate the biblical evidence of this, please read our free study aid, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy .)
"Judah," however, always refers to the Jews, the descendants of the house or kingdom of Judah. We must also understand that the modern nation called Israel is really Judah, made up of Jews (see sidebar " Are all Israelites Jews? ").
Understanding this critical part of biblical history will help us more fully comprehend a passage of Scripture in the book of Hosea, which is a prophecy about Ephraim (the multitude of nations—Great Britain and some of those nations that came out of her). It warns of destruction to follow the end-time ascendancy of the Israelite nations.
In Hosea 5 we read a prophecy that mentions Israel, Ephraim and Judah: "The pride of Israel testifies to his face; therefore Israel and Ephraim stumble in their iniquity; Judah also stumbles with them" (Hosea 5:5). The prophecy continues: "With their flocks and herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they will not find Him; He has withdrawn Himself from them. They have dealt treacherously with the Lord, for they have begotten pagan children. Now a New Moon shall devour them and their heritage" (Hosea 5:6-7).
New moons occur a month apart. A new moon "devouring" them would seem to mean that Israel, Ephraim and Judah will all fall within one month.
This prophecy was not fulfilled in ancient times. As already mentioned, ancient Judah fell to Babylon more than a century after Israel fell to Assyria. Yet in the end it appears they will fall together—within one month of each other. This prophecy remains to be fulfilled.
Remember that Israel gave his name to Ephraim and Manasseh, the ancestors in turn of the British and American peoples. As Ephraim is mentioned separately in this prophecy, the reference to "Israel" must apply to the United States, which is now the more dominant of the two nations.
For two centuries prior to World War II, the roles were reversed with the multitude of nations—the British Empire—a greater power than the single nation, the United States. But today America is the greater.
"Judah" refers to the Jewish people, particularly those who now constitute the modern nation in the Middle East that calls itself Israel.
Here then is a prophecy regarding all three nations—the United States, Britain and Israel (Judah). According to this prophecy, it appears that all three will fall within the span of a month. Hosea 6:6 shows these nations turning back to God, but finding it's too late. Because of their sins, He will let them suffer defeat and collapse.
This prophecy could not have been fulfilled until after the rise of Britain and the United States as world powers in the 19th century and the formation of the Jewish state of Israel in the 20th.
Consider that Israel and the United States are perhaps the most maligned and criticized nations on earth. Among Muslim hard-liners, America is commonly called "the great Satan" and Israel and Britain "the little Satans."
Here's the Memo That Blew Up the NSC
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/10/heres-the-memo-that-blew-up-the-nsc/
Fired White House staffer argued "deep state" attacked Trump administration because the president represents a threat to cultural Marxist memes, globalists, and bankers.
Pepe Escobar observes from an informed frame of reference.
Is North Korea Showing the Emperor is Naked?
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708111056391183-is-north-korea-showing-emperor-is-naked/
Amid the thick fog of (rhetorical) war between Washington and Pyongyang, it's still possible to detect some fascinating writing on the (unbuilt) wall.
A case can be made that President Trump is using North Korea to kick the 24/7 Russia-gate narrative out of the US news cycle. It's certainly working. After all, in Exceptionalistan weltanschauung, the prospect of war and its possible rewards certainly trumps hazy accusations of Russian hacking and election interference.
Capitol Hill would never even consider an attempt to impeach a president — on top if it surrounded by generals — while American geopolitical primacy is in danger. Besides, Congress has already made it explicit Trump does not even need permission to bomb North Korea.
So, according to this working hypothesis, if Robert Mueller finds anything seriously damaging to the Trump brand, the president might actually consider a bomb North Korea/wag the dog operation.
Meanwhile, anybody paying attention to what Edward Snowden has disclosed in detail knows hackers of all persuasions are fine tuned to all Mueller-related IT systems and cell phone communications. They will know what Team Mueller has managed to find on Trump in real time — and plan their contingencies accordingly.
As for the rhetorical war itself, a US intel source used to thinking outside the Beltway box points to the crucial variable, South Korea; "South Korea will not maintain its alliance with the US the day they believe that the US will attack North Korea to protect itself at the expense of the death of thirty million people in South Korea. South Korea is in secret talks with China for a major security treaty because of the US position that they will bomb North Korea in their own defense irrespective of the destruction of South Korea which the US would regard as most unfortunate."
Don't expect to read about these secret Beijing-Seoul talks on Western corporate media. And that's only part of the equation. The source adds, "there are secret talks between Germany and Russia over the US joint sanctions against those two nations and a realignment of the German position back to the Bismarckian Ostpolitik of a new Reinsurance Treaty with Russia."
Assuming these secret negotiations bear fruit, the consequences will be nothing short of cataclysmic; "The European and Asian security systems of the United States may be about to collapse due to the turmoil in Washington which is unhinging all of the United States alliances. As Congress undermines Donald Trump, the United States is presently jeopardizing all its major strategic relationships."
Seoul Framed as "Collateral Damage"
Meanwhile, serious questions remain over North Korea's true military capabilities. As an independent Asia intel source familiar with the Korean peninsula observes, "submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) as well as land-based nuclear missiles are available on the black market, so North Korea would have no trouble acquiring them. North Korea knows that if they do not have a nuclear deterrent capacity they could be subject to a similar destruction that occurred with Iraq and Libya. In addition, the irresponsible threats against North Korea by [US Secretary of State] Tillerson, who should retire to his fishing haunts, could do grave damage to the US, for if North Korea believes the US will strike they will not wait as Saddam Hussein, having learned their lesson from that, but they will strike first."
So the real issue, once again, is whether Pyongyang already is in possession of SLBMs as well as land-based nuclear capacity, acquired through the black market. The Asia intel source adds, "North Korea presently has twenty Romeo class submarines which, according to Heritage expert Bruce Klingner, have the capacity to carry nuclear SLBMs. These Romeo class submarines have a range of 9,000 miles and the distance from Pyongyang to New York City is 6,783 miles. These submarines could be refueled, for instance, in Cuba, Therefore, it is not inconceivable to find a North Korean submarine offshore New York City equipped with a ballistic nuclear missile in a showdown at the O.K. Corral with Washington D.C."
US Think Tankland is developing a creepy consensus when it comes to North Korea. Every analyst worth his paycheck knows that North Korea's nuclear program sites are widely dispersed and ultra-reinforced; everyone also knows that devastating North Korea artillery is concentrated near the demilitarized zone (DMZ) within striking distance of Seoul. Still, this is all being spun as part of an aseptic narrative where the US is "extremely reluctant" to bomb.
It's obviously hard for CIA types to publicly acknowledge that Pyongyang is — successfully — creating the framework for a new brand of negotiation with the US as well as with South Korea, China and Russia. Any rational, non-Dr. Strangelove intellect knows there is no military solution to this drama. North Korea is already a de facto nuclear power — and diplomacy will have to take it into account.
Neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/CIA types though bet on — what else — war. And fast — before the much-hyped point of no return when Pyongyang acquires a deliverable nuclear weapon. That's where, predictably, most factions of the deep state converge with Trump. And that's the stuff of all sorts of chilling scenarios, pointing once again to Washington having no qualms sacrificing its South Korean "ally".
What the Deep State Really Wants
For all the intractable problems affecting the Korean peninsula, independent analysts have also been considering how the Washington-Pyongyang drama is only a small part of a much larger Big Picture; the American subjugation of international relations based on their dependence of what is extracted from the rest of the world in the form of dollar debt.
Washington uses the usual tools — sanctions and bombs — to enforce dollar-denominated global trade and energy trade. China has counter-attacked with everything from the biggest "win-win" trade/ infrastructure project of the 21st century — the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — to buying energy in yuan; call it a mighty counterpunch against the infernal US debt machine. Russia for its part has fully re-emerged as a prime geopolitical/military power.
The Brzezinski doctrine — to prevent the emergence of any peer competitor, not to mention an alliance of peer competitors such as the Russia-China strategic partnership — is collapsing all over. Nuclear North Korea is just the latest visible sign of the collapse. It's as if with voting in favor of the latest sanctions package at the UNSC, Russia-China have allowed a double dare (and they sure knew in advance the rhetorical war would escalate).
The cumulative effect, for all the world to see, is Washington regime change obsession (Iran, Venezuela, etc.) and illegal trade sanctions (Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.) run amok, while Russia-China subtly keep undermining both Washington's supply chain — as in dollar debt — and military enforcement (bomb North Korea if you dare). So it's no wonder Russia-China, as far as the North Korea drama is concerned, are all for diplomacy, while the exceptionalist US deep state craves war.
Culture industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry
The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by the critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented as critical vocabulary in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), wherein they proposed that popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods—films, radio programmes, magazines, etc.—that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity.[1] Consumption of the easy pleasures of popular culture, made available by the mass communications media, renders people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances.[1] The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism; thus Adorno and Horkheimer especially perceived mass-produced culture as dangerous to the more technically and intellectually difficult high arts. In contrast, true psychological needs are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness, which refer to an earlier demarcation of human needs, established by Herbert Marcuse. (See Eros and Civilization, 1955).[2]
The Frankfurt School
Members of The Frankfurt School were much influenced by the dialectical materialism and historical materialism of Karl Marx, as well as the revisitation of the dialectical idealism of Hegel; both events are studied not in isolation, but as part of the process of change. As a group later joined by Jürgen Habermas, they were responsible for the formulation of critical theory. In works such as Dialectic of Enlightenment and Negative Dialectics, Adorno and Horkheimer theorized that the phenomenon of mass culture has a political implication, namely that all the many forms of popular culture are parts of a single culture industry whose purpose is to ensure the continued obedience of the masses to market interests.
The theory
The essay is concerned with the production of cultural content in capitalist societies. It critiques the supply-driven nature of cultural economies as well as the apparently inferior products of the system.[3] Horkheimer and Adorno argue that mass-produced entertainment aims, by its very nature, to appeal to vast audiences and therefore both the intellectual stimulation of high art and the basic release of low art.[4] The essay does not suggest that all products of this system are inherently inferior, simply that they have replaced other forms of entertainment without properly fulfilling the important roles played by the now defunct sources of culture.[5]
Horkheimer and Adorno make consistent comparisons between Fascist Germany and the American film industry. They highlight the presence of mass-produced culture, created and disseminated by exclusive institutions and consumed by a passive, homogenised audience in both systems.[6] This illustrates the logic of domination in post-enlightenment modern society, by monopoly capitalism or the nation state.[7] Horkheimer and Adorno draw attention to the problems associated with a system that 'integrates its consumers from above', arguing that in attempting to realise enlightenment values of reason and order, the holistic power of the individual is undermined.[8]
Influences
Adorno and Horkheimer's work was influenced by both the broader socio-political environment in which it was written and by other major theorists. Written in California in the early 1940s in an era which characterized them as two ethnically Jewish, German émigrés, The Culture Industry is influenced by European politics and the war by which the continent was consumed.[9] Simultaneously, the American film industry was characterised by an unprecedented level of studio monopolisation,[3] it was "Hollywood at its most classical, American mass culture at its most Fordist".[10]
Horkheimer and Adorno were influenced heavily by major developers of social, political and economic theory,[11] most notably:
Karl Marx's theories of alienation and commodity fetishism,
Max Weber's instrumental reason, and
Georg Lukacs' concept of the reification of consciousness.
Elements
Anything made by a person is a materialization of their labour and an expression of their intentions. There will also be a use value: the benefit to the consumer will be derived from its utility. The exchange value will reflect its utility and the conditions of the market: the prices paid by the television broadcaster or at the box office. Yet, the modern soap operas with their interchangeable plots and formulaic narrative conventions reflect standardized production techniques and the falling value of a mass-produced cultural product. Only rarely is a film released that makes a more positive impression on the general discourse and achieves a higher exchange value, e.g. Patton (1970), starring George C. Scott as the eponymous American general, was released at a time of considerable anti-war sentiment. The opening shot is of Patton in front of an American flag making an impassioned speech. This was a form of dialectic in which the audience could identify with the patriotism either sincerely (the thesis) or ironically (the antithesis) and so set the tone of the interpretation for the remainder of the film. However, the film is manipulating specific historical events, not only as entertainment, but also as a form of propaganda by demonstrating a link between success in strategic resource management situations and specified leadership qualities. Given that the subtext was instrumental and not "value free", ethical and philosophical considerations arise.
Normally, only high art criticizes the world outside its boundaries, but access to this form of communication is limited to the elite classes where the risks of introducing social instability are slight. A film like Patton is popular art which intends controversy in a world of social order and unity which, according to Adorno, is regressing into a cultural blandness. To Hegel, order is good a priori, i.e. it does not have to answer to those living under it. But, if order is disturbed? In Negative Dialectics, Adorno believed this tended towards progress by stimulating the possibility of class conflict. Marx's theory of Historical Materialism was teleological, i.e. society follows through a dialectic of unfolding stages from ancient modes of production to feudalism to capitalism to a future communism. But Adorno felt that the culture industry would never permit a sufficient core of challenging material to emerge on to the market that might disturb the status quo and stimulate the final communist state to emerge.
Mass culture
A central point of the Dialectic of Enlightenment is the topic of "the Enlightenment as the deception of the masses". The term "culture industry" is intended to refer to the commercial marketing of culture, the branch of industry that deals specifically with the production of culture that is in contrast to "authentic culture".
Horkheimer and Adorno contend that industrially produced culture robs people of their imagination and takes over their thinking for them. The culture industry delivers the "goods" so that the people then only have left over the task of the consuming them. Through mass production, everything becomes homogenized and whatever diversity remains is constituted of small trivialities. Everything becomes compressed through a process of the imposition of schemas under the premise that what's best is to mirror physical reality as closely as possible. Psychological drives become stoked to the point to where sublimation is no longer possible.
Movies serve as an example. "All films have become similar in their basic form. They are shaped to reflect facts of reality as closely as possible. Even fantasy films, which claim to not reflect such reality, don't really live up to what they claim to be. No matter how unusual they strive to be, the endings are usually easy to predict because of the existence of prior films which followed the same schemas. Also, for example, erotic depictions become so strong and so pronounced that a transformation to other forms is no longer possible."[12]
The aims of the culture industry are—as in every industry—economic in nature. All endeavors become focused on economic success.
Authentic culture, however, is not goal-oriented, but is an end in itself. Authentic culture fosters the capacity of human imagination by presenting suggestions and possibilities, but in a different way than the culture industry does, since it leaves room for independent thought. Authentic culture does not become channeled into regurgitating reality, but goes levels beyond such. Authentic culture is unique and cannot be forced into any pre-formed schemas.
As for discovering the causes of the development of the culture industry, Horkheimer and Adorno contend that it arises from companies' pursuit of the maximization of profit, in the economic sense. However, this cannot be said to be culture, or what culture is supposed to be. It can only be described as being a form of commerce, just like any other kind of commerce.
The culture industry argument is often assumed to be fundamentally pessimistic in nature because its purveyors seem to condemn "mass media" and their consumers. However, for Adorno, the term "culture industry" does not refer to "mass culture", or the culture of the masses of people in terms of something being produced by the masses and conveying the representations of the masses. On the contrary, such involvement of the masses is only apparent, or a type of seeming democratic participation. Adorno contends that what is actually occurring is a type of "defrauding of the masses". Horkheimer and Adorno deliberately chose the term "culture industry" instead of "mass culture" or "mass media".[13] "The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises."[14] The culture industry even encroaches upon the small distractions of leisure activity: "Amusement has become an extension of labor under late capitalism."[14] Horkheimer and Adorno, above all, in their critical analyses, delve into what they call "the fraying of art" and the "de-artification of art", and discuss how the arts are defused by the culture industry. Works of art have become commodified: Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner are only used in fragmentary forms when included in advertisement. According to Critical Theory, "selling out" is not the decisive factor involved, but rather it's the manner in which art is commodified and how art and culture are changed that is the crucial issue.[15]
"Culture today is infecting everything with sameness."[16] For Adorno and Horkheimer, subversion has become no longer possible.
Observations
Wiggershaus Rolf say that the products of mass culture would not be popular if people did not enjoy them, and that culture is self-determining in its administration. This would deny Adorno contemporary political significance, arguing that politics in a prosperous society is more concerned with action than with thought. He also notes that the young generation of critical theorists largely ignore Adorno's work which, in part, stems from Adorno's inability to draw practical conclusions from his theories. For instance, Wiggershaus states: "The other side of Adorno's apparently paradoxical definition was ignored: that only rational objectivity was still possible for the modern work of art was only possible, in any significant sense, as a product of subjectivity"[17]
Adorno is also accused of a lack of consistency in his claims to be implementing Marxism. Whereas he accepted the classical Marxist analysis of society showing how one class exercises domination over another, he deviated from Marx in his failure to use dialectic as a method to propose ways to change. Marx's theory depended on the willingness of the working class to overthrow the ruling class, but Adorno and Horkheimer postulated that the culture industry has undermined the revolutionary movement. Adorno's idea that the mass of the people are only objects of the culture industry is linked to his feeling that the time when the working class could be the tool of overthrowing capitalism is over. Other critics note that "High culture" too is not exempt from a role in the justification of capitalism. The establishment and reinforcement of elitism is seen by these critics as a key element in the role of such genres as opera and ballet.
TAVISTOCK - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN AMERICA
TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE . . . . . . . . .
30 Tabernacle Street, London EC2A 4DD.--
Formed in 1947, the Tavistock Institute is an independent not-for-profit organization which seeks to combine research in the social sciences with professional practice. Problems of institution-building and organizational design and change are being tackled in all sectors - government, industry and commerce, health and welfare, education, etc. - nationally and internationally, and clients range from multinationals to small community groups. A growth area has been the use of a developmental approach to evaluation of new and experimental programs, particularly in health, education and community development. This has also produced new training events alongside the regular program of group relations conferences. The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.
Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.
The ideology of American foundations was created by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. In 1921, the Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shellshock on British soldiers who survived World War I. Its purpose was to establish the "breaking point" of men under stress, under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare, commanded by Sir John Rawlings-Reese.
Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of "controlling" humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, <http://watch.pair.com/Hudson.html>Hudson Institute, <http://watch.pair.com/heritage.html>Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.
[Editor, Tim Aho's note: See Watch Unto Prayer report on The Heritage Foundation founded by Paul Weyrich with funding from Joseph Coors, who also founded and financed respectively the Moral Majority and Council for National Policy.]
Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a "refugee", the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II.
In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.
[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report on <http://watch.pair.com/jbs-cnp.html>The John Birch Society & Council for National Policy for information regarding CIA operations on the Christian Right.]
Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill purely as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions". All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal---to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.
The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to "establish new rituals of personal interaction", that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives, destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family. Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.
Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis. The "experiment" in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations. The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.
Such is the power of Tavistock that our entire space program was scrapped for nine years so that the Soviets could catch up. The hiatus was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and was promptly granted by the government, to the complete mystification of everyone connected with NASA.
Another prominent Tavistock operation is the Wharton School of Finance, at the University of Pennsylvania. A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy---the use of drugs. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like "guinea pigs", resulted in several deaths.
The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt's advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html#ips>Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD "counter-culture" of the 1960s, the "student revolution", which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.
One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.
One victim, the wife of a member of the Canadian Parliament, is now suing the U.S. companies who provided the drug for the CIA. All the records of the CIA's drug testing program were ordered destroyed by the head of MK Ultra. Because all efforts of the Tavistock Institute are directed toward producing cyclical collapse, the effect of the CIA programs are tragically apparent. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., writing in the Washington Post August 20, 1984, cites the "squalid consequences of the 60s radicals in SDS" as resulting in "the growing rate of illegitimacy, petty lawlessness, drug addiction, welfare, VD, and mental illness".
This is the legacy of the Warburgs and the CIA. Their principal agency, the Institute for Policy Studies, was funded by James Paul Warburg; its co-founder was Marcus Raskin, protege of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy had Raskin appointed to the post of President Kennedy's personal representative on the National Security Council, and in 1963 funded Students for Democratic Society, through which the CIA operated the drug culture.
Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences.
One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report <http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html>Freedom House: A CFR Front.]
One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the World Order, because he produces for himself, and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence. In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks believed they had attained total control over the people; they were dismayed to find their plans threatened by the stubborn independence of the small farmers, the Kulaks.
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml (http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml)
Thus having discussed Tavistock it is interesting to note that in the London bombing the Police blocked the regular route of the number 30 bus and diverted it into Tavistock Square where it was blown up. Nothing like signing your work?
QuoteFor anyone who actually examines the facts concerning the events of 7th July 2005, the official narrative remains highly unconvincing. It can be demonstrated that (1) the four young men could not have been on the tubes we are meant to believe they were, (2) that the CCTV images released of them were fake, and (3) that a staged 'terror drill' was going on at exactly the same time and that the drill simulated *precisely* the same scenarios as were played out for real on 7/7. And of course there's more; which you will see as you read on. Some of you will already be well-versed in this information, but some of you won't.https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/the-77-london-bombings-everything-the-media-wont-tell-you/ (https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/the-77-london-bombings-everything-the-media-wont-tell-you/)
Further quote:
This article first published on July 12, 2014 provides a historical understanding of the wave of Islamophobia sweeping across the United Kingdom since 7/7.
This article is of particular relevance in understanding the May 2017 Manchester bombing and its tragic aftermath. (M. Ch. GR Editor)
Nine Years Ago, the 7/7 London Bombing
This article is dedicated to former South Yorkshire terror analyst Tony Farrell who lost his job but kept his integrity, and with thanks to the documentation provided by the July 7th Truth Campaign
":One intriguing aspect of the London Bombing report is the fact that the MI5 codename for the event is "Stepford". The four "bombers" are referred to as the "Stepford four".
Why is this the case? ... the MI5 codename is very revealing in that it suggests the operation was a carefully coordinated and controlled one with four compliant and malleable patsies following direct orders.
Now if MI5 has no idea who was behind the operation or whether there were any orders coming from a mastermind, why would they give the event the codename "Stepford"? " (Steve Watson, January 30, 2006 Prison Planet)
Background
"The word was out that there was easy money to be made by Muslims taking part in an emergency- preparedness operation. Mohammad Sidique Khan — better known by his western nickname "Sid" — had been approached by his contact, probably Haroon Rashid Aswat who was in town, about a big emergency preparedness operation that was looking for local Pakistanis who might take the part of pretend "suicide bombers" for the enactment. The call was somewhat unusual: not just anyone was to be asked. The people running this wanted "young men who were conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably had some higher education". It looked as if it might be one of the ones related to Visor Consultants, which had a history of holding such events. Sid's wife, Hasina Patel, had been experiencing complications in her second pregnancy; he wondered if she might be better off getting help through expensive, private doctors. He agreed to take part in it and to recruit others.
Did he smell a rat? Khan asked only men of Pakistani descent who were single. His friend and younger sidekick Shezad Tanweer, who had just graduated from university, agreed. He had just racked up a big car repair bill on his beloved red Mercedes and could use the money. Eighteen-year old Hasib Hussain was a good guy who was awaiting his exams for entry into Leeds University that September; he could use the money for a car he had been looking at for the commute. Ejaz Fiaz, who was known for sometimes dyeing his hair blonde for parties, also agreed. He was a bit flakey but he seemed to fit the bill. Khan gave their names as volunteers.
What could go wrong? Aswat was well connected with British security and had to be reliable. But he had felt somewhat compromised by his and Tanweer's work with security people the previous year. No one was more patriotic than he and Tanweer. They loved their country and wanted to help their government in any way. They had allowed themselves to be taped in 2004, but he didn't feel good about it. He and Tanweer had been acting in good faith in getting other Muslims, like Omar Khyam, to talk on tape, but he started to realize that security people were basically trying to find Muslims to set up for their "War on Terror." It had become dangerous for Muslims, even for patriots like him and Tanweer. He wondered whether the work they did for security had made them safer or put them in a more precarious position. Tapes the two of them had made for security guys the year before bothered him, tapes that had made them look like some kind of crazy terrorists, dressed up half like pirates and half like Palestinians, with red kifieh's wrapped around their heads. They had been talked into being photographed like that against his better judgement — of course, they had also gotten paid for it. He hoped that those tapes were lying somewhere, forgotten.
But what could anyone do to him? Everybody knew him; his reputation was such that he had to be untouchable. He had been featured in a Sunday Times educational supplement for his excellent work in counseling children of immigrants; he was known for fixing dangerous situations, including conflict resolution with troubled teenagers, and he had even been able to help get kids off drugs. Kids knew he cared about their problems when he talked to them. He also knew important people and was even a friend of his Member of Parliament. His mother-in-law knew the Queen and had special recognition for her progressive work with Muslim women. If there was anyone in the Muslim community who had to be beyond any suspicion for any funny business, it had to be him.
Still, it would be naive to think that there were no risks at all involved. It chilled him, wondering why an emergency preparedness operation really needed fake "suicide bombers". Khan got the word out that he and Hasina had separated. He didn't want her harassed if anything went wrong and he was being set up.
Fiaz, the party guy, ended up cancelling out in the end, so Khan contacted Jamal (or, using his non-Muslim name, Germaine) Lindsay, a burly, black bodybuilder who had been born in Jamaica, to take Fiaz's place. He wasn't of Pakistani origin, but he was Muslim, anyway. His wife Samantha Lewthwaite was about to deliver their second child, so Lindsay was happy to get extra money.
All of the guys volunteering knew the security contacts; it looked as if it might be fun while they were helping out and making a bit of extra money.
Timeline
Thursday, July 7th, 2005, is a day people still talk about in London, England. A meeting of the G8 had started in Gleneagles and London had just been named as the city for the next summer Olympics. It was all good.
At about 8:50 am, Scotland Yard's office put a call through to their Mossad contacts at the Israeli embassy. (Sheva, 2005) Benjamin Netanyahu, then serving as Israel's Finance Minister, was in London to address a conference near Liverpool Station. They warned the Israeli officials that explosions were about to happen. Netanyahu remained in his room that morning.
London's commuters weren't as lucky. About five minutes later, explosions started to rip through London Transport subway cars and busses. At around 9 a.m., London Transport put out the word that there seemed to be a "power surge" problem. The Gold Team of London's Metropolitan police (the "Met") shut down the mobile phone system for at least an hour in central London — which they initially denied.
At 9:47 a.m., an explosion ripped through a No. 30 bus in Tavistock Square, near the office of the British Medical Association and also the offices of various security operations. Featuring a giant ad for a terror film, the bus seemed to be the only one that had strayed off of its normal route that day. The driver had just stuck his neck out to ask directions, when the back of the upper deck exploded. Photographs of the bus show it with varying degrees of damage. (Antagonist, 2005)
Soon after the Bus No. 30 explosion, the public was notified about that as well as about explosions on subways over the past 50 minutes; the entire London Transport system would be shut down
There had been reports of explosions in three busses and at least six subway cars. The subway explosions seemed to be on trains which could have started from King's Cross station, although that would not be clear, given witness accounts, with some travelling in opposite directions or even on different subway lines. In addition, the FBI's Vincent Cannistraro would report the further discovery of two unexploded bombs as well as mechanical timing devices. (Muir et al, 2005)
At 11 a.m. there were reports about police marksmen having killed from 1-4 "suicide bombers" at Canary Wharf, a media center. (Shortnews, 2005) The story made it to numerous international newspapers, including Toronto's Globe & Mail. (Rook, 2005) The New Zealand Herald also reported that Canary Wharf workers were told to remain away from windows for six hours. (N Z Herald, 2005)
By noon,
Police Commissioner Ian Blair noted that there had been "about six" explosions and people were asked to stay out of London.
Also around noon, police inexplicably moved Lindsay's parked car, with a valid parking ticket on it, from Luton's commuter parking lot to a restricted parking lot at Leighton Buzzard.
And around that time, "Sid" Khan's wife Hasina Patel called the police Missing Persons hotline to report her husband missing; she had lost the baby;
Some hours later, Hasib Hussain's mother joined 115,000 frantic hotline callers to report Hasib missing.
Later that afternoon, the head of the security-related Visor Consultants, Peter Power, spoke on radio and TV. Incredibly, his company had been commissioned to carry out an emergency preparedness operation for simultaneous bombings at 9 a.m. at the very stations that were affected by the blasts: Edgware, Aldgate and Piccadilly. (Statisticians have noted that the probability of that being a coincidence are close to zero.) Power, it turned out, had practice making this announcement. He had been part of a mock exercise in April 2004 with the same bombing scenario of three subways and a bus that had been featured on a BBC Panorama program. He had also taken part in joint US/UK London emergency preparedness operations as recently as two months before. (Chossudovsky, 8/8 2005) Power was a veteran of British intelligence until his founding of Visor Consultants in 1995.
Everyone "knew" it was Al Qaeda
By the end of the day, the government claimed that "Islamic extremists" were responsible for four explosions in London that morning. " Prime Minister Tony Blair was "incensed" at the suggestion by the head of the Opposition that an independent investigation might be appropriate. Since "everyone" knew that the Muslims had done it, it would be an insult to the security services, as well as a waste of time and money. Besides, one month before, The Inquiries Act became law, giving the Prime Minister full control of all inquiries; a truly independent inquiry would not be possible.
The London explosions — which Scotland Yard claimed it had had no advance notice of — was claimed to have killed 52 commuters and injured 700 — 300 of them seriously. The death toll from the bus was initially declared to be two but mysteriously increased to "13 or 14"; Ian Blair called it a complicated situation — without further elaboration. It took several hours for some of the injured to receive help, a possible factor in the death toll that would be investigated at the 2010 Hallett Inquest. The government had not only rejected any inquiry, they were also busy destroying evidence. The bombed vehicles were immediately taken off and disposed of — apparently sent out of Britain to be sold as scrap — without any photographs or documentation of the damage. There were no autopsies of the dead, and no records collected of the survivors' injuries for forensic purposes.
The day after the explosions, Friday July 8th, Scotland Yard sent off its voluminous "Operation Crevice" files on Omar Khyam and his group, which included information on Khan and Tanweer, to the RCMP in Canada for the Khawaja trial; not long after that, police removed an electronic monitoring device from Khan's car; Hasib Hussain's exam results arrived; he had scored high marks in four out of the five exams;"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-77-london-bombings-and-mi5s-stepford-four-operation-how-the-2005-london-bombings-turned-every-muslim-into-a-terror-suspect/5341948 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-77-london-bombings-and-mi5s-stepford-four-operation-how-the-2005-london-bombings-turned-every-muslim-into-a-terror-suspect/5341948)
Peter Power's live interview in which he admits a scenario was planned for a customer that ended up going 'live':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbC_B3BWCwo
The same thing happened on 9/11...
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.13, 17:32:36
The same thing happened on 9/11...
Keep in mind that the connecting link between 7-7 and 9-11 is the Tavistock Institute, founder of the CIA.
QuotePeter Cuskie, "The Tavistock Grin: The Shaping of the Anglo-American SS by War" (1974)
The CIA works with every intelligence agency in the entire world, but especially including Britain's MI6
and Israel's Mossad and Shinbet. It even works with intelligence agencies of our official enemies, Iran
and North Korea, according to an American ex-intelligence officer. America now has its troops in 160 out
of about 190 nations, and apparently, its intelligence agencies are in each of these countries as well. We
have space satellites spying on the entire earth that can actually read the fine print on golf balls. They are
spying on us; they may have our phones and our houses wiretapped and our cars tapped and bugged.
https://archive.org/stream/SchrodersBankTAVISTOCKINSTITUTETheMcClaughrysBlog/CIA,%20Tavistock%20Institute,%20and%20the%20Global%20%E2%80%9CIntelligence-Police%20%20Gestapo%E2%80%9D%20State-26_djvu.txt (https://archive.org/stream/SchrodersBankTAVISTOCKINSTITUTETheMcClaughrysBlog/CIA,%20Tavistock%20Institute,%20and%20the%20Global%20%E2%80%9CIntelligence-Police%20%20Gestapo%E2%80%9D%20State-26_djvu.txt)
Ron
in·sid·i·ous
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insidious
adj.
1. Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner: insidious rumors; an insidious disease.
2. Intended to entrap; treacherous: insidious misinformation.
3. Beguiling but harmful; alluring: insidious pleasures.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.13, 21:46:36
in·sid·i·ous
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insidious
adj.
1. Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner: insidious rumors; an insidious disease.
2. Intended to entrap; treacherous: insidious misinformation.
3. Beguiling but harmful; alluring: insidious pleasures.
AMBIGUOUS: adjective
1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal:
an ambiguous answer.
What precisely is the problem?
R
I have removed this as unsubstantiated
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.13, 22:11:42
What precisely is the problem?
No problem. I wanted people to think about the word 'insidious' and how it might apply to the current state of affairs in the world, without any bias from me.
The Diana article you posted I do have an issue with though as it is poorly sourced, in fact it is not sourced at all, and seems to be loosely based upon the allegations made by Mohamed al-Fayed years ago:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/prince-philip-told-mi6-to-murder-diana-and-lover-1-2471441
In addition one of the sleuths in the comments has found that the picture used in the article was probably just grabbed from the net as it appears on another article from 2010 with the mans name listed as Kevin Park:
http://www.news.com.au/national/war-veteran-calls-triple-0-from-own-hospital-bed/news-story/99d9b0188f56d513d2516c7d664b6e55?pg=1
Lack of credibility is the main reason why I did not post this story in this thread at the time I came across it.
However, when it comes to MI5 cover-ups we know there have definitely been some because RT reported it and source checked it which is very important for good journalism.
MI5 covered up child sex abuse in Belfast care home – ex-Army Intelligence officer https://www.rt.com/uk/247785-mi5-coverup-child-abuse/
Pedophilia in Britain 'woven into the fabric of society' – Theresa Mayhttps://www.rt.com/uk/240777-uk-sex-children-may/
114 files missing from 'Westminster pedophile ring' dossier, Home Office admits https://www.rt.com/uk/170784-missing-files-westminster-pedophile/
15,000 Nuclear Weapons In The World - Mapping Who Has What
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-13/15000-nuclear-weapons-world-mapping-who-has-what
It seems the British Empire's proxy, Saudi Arabia, has been missed off the list:
CIA Reveals Saudi Arabia Has Nukes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3trHKqdiM
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.14, 11:13:57
The Diana article you posted I do have an issue with though as it is poorly sourced, in fact it is not sourced at all, and seems to be loosely based upon the allegations made by Mohamed al-Fayed years ago:
My bad, I did not check sources. It merely fitted my preconceived concepts as to how she died, as even she said that they were going to kill her in a car crash.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.14, 14:50:37
My bad, I did not check sources. It merely fitted my preconceived concepts as to how she died, as even she said that they were going to kill her in a car crash.
You have hit the nail on the head there 'preconceived concepts'. This is why there is a constant barrage of false news in the western media targeting people who do not check sources, and therefore the accuracy or potential truth of the information. Often the 'fake news' is vouched for by 'anonymous sources' which should be a relative rarity in good journalism, and if it is necessary to protect a source (which it sometimes is, Seth Rich, Michael Hastings are dead remember) the credibility of the piece rests on the journalists reputation. The alternative media (many of us who don't want to be journalists but do so because we have no choice) is constantly being plied with fake news to try and ruin the reputation and bring it down to the standard of mainstream western journalism.. the gutter. RT is normally very good at sourcing material which is probably why it has won so many awards and is so highly respected internationally!
A reasonable voice, a couple of years old but has anything changed?:
"But this century's wars we keep hearing red, white and blue, flag waving Americans urging us to "support our troops."
Over the long haul, supporting our troops has resulted in the United States being the most warring, aggressive nation on earth, bar none. As we're about to enter 2016, our ultraviolent country will be killing other human beings somewhere on this planet for 223 out of the last 240 total years the US has been in existence. That's 93% of our time as a nation-turned-Empire we've been destroying human life. That's certainly nothing to be proud of. Yet it's "our troops" who've been the murdering culprit. No compassionate, rational person could possibly place blindly obedient support behind such rampantly wanton disregard and contempt for fellow human life.
Another fact that Americans can't be proud of is knowing that the most warring nation on earth just since World War II alone has murdered up to 30 million people around the globe with an estimated 90% of them being civilians. Having initiated 201 out of the total of 240 armed conflicts from the end of WWII to 2001, it then follows that between those years the US Empire of Chaos and Destruction has murdered 27 million innocent people whose lives have tragically been cut short through no fault of their own for simply living in the wrong place at the wrong time belonging to the wrong ethnic nationality targeted by America's full spectrum dominance and global superpower hegemony. And that was before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And what does it take to be targeted as a US foreign enemy? Any country whose leaders choose to support their own citizens' well-being, independence and quality of life over US Empire's fascist transnational corporate interests is attacked economically through sanctions and embargos, politically through propaganda lies and threats, or militarily though unnatural disasters/weather warfare, occupied invasions involving long term bloody conflict or acts of terrorism, coups and assassinations. Just ask Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo North Korea, Donbas, Palestine or Russia just to name more than a dozen.
People around the world have been victimized for well over a century by American Empire's willful rape and pillage of their lands in the name of stolen natural resources and inhumane forced slave labor, and those are the nations whose puppet dictators willingly succumbed and acquiesced to US demands and pressures. In fact in the tradition of the British Empire, North America's entire domestic and foreign history has been made of genocidal killing, enslaving, stealing and subjugating other darker-skinned races into death and submission. Given this context with the bigger picture perspective, "supporting our troops" is really supporting mass murder around the world. So bearing that sobering, grim reality in mind, it's time for Americans to cease and desist with their jingoistic rah-rah that only adds insult to injury to the rest of the victimized world."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-time-to-stop-supporting-our-troops-thirty-million-people-killed-by-u-s-since-end-of-world-war-ii/5495538 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-time-to-stop-supporting-our-troops-thirty-million-people-killed-by-u-s-since-end-of-world-war-ii/5495538)
Ron
An interesting message just in from a contact. He tells me there won't be a ww3 and goes on to say:
"TRIALITY:
Time for a little explanation of what is going on.....
In this 3-dimensional world that we live in the fundamental life experience is one of "choices" that lead each of us on journeys of learning and experiences. These "choices" are generally based on the DUALITY that exists everywhere. These are individual choices of right or wrong, belief or unbelief, practicing righteousness or evil, introspection (meditation or prayer) or the lack thereof, giving or demanding, being patient or hasty, being truthful in words and deeds or lying and cheating, and so on.
Basically our choice of incarnating is to experience the results of duality choices.
But there is a third element in these choices that is being neglected and overlooked in modern society and that needs to be rectified. That is the MORAL CORE that comes with taking individual responsibility and accountability for ones choices. Too many are shirking that responsibility and that leads to the evil mess that our world is currently facing.
This is seen particularly in LAW where there is the Law of the Land (Common Law), Law of the Sea (Admiralty and Commercial Law) and the Law of the AIR (which is the higher Moral Law as laid down by the Creator). Elementally this is Earth, Water and Air that is the foundation of 3-dimensional existence. Fire is the spark of life that all living things bring to animate the Earth, Water and Air so that they can experience this existence.
In order to attain real balance and peace we humans must apply all 3 elements in all that we do. This is the "TRIALITY" of this human experience.
In perspective, Corporate statute Law (SEA) cannot operate alone (NWO) in a void without Common Law (LAND) and an overriding Moral Law (AIR). This is the actual conflict that is taking place now. Divide and Conquer is based on polarizing people to being focused on Land, Sea or Air, instead of understanding that ALL THREE are necessary and must be in balance.
Governments and those that operate them invariable throughout history become too focused on their own Law thus neglecting the other Laws to their downfall. Russia under communism fell into that trap, but now have shed that form of government to one that has a religious core and common law balance. China has always had a moral (family and religious) core regardless of who is in political power. Similarly, the United States is coming out of a period of Corporate Law that has bankrupted the Government service corporations and is now swinging back to its moral Christian and Constitutional Common Law form of governance. Try to see these factors in play right now. Re-balancing.
This is the "awakening" that is taking place globally. The TRIALITY is seeking balance.
Radicalization of polarized positions is NEVER the answer. Listen to the War Drums and understand that behind the pounding are only polarized idiots out of natural balance. Look to see the puppeteers' strings and simply cut them off. Say "NO Thank You. Not for me anymore."
WE are many. THEY are few. Just say "NO." Enough is enough.
For example, what if Americans wake up to the fact that the Income Tax Law was never ratified, is strictly "voluntary" and that the IRS is just an illegal foreign collection agency of the bankrupted municipal and territorial government service provider corporations......an then just decided "enough is enough" and stopped paying these taxes to defunct and corrupt corporations. Wouldn't that result in "regime change"? No Money.....No Honey. Governments beware of what is coming.....globally.
Change is a constant in life and the re-balancing is a constant juggling act, but once humanity becomes aware of this process and intelligently makes adjustments that balance this TRIALITY, then there will be PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL TO ALL MANKIND.
Thank you for your understanding and help in this time of re-balancing."
Ron
The real church of Jediism - THOUSANDS believe in religion based off the Star Wars franchise
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465445/Jediism-THOUSANDS-believe-religion-based-Star-Wars-franchise.html
According to a report in Details, the church based off the Star Wars franchise has grown to include thousands of members
In the UK, Jediism is the seventh-largest religion. Experts estimate that there are 5,000 members in the U.S.
Members of the Jedi church believe in the Force, rather than the Holy Ghost. It's a religion barely two decades old and based off a movie franchise, but there's still a lot the Jedi have in common with other religious groups.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.08.15, 20:05:35
The real church of Jediism - THOUSANDS believe in religion based off the Star Wars franchise
Members of the Jedi church believe in the Force, rather than the Holy Ghost. It's a religion barely two decades old and based off a movie franchise, but there's still a lot the Jedi have in common with other religious groups.
Unreal,
Have you ever looked into Mr Cati's videos? Other than being so very very long winded he is quite fascinating. He does the number thing.
For example: Black Sky
This report discusses the recent Charlottesville, VA protests and the upcoming Operation Black Sky training, set to begin on August 23, 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f_hyn6bhJo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f_hyn6bhJo)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.16, 03:35:08
Unreal,
Indeed.
Nicene Creedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is a Symbol of faith widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.[1] In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, and the amended form is referred to as the Nicene or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches use this profession of faith with the verbs in the original plural ("we believe") form, but the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches convert those verbs to the singular ("I believe"). The Anglican and many Protestant denominations generally use the singular form, but sometimes use the plural.
The Apostles' Creed is also used in the Latin West, but not in the Eastern liturgies.[2][3][4] On Sundays and some other days, one or other of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass after the homily. The Nicene Creed is also part of the profession of faith required of those undertaking important functions within the Catholic Church.[5][6]
In the Byzantine Rite, the Nicene Creed is sung or recited at the Divine Liturgy, immediately preceding the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), and is also recited daily at compline.[7][8]
HistoryThe purpose of a creed is to provide a doctrinal statement of correct belief or orthodoxy. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. For that reason a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον (Eng. symbolon), a word that meant half of a broken object which, when placed together with the other half, verified the bearer's identity. The Greek word passed through Latin "symbolum" into English "symbol", which only later took on the meaning of an outward sign of something.[13]
The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy, whose leader, Arius, was a member of the clergy of Alexandria. "Arius objected to Alexander's (the bishop of the time) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation".[14] Alexander accused Arius of denying the divinity of the Son and also of being too "Jewish" and "Greek" in his thought. Both Arius and Alexander rejected Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Sabellian formulae. The Nicene Creed was created as a result of the extensive adoption of the doctrine of Arius far outside Alexandria, in order to clarify the key tenets of the Christian faith.
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed (not used in Eastern Christianity) describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it.
one needs to have some knowledge of what the Global Collateral Accounts are/were. After WW1 it was decided to bring in all the worlds gold and issue bonds (for its return)
Brief quote: "While the 'official' history of the BIS can be corroborated through information gathered on their website, the 'unofficial' story is far more secretive and indeed nefarious in nature. The drafting of a plan to form a global central bank to 'put on deposit' the gold and precious metals assets of many of the world's most powerful nations actually began in 1921, when Japanese Emperor Hirohito, the grandson of the Meiji Emperor, was invited to take a six month tour of many of the major European nations. One of these included a visit by Hirohito to London to meet with King George V (live footage of his arrival can be seen HERE). What the history books do not tell us are the true reasons for Hirohito's pre-World War II involvement with many of the leaders of the most powerful European nations: To make a secret deal with the Western oligarchy to loot Southeast Asia of its vast hordes of gold and precious metals. After World War I, it was decided by world leaders that the only way to achieve prosperity and harmony in the future was by creating a centralized system of control over the world's supply of gold and other precious metals".
Once you understand that this actually happened, then you can better understand the killing and deceit put forth by the cabal to keep this gold and the excuses like 9-11 as to why the gold had "just disappeared"
https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts (https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts)
Ron
RD Vlogs: Waiting for God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czMbR2SaAc
Awakeandalive1
"Back in the day, this was the episode that sold me on the show... Which might have been foreshadowing my eventual decision to become a Religious Studies professor. It's the sort of thing you couldn't do in any other show, because without being a sci-fi comedy it just wouldn't work. And really, I LOVE how nuanced it is: the arguably more scientifically-plausible aliens don't exist at all and are just the result of the fanatical Rimmer's fevered imagination; but there IS a "Cloister" and there WAS a "Frankenstein" and there WAS a plan to go to "Fuschal"! For all their misinterpretations, the cats were more correct than Rimmer!" ;D
Red Dwarf - waiting for god: The painful truth about all religions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSgRmsnsdH4
Lister discover's he's the God of the cat people.
"This is by far my favorite clip from Red Dwarf."
They were supposed to be green!
Jesus or Yehoshua: What's in a Name?
http://www.jesusandtheprofessor.com/2010/04/jesus-or-yehoshua-whats-in-a-name.html
Welcome to my blog and my first post! I hope that this will be the beginning of a long and happy relationship for us. On this day of beginnings, I have chosen to focus on the first line of the Gospel of Mark because it was the first written Gospel. Mark begins by referring to, "Jesus Christ the Son of God." Mark 1:1. Nevertheless, would Mary, Joseph, or early followers of Jesus have called him that?
One clue that the answer is no, is the fact that the letter "J" did not come into the English language until the sixteenth century. Further, as a Jew, Jesus had a Hebraic name, and that was Yehoshua ("Joshua") or, perhaps, Yeshua, a shortened Aramaic version, or even, Yeshu.
The first fifteen bishops of the early Church were Jews. By the time Greek-speaking Gentiles gained full control of the Church in the third-century, they significantly minimized Jesus' Jewish heritage. This would make it easier to break with the "old covenant" of Judaism (which required compliance with the 613 commandments, something I will discuss in a subsequent post) and institute the "new covenant" of Christianity, which required only belief in Jesus. When a Greek name (Iesous, pronounced "ee-ay-soos") replaces his Hebraic name, Jesus is more easily withdrawn from his undeniably Jewish roots, which sets the stage for breaking him from his Jewish persona and Jewish teachings. As a result, many end up perceiving Jesus as being the "first" Christian.
As to the term "Christ," it is the Anglicized version of the Greek word, Christos, meaning, "anointed one." Yet again, we see a break from the Hebraic term for anointed one, Moshiach, rendered Messiah in English. Jesus' Jewish name and title in Hebrew would be Yehoshua ha Moshiach, that is, Jesus the Messiah.
The Jewish view of the Messiah is that he will be a mere mortal, born of his parents' sexual union; he will have no divine attributes whatsoever. This is fundamental Jewish teaching. The Ebionites, one of the earliest groups of followers of Jesus, took this view. They believed that Jesus was mortal, but because of his righteousness, God adopted him. See Mark 1:9-11. Of course, that Jesus is the literal Son of God is a fundamental teaching within most branches of Christianity today. As we shall see, while there are clear convergences between Judaism and Christianity, there are distinct differences, too. This is certainly one of them.
Judaism: Deed Not Creed
http://www.jesusandtheprofessor.com/2010/04/judaism-deed-not-creed.html
A Jew is a member of the community that traces its origin back to Abraham who, Jewish tradition tells us, came to understand by his own reasoning powers that the One God exists, not the many gods. Abraham also came to understand that this God requires justice. Again, according to tradition, all this took place before God revealed Himself to Abraham.
Later, around 1,800 B.C.E., after God revealed Himself to Abraham, God entered into a special relationship with him and his descendants. Genesis 15:18; 17:2, 7. In this special relationship, God promised to give the land of the Canaanites to Abraham's descendants and to make them numerous and respected. Four hundred years later, after the exodus from Egypt, God renewed this everlasting covenant with the Jews at Mount Sinai. In this renewal, God took the Jews as His "treasure." Exodus 19:5. Importantly, God sealed the covenant with the Jews promising to obey Him: "All that the Lord has spoken, we will do." Exodus 19:8. God did not seal the covenant with the Jews promising to believe; He sealed the covenant with the Jews promising to obey. Thus, Judaism is primarily a religion based on deed, not creed.
What deeds? The deeds are those found in the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). These are the "commandments," mitzvos in Hebrew. They are not just the "Ten Commandments," but also many others. In fact, if you were to count all of the positive ("thou shalt") and the negative ("thou shalt not") commandments, you would count 613.
I will discuss the matter of deed over creed and Jesus' view of this doctrine in the coming posts. In the interim, I welcome your comments!
Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed
A creed (also known as a confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets.
One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It was based on Christian understanding of the Canonical Gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Affirmation of this creed, which describes the Trinity, is generally taken as a fundamental test of orthodoxy for most Christian denominations.[1] The Apostles' Creed is also broadly accepted. Some Christian denominations and other groups have rejected the authority of those creeds.
Muslims declare the shahada, or testimony: "I bear witness that there is no god but (the One) God (Allah), and I bear witness that Muhammad is God's messenger."[2]
Whether Judaism is creedal has been a point of some controversy. Although some say Judaism is noncreedal in nature, others say it recognizes a single creed, the Shema Yisrael, which begins: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Deed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deed
A deed (anciently "an evidence") is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.[1]
The traditional phrase signed, sealed and delivered refers to the practice of seals; however, attesting witnesses have replaced seals to some extent. Agreements under seal are also called contracts by deed or specialty; in the United States, a specialty is enforceable without consideration.[2] In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity.[3] Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, which, being also under seal, are unilateral promises.
Religious conversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion
Religious conversion is the adoption of a set of beliefs identified with one particular religious denomination to the exclusion of others. Thus "religious conversion" would describe the abandoning of adherence to one denomination and affiliating with another. This might be from one to another denomination within the same religion, for example, from Baptist to Catholic Christianity or from Sunni to Shi'a Islam.[1] In some cases, religious conversion "marks a transformation of religious identity and is symbolized by special rituals".[2]
People convert to a different religion for various reasons, including: active conversion by free choice due to a change in beliefs,[3] secondary conversion, deathbed conversion, conversion for convenience, marital conversion, and forced conversion.
Conversion or reaffiliation for convenience is an insincere act, sometimes for relatively trivial reasons such as a parent converting to enable a child to be admitted to a good school associated with a religion, or a person adopting a religion more in keeping with the social class they aspire to.[4] When people marry one spouse may convert to the religion of the other.
Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion under duress. The convert may secretly retain the previous beliefs and continue, covertly, with the practices of the original religion, while outwardly maintaining the forms of the new religion. Over generations a family forced against their will to convert may wholeheartedly adopt the new religion.
Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert by persuasion another individual from a different religion or belief system. (See proselyte).
Apostate is a term used by members of a religion or denomination to refer to someone who has left that religion or denomination.
Forced conversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion or irreligion under duress. Forced abandonment of religion has been described as "conversion to atheism". Those who convert may willingly embrace their new religion or irreligion, or may continue, covertly, with the beliefs and practices originally held, while outwardly behaving as converts. Crypto-Jews, crypto-Christians, crypto-Muslims and crypto-Pagans are historical examples of the latter.
Religion and power
In general, anthropologists have shown that the relationship between religion and politics is complex, especially when viewed over the expanse of human history.[1] While religious leaders and the state generally have different aims, both are concerned with power and order; both use reason and emotion to motivate behavior. Throughout history, leaders of religious and political institutions have cooperated, opposed one another, or attempted to co-opt each other, for purposes both noble and base, and have implemented programs with a wide range of driving values, from compassion aimed at alleviating current suffering to brutal change aimed at achieving longer-term goals, for the benefit of groups ranging from small cliques to all of humanity. The relationship is far from simple. But religion has often been used coercively, and has used coercion.[1]
Christianity
Christianity was a minority religion during much of the Roman Empire, and the early Christians were persecuted during that time. When Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century, the ancient pagan religions were also actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted religion into one capable of persecution and sometimes eager to persecute.[2] There are a number of examples of forced conversion throughout the history of Christianity: during the Roman Empire, in the Middle Ages, inquisitions in Spain and Goa, and campaigns by Russian rulers.
Judaism
Forced conversions occurred under the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Idumeans were forced to convert to Judaism, by threat of exile or death, depending on the source.[25][26] In Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism, Harold W. Attridge claims that "there is reason to think that Josephus' account of their conversion is substantially accurate." He also writes: "that these were not isolated instances, but that forced conversion was a national policy, is clear from the fact that Alexander Jannaeus (around 80 BCE) demolished the city of Pella in Moab, 'because the inhabitants would not agree to adopt the national custom of the Jews.'" Josephus, Antiquities. 13.15.4.[27]
Maurice Sartre has written of the "policy of forced Judaization adopted by Hyrcanos, Aristobulus I and Jannaeus", who offered "the conquered peoples a choice between expulsion or conversion,"[28]
William Horbury has written that "The evidence is best explained by postulating that an existing small Jewish population in Lower Galilee was massively expanded by the forced conversion in c.104 BCE of their Gentile neighbours in the north."[29]
In 2009 the BBC defended a claim that in 524 CE the Yemeni Jewish Himyar tribe, led by King Dhu Nuwas, had offered Christian residents of a village in what is now Saudi Arabia the choice between conversion to Judaism or death, and that 20,000 Christians had then been massacred. The BBC stated that "The production team spoke to many historians over 18 months, among them Nigel Groom, who was our consultant, and Professor Abdul Rahman Al-Ansary [former professor of archaeology at the King Saud University in Riyadh]."[30] Inscriptions documented by Yousef himself show the great pride he expressed after massacring more than 22,000 Christians in Zafar and Najran.[31]
Islam
Although Islamic law prohibits forced conversion, following the Quranic principle "no compulsion in religion" (2:256),[32][33][34] episodes of forced conversions are recorded in the history of Islam. Historians have qualified such instances as "rare"[35] or "exceptional".[32] In theory, Islamic religious tolerance applied only to monotheistic "People of the Book", and pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death.[36] In practice, this designation and the dhimma status was extended even to non-monotheistic religions of conquered peoples, such as Hinduism.[36]
In recent times, forced conversions have been threatened or carried out in the context of war, insurgency and intercommunal violence. Cases affecting thousands of people are reported to have occurred during the Partition of India, the Bangladesh Liberation War, in areas controlled by ISIS, and in Pakistan. Disputed allegations of forced conversion of young women have generated public controversy in Egypt and the UK.
Saudi bulldozers destroy Yemeni village
http://al-bab.com/blog/2010/05/saudi-bulldozers-destroy-yemeni-village
Saudi forces are active across the border again, in Yemeni territory. In an incident that is being likened to Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes, the Yemeni village of Um Quaia'ah, close to the Saudi border, "was ravaged by Saudi bulldozers, including mosques and electricity poles", the Yemen Observer reports, citing eyewitnesses.
A Yemeni local government official contacted by the paper declined to comment but did not deny the news. "The destroyed village is now empty of local residents except Saudi Hummers and military vehicles," the paper says.
Um Quaia'ah is/was close to al-Malahidh area – the scene of heavy fighting during the recent war with the Houthi rebels – but is said to have remained neutral.
Saudi forces have also "retrieved" two young German girls – members of a group held hostage in northern Yemen for almost a year. The exact location of that incident has not been disclosed and it is unclear whether it was connected with the bulldozing of Um Quaia'ah. The rescue was reportedly carried out by Saudi special forces in collaboration with the Yemeni military.
The Saudis became militarily involved in Yemen last Novemberat the height of the Yemeni government's six-month-long "Operation Scorched Earth" against the Houthi rebels. In an effort to prevent cross-border activity by the rebels, they declared a 10-km exclusion zone on either side of the frontier, where civilians would not be allowed. The destruction of Um Quaia'ah seems to be a continuation of that policy.
In the maritime border area, the Yemen Observer also reports the Saudis' seizure of 20 Yemeni fishermen and 13 boats which the paper says were in international waters off the Farasan Islands. Presumably this was part of the Saudi effort to prevent the Houthis receiving weapons by sea.
Meanwhile, in southern Yemen, fierce clashes were reported yesterday between security forces and "armed gangs" (i.e. separatists) in al-Habilain district of Lahij province. Al-Habilain was the scene, on Saturday, of an apparent attempt to kill President Salih.
The Yemen Post website says security forces "randomly opened fire using artilleries and tanks causing a state of horror among the people ... Homes and commercial shops were affected with some burned".
No deaths were reported but News Yemen says five people, including two soldiers, a child and a woman, were injured.
Posted by Brian Whitaker, 19 May 2010.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.08.18, 02:17:31
one needs to have some knowledge of what the Global Collateral Accounts are/were. After WW1 it was decided to bring in all the worlds gold and issue bonds (for its return)
Brief quote: "While the 'official' history of the BIS can be corroborated through information gathered on their website, the 'unofficial' story is far more secretive and indeed nefarious in nature. The drafting of a plan to form a global central bank to 'put on deposit' the gold and precious metals assets of many of the world's most powerful nations actually began in 1921, when Japanese Emperor Hirohito, the grandson of the Meiji Emperor, was invited to take a six month tour of many of the major European nations. One of these included a visit by Hirohito to London to meet with King George V (live footage of his arrival can be seen HERE). What the history books do not tell us are the true reasons for Hirohito's pre-World War II involvement with many of the leaders of the most powerful European nations: To make a secret deal with the Western oligarchy to loot Southeast Asia of its vast hordes of gold and precious metals. After World War I, it was decided by world leaders that the only way to achieve prosperity and harmony in the future was by creating a centralized system of control over the world's supply of gold and other precious metals".
Once you understand that this actually happened, then you can better understand the killing and deceit put forth by the cabal to keep this gold and the excuses like 9-11 as to why the gold had "just disappeared"
https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts (https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts)
Ron
Global Collateral Accounts... quote
Quote4.02 The 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement: Power Bloc Coup
At the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22, 1944. The agreement included the formation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and, most importantly, the proposed introduction of an adjustable pegged foreign exchange rate system.
Currencies were pegged to gold and the IMF was given the authority to intervene when an imbalance of payments arose.
The truth is that in 1944, Britain, France and United States were given a fifty-year term of Global Control over the global financial system. The Agreement was supposed to develop and modernize the planet, when in fact, Roosevelt was poisoned (assassinated) and then most of the world's gold was taken off-market, blacklisted or hidden in caves. This allowed the fascist coup to finalize their fiat currency system control over the world. The military-industrial complex, instead of developing the planet, would actually start controlling and stealing from the world.
http://neilkeenan.com/history-events-timeline/ (http://neilkeenan.com/history-events-timeline/)
Quote5.04 In 1963: Kennedy's Green Hilton Agreement with Sukarno
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy entered into an Agreement with President Sukarno to provide the funds to allow the United States Treasury to print its own currency, thus subverting the "right" to print the currency held by the Federal Reserve.
The Agreement would have transferred some 59,000 tons of gold to underpin this currency. The problem with this was that the US domestic currency would have then been backed by gold which would have been a violation of international agreements meant to stabilize currencies.
Kennedy, Sukarno and Johnson
Pictures don't lie. John Kennedy was emotionally high at this meeting, as was Sukarno, but unbeknownst to them, Vice President Johnson was a member of secret societies, the likes of which Kennedy had spoken against.
Neil's Pentagon sources advised him that Johnson was involved in the murder of JFK. The entire scenario was set up not only because of what Kennedy was doing in terms of ending the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with the new United States Treasury currency, but also with regards to the dismantling of the CIA. In addition it involved both Texaco and Standard Oil and their loss of income in West Papua.
In delivering all of the information that Johnson was getting from Kennedy and Sukarno in Washington D.C. to his cabal bosses, the Cabal managed to stop Kennedy from moving forward by assassinating him.
With their plans, the Cabal had to stop Kennedy because he wanted to take down the Illuminati et al and the Federal Reserve System. The daily reports to the Cabal from Lyndon Johnson in Jakarta, Indonesia, doomed Kennedy to his assassination.
For his painstaking efforts, a CIA coup saw Sukarno removed from presidency and replaced by General Suharto, who then imposed a lifetime of home imprisonment upon Sukarno.
(https://s4.postimg.org/f1ocid3bx/kennedy-soekarno-collateral-accounts-1.jpg)
Kennedy with Sukarno --- Kennedy was assassinated, Sukarno was deposed
(https://s4.postimg.org/yksxrq23h/suharto-bernard-1970.jpg)
Bernard, co founder of the Bilderberg, with CIA puppet Suharto
Ron
Theresa May rejects appeal from 9/11 survivors to release suppressed Saudi Arabia terror report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-saudi-arabia-report-911-survivors-reject-terrorism-latest-complicity-a7898816.html
The survivors described the UK response as 'shameful' [Shame is synonymous with the 9/11 five eyes + two proxies cooperation] :(
Theresa May has rejected an appeal from survivors of the 9/11 attacks to make public a suppressed report into the role of Saudi Arabia in funding Islamist extremism in the UK.
Earlier this summer, the British government announced it had decided not to publish the information, citing national security reasons and the "vast amount of personal information" it contained.
Among those calling for Ms May to make public the report, which was commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, was a US group of survivors of the 9/11 attacks and relatives of some of the almost 3,000 people who were killed.
"The UK now has the unique historic opportunity to stop the killing spree of Wahhabism-inspired terrorists by releasing the UK government's report on terrorism financing in the UK which, according to media reports, places Saudi Arabia at its centre of culpability," said the letter, signed by 15 people.
But the British government has rejected their request in a letter that the group has described as "shameful".
"[The] response did not convey that much would change in the future for one simple reason: the US and the UK continue to protect Saudi Arabia, allowing them to operate freely, with impunity, even supplying them with lethal weapons, as they go about their usual business of inspiring intolerance, committing genocide and human rights violations," said Sharon Premoli, who was on the 80th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Centre when the first Al-Qaeda plane hit.
Brett Eagleson, whose son John perished on the 17th floor of the South Tower, said the British government was withholding potentially crucial information.
"When the UK government had the opportunity to shed light on the funding of terrorism and had the opportunity to make real inroads on the global fight against terror, they have chosen to take the path of least resistance by putting the cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia before the safety of its owns citizens," he said. "It's a shameful day for democracy."
Ellen Sarancini, the widow of a pilot on United Airlines Flight 175 which was hijacked after taking off from Boston and flown into the South Tower, said the UK response was the latest in a series of rejections.
"For 15 years, we have been blocked by our own government who, along with the UK, continue to protect Saudi Arabia at the expense of their citizens," she said. "The UK report has the potential for ending terrorism by outing those at the centre of its funding but refuses to do so."
Although 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked New York and Washington were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the authorities in Riyadh have long denied having any official role in the attack. They have also rejected legal actions seeking compensations.
Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed in New York on behalf of the families of 850 individuals who were killed and 1,500 who were injured. It claims that Saudi supported Al-Qaeda in four critical ways – supporting government-linked charities that ran training camps, directly funding Osama Bin Laden's terror group, supporting the hijackers by providing them with passports and, finally, offering on-the-ground support to the hijackers in the 18 months leading up to the attacks.
Earlier this month, lawyers for Saudi Arabia filed a motion seeking to have the suit dismissed. The 75-page document concludes by saying: "Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss should be granted."
A number of historians have pointed out that Britain and the US have a long history of promoting and using Islamist extremists when it has suited their different needs. Mark Curtis, the historian and author of Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam, wrote recently that Saudi Arabia's role in promoting Wahhabism had been known for decades.
"The British elite is perfectly aware of the insidious role that Saudi Arabia plays in fomenting terrorism," he said.
Britain has previously moved to ensure strategic ties with Saudi Arabia are not damaged by covering up damaging information. In 2006, Tony Blair halted a major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and payments to Saudi officials involved in the Al-Yamamah arms deal.
The letter informing the 9/11 survivors that their request was being rejected was sent from the office of Home Office minister Baroness Williams.
It does not mention Saudi Arabia but said the report had concluded there are a "small number of organisations in the UK who receive support, including funding, from overseas".
It added: "I hope you will appreciate that the review report is classified because of the volume of personal information it contains but also for national security reasons."
The call for the report to be made public was supported by the Labour Party and Green Party Member of Parliament Caroline Lucas.
In addition to the 2,605 US citizens who were killed in the attacks, were victims from 61 countries. The second largest number were Britons, who totaled 67.
The One True Faith: Nuclear Weapons Are God's Gift to the United States of America, Alone
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-one-true-faith-nuclear-weapons-are-gods-gift-to-the-united-states-of-america-alone/5604508
"We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind. It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes." Harry Truman, August 9, 1945
Like obscene profits from great fraud or theft, "wonder weapons" of mass destruction, to which the atomic bomb certainly belongs, have their origins in the inability and unwillingness to accept the equality and dignity of one's opponents/ competitors (never mind whether one's cause/product is legitimate).
The ambivalence of the US position during WWII — the discrepancy which became apparent after 1945 between the stated and unstated policies — allowed and even promoted the mythic justification for US atomic bombing.
When I first moved to Germany more than thirty years ago, I was appalled at the insensitivity — to put it mildly — in US policy with the deployment of the Pershings. Placing new medium-ranged missiles in Germany at that time caused vocal opposition even among those whose anti-communist credentials (no virtue in my book, but for the "alliance" at least acceptable opposition) were undisputed. However, there was no evidence that anyone (in the US) was willing to grasp that the reply to Pershings would not be ICBMs but more probably Soviet medium-ranged delivery vehicles to Germany! The general US response was that Germany should appreciate the "protection" it was getting from the US. The fact that these missiles were a threat to Germany and the Soviet Union but not to the US was simply disregarded (as is the stationing of missiles on Russia's borders today.)
The US has the largest gratuitous war machine on the planet. Whatever its claims, as the only belligerent in the past century's two world wars not to suffer any destruction to its national territory (colonies aside), it can safely be said that it is the only country for whom war is exclusively business. As Smedley Butler said, war is a racket!
"Fire and Fury": Who should be feared more? Macduff or Macbeth?
The recent threats to Korea — addressed to the People's Democratic Republic of Korea — are ultimately "business" policies. That is why they are so difficult to challenge effectively. Mr Trump is not making statements which originate in any actual threat or the imperative of a response to such. He is driven by policy objectives that simply are not subject to open discussion let alone democratic process (like most business policy).
Bruce Cumings' detailed study, The Origins of the Korean War, upon which I have repeatedly drawn in previous attempts to explain US regime policy not only in Asia, shows just how difficult it is to ascertain the underlying policies and interests driving US regime behavior when the war against Korea began. One is forced to infer, interpolate, extract conclusions from information the coherence and relevance of which to public policy is never openly admitted. This leaves what little potential for public — democratic — intervention seriously inhibited.
It is of little help to arrive at the legitimate system level analysis and say that it is American capitalism — a particularly virulent strain of that ideology — which drives US belligerence. This does not tell anyone how to stop particular instances of egregious violence.
One point in all this is that the US policy of non-proliferation is so obviously one directed solely at those countries not utterly allied or subservient to it. (Here it is important that the US allies perceived as "white" are allowed to have atomic bombs and delivery vehicles.) But beyond that, the NPT was also an agreement to reduce and eliminate all atomic weapons — an objective with which the US regime has never materially complied — in fact, quite the opposite. Such threats against Korea — conventional bombing capacity notwithstanding — are clearly only possible because the policy of first strike and super atomic superiority (including the enormous profits this earns for those who run the industry) have never been seriously challenged, revised or abandoned.
There is no doubt, in fact, if not in rhetoric, that the US is led by some of the most spiteful people on the planet for whom gratuitous violence is not only foreign policy, but domestic and cultural obsession. "White rage" and its attendant "lynch justice" are firmly entrenched elements of American culture, not just among the elite. Here in Portugal almost every public venue has a television screen. A friend of mine has several cable channels running in his restaurant– mostly fueled with American product. Since I do not have a television and have not had one for almost thirty years I "miss a lot".
The TV/cable/cinema programming comprises entirely allusions to libertinism (music videos) or high tech mass violence (so-called crime drama and the endless supply of films and series with highly organised state violence, usually against people in the target countries of US policy). The worst we had when I was growing up was re-runs of WWII propaganda films, Aaron Spelling/Jack Webb Los Angeles police soaps and Hoover's FBI propaganda. Looking back that seems all incredibly harmless.
Who produces this stuff — with the enormous support from DOD et al?
As I just argued albeit tongue in cheek, the atomic power of the President is not as easy to measure as it seems. In fact, the President — whether Truman or Trump — executes policy but does not really make it. Today no serious scholar can deny that Truman's decision was prepared for his approval. In fact, everything was done to minimize the possibility that he would deny it. I believe we have to see Trump in the same capacity. Truman is formally responsible for the mass murder in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the law and Constitution assign that responsibility to him and because he lacked the moral fortitude to refuse mass murder, like many before him. But he did not create the weapon or order its creation nor did he start the war in which it was used.
Donald Trump has always had an inflammatory style — even when he was only a NY real estate mogul. That is nothing new. So now he is President his style is not going to change. There is something actually comical about Trump's appearances. Who remembers Reagan's off the cuff "joke" about bombing the Soviet Union?1 These are not accidents. They express the contempt which all Presidents ex officio have for the targets of their atomic bombs. Who now remembers anything George Bush said during their respective terms in office? Every US president has had his style of presenting the wantonly murderous capacity of the US war machine. This is also nothing new.
One has to ask two questions, one historical and the other contemporary. [two frames of reference]
Historically: It must be asked how and why under the Obama reign the largest increase in the US atomic arsenal since 1989 was performed? Mr Trump came into office with vastly more lethality because of actions taken over the previous eight years approved by his predecessor and the heiress apparent-pretender.
Contemporary: second question is really two. What and above all who is driving this policy? Who or what is their target?2
I believe that there are no countries besides the US and Israel (which are for all intents and purposes one country) that seriously contemplate first strikes with atomic weapons. I also believe that the few sane people in the policy-making venues of the US regime know this — just as George Kennan knew it when he wrote his mendacious "X" article and Dean Acheson knew it too. This leaves us with two simple non-exclusive explanations for the present situation.
Enhancing deniability and lethality
One — the atomic bomb system is a perpetual motion machine for those who own it like DuPont inter alia. There is simply too much money to be made to ever willingly stop producing these weapons that no sane person would ever employ at the strategic level. However, there has been, it would seem, enormous progress in miniaturisation of atomic weapons — including depleted uranium or enhanced radiation — opening the possibility to genuinely "micro-nuke" US competitors.
I am convinced this was already tested against China. The point is that deniable atomic attacks have been on the drawing board for at least twenty years. Hollywood not only propagates fantasy but illustrates the nascent agenda of the national security state. The US generally accuses others of doing what it is, in fact, doing (e.g. brainwashing and germ warfare). So we have been saturated with films and other stories about micronukes in various forms in the hands of criminals (the illegal half of the Business community). Everyone outside the US generally knows more about US policy than the American public and as Cumings indicated in his Korea research the PDRK knew and paid more careful attention to US policy before the US war against Korea started than any reputable people in the US itself. They were not surprised like the average American — who is hermetically isolated from unpleasant reality.
In short, Trump may simply be echoing what has been apparent in the boardrooms of the US regime for the past fifteen years:
We have approached the level of atomic weapons development where we can deliver atomic devastation in ways that only experts will be able to verify. We will be able to graduate the use of our most powerful weapons in such a way that no one will be able to justify retaliation and so this option will disappear.
This is, in fact, the continuation of the policy of limited war — which was so far successful because only those who actually fought, were wounded or died, have any testimony to the fact that the US has been at war without interruption since 1945. So there is first the huge business in atomic weapons which needs targets to justify its existence. Trump is just keeping the public aware of targets so that the business continues unabated.
On one hand there is the imperative to have atomic threats to justify atomic weapons. If the only threats to US "security" came from Serbia or Samoa, this would not be very convincing and it is part of the US system that virtual unanimity for policy must be manufactured. That is about the only way to maintain the appearance of a democracy — aside from annual introduction of a "new" formula of Coca Cola or more massive versions of the terminally mediocre Microsoft products.
On the other hand, the US business elite cannot afford all out war with anyone who has the capacity to defend themselves. (Aside from the fact that the US military is only capable of "winning" aggressive war against the defenseless, like Grenada or Panama.) Yet economic domination of the world has been the number one mission of US policy since 1945. Now China (where there are many US factories) and the alliance with Russia (which under Putin seems to have resisted the continuation of the Kissinger policy of playing China and Russia against each other) can actually challenge US dominion. So the strategic issue is again (!) how to control China but not lose the economic advantages of producing there at high profit to feed US consumers.
Two: Asymetric war — as the new jargon likes to call the GWOT — is not really about the US against little "rogue states" or "state aspirants". It is the US doctrine of "limited war" revised to include the new generation of micro-atomic weapons. The aim of asymetric war is to wage a tactically brutal assault against a US adversary/competitor which is apparently too small to allow a response that would a) threaten the US, in fact, or b) expose the US as the aggressor. Thus any response by the target would have to be (appear to the international public as) vastly disproportionate. Thus deterrence takes the old meaning from school days. The bully hits when no one is looking and knows that the counterblow comes just when the teacher is watching.
This is the kind of blackmail that all the films from Hollywood show — not because there are some "rogue criminal elements" waiting to act — but because this is the US policy for which the public has to be prepared. Just like they were prepared for the WTC destruction. Most people I know reacted the same as I did to the first images on TV — we thought this was a scene from one of those perennial Hollywood-NY disaster films.
(In fact, it was filmed by crews in place before the event so that all the work was done like Hollywood would have done it in the studio.) We have been watching US policy in preparation for the past twenty years. But for most people — including many from whom one would expect more sense — it was only decided in January of 2017.
Does this offer any options for ending the crisis? Not immediately. It does tell us, however, that Trump is not the crisis. Moreover his removal from office will not alter a policy he did not make. Even the obvious questions like "what about Mr Pence?" are not asked. If the crazies (i.e. those who believe that Trump must go at all costs) were actually to force the dismissal or resignation of Donald Trump, they would then have Mr Pence as President. The administration would not change at all. (Ronald Reagan actually covered the first Bush presidency. Although Alexander Haig may have thought he was president for a few hours– which says more about what actually happens in the White House than anything we read in the organs of the Business Party. The Bush dynasty began in 1980 and has more or less continued to this day.)
It's the Open Door that lets all the (F)lies in...
It should tell the sane, educated and those with some access to public opinion shaping institutions that the driving force of the atomic industry and those who finance it has grown enormously, not declined and that this industry, not the POTUS, is driving the war machine. So if there are any systemic interventions possible, they must be aimed at closing down the atomic bomb industry entirely. To do this it is necessary to honestly identify the people in that industry, its producing, financing, and beneficiary members natural and corporate. After 1945, certain corporations were dissolved in Germany on the premise that they were criminal conspiracies. Notwithstanding the deception and circumvention — this was public policy. That means there are precedents for dealing not only with natural criminals but with their corporate shells. In fact, the so-called RICO Act is US law. Imagine General Butler defined war as a "racket". Taking this literally all enterprises engaged in the war "industry" are "racketeers" in the meaning of the act...
It should also tell those same people that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way Asian policy is made and the policies themselves. Cumings' book Dominion from Sea to Sea comes very close to stating the problem in its historical essence and showing why it is almost impossible to counter US policy: namely, it enjoys a centuries old consensus among the elite and one manufactured for just about a century now for everyone else. There has been no change in the fundamentals driving it — of which most people are only subliminally aware. Nothing — even on the so-called Left — has been or is being done on a meaningful scale to revise the view of the United States of America as "god's gift to humanity". As long as the vast bulk of the US population (and certainly almost all "whites" who also think Jesus God is just like them — even if they do not believe in either) is convinced that they live in God's country, they can be forgiven for thinking like Harry Truman, that the atomic bomb was god's gift to them.
In all this lies one very serious core problem — the US is an empire and there are no empires which have voluntarily surrendered their claims to power and expansion.
If my assertion about the state of ordnance and doctrine is correct — and I have every reason to believe it is — then Korea is reacting to knowledge and awareness of this policy by extroverted means. China, on the other hand, is responding introvertedly. They see the difficulty of confronting this enhanced deniability. They also do not want to provide more fuel to inflame the US lynching party. And behind the scenes the instruments of covert power are supporting whatever business objectives may best be served by this enhanced bellicosity.
Of course, I write "it should tell the sane..." If by that one means those who publish the leading organs of official opinion and that which is "fit to print" if in support of same, then there is not much reason to expect a sane response. In these venues it is not the policy which is in dispute but the sociability among the factions. One cannot expect any efforts to reorganize and reorient leading opinion (the rest of opinion does not matter anyway).
So currently the only limitations on US policy and action will come from abroad in the form of challenges that the regime is unable to suppress or where they are unable to prevail. There are indications that China and Russia are, in fact, capable of sustaining such challenges. The US regime may be losing its international diplomacy campaign with Trump — which will probably be the only factor in a potential dismissal. He is obviously trying to counter that with obsequity toward the centres of bureaucratic power — the CIA and the Pentagon (and those who own these two bureaucracies).
It is apparent to anyone outside the US that the regime has no alternative to imperialism — it has cannibalised its entire economy to maintain its "open door" (if necessary by means of a solid kick with a "standard issue") empire. Even the US cannot live by marketing alone. It has been reduced more or less to its origins, a country ruled by traffickers in drugs, arms, contraband, bonded labour, and stolen goods — whose claim to trade is based on the imposition of the USD. Unfortunately this empire has simply more destructive power (and the nihilism to exercise it) than any previous empire of such longevity. So unless the US regime is disarmed by its population (now it seems pretty much the other way around), we will just have to watch the carnage continue. The Open Door will continue to let the flies in and there will be plenty of dead flesh upon which their larvae will feed.
Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). Read other articles by T.P.
Stuart Littlewood asks the perpetrator of the lie to substantiate the moral position:
Balfour's shameful legacy: UK government must say sorry and protect Christian churches in Palestine
http://www.redressonline.com/2017/08/balfours-shameful-legacy-uk-government-must-say-sorry-and-protect-christian-churches-in-palestine/
Open letter to a Secretary of State
To: Rt Hon David Mundell MP [pictured below], Secretary of State for Scotland
Dear Mr Mundell,
It was a pleasure meeting you at the Dumfries Agricultural Show. If you recall, we talked briefly about Mrs May's perverse plan to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration "with pride" and invite Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu to the jollifications.
The infamous declaration was a pledge contrived by Zionists inside and outside the British government. It was in effect a "promissory note" to the Zionist movement for their help in bringing the US into World War I; and it was made with utter disregard to the consequences for the majority Arab population in Palestine. Worse, it amounted to a betrayal of our Arab allies, cutting across an earlier promise for their help against the Turks. There was strong opposition in Parliament even from Lord Montague, the only Jew in the Cabinet. Lord Sydenham remarked: "What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend."
Well, we know now. And it's high time the wound was healed.
The Declaration by Balfour, a Zionist convert, needs to be read in parallel with "The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism", a joint statement by the heads of Palestinian Christian churches which rejects Christian Zionist doctrine as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States [they could have added the UK] that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine... We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war.
Justice groups are urging the British Government to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration in November by saying sorry instead of toasting the blunder in champagne. Mrs May could do some real good here. She could, at a stroke, help quell the destructive turmoil in the Middle East and begin repairing Britain's tattered image. She could even open new trade routes into Islamic markets, vitally important as we leave the European Union. By apologising on our behalf for 100 years of agony inflicted on a lovely people in a lovely part of the world, Mrs May could take a giant step for mankind on the world stage.
But no, she's pressing ahead with the revelry. And her principal guest, the ruthless Israeli prime minister, is on many a wanted list for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He's also under investigation in his own country for corruption. This is not just poor judgement on Mrs May's part, but insanely provocative when a UN report recently branded Israel an apartheid regime. It's even more regrettable considering the desperate cry for help a few weeks ago from the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine in an open letter to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement, signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. You can read this disturbing document here.
They issued a similar cry for help 10 years ago but the tyranny of the occupying forces has gone from very bad to much worse. Their latest message is frighteningly stark:
Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse. The current status quo is unsustainable. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land.
"The name of the game: Erasing Palestine" (Miko Peled)
I was encouraged to hear you say that you visited occupied Palestine independently rather than accept the usual propaganda tour organised by Conservative Friends of Israel (CFoI) and the Israeli government. Nevertheless, claims by the CFoI that 80 per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs are signed up members is alarming and puts us almost on a par with US Congress, which is controlled by the Israel lobby through AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). It is ludicrous that a foreign military power which has no respect for international law and rejects weapons conventions and safeguards can exert such influence on foreign policy in the US and UK. Pandering to Israel has been immensely costly in blood and treasure and damaging to our reputation.
Everyone outside the Westminster bubble knows perfectly well that there can be no peace in the Holy Land without justice. Everyone knows that international law and countless UN resolutions still wait to be enforced. Everyone knows that Israel won't comply unless sanctions are imposed. Everyone knows that the siege on Gaza won't be lifted until warships are sent.
Miko Peled, son of an Israeli general, former Israeli soldier and now a leading voice in the struggle for Palestinian freedom, tells us that "by 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible [and] the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank". What's more, everyone now knows that the US is not an honest broker and peace won't come from sham "negotiations" between the weak and the all-powerful. Everyone knows who is the real threat to peace in the Middle East. And everyone knows that Her Majesty's Government's hand-wringing and empty words serve no purpose except to prolong the daily misery and buy time for Israel to complete its criminal scheme to make the occupation permanent.
Mrs May praises Israel for being "a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance", when it is obviously neither. She says our two countries share "common values" when we obviously don't; and given the Israeli regime's incessant crimes against humanity and cruelty to the indigenous people it terrorises such a remark is insulting to anyone who lives by Christian values. She even claims that Israel is a country where people of all religions "are free and equal in the eyes of the law" and "Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish". This is arrant nonsense. The lady needs to tone down her misguided adoration of the rogue regime.
She also needs to call off attempts to criminalise the successful BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign calling it wrong and warning that her government will "have no truck with those who subscribe to it". Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone "the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
As the Secretary of State for Scotland, the senior central government figure hereabouts and a member of the Cabinet, you have the ear of the prime minister on heavyweight matters of state – such as this. I hope you'll allow me, please, to pursue the matter through your good self (keeping my MP Alister Jack informed). I do not wish to receive the usual proforma reply from the Foreign Office about the UK's adherence to the two-state solution – a futile position, as anyone paying attention to the situation has known for years. What I do hope for is reasons why HMG is still exporting weaponry to Israel when it is used against the Palestinians to maintain the illegal occupation, why no move is made to break the 10-year blockade of Gaza which has brought nearly two million citizens to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, why HMG keeps rewarding Israel for its other never-ending crimes, its contempt for international law, its disregard for the provisions of the UN Charter, and its continued breaches of the EU-Israel Agreement. And why Mrs May seeks to appeal against the recent court decision defending our right to boycott Israel. Does she not realise that HMG's inaction leaves civil society no choice but to resort to BDS?
In particular I'd like to know, please, Mrs May's reaction to the desperate plea from the Christian churches in the Holy Land, and I hope you'll bring to her notice that letter to the World Council of Churches if she hasn't already seen it. She wears her Christianity on her sleeve, is seen regularly attending church etc, but her faith credentials will be in question if she ignores the contents of the letter.
Whether the questions raised here are tiresomely ducked as usual or given the consideration they deserve, the story will find wide circulation. This request is therefore sent as an open letter.
sub·stan·ti·ate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantiate
1. To prove the truth of or support with proof or evidence: substantiate an accusation. See Synonyms at confirm.
2. To give substance to; make real or actual.
The American total solar eclipse has shifted perception in a moment, a new day has dawned.
The future becomes what you shape of it. Cooperation on secular moon base's and energy freedom should be every man's goal.
Perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Perception (from the Latin perceptio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment.[1]
All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which -in turn- result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system.[2] For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves.
Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.[3][4]
Perception can be split into two processes, [4] (1) processing the sensory input, which transforms these low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition), (2) processing which is connected with a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge) and selective mechanisms (attention) that influence perception.
Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness. [2]
Since the rise of experimental psychology in the 19th Century, psychology's understanding of perception has progressed by combining a variety of techniques. [3] Psychophysics quantitatively describes the relationships between the physical qualities of the sensory input and perception.[5] Sensory neuroscience studies the brain mechanisms underlying perception. Perceptual systems can also be studied computationally, in terms of the information they process. Perceptual issues in philosophy include the extent to which sensory qualities such as sound, smell or color exist in objective reality rather than in the mind of the perceiver.[3]
Although the senses were traditionally viewed as passive receptors, the study of illusions and ambiguous images has demonstrated that the brain's perceptual systems actively and pre-consciously attempt to make sense of their input.[3] There is still active debate about the extent to which perception is an active process of hypothesis testing, analogous to science, or whether realistic sensory information is rich enough to make this process unnecessary.[3]
The perceptual systems of the brain enable individuals to see the world around them as stable, even though the sensory information is typically incomplete and rapidly varying. Human and animal brains are structured in a modular way, with different areas processing different kinds of sensory information. Some of these modules take the form of sensory maps, mapping some aspect of the world across part of the brain's surface. These different modules are interconnected and influence each other. For instance, taste is strongly influenced by smell.[6]
Secularity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity
Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years[2]) is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion. Historically, the word "secular" was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavor.[2] The idea of a dichotomy between religion and the secular originated in the 18th century European Enlightenment.[3] Furthermore, since "religion" and "secular" are both Western concepts that were formed under the influence of Christian theology, other cultures do not necessarily have words or concepts that resemble or are equivalent to them.[3][4] In many cultures, little conceptual or practical distinction is made between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena and the very notions of "religious" and "nonreligious" dissolve into unimportance or nonexistence, especially since people have beliefs in other supernatural or spiritual things irrespective of belief in gods.[4]
One can regard eating and bathing as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, some religious traditions see both eating and bathing as sacraments, therefore making them religious activities within those world views. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities.
The "secular" is experienced in diverse ways ranging from separation of religion and state to being anti-religion or even pro-religion, depending on the culture.[5] For example, the United States has both separation of church and state and pro-religiosity in various forms such as protection of religious freedoms; France has separation of church and state (and Revolutionary France was strongly anti-religious); the Soviet Union was anti-religion; in India, people feel comfortable identifying as secular while participating in religion; and in Japan, since the concept of "religion" is not indigenous to Japan, people state they have no religion while doing what appears to be religion to Western eyes.[5]
A related term, secularism, involves the principle that government institutions and their representatives should remain separate from religious institutions, their beliefs, and their dignitaries. Many businesses and corporations, and some governments operate on secular lines. This stands in contrast to theocracy, government with deity as its highest authority.
Interesting times, with the ramming of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S McCain. Things are hotting up.
On further research the video I had suggested is too questionable to leave up.
Ron
The Saudi-Israeli Alliance
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/19/saudi-israeli-alliance.html
by Eric Zeusse
Two of the U.S. government's supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the 'news'media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel.
Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist-Sunni dictatorship in which the royal Saud family actually own the country including its oil company, which is the world's largest, and in which country the nation's center of its Shia population is bombed to smithereens if and when that ruling family's appointed king gets the whim to do so, which he recently did — but the U.S. press didn't even report it, because 'Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States.'
Israel is the apartheid regime of official Jews against official Palestinians (non-Jewish native Arabs in that land), and it's ruled on behalf of U.S. and American billionaires, some of whom aren't even Jewish themselves but merely far-rightwing American billionaires (some of whom call themselves liberals, even while they support their own selective type of racism). Those billionaires (regardless of their religion) own the 'news'media and most of the successful politicians, not only in Israel, but also in America. Some of them have dual citizenships, they're citizens simultaneously in both countries — something that shouldn't even be allowed, anywhere, because it means, by definition, split loyalties, which makes any such person an alien agent; and any refusal by such a person to cancel the other citizenship ought to be taken to constitute a hostile act. Every nation has legitimate national-security concerns — especially when a dual citizen is a billionaire and consequently far more powerful than a mere regular citizen is: the billionaire can buy favorable press-coverage for any political agent he chooses.
The Saud family and the Israeli government are deep allies of one-another, especially because both of them aim to conquer or destroy the Shia nation of Iran and Shia Muslims in general, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
The alliance between the Saud family and the Israeli government has an enormous impact shaping U.S. foreign policies toward Iran and toward any ally of Iran such as Syria, and even toward allies of allies of Iran, such as Russia (which is allied with Syria). Also affected, but to a lesser extent, are U.S. policies regarding allies and enemies of the countries that are within the circle of those nations of first concern; for example, Pakistan is very tightly allied with Saudi Arabia, while in the neighboring and increasingly fundamentalist-Hindu nation India, «educated, well off/cultured Hindus are falling easy victims to Islamophobia», and, as a result, «civil war for a Muslim-free India» is drawing closer, so that, even if today's tensions between Pakistan and India don't produce a war between those two, India could become more favorable toward Shiite Iran, because most of India's Muslims are Sunnis and thus are favorably inclined toward Saud-allied Pakistan, where the relatively few (Pew estimates at only 6% of Pakistan's Muslims are) Shiites have commonly complained of persecution that's by, or permitted by, the government. Thus, the internal Muslim, Sunni-v-Shiite, competition, has intensified not only Russia-v-U.S. tensions, but also India-v-Pakistan tensions. And, so, when the nation of Saudi Arabia was created in 1744 by an eternal pact between the Saud family and the Wahhab clergy to eliminate Shia Islam, that aggressive intent exists today, and is now clearly being spread even outside the Islamic world, and so it affects big-power relations, especially between U.S. and Russia.
Both the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli aristocracy who control Israel's government, are obsessive in their shared hatred of Iran. (The origins and reasons behind those hatreds are vastly different in Israel than in the Saud family, but the hatreds have the same target: Shia. This shared obsession is sufficient in order to unite them.)
The Saud family have one essential tool to control the U.S. federal government, and it's their ally Israel's government, which controls the U.S. government to do everything possible to weaken if not obliterate Iran. Whereas European nations aren't rabidly anti-Iranian, the U.S. government is, and one big reason for that is Israel's control over the U.S. Congress, and over most of America's 'news'media.
The control of the U.S. government that's exercised by Israel's government has been amply demonstrated in many ways:
In 1967, Israel unprovokedly attacked the USS Liberty, slaughtering 34 of our sailors and injuring 172 others; here, with my emphasized parts highlighted in boldface, is an excerpt from the long-suppressed official investigation into it:
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2004/10/11/CREC-2004-10-11-pt1-PgE1886-3.pdf
FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ''LIBERTY''
1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against the USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 172 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294);
2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty's bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;
3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;
4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;
5. That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;
6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;
7. That although the Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship's Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with ''court-martial, imprisonment or worse'' if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;
8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;
9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;
10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.
——
On 30 September 2016, I headlined «Why Does U.S. Gov't. Donate $38B to an Enemy Nation?» and provided my answer to that title-question. But, regardless, the fact is that the U.S. government's subservience to the government of Israel is recognized by some Americans, and it's acceptable to most Americans, since there is no well-funded organized movement in the U.S. to oust from Congress all of the Senators and Representatives who have voted for the continuation of America's formerly $3 billion-per-year and now $3.8 billion-per-year annual donation to that apartheid enemy nation.
On 15 August 2017, Philip Giraldi at unz dot com, headlined «Israel's Chorus Sings Again: Less than total loyalty to Israel is un-American», and he opened:
Congress is on a one-month summer recess. You would think that given the recent turmoil over the bill to eliminate Obamacare and the upcoming debate over tax policy the nation's legislators would be back in their home districts talking to the voters. Some are, but many are not. «More than fifty» Congressmen are off on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to demonstrate that «there is no stronger bond with any ally we have.» Yes indeed, a congress which cannot pass legislation to benefit the American people finds that it has only one voice when it comes to our troublesome little client state that also doubles as the leading recipient of U.S. tax dollars in the world.
How do they do it? They do it by relentless courting of the congress critters and media talking heads, all of whom know how to repay a favor. Some readers might be asking how Congress (spouses included) can accept these free trips from a foreign government? The current trip is estimated to be costing $10,000 per person. Well, the answer is that they can't do it directly, which would be illegal, so the clever rascals at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have created an «charitable» foundation that pays the bills. It's called the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF is a tax exempt 501(c)3 foundation that had income of more than $80 million in 2015. As it is tax exempt that means that its activities are, in effect, being subsidized by the U.S. Treasury so the congressmen are being «charitably educated» while they are also being wined and dined and propagandized in part on the taxpayers' dime.
If this were instead a Saud-run working vacation for members of the U.S. Congress, it would be far more repulsive to America's voters than it is when Israel's government does this. Whereas America's old right, like the KKK, have knee-jerk hatred of Jews, America's new right, like Southern Baptists and the rest of America's fundamentalist Christians, support Israel because 'God gave it to the Jews'. Plus, most Jews are likewise knee-jerk supporters of Israel's government against Palestinians. And, most liberals also have been that, because Jews generally are voters for Democratic Party candidates. Thus, a huge solid political base exists in the U.S. for continuation of the U.S. government's donations to, and alliance with, the government of Israel, notwithstanding Israel's slaughter of America's sailors on the USS Liberty, and the treason of Israel's spy in America Jonathan Pollard, and any other warring by Israel against the U.S. But it doesn't exist for continuation of the U.S. government's alliance with the Sauds. The Saud family is the wealthiest on the planet. They can afford to pay — in favors if not in cash — for Israel's government to carry their PR water in Washington DC. Thus: Israel does the lobbying and PR work for the foreign policies of the Saud family, in Washington, and the Palestinians obtain an outsized proportion of their Muslim support from Shia Muslims instead of from Sunni Muslims.
Back on 21 August 2012, the New York Times headlined «Skinny-Dipping in Israel Casts Unwanted Spotlight on Congressional Travel». Little has changed, except that a Republican is the President now, and a Democrat was the President then. In foreign policies, the U.S. President does whatever the U.S. and Israeli billionaires allow him to do, and that doesn't change much over the decades — say, ever since 1967, at least. Americans are sympathetic to the apartheid racist nation of Israel, but not to the outright dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. So: the excuses to overthrow Iran's government are in line with Israel's stated fears against Iran but not with the Sauds' stated fears against Iran. Israel's government is thus the front-man in the operation.
On the Sauds' side of this Israel-Saud control of the U.S. government, that control is practiced almost entirely behind-the-scenes. But it's just as real. Their attacks against the United States included the ones on 9/11, which however relied heavily upon inside participation by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as by a few others in the U.S. government at the time — but the U.S. government has consistently blocked this information from reaching the U.S. public. The Sauds control the foreign policies of the United States government even more than does the government of Israel, and much more quietly, because the Sauds have virtually unlimited wealth at their disposal.
The coup de gras of all this, is that Iran — the nation that the U.S. aristocracy raped in 1953 and that both the Sauds and Israel want to destroy — is the nation (and the only nation) that in U.S. courts has been blamed for having been behind the 9/11 attacks and has been fined $10.5 billion to restitute victims of the 9/11 attacks, which Iran wasn't at all involved with and which was a 100% Sunni operation (but with inside help from a few American insiders — none of them Shia).
These things might seem impossible, at least in the view of almost all Americans, whose 'news' that we read, see, and hear, doesn't include much, if any, of these facts. But they're not just true, they're easy to explain, once one recognizes that the U.S. isn't a democracy but a dictatorship. And, of course, being a dictatorship, our press doesn't report to the public such facts, as that the Sauds (in conjunction with U.S. insiders) did the 9/11 attacks, and that in 1967, Israel intentionally targeted and attacked the USS Liberty and almost succeeded at sinking it, and that all of this has been covered-up by the U.S. President at the time, and by all subsequent U.S. Administrations. Facts such as these, indicate what type of bipartisan dictatorship this country really is, which is the sort of information that such a dictatorship would most prohibit its public from knowing — much less, from understanding. But it's all documented, right here, in the links, and in the links within the links, in this article. And that's just some of the evidence for it. (There is much more.)
Trump Damaged Democracy, Silicon Valley Will Finish It Off
Donald Trump's rise is, in a sense, just one symptom of the damage the tech oligarchs are doing to America.
JOEL KOTKIN
08.27.17 12:00 AM ET
When Democrats made their post-election populist "Better Deal" pitch, they took a strong stance against pharmaceutical and financial monopolies. But they conspicuously left out the most profound antitrust challenge of our time—the tech oligarchy.
The information sector, notes The Economist, is now the most consolidated sector of the American economy.
The Silicon Valley and its Puget Sound annex dominated by Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft increasingly resemble the pre-gas crisis Detroit of the Big Three. Tech's Big Five all enjoy overwhelming market shares—for example Google controls upwards of 80 percent of global search—and the capital to either acquire or crush any newcomers. They are bringing us a hardly gilded age of prosperity but depressed competition, economic stagnation, and, increasingly, a chilling desire to control the national conversation.
Jeff Bezos harrumphs through his chosen megaphone, The Washington Post, about how "democracy dies in the dark." But if Bezos—the world's third richest man, who used the Post first to undermine Bernie Sanders and then to wage ceaseless war on the admittedly heinous Donald Trump—really wants to identify the biggest long-term threat to individual and community autonomy, he should turn on the lights and look in the mirror.
Trump's election and volatile presidency may pose a more immediate menace, but when he is gone, or neutered by lack of support, the oligarchs' damage to our democracy and culture will continue to metastasize.
continued at:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-damaged-democracy-silicon-valley-will-finish-it-off (http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-damaged-democracy-silicon-valley-will-finish-it-off)
There's a Reason Why Washington and London Won't Quit the Business of Killing
https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/there-s-a-reason-why-washington-and-london-won-t-quit-the-business-of-killing/
Vladimir Odintsov
On August 23, a coalition of Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, carried yet another barbaric bombardment in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a, which resulted in the death of at least 35 people.
On July 18, at least 20 civilians fell victims of a Saudi air strike in the Yemeni Taiz Governorate, as it's been reported by the Daily Mail with a special reference to the United Nations.
Since the beginning of the civil war in Yemen in 2014, more than 10,000 civilians perished in the poorest country of the Arabian Peninsula, while another 3 million were displaced. In March 2015, Saudi Arabia unleashed an armed aggression against this state without any sort of approval from the UN, but with an extensive amount of military and political support coming from the United States and Britain. Such acts of aggression have for a long time been a trademark of Washington, but now it's allies seem to be willing to follow in its footsteps. The Saudi coalition carries on air strikes against targets of the Houthis resistance to this very day, which results in massive civilian casualties, with hundreds of victims being added regularly to the rising death toll.
As a result of continuous attacks carried out by Saudi armed forces schools, hospitals and other vital civil infrastructure are being routinely reduced to the ground, while electricity and drinking water supplies are getting increasingly scarce even in large cities. With the silent approval of Washington and London, the Saudi coalition is taking every effort to make sure that no Yemeni national survives this conflict, using the tactics that can only be described as genocidal.
And the list of war crimes committed by the Saudi coalition is getting large by the day largely due to the ever-growing flow of various weapons sold to Riyadh by the United States, Britain and other Western powers. Today, the British and American arms manufactures receive fabulous profits from their indirect participation in the Yemeni military campaign.
Saudi Arabia alone in recent years received over a hundred billion worth of arms from American military manufacturers, while Donald Trump pledged to carry on the business tactics pursued by his predecessors by signing a deal on the shipment of another 110 billion worth of arms to Riaydh.
The latest annual report issued by the British Committee for Defense and Security shows that in 2016 alone the UK received 6 billion pounds from the sale of arms, with a half of this some coming from to the Middle East, where violent conflicts are raging. For more than 10 consecutive years the UK remains the second largest arms supplier in the world after the United States.
At the same time, London keeps training pilots for the Saudi Air Force, the very people that would bomb Yemeni residential areas. The British Supreme Court, which usually defends "human rights", did not even want to consider the formal appealissued by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), which had previously urged the kingdom to put an end to the supply of military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
In turn, Amnesty International would accuse the United States and Britain for handing over weapons to Saudi Arabia for it to be able to carry on its aggression against Yemen since March 2015, delivering more than five billion dollars worth of weapons.
The fact that for London any armed conflict is perfect opportunity to sell its weapons is vividly confirmed by the recently declassified documents of the National Archives of the United Kingdom showing, in particular, that the British government considered Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 to be an "unprecedented opportunity" to obtain super profits from the sale of weapons to the countries of the Persian Gulf . Back in the day UK's Minister for Defence Procurement, Alan Clarke would use exact same words in his letter to British PM of the time Margaret Thatcher, noting that this was an unprecedented opportunity for DESO (the Department of Defense Export Administration)."
As declassified documents show, "an unprecedented opportunity" for Clark was the expected response of the US and its allies to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the outbreak of military conflict in the region. The fact that wars have always been considered as a chance to sell more arms to other states has recently been confirmed by The Guardian.
Mind you that last May former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the US invasion of Iraq launched in 2003 had nothing in common with establishing democracy in this country, the goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a pro-Washington regime in this country . This invasion would then result in a civil war that gave birth to ISIS.
Of the other declassified documents of 1983, it follows that Britain had not interest in stopping Iraqi production of chemical weapons, since British exporters were involved in this trade, according to the documents of the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
So, if for residents of the Middle East wars means death, poverty and grief, Washington and London believe that wars is a perfect opportunity to get even richer at the expense of somebody else's blood!
Theocracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:
1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King.[2][3]
An ecclesiocracy is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation: for example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two 'arms'—administrators and clergy—but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Theocracy differs from theonomy, the latter of which is government based on divine law.[4]
The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the Pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.
Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.
Most forms of theocracy are oligarchic in nature, involving rule of the many by the few, some of whom so anointed under claim of divine commission.
Etymology
The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule." Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. The government of the Jews, however, was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity, ordained by Moses, in which God is sovereign and his word is law.[5]
Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the Enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic[clarification needed] and negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.
Synopsis
In some religions, the ruler, usually a king, was regarded as the chosen favorite of God (or gods) who could not be questioned, sometimes even being the descendant of, or a god in their own right. Today, there is also a form of government where clerics have the power and the supreme leader could not be questioned in action. From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[6] hence the term theocracy, from the Koine Greek θεοκρατία "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[7] Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.[8]
In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the civilization's religion or belief. For example, Moses led the Israelites, and Muhammadled the early Muslims. There is a fine line between the tendency of appointing religious characters to run the state and having a religious-based government. According to the Holy Books, Prophet Joseph was offered an essential governmental role just because he was trustworthy, wise and knowledgeable (Quran 12: 54–55). As a result of the Prophet Joseph's knowledge and also due to his ethical and genuine efforts during a critical economic situation, the whole nation was rescued from a seven-year drought (Quran 12: 47–48). When religions have a "holy book," it is used as a direct message from God. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. As to the Prophet Muhammad ruling, "The first thirteen of the Prophet's twenty-three year career went on totally apolitical and non-violent. This attitude partly changed only after he had to flee from Mecca to Medina.This hijra, or migration, would be a turning point in the Prophet's mission and would mark the very beginning of the Muslim calendar. Yet, interestingly, the Prophet did not establish a theocracy in Medina. Instead of a polity defined solely by Islam, he founded a territorial polity based on religious pluralism. This is evident in a document called the 'Charter of Medina', which the Prophet signed with the leaders of the other community in the city."[9] According to the Quran, Prophets were not after power or material resources. For example in surah 26 verses (109, 127, 145, 164, 180), the Koran repeatedly quotes from Prophets, Noah, Hud, Salih, Lut, and Shu'aib that: " I do not ask you for it any payment; my payment is only from the Lord of the worlds." While, in theocracy many aspects of the holy book are overshadowed by material powers. Due to be considered divine, the regime entitles itself to interpret verses to its own benefit and abuse them out of the context for its political aims. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two 'arms'—administrators and clergy—but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.
Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.
Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". In the most common usage of the term, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as patron and defender of the official Church); the government proclaims it rules on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine Empire however was not theocratic since the patriarch answered to the emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income.
Secular governments can also co-exist with a state religion or delegate some aspects of civil law to religious communities. For example, in Israel marriage is governed by officially recognized religious bodies who each provide marriage services for their respected adherents, yet no form of civil marriage (free of religion, for atheists, for example) exists nor marriage by non-recognized minority religions.
Journalist Interrogated, Fired For Story Linking CIA And Syria Weapons Flights
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/journalist-interrogated-fired-story-linking-cia-and-syria-weapons-flights
Report: Saudi, UAE weapons end up with armed groups
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/saudi-arabia-uae-implicated-arms-transfers-170827115154085.html
Investigative journalist says Azerbaijan-owned carrier used to move large quantities of heavy weapons to conflict zones.
An investigative report by a Bulgarian journalist says Saudi Arabia and the UAE have supplied Eastern European-made weapons to armed groups inSyria and Iraq using different intermediaries and diplomatic cover to mask their points of origin and final destinations.
The report, authored by Dilyana Gaytandzhiev, claims Saudi Arabia, UAE, the US military and several countries have used Azerbaijani state-owned airlines Silk Way Airlines to transport large quantities of weapons that ended up in the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, known as ISIS) group, Kurdish fighters in the Middle East and armed groups in Africa.
"At least 350 diplomatic Silk Way Airlines flights transported weapons for war conflicts across the world over the last 3 years," says the report, published in Trud, Bulgaria's largest circulated newspaper.
"The state aircrafts of Azerbaijan carried on-board tens of tons of heavy weapons and ammunition headed to terrorists under the cover of diplomatic flights."
According to the report, "Saudi Arabia has purchased huge quantities of Eastern European weapons and exported them using Silk Way Airline's diplomatic flights.
"In 2016, 2017 there were 23 diplomatic flights carrying weapons from Bulgaria, Serbia and Azerbaijan to Jeddah and Riyadh".
Diplomatic flights
Gaytandzhiev says in the report: "The Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] does not buy those weapons for itself, as the Saudi army uses only Western weapons and those weapons are not compatible with its military standard.
"Therefore, the weapons transported on diplomatic flights end up in the hands of terrorist militants in Syria and Yemen that Saudi Arabia officially admits supporting."
Citing leaked documents that detail flight paths and weapons cargo of the diplomatic flights, the report shows one aircraft loaded with mortars and anti-tank grenades including SPG-9 and GP-25 which were later discovered by the Iraqi army a month ago in an ISIL warehouse in Mosul.
Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the claims made in Gaytandzhiev's report.
The US news outlet Buzzfeed published an investigation in 2016 detailing how obscure and small American defence contractors were awarded big contracts by the US military to arm and equip Syrian opposition fighters using Eastern European weapons.
Saudi Arabia has publicly expressed its support for Syrian fighters trying to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Multiple attempts by Al Jazeera by phone and email to reach Silk Way Airlines in Baku for a reaction to the Trud story proved unsuccessful.
Gaytandzhiev said on Thursday in a tweet that she was fired from her job at Trud after she was interrogated by the Bulgarian national security which tried to find out her sources.
She said she first got suspicious of the weapons transferred to Syria when she found Bulgarian-made weapons at the hands "terrorists" in Aleppo while reporting on the Syrian war there.
She said that she then traced those weapons to its Bulgarian manufacturer only to find out that those weapons were legally exported to Saudi Arabia, which in turn supplied it to "terrorists" in Syria.
'Hands of terrorists'
Speaking to Al Jazeera by phone on Sunday from Bulgaria, Gaytandzhiev said: "Saudi Arabia, UAE and the US must stop using the cover of Silk Way Airlines diplomatic flights to supply Eastern European weapons which end up in the hands of terrorists around the world. Diplomatic flights are exempt from checks and inspection."
A joint investigation by Al Jazeera and the New York Times revealed a joint CIA-Saudi operation that supplied weapons to Syrian fighters by shipping through Jordan.
Many of the weapons, the investigation revealed, were stolen by Jordanian officers of the General Intelligence Department.
Some of the stolen weapons were used in a shooting in November of 2016 that killed two Americans and three others at a police training facility in Amman.
Historically, the United States has relied on Saudi Arabia to clandestinely finance weapons shipment to armed groups around the world from the Nicaraguan Sandinistas to Afghan Mujahideen in the 1970s and '80s to more recent and current Syrian and Iraqi fighters.
An interesting perspective on Russia and The West, particularly since
World Developments following 9/11. We can only hope that America
will somehow break free as well:
Russia gains independence from Babylon
Aug 29, 2017
Russia's President Putin has succeeded in freeing Russia from
Rothschild slavery to the international banking system.
In June last year President Putin banned Jacob Rothschild and
his New World Order banking cartel family from entering Russian
territory "under any circumstances," and now, just over one year
later, Putin has declared "total independence" from the global
banking cartel and Rothschild international money lending
organizations.
Declaring the achievement the "greatest gift" that can be given
to future generations, Putin hosted a party in the Kremlin to
celebrate the achievement.
"They said we couldn't do it, they said we would be destroyed,"
Putin told staff and senior associates. "Our future generations
will be born without Rothschild chains around their wrists and ankles."
"This is the greatest gift we can give them."
Link to Web Page Article (https://politicalvelcraft.org/2017/08/27/putin-declares-total-independence-from-rothschild-nwo-banking-cabal-which-began-in-2006/)
This is why Putin has been condemned by the Fakestream Media,
and it is why Russia is considered an "enemy" of the USA. He is
really an enemy to what we know as Mystery Babylon, but our
political leaders consider Babylon to be the USA. After all, Babylon
conquered this country in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was
passed, bringing us into one of the final stages of beast captivity.
Most people do not understand Bible prophecy, so they are largely
unaware of what is really going on in the world today, and they are
susceptible to the lies from the Department of Propaganda. I believe
that Russia and China are the modern "kings from the east"
mentioned in Revelation 16:12, who are setting the stage for the
overthrow of Mystery Babylon. (The original "kings" were Cyrus of
Persia and Darius the Mede, who overthrew the original Babylon.)
Iran is ancient Persia, so as an ally of both Russia and China, Iran
too is playing a role in the overthrow of Babylon.
That is why western Babylonian governments consider Iran to be an enemy.
I also believe that the last few months of 2017 will be crucial in the
overthrow of Mystery Babylon, and that this will continue into 2018.
Many changes are about to occur, but if you know and believe the
promises of God and the divine plan revealed in prophecy, then
you will have the strength to stand in the face of chaos.
Link to above article (https://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2017/08-2017/russia-gains-independence-from-babylon/)
This from a blog I published a few days ago at 911blogger.com:
Today, August 24, marks the one-year anniversary of the publication of a widely-read paper in the EuroPhysicsNews journal.
"15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses," by Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter.
Europhysics News states the following:
"Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. It is distributed to all our Individual Members and many institutional subscribers. Most European national societies receive EPN for further distribution. The total circulation is currently about 25000 copies per issue."
Let's see how our paper is doing. First click on the following link:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Then off to the right, click on "Show Article Metrics."
As of 22 August 2017, there were 591,685 views/reads of the article (not counting the 25,000 in the paper-version circulation of the journal). I'm quite sure that by 9/11/2017, there will be over 600,000 reads/views of the article at the Europhysicsnews website alone.
You may look at other papers in this journal of the European Physical Society - in my checking, none comes close to this number of views/downloads. Using counting data available from the journal website, the second most widely read paper has had 6,801 views since it was published in 2003, fourteen years ago.
Note that this site allows anyone to download the PDF version of the paper, then it can be re-posted over and over. So it is difficult to evaluate precisely how many people have viewed the paper at various locations. The count at the EurophysicsNews site thus suggests a minimum count. For instance, I have re-posted the paper at my research website at ResearchGate where it has been read a number of times.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/15-Years-Later-On-the-Physics-of-High-Rise-Building-Collapses
If any reader knows of other sites where our EurophysicsNews paper is available or cited, please let the community know in comments below.
Another metric for the paper is the most reads in the last 7 days. Go to
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/ then click on "most read articles." In the last 7 days for example – our paper shows 2301 reads, while the next most-read paper has only 83 views in the past 7 days. We see that our 9/11 paper is still being widely read, even though it has been available for twelve months.
Ted Walter recently called to my attention to another relevant 9-11 paper appeared on a NIST/government site earlier this year,
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
This paper is based on a talk I gave at the University of California at Berkeley on November 7, 2006, thus before our discovery of nano-thermite.
Evidently this paper was uploaded at the NIST site on May 9, 2017. Why it was uploaded at the NIST site last May is not known. The paper challenges a number of conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings made by NIST, as does our EurophysicsNews paper.
The US Military Project For the World
n the first part of this article, I pointed out the fact that currently, President Bashar al-Assad is the only personality who has adapted to the new "grand US strategy" – all the others continue to think as if the present conflicts were simply a continuation of those we have been experiencing since the end of the Second World War. They persist in interpreting these events as tentative by the United States to hog natural resources for themselves by organising the overthrow of the pertinent governments.
As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they are wrong, and that their error could hasten humanity down the road to hell.
US strategic thought
For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.
Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of terrorising populations by dealing them a horrifying blow to the head (Shock and awe) [1]. This was the idea behind the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of Baghdad with a storm of cruise missiles.
The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [2].
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the treatment and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day be able to indicate the best tactics instantaneously [3]. As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.
US neo-imperialist thought
These ideas and fantasies first of all led President Bush and the Navy to organise the world's most wide-ranging network for international kidnapping and torture, which created 80,000 victims. Then President Obama set up an assassination programme mainly using drones, but also commandos, which operates in 80 countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 billion dollars [4].
As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski's assistant, Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous conferences at the Pentagon and in military academies in order to announce the shape of the new map of the world according to the Pentagon [5]. This project was made possible by the structural reforms of US armies – these reforms are the source of this new vision of the world. At first, it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too quickly considered it as one more piece of rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.
Barnett declared that in order to maintain their hegemony over the world, the United States would have to "settle for less", in other words, to divide the world in two. On one side, the stable states (the members of the G8 and their allies), on the other, the rest of the world, considered only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. Contrary to his predecessors, Barnett no longer considered access to these resources as vital for Washington, but claimed that they would only be accessible to the stable states by transit via the services of the US army. From now on, it was necessary to systematically destroy all state structures in the reservoir of resources, so that one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will of Washington, nor deal directly with the stable states.
During his State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Carter announced his doctrine – Washington considered that the supply of its economy with oil from the Gulf was a question of national security [6]. Following that, the Pentagon created CentCom in order to control the region. But today, Washington takes less oil from Iraq and Libya than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn't care !
Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would therefore be necessary to destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different laws [7]. This is what Condolezza Rice said during the first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon, when Israel still seemed victorious –
"I do not see the point of diplomacy if it's purpose is to return to the status quo ante between Israel and Lebanon. I think that would be a mistake. What we are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the contractions of the birth of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we are pushing towards the new Middle East and that we are not returning to the old".
On the contrary, for Barnett, not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not attained a certain standard of life – and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there.
In fact, the influence of the Straussians has diminished at the Pentagon since the death of Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the "pivot to Asia" [8].
One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that war should not be waged against specific states for political reason, but against regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır), and Afghanistan.
This is why Barnett's neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, the "war of civilisations" [9]. Since it is impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.
JPEG - 37.9 kb
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett's power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.
The implementation of US neo-imperialism
This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on a daily basis, the living conditions of the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of the Afghan people, but on the contrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is today the cause of the problem. Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid, these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.
Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to be true – neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein's support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once has the overthrow of a government ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without interruption, no matter who is in power.
The "Arab Springs", which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the "Arab Revolt of 1916" and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US strategy. Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory of NATO. Syria is an exception, because the state never fell into the hanads of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control – parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without schools or hospitals.
It is probable that, thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies' plans for them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin America. The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it are very different.
The limits of US neo-imperialism
The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states from going to them for natural resources without the protection of the US armies.
Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". It admitted that it had committed collateral massacres in order to extend its domination. From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its authority – definitively.
US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow their overseas interests to be "protected" by US armies. That should pose no problem with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.
Recalling its "special relationship" with Washington, London has already asked to be associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May's visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [10].
Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the "Silk Roads" as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-military-project-for-the-world/5606607 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-military-project-for-the-world/5606607)
A few links for those that wish to expand their knowledge of the history and influence of the Abrahamic religious triumvirate in the lands that were to become the birthplace of the British Empire.
Catholic Church in England and Wales
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales
History of the Jews in England
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England
Islam in the United Kingdom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom
Most of us have heard JFK's wise words:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"
What does it mean ? Let us define it:
Protest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest
A protest (also called a remonstrance, remonstration or demonstration) is an expression of bearing witness on behalf of an express cause by words or actions with regard to particular events, policies or situations. Protests can take many different forms, from individual statements to mass demonstrations. Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly making their opinions heard in an attempt to influencepublic opinion or government policy, or they may undertake direct action in an attempt to directly enact desired changes themselves.[2] Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest and may be better described as cases of civil resistance or nonviolent resistance.[3]
Various forms of self-expression and protest are sometimes restricted bygovernmental policy (such as the requirement of protest permits),[4] economic circumstances, religious orthodoxy, social structures, or media monopoly. One state reaction to protests is the use of riot police. Observers have noted an increased militarization of protest policing, with police deploying armored vehicles and snipers against the protesters. When such restrictions occur, protests may assume the form of open civil disobedience, more subtle forms of resistance against the restrictions, or may spill over into other areas such as culture and emigration.
A protest itself may at times be the subject of a counter-protest. In such a case, counter-protesters demonstrate their support for the person, policy, action, etc. that is the subject of the original protest. In some cases, these protesters can violently clash.
When peaceful protest fails history teaches us that guerrilla warfare eventually follows. This is the situation that I attempt to prevent, let's talk about it now and have the conversation publicly, that the deep state attempts to decry.
Guerrilla warfare
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.
Antifa has failed the mission and been recognised for what they are:
FBI, DHS Officially Classify Antifa Activities As "Domestic Terrorist Violence"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-01/fbi-dhs-study-reveals-antifa-primary-instigators-violence-public-rallies-april-2016
President Trump was crucified by the mainstream media a few weeks back after hosting an improvised press conference and saying there was "blame on both sides" for the violence in Charlottesville that resulted in the death of a counterprotester. The comments resulted in most of Trump's advisory councils being disbanded, as CEO's around the country pounced on the opportunity to distance themselves from the administration, and heightened calls from CNN for impeachment proceedings.
The problem is that while Trump's delivery probably could have been a bit more artful, the underlying message seems to be proving more accurate with each passing day and each new outbreak of Antifa violence.
As Politico points out today, previously unreported FBI and Department of Homeland Security studies found that "anarchist extremist" group like Antifa have been the "primary instigators of violence at public rallies" going back to at least April 2016 when the reports were first published.
Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as "antifa" had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as "domestic terrorist violence," according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.
Since well before the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, DHS has been issuing warnings about the growing likelihood of lethal violence between the left-wing anarchists and right-wing white supremacist and nationalist groups.
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that "anarchist extremists" were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of "the capitalist system," racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.
Not surprisingly, law enforcement officials noted that the rise in Antifa violence overlapped perfectly with Trump's campaign as they made appearances at rally after rally to incite chaos...all the while making it seem as if violent, racist Trump supporters were to blame.
"It was in that period [as the Trump campaign emerged] that we really became aware of them," said one senior law enforcement official tracking domestic extremists in a state that has become a front line in clashes between the groups. "These antifa guys were showing up with weapons, shields and bike helmets and just beating the shit out of people. ... They're using Molotov cocktails, they're starting fires, they're throwing bombs and smashing windows."
Almost immediately, the right-wing targets of the antifa attacks began fighting back, bringing more and larger weapons and launching unprovoked attacks of their own, the documents and interviews show. And the extremists on both sides have been using the confrontations, especially since Charlottesville, to recruit unprecedented numbers of new members, raise money and threaten more confrontations, they say.
"Everybody is wondering, 'What are we gonna do? How are we gonna deal with this?'" said the senior state law enforcement official. "Every time they have one of these protests where both sides are bringing guns, there are sphincters tightening in my world. Emotions get high, and fingers get twitchy on the trigger."
As you'll likely recall, one such event came in June 2016 when Antifa showed up at a rally in Sacramento and began violently attacking protestors with canes and knives. Of course, with the whole thing caught on video, it's pretty clear who the instigators of violence were (see our post here).
Some of the DHS and FBI intelligence reports began flagging the antifa protesters before the election. In one from last September, portions of which were read to POLITICO, DHS studied "recent violent clashes ... at lawfully organized white supremacist" events including a June 2016 rally at the California Capitol in Sacramento organized by the Traditionalist Workers Party and its affiliate, the Golden State Skinheads.
According to police, counter-protesters linked to antifa and affiliated groups like By Any Means Necessary attacked, causing a riot after which at least 10 people were hospitalized, some with stab wounds.
At the Sacramento rally, antifa protesters came looking for violence, and "engaged in several activities indicating proficiency in pre-operational planning, to include organizing carpools to travel from different locations, raising bail money in preparation for arrests, counter-surveilling law enforcement using three-man scout teams, using handheld radios for communication, and coordinating the event via social media," the DHS report said.
Of course, it's not just California. As the FBI and DHS note, the Antifa group operates much like terrorist cells with disconnected groups all over the country.
Even before Charlottesville, dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of people on both sides showed up at events in Texas, California, Oregon and elsewhere, carrying weapons and looking for a fight. In the Texas capital of Austin, armed antifa protesters attacked Trump supporters and white groups at several recent rallies, and then swarmed police in a successful effort to stop them from making arrests.
California has become another battleground, with violent confrontations in Berkeley, Sacramento and Orange County leading to numerous injuries. And antifa counter-protesters initiated attacks in two previous clashes in Charlottesville, according to the law enforcement reports and interviews.
More recently, the antifa groups, which some describe as the Anti-Fascist Action Network, have evolved out of the leftist anti-government groups like "Black bloc," protesters clad in black and wearing masks that caused violence at events like the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization protests. They claim to have no leader and no hierarchy, but authorities following them believe they are organized via decentralized networks of cells that coordinate with each other. Often, they spend weeks planning for violence at upcoming events, according to the April 2016 DHS and FBI report entitled "Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements."
Dozens of armed anti-fascist groups have emerged, including Redneck Revolt and the Red Guards, according to the reports and interviews. One report from New Jersey authorities said self-described antifa groups have been established in cities including New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco.
Meanwhile, even by the spring of 2016, the FBI had already grown concerned enough about Antifa that they began investigating overseas trips by activists out of concerns that they were coordinating with European anarchists to stage large bombings in the U.S.
By the spring of 2016, the anarchist groups had become so aggressive, including making armed attacks on individuals and small groups of perceived enemies, that federal officials launched a global investigation with the help of the U.S. intelligence community, according to the DHS and FBI assessment.
The purpose of the investigation, according to the April 2016 assessment: To determine whether the U.S.-based anarchists might start committing terrorist bombings like their counterparts in "foreign anarchist extremist movements" in Greece, Italy and Mexico, possibly at the Republican and Democratic conventions that summer.
Some of the antifa activists have gone overseas to train and fight with fellow anarchist organizations, including two Turkey-based groups fighting the Islamic State, according to interviews and internet postings.
Alas, we suspect you'll hear precisely nothing about any of this on CNN.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.01, 16:23:04
Of course, it's not just California. As the FBI and DHS note, the Antifa group operates much like terrorist cells with disconnected groups all over the country.
Even before Charlottesville, dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of people on both sides showed up at events in Texas, California, Oregon and elsewhere, carrying weapons and looking for a fight. In the Texas capital of Austin, armed antifa protesters attacked Trump supporters and white groups at several recent rallies, and then swarmed police in a successful effort to stop them from making arrests.
California has become another battleground, with violent confrontations in Berkeley, Sacramento and Orange County leading to numerous injuries. And antifa counter-protesters initiated attacks in two previous clashes in Charlottesville, according to the law enforcement reports and interviews.
More recently, the antifa groups, which some describe as the Anti-Fascist Action Network, have evolved out of the leftist anti-government groups like "Black bloc," protesters clad in black and wearing masks that caused violence at events like the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization protests. They claim to have no leader and no hierarchy, but authorities following them believe they are organized via decentralized networks of cells that coordinate with each other. Often, they spend weeks planning for violence at upcoming events, according to the April 2016 DHS and FBI report entitled "Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements."
.
that fact that ANTIFA members were labeled "anarchist extremists" by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security on June 12, the radical leftists continue to operate with impunity all across the United States.
ANTIFA members usually show up to rallies and marches sporting all black attire with red accents, like masks, dew rags, bandanas, wristbands, and shoelaces, somewhat similar to those worn the skinhead movement. On days of protest it's not out of the ordinary to spot ANTIFA members either masking up or unmasking themselves in random inconspicuous public areas.
Who is funding ANTIFA?
Billionaire leftist George Soros is the most likely candidate. We know this because back in April a California faction of ANTIFA demanded that they be paid the money which they were promised.
On April 2, Beverley Hills Antifa tweeted: "Antifa demands George Soros pay us the money he owes. Unite comrades and fight for $15/hour. #Resist."
that fact that ANTIFA members were labeled "anarchist extremists" by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security on June 12, the radical leftists continue to operate with impunity all across the United States.
ANTIFA members usually show up to rallies and marches sporting all black attire with red accents, like masks, dew rags, bandanas, wristbands, and shoelaces, somewhat similar to those worn the skinhead movement. On days of protest it's not out of the ordinary to spot ANTIFA members either masking up or unmasking themselves in random inconspicuous public areas.
https://www.intellihub.com/did-billionaire-leftist-george-soros-break-his-promise-to-antifa/ (https://www.intellihub.com/did-billionaire-leftist-george-soros-break-his-promise-to-antifa/)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.09.02, 01:53:49
somewhat similar to those worn the skinhead movement.
Racism, anti-racism, and politicshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
The early skinheads were not necessarily part of any political movement, but that changed by the early 1970s. As the 1970s progressed, the skinheads became more politically active and acts of racially-motivated skinhead violence began to occur in the United Kingdom. As a result of this change within the skinheads, far right groups such as the National Front and the British Movement saw a rise in the number of white power skinheads among their ranks.[26] By the late 1970s, the mass media, and subsequently the general public, had largely come to view the skinhead subculture as one that promotes racism and neo-Nazism.[citation needed] The white power and neo-Nazi skinhead subculture eventually spread to North America, Europe and other areas of the world.[26] The mainstream media started using the term skinhead in reports of racist violence (regardless of whether the perpetrator was actually a skinhead); this has played a large role in skewing public perceptions about the subculture.[55] Three notable groups that formed in the 1980s and which later became associated with white power skinheads are White Aryan Resistance, Blood and Honour and Hammerskins.[26]
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, many skinheads and suedeheads in the United Kingdom rejected both the far left and the far right. This anti-extremist attitude was musically typified by Oi! bands such as Cockney Rejects, The 4-Skins, Toy Dolls, and The Business. Two notable groups of skinheads that spoke out against neo-Nazism and political extremism—and instead spoke out in support of traditional skinhead culture—were the Glasgow Spy Kids in Scotland (who coined the phrase Spirit of '69), and the publishers of the Hard As Nails zine in England.[56][57]
In the late 1960s, some skinheads in the United Kingdom (including black skinheads) had engaged in violence against South Asian immigrants (an act known as Paki bashing in common slang).[14][56][58] There had, however, also been anti-racist skinheads since the beginning of the subculture, especially in Scotland and Northern England.[56][59]
On the far left of the skinhead subculture, redskins and anarchist skinheads take a militant anti-fascist and pro-working class stance.[60] In the United Kingdom, two groups with significant numbers of leftist skinhead members were Red Action, which started in 1981, and Anti-Fascist Action, which started in 1985. Internationally, the most notable left-wing skinhead organisation is Red and Anarchist Skinheads, which formed in the New York City area in 1993 and then spread to other countries.[61]
Paki (slur)"Paki" is a racial slur typically referring to people of Pakistani descent, but often indiscriminately directed towards people with perceived origins from the Indian Subcontinent.[1][2][3] The slur is used chiefly in the United Kingdom, and is also considered pejorative in Canada.
Etymology"Paki" is derived from the exonym Pakistan(i). Unlike other -stan-countries, where the first part of the name typically refers to the indigenous people (e.g. the Tajiks of Tajikistan, Turkmens of Turkmenistan, Afghans of Afghanistan), the name of Pakistan was coined by the Cambridge University's political science student and Muslim nationalist Rahmat Ali, and was published on 28 January 1933 in the pamphlet Now or Never. After coining the name of the nation-state, Ali noticed that there is an acronym formed from the names of the "homelands" of Muslims in northwest India:
"P" for Punjab
"A" for Afghania (now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)
"K" for Kashmir
"S" for Sindh
"Tan" for Balochistan (thus forming "Pakstan")
Pak also means "pure" in Persian, Urdu, and Pashto.
There was no "Pak" or "Paki" ethnic group prior to the creation of the state.[4][5]
UseThe use of the term "Paki" was first recorded in 1964, during a period of increased immigration to the United Kingdom. It has also been directed to people of other South Asian backgrounds, as well as people from other demographics who resemble South Asians.[6] In the 1970s and 1980s, violent gangs opposed to immigration took part in attacks known as "Paki-bashing", which targeted people and premises of any South Asian origin,[7] or any other ethnic minority.[8]
In the 21st century, some younger British Pakistanis have attempted to reclaim the word, drawing parallels to the African American reclamation of the slur "nigger",[6][9] and the LGBT reclamation of the slur "queer".[9] Peterborough businessman Abdul Rahim, who produces merchandise reclaiming the word, equates it to more socially accepted terms such as "Aussie" and "Kiwi", saying that it is more similar to them than it is to "nigger", as it denotes a nationality and not a biological race.[9] However, other Pakistanis see use of the word as unacceptable even among members of their community, due to its historical racist use.[6]
In December 2000, the Advertising Standards Authority published research on attitudes of the British public to pejoratives. It ranked Paki as the tenth most severe pejorative in English, up from 17th three years earlier.[10]
The term is also used as a slur in Canada.[11][12] In 2008, a campaign sign for an Alberta Liberal Party candidate was defaced when the slur was spray painted on it.[13]
Notable usesAmericans generally are unfamiliar with "paki" as a slur,[14] and U.S. leaders and public figures have occasionally had to apologize for using it. In January 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush said on India–Pakistan relations "We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis that there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war." After a Pakistani American journalist complained, a White House spokesman made a statement that Bush had respect for Pakistan and its culture.[8] This followed an incident four years earlier, when Clinton White House adviser Sandy Berger had to apologize for referencing "Paks" in public comments.[8] The 2015 American film Jurassic World was attacked satirically by British comedian Guzzy Bear for using "pachys" (pronounced "pakis") as shorthand for Pachycephalosaurus.[14]
Spike Milligan, who was white, played the lead role of Kevin O'Grady in the 1969 BBC sitcom Curry and Chips. O'Grady, half-Irish and half-Pakistani, was taunted with the name "Paki-Paddy"; the show intended to mock bigotry.[15] Following complaints, the BBC edited out use of the word in repeats of the 1980s sitcom Only Fools and Horses.[16] Columnists have perceived this as a way of obscuring the historical truth that the use of such words was commonplace at the time.[17] The word was used in Rita, Sue and Bob Too - set in Bradford, one of the first cities to have a large Pakistani community - and also in East is East - in which it is used by the mixed-race family as well as by racist characters.
In 2009, Prince Harry was publicly admonished and forced by the military to undergo sensitivity training when he was caught on video (taken years before) calling one of his fellow Army recruits "our little paki friend."[18][19]
Major religious groups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
The world's principal religions and spiritual traditions may be classified into a small number of major groups, although this is by no means a uniform practice. This theory began in the 18th century with the goal of recognizing the relative levels of civility in societies.[1]
History of religious categories
In world cultures, there have traditionally been many different groupings of religious belief. In Indian culture, different religious philosophies were traditionally respected as academic differences in pursuit of the same truth. In Islam, the Quran mentions three different categories: Muslims, the People of the Book, and idol worshipers. Initially, Christians had a simple dichotomy of world beliefs: Christian civility versus foreign heresy or barbarity. In the 18th century, "heresy" was clarified to mean Judaism and Islam;[citation needed][2] along with paganism, this created a fourfold classification which spawned such works as John Toland's Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity,[3] which represented the three Abrahamic religions as different "nations" or sects within religion itself, the "true monotheism."
Daniel Defoe described the original definition as follows: "Religion is properly the Worship given to God, but 'tis also applied to the Worship of Idols and false Deities."[4] At the turn of the 19th century, in between 1780 and 1810, the language dramatically changed: instead of "religion" being synonymous with spirituality, authors began using the plural, "religions," to refer to both Christianity and other forms of worship. Therefore, Hannah Adams's early encyclopedia, for example, had its name changed from An Alphabetical Compendium of the Various Sects... to A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations.[5][6]
In 1838, the four-way division of Christianity, Judaism, Mahommedanism (archaic terminology for Islam) and Paganism was multiplied considerably by Josiah Conder's Analytical and Comparative View of All Religions Now Extant among Mankind. Conder's work still adhered to the four-way classification, but in his eye for detail he puts together much historical work to create something resembling our modern Western image: he includes Druze, Yezidis, Mandeans, and Elamites[clarification needed] [7] under a list of possibly monotheistic groups, and under the final category, of "polytheism and pantheism," he listed Zoroastrianism, "Vedas, Puranas, Tantras, Reformed sects" of India as well as "Brahminical idolatry," Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Lamaism, "religion of China and Japan," and "illiterate superstitions" as others.[8][9]
The modern meaning of the phrase "world religion," putting non-Christians at the same level as Christians, began with the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. The Parliament spurred the creation of a dozen privately funded lectures with the intent of informing people of the diversity of religious experience: these lectures funded researchers such as William James, D. T. Suzuki, and Alan Watts, who greatly influenced the public conception of world religions.[10]
In the latter half of the 20th century, the category of "world religion" fell into serious question, especially for drawing parallels between vastly different cultures, and thereby creating an arbitrary separation between the religious and the secular.[11] Even history professors have now taken note of these complications and advise against teaching "world religions" in schools.[12] Others see the shaping of religions in the context of the nation-state as the "invention of traditions."
Classification
Religious traditions fall into super-groups in comparative religion, arranged by historical origin and mutual influence. Abrahamic religions originate in West Asia,[13][14] Indian religions in the Indian subcontinent (South Asia)[15] and East Asian religions in East Asia.[16] Another group with supra-regional influence are Afro-American religion,[17] which have their origins in Central and West Africa.
Middle Eastern religions:[18]
Abrahamic religions are the largest group, and these consist mainly of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith. They are named for the patriarch Abraham, and are unified by the practice of monotheism. Today, at least 3.8 billion people are followers of Abrahamic religions [19] and are spread widely around the world apart from the regions around East and Southeast Asia. Several Abrahamic organizations are vigorous proselytizers.[20]
Iranian religions, partly of Indo-European origins,[21][22] include Zoroastrianism, Yazdânism, Ætsæg Din, Ahl-e Haqq and historical traditions of Gnosticism (Mandaeism, Manichaeism).
Indian religions, originated in Greater India and partly of Indo-European origins, they tend to share a number of key concepts, such as dharma, karma, reincarnation among others. They are of the most influence across the Indian subcontinent, East Asia, Southeast Asia, as well as isolated parts of Russia. The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.
East Asian religions consist of several East Asian religions which make use of the concept of Tao (in Chinese) or Dō (in Japanese or Korean). They include many Chinese folk religions, Taoism and Confucianism, as well as Korean and Japanese religion influenced by Chinese thought.
African religions:[18]
The religions of the tribal peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa, but excluding ancient Egyptian religion, which is considered to belong to the ancient Middle East;[18]
African diasporic religions practiced in the Americas, imported as a result of the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th to 18th centuries, building on traditional religions of Central and West Africa.
Indigenous ethnic religions, found on every continent, now marginalized by the major organized faiths in many parts of the world or persisting as undercurrents (folk religions) of major religions. Includes traditional African religions, Asian shamanism, Native American religions, Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal traditions, Chinese folk religions, and postwar Shinto. Under more traditional listings, this has been referred to as "paganism" along with historical polytheism.
New religious movement is the term applied to any religious faith which has emerged since the 19th century, often syncretizing, re-interpreting or reviving aspects of older traditions such as Ayyavazhi, Mormonism, Ahmadiyya, Pentecostalism, polytheistic reconstructionism, and so forth.
Normative ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts. Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation of people's moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive. However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.[1]
Most traditional moral theories rest on principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong. Classical theories in this vein include utilitarianism, Kantianism, and some forms of contractarianism. These theories mainly offered the use of overarching moral principles to resolve difficult moral decisions.
Binding force
It can be unclear what it means to say that a person "ought to do X because it is moral, whether they like it or not". Morality is sometimes presumed to have some kind of special binding force on behaviour, but some philosophers think that, used this way, the word "ought" seems to wrongly attribute magic powers to morality. For instance, G. E. M. Anscombe worries that "ought" has become "a word of mere mesmeric force".[2] British ethicist Philippa Foot elaborates that morality does not seem to have any special binding force, and she clarifies that people only behave morally when motivated by other factors.
Foot says "People talk, for instance, about the 'binding force' of morality, but it is not clear what this means if not that we feel ourselves unable to escape."[3] The idea is that, faced with an opportunity to steal a book because we can get away with it, moral obligation itself has no power to stop us unless we feel an obligation. Morality may therefore have no binding force beyond regular human motivations, and people must be motivated to behave morally. The question then arises: what role does reason play in motivating moral behaviour?
Motivating morality
The categorical imperative perspective suggests that proper reason always leads to particular moral behaviour. As mentioned above, Foot instead believes that humans are actually motivated by desires. Proper reason, on this view, allows humans to discover actions that get them what they want (i.e., hypothetical imperatives)—not necessarily actions that are moral.
Social structure and motivation can make morality binding in a sense, but only because it makes moral norms feel inescapable, according to Foot.[3] John Stuart Mill adds that external pressures, to please others for instance, also influence this felt binding force, which he calls human "conscience". Mill says that humans must first reason about what is moral, then try to bring the feelings of our conscience in line with our reason.[4] At the same time, Mill says that a good moral system (in his case, utilitarianism) ultimately appeals to aspects of human nature — which, must themselves be nurtured during upbringing. Mill explains:
This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilisation.
Mill thus believes that it is important to appreciate that it is feelings that drive moral behavior, but also that they may not be present in some people (e.g. psychopaths). Mill goes on to describe factors that help ensure people develop a conscience and behave morally, and thinkers like Joseph Daleiden describe how societies can use science to figure out how to make people more likely to be good.
Gideon Levy calls out Israel's fundamental, racist religion: Zionism
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israels-fundamental-religion/
Jonathan Ofir on September 2, 2017
Gideon Levy published a column in Haaretz yesterday that goes to the furthest extent I have seen in Israeli mainstream media in challenging Zionism. He calls it a movement that "contradicts human rights, and is thus indeed an ultranationalist, colonialist and perhaps even racist movement, as proponents of justice worldwide maintain".
His piece, titled "Minster of Truth", was a typically sarcastic one, set against the background of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who had said earlier in the week that
"Zionism should not – and I'm saying here that it will not – continue to bow its head to a system of individual rights interpreted in a universal manner".
Levy takes Shaked's words and elucidates the message further:
"Thus Shaked believes, as do so many around the world, that Israel is built on foundations of injustice and therefore must be defended from the hostile talk of justice. How else can the repulsion to discussing rights be explained? Individual rights are important, she said, but not when they are disconnected from 'the Zionist challenges.' Right again: The Zionist challenges indeed stand in contradiction to human rights."
And Levy is very clear about what opposing this will mean:
"Zionism is Israel's fundamentalist religion, and as in any religion, its denial is prohibited. In Israel, 'non-Zionist' or 'anti-Zionist' aren't insults, they are social expulsion orders. There's nothing like it in any free society. But now that Shaked has exposed Zionism, put her hand to the flame and admitted the truth, we can finally think about Zionism more freely. We can admit that the Jews' right to a state contradicted the Palestinians' right to their land, and that righteous Zionism gave birth to a terrible national wrong that has never been righted; that there are ways to resolve and atone for this contradiction, but the Zionist Israelis won't agree to them."
The background is that Shaked was responding to the Supreme Court's decision last Monday, ruling against indefinite imprisonment of African asylum seekers who refuse to be deported to a third country (typically Uganda or Rwanda). Whilst permitting the deportation of what the court terms "infiltrators," the court limited the term of their imprisonment to two months. Now notice what Supreme Court President Miriam Naor wrote:
"During this time, it's permissible to try to persuade him through means that don't infringe on his free will, or to try to find other ways to deport him against his will".
This is the typical "light coercion" of the "Israeli democracy", similar to the uniquely-Israeli expression "moderate physical pressure" as a legalized euphemism for torture.
Court President Naor adds: "Similarly, the state can consider alternatives to deportation, including the alternative of restricting his place of residence" (that is, within Israel).
Many people would naturally balk at this contempt for human rights. But for Israeli leaders, this was outrageous for the opposite reason: the court was too liberal.
Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, whilst welcoming the decision that "infiltrators" could be sent to third countries, nonetheless decried the court for depriving him of a "very important tool", and criticized the court for allowing only voluntary deportations (in some cases).
"The decision not to allow the state to deport infiltrators against their will is very problematic," Deri said. "We have to care for the citizens of Israel, the residents of south Tel Aviv and other cities where residents' lives are unlivable."
And Prime Minister Netanyahu? He said:
"We'll have to enact new laws that will enable us ... to send the illegal infiltrators out of our country."
In saying that human rights must yield to "the Zionist challenges," Shaked was basically making it clear, as Levy stated, that Zionism stands in opposition to universal human rights – intrinsically so. Levy seems to hedge, writing that Zionism is a "perhaps even racist movement" (my emphasis), but the hedge disappears when he describes Zionism as a colonialist and ultranationalist movement. In other words, Levy is calling Zionism racism.
The historical notion of Zionism as racism is clear to Levy, and he mentions the UN Resolution 3379 of 1975, equating Zionism with racism, in his second paragraph. I have also mentioned that resolution (which Israeli UN Ambassador Haim Herzog famously tore apart, and which was later rescinded), in conjunction with the recent UN agency commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid, which noted the "state's essentially racist character".
What's also important to note in this case is the background – not of Palestinians, but simply of non-Jewish asylum seekers. This is an important notion, because it flies in the face of the notion of Israeli policies being merely a response to Palestinian aggression, as it were. There is no aggression here as such, and there are no Palestinians in this story. It is merely about the presence of non-Jews.
When Zionism's founder Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary in 1895 that "We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border ... while denying it any employment in our own country", he was not likely thinking of African refugees. But reality has shown that Zionism will enact such policies against anyone who endangers its racist, colonialist and ultranationalist designs.
So here we are: things are being said out loud. No more apologies. This is also evident in what Netanyahu recently said to a settler audience: "We are here to stay forever," Netanyahu reassured. "We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle" (as noted by Jonathan Cook).
And Levy sets the stakes:
"Now, then, is the time for a new division, braver and more honest, between those Israelis who agree with Shaked's statement and those [who] disagree. Between supporters of Zionism and supporters of justice. Between Zionists and the just."
Indeed, and not a moment too soon.
The Reasons for Netanyahu's Panic
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/01/the-reasons-for-netanyahus-panic/
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing the panic button over the collapse of the Saudi-Israeli jihadist proxies in Syria and now threatening to launch a major air war, as ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke describes.
By Alastair Crooke
A very senior Israeli intelligence delegation, a week ago, visited Washington. Then, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke into President Putin's summer holiday to meet him in Sochi, where, according to a senior Israeli government official (as cited in the Jerusalem Post), Netanyahu threatened to bomb the Presidential Palace in Damascus, and to disrupt and nullify the Astana cease-fire process, should Iran continue to "extend its reach in Syria."
Russia's Pravda wrote, "according to eyewitnesses of the open part of the talks, the Israeli prime minister was too emotional and at times even close to panic. He described a picture of the apocalypse to the Russian president that the world may see, if no efforts are taken to contain Iran, which, as Netanyahu believes, is determined to destroy Israel."
So, what is going on here? Whether or not Pravda's quote is fully accurate (though the description was confirmed by senior Israeli commentators), what is absolutely clear (from Israeli sources) is that both in Washington and at Sochi, the Israeli officials were heard out, but got nothing. Israel stands alone. Indeed, it is reported that Netanyahu was seeking "guarantees" about the future Iranian role in Syria, rather than "asking for the moon" of an Iranian exit. But how could Washington or Moscow realistically give Israel such guarantees?
Belatedly, Israel has understood that it backed the wrong side in Syria – and it has lost. It is not really in a position to demand anything. It will not get an American enforced buffer zone beyond the Golan armistice line, nor will the Iraqi-Syrian border be closed, or somehow "supervised" on Israel's behalf.
Of course, the Syrian aspect is important, but to focus only on that, would be to "miss the forest for the trees." The 2006 war by Israel to destroy Hizbullah (egged on by the U.S., Saudi Arabia – and even a few Lebanese) was a failure. Symbolically, for the first time in the Middle East, a technologically sophisticated, and lavishly armed, Western nation-state simply failed. What made the failure all the more striking (and painful) was that a Western state was not just bested militarily, it had lost also the electronic and human intelligence war, too — both spheres in which the West thought their primacy unassailable.
The Fallout from Failure
Israel's unexpected failure was deeply feared in the West, and in the Gulf too. A small, armed (revolutionary) movement had stood up to Israel – against overwhelming odds – and prevailed: it had stood its ground. This precedent was widely perceived to be a potential regional "game changer." The feudal Gulf autocracies sensed in Hizbullah's achievement the latent danger to their own rule from such armed resistance.
The reaction was immediate. Hizbullah was quarantined — as best the full sanctioning powers of America could manage. And the war in Syria started to be mooted as the "corrective strategy" to the 2006 failure (as early as 2007) — though it was only with the events following 2011 that the "corrective strategy" came to implemented, à outrance.
Against Hizbullah, Israel had thrown its full military force (though Israelis always say, now, that they could have done more). And against Syria, the U.S., Europe, the Gulf States (and Israel in the background) have thrown the kitchen sink: jihadists, al-Qaeda, ISIS (yes), weapons, bribes, sanctions and the most overwhelming information war yet witnessed. Yet Syria – with indisputable help from its allies – seems about to prevail: it has stood its ground, against almost unbelievable odds.
Just to be clear: if 2006 marked a key point of inflection, Syria's "standing its ground" represents a historic turning of much greater magnitude. It should be understood that Saudi Arabia's (and Britain's and America's) tool of fired-up, radical Sunnism has been routed. And with it, the Gulf States, but particularly Saudi Arabia are damaged. The latter has relied on the force of Wahabbism since the first foundation of the kingdom: but Wahabbism in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq has been roundly defeated and discredited (even for most Sunni Muslims). It may well be defeated in Yemen too. This defeat will change the face of Sunni Islam.
Already, we see the Gulf Cooperation Council, which originally was founded in 1981 by six Gulf tribal leaders for the sole purpose of preserving their hereditary tribal rule in the Peninsula, now warring with each other, in what is likely to be a protracted and bitter internal fight. The "Arab system," the prolongation of the old Ottoman structures by the complaisant post-World War I victors, Britain and France, seems to be out of its 2013 "remission" (bolstered by the coup in Egypt), and to have resumed its long-term decline.
The Losing Side
Netayahu's "near panic" (if that is indeed what occurred) may well be a reflection of this seismic shift taking place in the region. Israel has long backed the losing side – and now finds itself "alone" and fearing for its near proxies (the Jordanians and the Kurds). The "new" corrective strategy from Tel Aviv, it appears, is to focus on winning Iraq away from Iran, and embedding it into the Israel-U.S.-Saudi alliance.
If so, Israel and Saudi Arabia are probably too late into the game, and are likely underestimating the visceral hatred engendered among so many Iraqis of all segments of society for the murderous actions of ISIS. Not many believe the improbable (Western) narrative that ISIS suddenly emerged armed, and fully financed, as a result of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's alleged "sectarianism": No, as rule-of-thumb, behind each such well-breached movement – stands a state.
Daniel Levy has written a compelling piece to argue that Israelis generally would not subscribe to what I have written above, but rather: "Netanyahu's lengthy term in office, multiple electoral successes, and ability to hold together a governing coalition ... [is based on] him having a message that resonates with a broader public. It is a sales pitch that Netanyahu ... [has] 'brought the state of Israel to the best situation in its history, a rising global force ... the state of Israel is diplomatically flourishing.' Netanyahu had beaten back what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami.'
"Difficult though it is for his political detractors to acknowledge, Netanyahu's claim resonates with the public because it reflects something that is real, and that has shifted the center of gravity of Israeli politics further and further to the right. It is a claim that, if correct and replicable over time, will leave a legacy that lasts well beyond Netanyahu's premiership and any indictment he might face.
"Netanyahu's assertion is that he is not merely buying time in Israel's conflict with the Palestinians to improve the terms of an eventual and inevitable compromise. Netanyahu is laying claim to something different — the possibility of ultimate victory, the permanent and definitive defeat of the Palestinians, their national and collective goals.
"In over a decade as prime minister, Netanyahu has consistently and unequivocally rejected any plans or practical steps that even begin to address Palestinian aspirations. Netanyahu is all about perpetuating and exacerbating the conflict, not about managing it, let alone resolving it...[The] message is clear: there will be no Palestinian state because the West Bank and East Jerusalem are simply Greater Israel."
No Palestinian State
Levy continues: "The approach overturns assumptions that have guided peace efforts and American policy for over a quarter of a century: that Israel has no alternative to an eventual territorial withdrawal and acceptance of something sufficiently resembling an independent sovereign Palestinian state broadly along the 1967 lines. It challenges the presumption that the permanent denial of such an outcome is incompatible with how Israel and Israelis perceive themselves as being a democracy. Additionally, it challenges the peace-effort supposition that this denial would in any way be unacceptable to the key allies on which Israel depends...
"In more traditional bastions of support for Israel, Netanyahu took a calculated gamble — would enough American Jewish support continue to stand with an increasingly illiberal and ethno-nationalist Israel, thereby facilitating the perpetuation of the lopsided U.S.-Israel relationship? Netanyahu bet yes, and he was right."
And here is another interesting point that Levy makes:
"And then events took a further turn in Netanyahu's favor with the rise to power in the United States and parts of Central Eastern Europe (and to enhanced prominence elsewhere in Europe and the West) of the very ethno-nationalist trend to which Netanyahu is so committed, working to replace liberal with illiberal democracy. One should not underestimate Israel and Netanyahu's importance as an ideological and practical avant-garde for this trend."
Former U.S. Ambassador and respected political analyst Chas Freeman wrote recently very bluntly: "the central objective of U.S. policy in the Middle East has long been to achieve regional acceptance for the Jewish-settler state in Palestine." Or, in other words, for Washington, its Middle East policy – and all its actions – have been determined by "to be, or not to be": "To be" (that is) – with Israel, or not "to be" (with Israel).
Israel's Lost Ground
The key point now is that the region has just made a seismic shift into the "not to be" camp. Is there much that America can do about that? Israel very much is alone with only a weakened Saudi Arabia at its side, and there are clear limits to what Saudi Arabia can do.
The U.S. calling on Arab states to engage more with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi seems somehow inadequate. Iran is not looking for war with Israel (as a number of Israeli analysts have acknowledged); but, too, the Syrian President has made clear that his government intends to recover "all Syria" – and all Syria includes the occupied Golan Heights. And this week, Hassan Nasrallah called on the Lebanese government "to devise a plan and take a sovereign decision to liberate the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarshouba Hills" from Israel.
A number Israeli commentators already are saying that the "writing is on the wall" – and that it would be better for Israel to cede territory unilaterally, rather than risk the loss of hundreds of lives of Israeli servicemen in a futile attempt to retain it. That, though, seems hardly congruent with the Israeli Prime Minister's "not an inch, will we yield" character and recent statements.
Will ethno-nationalism provide Israel with a new support base? Well, firstly, I do not see Israel's doctrine as "illiberal democracy," but rather an apartheid system intended to subordinate Palestinian political rights. And as the political schism in the West widens, with one "wing" seeking to delegitimize the other by tarnishing them as racists, bigots and Nazis, it is clear that the real America First-ers will try, at any price, to distance themselves from the extremists.
Daniel Levy points out that the Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer, depicts his movement as White Zionism. Is this really likely to build support for Israel? How long before the "globalists" use precisely Netanyahu's "illiberal democracy" meme to taunt the U.S. Right that this is precisely the kind of society for which they too aim: with Mexicans and black Americans treated like Palestinians?
'Ethnic Nationalism'
The increasingly "not to be" constituency of the Middle East has a simpler word for Netanyahu's "ethnic nationalism." They call it simply Western colonialism. Round one of Chas Freeman's making the Middle East "be with Israel" consisted of the shock-and-awe assault on Iraq. Iraq is now allied with Iran, and the Hashad militia (PMU) are becoming a widely mobilized fighting force. The second stage was 2006. Today, Hizbullah is a regional force, and not a just Lebanese one.
The third strike was at Syria. Today, Syria is allied with Russia, Iran, Hizbullah and Iraq. What will comprise the next round in the "to be, or not to be" war?
For all Netanyahu's bluster about Israel standing stronger, and having beaten back "what he had called the 'fake-news claim' that without a deal with the Palestinians 'Israel will be isolated, weakened and abandoned' facing a 'diplomatic tsunami,'" Netanyahu may have just discovered, in these last two weeks, that he confused facing down the weakened Palestinians with "victory" — only at the very moment of his apparent triumph, to find himself alone in a new, "New Middle East."
Perhaps Pravda was right, and Netanyahu did appear close to panic, during his hurriedly arranged, and urgently called, Sochi summit.
[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "The Possible Education of Donald Trump."]
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.
Separation of church and state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
The separation of church and state is a philosophic concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the nation state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular state (with or without legally explicit church–state separation) and to disestablishment, the changing of an existing, formal relationship between the church and the state.[1]
In a society, the degree of political separation between the church and the civil state are determined by the legal structures and prevalent legal views that define the proper relationship between organized religion and the state. The Arm's length principle proposes a relationship wherein the two, political entities interact as organizations independent of the authority of the other. The strict application of secular principle of laïcité (secularity) is used in France, while secular societies, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, maintain a form of constitutional recognition of an official state religion.[2]
The philosophy of the separation of the church from the civil state parallels the philosophies of secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism, by way of which the European states assumed some of the social roles of the church, the welfare state, a social shift that produced a culturally secular population and public sphere.[3] In practice, church–state separation varies from total separation, mandated by the country's political constitution, as in India and Singapore, to a state religion, as in the Maldives.
History of the concept and term
Ancient history
Many societies in antiquity had imperial cults where heads of state were worshiped as messiahs, demigods or deities.
Ancient history is replete with examples of political leaders who derived legitimacy through religious titles. Sargon of Akkad was referred to as the "deputy of Ishtar"[4] and many ancient Kings of Judah claimed to rule with a mandate from Heaven. Julius Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman state religion before he became the consul of Rome.[5] Caligula referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians and he was referred to as Jupiter on occasion in public documents.[6][7]
The mixing of religion and state can be seen throughout antiquity, including in the Edict of Thessalonica, whereby Nicene Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, and in the execution of Socrates, sentenced to death by the Athenian state for among other things, "not believing in the gods of the state"[8]
Among ancient philosophies, Epicureanism is in favor of an early version of the separation of religion and state as can be seen in the writings of Lucretius and Epicurus.
Late antiquity
An important contributor to the discussion concerning the proper relationship between Church and state was St. Augustine, who in The City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 17, began an examination of the ideal relationship between the "earthly city" and the "city of God". In this work, Augustine posited that major points of overlap were to be found between the "earthly city" and the "city of God", especially as people need to live together and get along on earth. Thus Augustine held that it was the work of the "temporal city" to make it possible for a "heavenly city" to be established on earth.[9]
Medieval Europe
Main article: Church and state in medieval Europe
For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right. Sometimes this began to be used by a monarch to support the notion that the king ruled both his own kingdom and Church within its boundaries, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the Catholic doctrine that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the Church, and indirectly over the state. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.[10]
In the West the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration.[11]
Reformation
At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[12]
Those of the Radical Reformation (the Anabaptists) took Luther's ideas in new direction, most notably in the writings of Michael Sattler (1490-1527), who agreed with Luther that there were two kingdoms, but differed in arguing that these two kingdoms should be separate, and hence baptized believers should not vote, serve in public office or participate in any other way with the "kingdom of the world." While there was a diversity of views in the early days of the Radical Reformation, in time Sattler's perspective became the normative position for most Anabaptists in the coming centuries.[13] Anabaptists came to teach that religion should never be compelled by state power, approaching the issue of church-state relations primarily from the position of protecting the church from the state.[14][15][16]
In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the Church of England.[17] The monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England. England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread widely, however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab.[clarification needed] This eventually led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, and the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, and the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England.
One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain to be able to worship as they wished – but they did not seek religious freedom, and early North American colonies were generally as intolerant of religious dissent as England; Puritan Massachusetts, for example, did not allow standard Church of England worship. Some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies specifically for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against King George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was specifically amended to ban the establishment of religion by Congress.
Enlightenment
John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).[18] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[19]
At the same period of the 17th century, Pierre Bayle and some fideists were forerunners of the separation of Church and State, maintaining that faith was independent of reason.[20][21] During the 18th century, the ideas of Locke and Bayle, in particular the separation of Church and State, became more common, promoted by the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Montesquieu already wrote in 1721 about religious tolerance and a degree of separation between religion and government.[22] Voltaire defended some level of separation but ultimately subordinated the Church to the needs of the State[23] while Denis Diderot, for instance, was a partisan of a strict separation of Church and State, saying "the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great".[24]
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights
Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, whose letter to the Danbury Baptists Association is often quoted in debates regarding the separation of church and state.
In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[25]
Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789).[original research?][citation needed]
Later Interpretations
John F. Kennedy, one of America's most influential presidents of the 20th century, commented in 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Christopher Hitchens, an atheist political commentator, wrote, "How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape."
Robert A. Heinlein, a science fiction author, commented on the separation of church and state thus: "Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so."
Muhammad Iqbal, a 20th-century poet considered to have inspired the movement for the independence of Pakistan and to be one of the most important figures in Urdu literature, told an academic conference at Cambridge University in 1931 that, "The biggest blunder made by Europe was the separation of Church and State", arguing that it had led to "atheistic materialism".[26]
President William Howard Taft: "There is nothing so despicable as a secret society that is based upon religious prejudice and that will attempt to defeat a man because of his religion."
Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
(Redirected from Corporate fascism)
This article is about the general social theory. For business influence in politics, see Corporatocracy. For the process of reorganizing institutions on a corporate or business basis, see Corporatization.
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word corpus (plural corpora) meaning "body"[4] or, in the case of Fascist Italy, on the word corporazione (derived from the aforementioned Latin word, with the meaning of "embodiment", "association"), the Italian name for what was known in Germanic Europe as a Medieval guild.
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[5]
Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[6] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.[7] In addition to humans, certain animal species like penguins exhibit strong corporate social organization.[8][9] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism.[10]
Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.07, 16:05:34
Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[5]
Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.
Every now and then Wiki puts out a "feel good" statement that refers to an ideal situation rather than that which is.
In actual fact the Corporations have usurped the position of royalty, treat labour as slave labour and act as though capital was for their concern only.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.09.07, 22:31:37
Every now and then Wiki puts out a "feel good" statement that refers to an ideal situation rather than that which is.
In actual fact the Corporations have usurped the position of royalty, treat labour as slave labour and act as though capital was for their concern only.
That particular wiki entry is not very good but my point is that when you have religion in government you have a theocracy (disguised as a democracy) with authority derived from God, itself a conceptual construct.
When you have corporations overriding national authority and sovereignty, you have fascism.
It can be easily argued that currently the West is being occupied by an incorporated theocratic governance construct.
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic alliance, the three branches of Abrahamic religion are playing good cop bad cop with the aim being total submission by human races, blended into a homogeneous mongoloid mass.
Not all people worship a deity, some worship the cult of money, and both fit into one of the two frames of references involved here, theocratic or corporate greed. The big oil man who became a vicar undertsands the game afoot and positioned himself accordingly.
Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christian-country-and-should-stop-acting-as-if-it-is-says-judge.html
A major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has provoked a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England
Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, a major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has concluded, provoking a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England.
A two-year commission, chaired by the former senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss and involving leading religious leaders from all faiths, calls for public life in Britain to be systematically de-Christianised.
It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" is needed for religion in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths.
The report provoked a furious row as it was condemned by Cabinet ministers as "seriously misguided" and the Church of England said it appeared to have been "hijacked" by humanists.
The report, by the Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life, claims that faith schools are "socially divisive" and says that the selection of children on the basis of their beliefs should be phased out.
It also accuses those who devise some RE syllabuses of "sanitising" negative aspects of religion in lessons and suggests that the compulsory daily act of worship in school assemblies should be abolished and replaced with a "time for reflection".
The report backs moves cut the number of Church of England bishops in the Lords and give places to imams, rabbis and other non-other non-Christian clerics as well as evangelical pastors.
Meanwhile the coronation service for the next monarch should be overhauled to include other faiths, the report adds.
Controversially, it also calls for a rethink of anti-terror policy, including ensuring students can voice radical views on campus without fear of being reported to the security services.
And it also recommends new protections for women in Sharia courts and other religious tribunals – including a call for the Government to consider requiring couples who have a non-legally binding religious marriage also to have a civil registration.
It also suggests that Thought of the Day on BBC Radio 4's Today programme should include non-religious messages.
The Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life has attracted particular controversy because of the seniority of those behind it.
Its patrons include Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Woolf, the former chief justice, and Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain.
While gathering evidence the commissioners met key players including Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi; the Home Secretary Theresa May, and senior executives at the BBC and Channel 4.
The Church of England said the report was a "sad waste" and had "fallen captive to liberal rationalism".
A spokeswoman for the Church of England said: "The report is dominated by the old fashioned view that traditional religion is declining in importance and that non-adherence to a religion is the same as humanism or secularism."
A source close to Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, described the report's recommendations on faith schools as "ridiculous".
The source said: "Nicky is one of the biggest champions of faith schools and anyone who thinks she is going to pay attention to these ridiculous recommendations is sorely misguided."
The report highlights figures showing the decline in people who say they are Anglicans from 40 per cent in 1983 to less than a fifth in 2013.
It says: "Three striking trends in recent decades have revolutionised the landscape on which religion and belief in Britain meet and interact.
"The first is the increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities. The second is the decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice and within this decline a shift in Christian affiliation that has meant that Anglicans no longer comprise a majority of Christians.
"The third is the increase in the number of people who have a religious affiliation but who are not Christian."
It goes on to say: "The increase in those with non-religious beliefs, the reduction in the number of Christians and an increase in their diversity, and the increase in the number of people identifying with non-Christian religions: these are the settled social context of Britain today and for the foreseeable future, as is the unsettled and unsettling context of the international environment".
Its central recommendation is for a national consultation exercise to draw up a 21st Century equivalent to the Magna Carta to define the values at the heart of modern Britain instead of the Government's controversial "British values" requirements.
"From recent events in France, to the schools so many of our children attend and even the adverts screened in cinemas, for good and ill religion and belief impacts directly on all our daily lives," said Lady Butler-Sloss.
"The proposals in this report amount to a 'new settlement for religion and belief in the UK', intended to provide space and a role for all within society, regardless of their beliefs or absence of them."
The 150-page report sets out a major shift away from Christianity in Britain – particularly the Church of England – with the number of people describing themselves as having no religion jumping from less than a third of the population to almost half in just 30 years.
At the same time it highlights the growth of non-Christian faiths, especially Islam, and an explosion in the number of newer Pentecostal and evangelical Churches outside of the traditional denominations.
But the report stops short of calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England, arguing that the special status of Anglicanism in England and the Church of Scotland north of the border, has helped other faith groups and "enables them to make their voice heard in the public sphere".
But it adds: "The relationship of the Church of England to the state has changed and is changing, and could change further.
"The pluralist character of modern society should be reflected in national forums such as the House of Lords, so that they include a wider range of worldviews and religious traditions, and of Christian denominations other than the Church of England"
It goes on to call for all national and civic events – including the next coronation – to be designed to reflect "the pluralist character of modern society".
Although the commission does not call for the abolition of faith schools, it questions the fundamental premise on which they exist.
"In England, successive governments have claimed in recent years that faith schools and free schools create and promote social inclusion leading to cohesion and integration," it says.
"However, it is in our view not clear that segregation of young people into faith schools has promoted greater cohesion or that it has not been socially divisive, leading to greater misunderstanding and tension."
But it also questions the approach to religion in universities and colleges, including measures to curb extremism on campus- particularly demands for lecturers to report students showing signs of extremism.
"Free debate should be possible without fear of students being labelled as extremists or attracting the attention of the security services," the report argues.
"That all said, universities will deal better with religion if they approach it as something that belongs to their intellectual discussions rather than an external factor with which they have to cope."
It also urges the Government to rethink its approach to the Muslim community in general, including consulting those it considers to have less "palatable" views on policy.
It says: "In its selection of organisations with which to engage the Government must guard against the perception that it is operating with a simplistic good Muslims/bad Muslims distinction, or between 'mainstream moderates' and 'violent or non-violent extremists'."
The report also suggests setting up an "advisory panel" of religious "experts" to examine complaints about coverage of religion in the press.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said the report did not go far enough.
"There are some sensible recommendations in the Commission's report, but there is no escaping that the Commission is composed of vested interests and is unlikely to make recommendations for any radical change. Disestablishing the Church of England should be a minimum ambition for a modern Britain in the 21st century."
"This report promotes a multi-faith approach to public life which is completely at odds with the religious indifference that permeates British society."
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said: "As to the next coronation, I hope it doesn't come for a long time but when it comes, it will be an important occasion to reaffirm the constitutional basis of the nation.
"This is Judaeo- Christian through and through, with the monarch promising to uphold 'the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel'."
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive and senior rabbi of Liberal Judaism, said: "If we fail to recognise the diverse nature of our society in our civic institutions, our national events, our legal system, schools and media, we risk alienating large sections of our community who will see themselves as 'the other'.
"This in turn leads to them feeling excluded not just from the rights of British citizens, but also the obligations and standards of behaviour which go with being a full partner in British society.
"This is a huge a growing threat to us all."
Dr Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We have long argued that one of the unintended consequences of anti-terrorism legislation has been how it limits freedom of speech.
"We therefore agree wholeheartedly with the recommendation of the report in this respect.
"The Muslim Council of Britain has long argued that the portrayal of Islam and Muslims provides a misleading representation of the reality. With a rise in hate crime against Muslims and Muslim religious institutions, the media has a particular responsibility to raise awareness and promote greater understanding between communities."
Anglo-Saxons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons
The Anglo-Saxons were a people who inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century. They comprise people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted some aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language. Historically, the Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period in Britain between about 450 and 1066, after their initial settlement and up until the Norman conquest.[1]
The early Anglo-Saxon period includes the creation of an English nation, with many of the aspects that survive today, including regional government of shires and hundreds. During this period, Christianity was established and there was a flowering of literature and language. Charters and law were also established.[2] The term Anglo-Saxon is popularly used for the language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England and eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century. In scholarly use, it is more commonly called Old English.[3]
The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity. It developed from divergent groups in association with the people's adoption of Christianity, and was integral to the establishment of various kingdoms. Threatened by extended Danish invasions and military occupation of eastern England, this identity was re-established; it dominated until after the Norman Conquest.[4] The visible Anglo-Saxon culture can be seen in the material culture of buildings, dress styles, illuminated texts and grave goods. Behind the symbolic nature of these cultural emblems, there are strong elements of tribal and lordship ties. The elite declared themselves as kings who developed burhs, and identified their roles and peoples in Biblical terms. Above all, as Helena Hamerow has observed, "local and extended kin groups remained...the essential unit of production throughout the Anglo-Saxon period."[5] The effects persist in the 21st century as, according to a study published in March 2015, the genetic make up of British populations today shows divisions of the tribal political units of the early Anglo-Saxon period.[6]
Use of the term Anglo-Saxon assumes that the words Angles, Saxons or Anglo-Saxon have the same meaning in all the sources. Assigning ethnic labels such as "Anglo-Saxon" is fraught with difficulties. This term began to be used only in the 8th century to distinguish the "Germanic" groups in Britain from those on the continent (Old Saxony in Northern Germany).[7][a] Catherine Hills summarised the views of many modern scholars in her observation that attitudes towards Anglo-Saxons, and hence the interpretation of their culture and history, have been "more contingent on contemporary political and religious theology as on any kind of evidence."[8]
Ethnonym
The Old English ethnonym "Angul-Seaxan" comes from the Latin Angli-Saxones and became the name of the peoples Bede calls Anglorum[9] and Gildas calls Saxones.[10] Anglo-Saxon is a term that was rarely used by Anglo-Saxons themselves; it is not an autonym. It is likely they identified as ængli, Seaxe or, more probably, a local or tribal name such as Mierce, Cantie, Gewisse, Westseaxe, or Norþanhymbre. Also, the use of Anglo-Saxon disguises the extent to which people identified as Anglo-Scandinavian after the Viking age, or as Anglo-Norman after the Norman conquest in 1066.[11]
The earliest historical references using this term are from outside Britain, referring to piratical Germanic raiders, 'Saxones' who attacked the shores of Britain and Gaul in the 3rd century AD. Procopius states that Britain was settled by three races: the Angiloi, Frisones, and Britons.[12] The term Angli Saxones seems to have first been used in continental writing of the 8th century; Paul the Deacon uses it to distinguish the English Saxons from the continental Saxons (Ealdseaxe, literally, 'old Saxons').[13] The name therefore seemed to mean "English" Saxons.
The Christian church seems to have used the word Angli; for example in the story of Pope Gregory I and his remark, "Non Angli sed angeli" (not English but angels).[14] the terms ænglisc ('the language') and Angelcynn ('the people') were also used by West Saxon King Alfred to refer to the people; in doing so he was following established practice.[15] The first use of the term Anglo-Saxon amongst the insular sources is in the titles for Athelstan: Angelsaxonum Denorumque gloriosissimus rex (most glorious king of the Anglo-Saxons and of the Danes) and rex Angulsexna and Norþhymbra imperator paganorum gubernator Brittanorumque propugnator (king of the Anglo-Saxons and emperor of the Northumbrians, governor of the pagans, and defender of the Britons). At other times he uses the term rex Anglorum (king of the English), which presumably meant both Anglo-Saxons and Danes. Alfred the Great used Anglosaxonum Rex.[16] The term Engla cyningc (King of the English) is used by Æthelred. King Cnut in 1021 was the first to refer to the land and not the people with this term: ealles Englalandes cyningc (King of all England).[17] These titles express the sense that the Anglo-Saxons were a Christian people with a king anointed by God.[18]
The indigenous Common Brittonic speakers referred to Anglo-Saxons as Saxones or possibly Saeson (the word Saeson is the modern Welsh word for 'English people'); the equivalent word in Scottish Gaelic is Sasannach and in the Irish language, Sasanach.[19] Catherine Hills suggests that it is no accident, "that the English call themselves by the name sanctified by the Church, as that of a people chosen by God, whereas their enemies use the name originally applied to piratical raiders".[20]
Conversion to Christianity (590–660)
In 565, Columba, a monk from Ireland who studied at the monastic school of Moville under St. Finnian, reached Iona as a self-imposed exile. The influence of the monastery of Iona would grow into what Peter Brown has described as an "unusually extensive spiritual empire," which "stretched from western Scotland deep to the southwest into the heart of Ireland and, to the southeast, it reached down throughout northern Britain, through the influence of its sister monastery Lindisfarne."[57]
In June 597 Columba died. At this time, Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet and proceeded to King Æthelberht's main town of Canterbury. He had been the prior of a monastery in Rome when Pope Gregory the Great chose him in 595 to lead the Gregorian mission to Britain to Christianise the Kingdom of Kent from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Kent was probably chosen because Æthelberht had married a Christian princess, Bertha, daughter of Charibert I the King of Paris, who was expected to exert some influence over her husband. Æthelberht was converted to Christianity, churches were established, and wider-scale conversion to Christianity began in the kingdom. Æthelberht's law for Kent, the earliest written code in any Germanic language, instituted a complex system of fines. Kent was rich, with strong trade ties to the continent, and Æthelberht may have instituted royal control over trade. For the first time following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, coins began circulating in Kent during his reign.
In 635 Aidan, an Irish monk from Iona chose the Isle of Lindisfarne to establish a monastery and close to King Oswald's main fortress of Bamburgh. He had been at the monastery in Iona when Oswald asked to be sent a mission to Christianise the Kingdom of Northumbria from their native Anglo-Saxon paganism. Oswald had probably chosen Iona because after his father had been killed he had fled into south-west Scotland and had encountered Christianity, and had returned determined to make Northumbria Christian. Aidan achieved great success in spreading the Christian faith, and since Aidan could not speak English and Oswald had learned Irish during his exile, Oswald acted as Aidan's interpreter when the latter was preaching.[58] Later, Northumberland's patron saint, Saint Cuthbert, was an abbot of the monastery, and then Bishop of Lindisfarne. An anonymous life of Cuthbert written at Lindisfarne is the oldest extant piece of English historical writing. [e] and in his memory a gospel (known as the St Cuthbert Gospel) was placed in his coffin. The decorated leather bookbinding is the oldest intact European binding.[60]
In 664, the Synod of Whitby was convened and established Roman practice (in style of tonsure and dates of Easter) as the norm in Northumbria, and thus "brought the Northumbrian church into the mainstream of Roman culture."[61] The episcopal seat of Northumbria was transferred from Lindisfarne to York. Wilfrid, chief advocate for the Roman position, later became Bishop of Northumbria, while Colmán and the Ionan supporters, who did not change their practices, withdrew to Iona.
English people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ("family of the Angles"). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[6] England is one of the countries of the United Kingdom.
Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Celtic Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.
Today many English people have recent forebears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.
The English people are the source of the English language, the Westminster system, the common law system and numerous major sports such as cricket, football,[8] rugby union, rugby league and tennis. These and other English cultural characteristics have spread worldwide, in part as a result of the former British Empire.
English nationality
The concept of an "English nation" is far older than that of the "British nation", and the 1990s witnessed a revival in English self-consciousness.[9] This is linked to the expressions of national self-awareness of the other British nations of Wales and Scotland – which take their most solid form in the new devolved political arrangements within the United Kingdom – and the waning of a shared British national identity with the growing distance between the end of the British Empire and the present.[10][11][12]
Many recent immigrants to England have assumed a solely British identity, while others have developed dual or mixed identities.[13][14] Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".[15]
The Rohingya Of Myanmar - Pawns In An Anglo-Chinese Proxy War Fought By Saudi Jihadists
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/the-rohingya-of-myanmar-pawns-in-an-anglo-chinese-proxy-war-fought-by-saudi-jihadists.html?ref=patrick.net
[Update Sept 7 - The post below received some criticism which, in my view, missed its major points. See here for a reply. - b]
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/the-rohingya-of-myanmar-pawns-in-an-anglo-chinese-proxy-war-fought-by-saudi-jihadists.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09c0bed4970d
Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the "western" press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The "liberal human interventionists" like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey's President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya.
That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stocking a fire?
Indeed.
While the ethnic conflict in Rankine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into an Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest:
Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province's Kunming.
Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea.
It is in "Western interest" to hinder China's projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. There is historic precedence for such a Rohingya - Bamar proxy war in Burma. During World War II British imperial forces incited the Rohingya Muslim in Rakhine to fight the Bamar, the dominant Burmese nationalist Buddhists allied with Japanese imperialists.
The Rohingya immigrated to the northern parts of Arakan, today's Rakhine state of Myanmar, since the 16th century. A large wave came under British imperial occupation some hundred years ago. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh continued over the last decades. In total about 1.1 million of Muslim Rohingya live in Myanmar. The birthrate of the Rohingya is said to be higher than that of the local Arakanese Buddhists. These feel under pressure in their own land.
While these populations are mixed in some towns there are many hamlets that belong 100% to either one. There is generally little integration of Rohingya within Myanmar. Most are officially not accepted as citizens. Over the centuries and the last decades there have been several violent episodes between the immigrants and the local people. The last Muslim-Buddhist conflict raged in 2012.
Since then a clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. He grew up and was educated in Saudi Arabia. He received military training in Pakistan and worked as Wahhabi Imam in Saudi Arabia before he came to Myanmar. He has since brainwashed, hired and trained a local guerrilla army of some 1,000 Takfiris.
According to a 2015 report in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn there are more than 500,000 Rohingya in Karachi. They came from Bangladesh during the 1970s and 1980s on the behest on General Ziaul Haq's military regime and the CIA to fight the Soviets and the government of Afghanistan:
Rohingya community [in Karachi] is more inclined towards religion and they send their children to madressahs. It is a major reason that many religious parties, especially the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, the JI and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl, have their organisational set-up in Burmese neighborhoods.
...
"A number of Rohingya members living in Arakan Abad have lost their relatives in recent attacks by Buddhist mobs in June 2012 in Myanmar," said Mohammad Fazil, a local JI activist.
Rohingyas in Karachi regularly collect donations, Zakat and hides of sacrificial animals and send these to Myanmar and Bangladesh to support the displaced families.
Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:
A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group.
...
"Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare," the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group's operations in Rakhine State.
Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said.
The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Bugghist hamlets were also burned down.
The government of Myanmar alleges that Ataullah and his group want to declare an independent Islamic State. In October 2016 his group started to attack police and other government forces in the area. On August 25 this year his group attacked 30 police stations and military outposts and killed some 12 policemen. The army and police responded, as is usual in this conflict, by burning down Rohingya townships suspected of hiding guerilla forces.
To escape the growing violence many local Arakanese Buddhist flee their towns towards the capitol of Rankine. Local Rohingya Muslim flee across the border to Bangladesh. Only the later refugees seem to get international attention.
The Myanmar army has ruled the country for decades. Under economic pressure it nominally opened up to the "west" and instituted "democracy". The darling of the "west" in Myanmar is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won the elections and she has a dominant role in the government. But Aung San Suu Kyi is foremost a nationalist and the real power is still held by the generals.
While Aung San Suu Kyi was propped up as democratic icon she has little personal merit except being the daughter of Thakin Aung San, a famous leader of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) and the "father of the nation". In the 1940s Thakin Aung San was recruited by the Imperial Japanese Army to wage a guerrilla war against the colonial British army and the British supply line to anti-Japanese forces in China:
The young Aung San learned to wear Japanese traditional clothing, speak the language, and even took a Japanese name. In historian Thant Myint-U's "The River of Lost Footsteps," he describes him as "apparently getting swept away in all the fascist euphoria surrounding him," but notes that his commitment remained to independence for Myanmar.
The ethnic strife in Rakhine also played a role in the British-Japanese conflict over Burma:
In April 1942, Japanese troops advanced into Rakhine State and reached Maungdaw Township, near the border with what was then British India, and is now Bangladesh. As the British retreated to India, Rakhine became a front line.
Local Arakanese Buddhists collaborated with the BIA and Japanese forces but the British recruited area Muslims to counter the Japanese.
"Both armies, British and Japanese, exploited the frictions and animosity in the local population to further their own military aims," wrote scholar Moshe Yegar
When the British won against the Japanese Thakin Aung San change sides and negotiated the end of British imperial rule over Burma. He was assassinated in 1947 with the help of British officers. Since then Burma, later renamed to Myanmar, was ruled by ever competing factions of the military.
Thakin Aung San's daughter Aung San Suu Kyi received a British education and was build up for a role in Myanmar. In the 1980s and 90s she quarreled with the military government. She was given a Nobel Peace Price and was promoted as progressive defender of human rights by the "western" literati. But she, and the National League for Democracy (NLD). she leads, were always the opposite - ultra-right fascists in Buddhist Saffron robes. The hypocrites are now disappointed that she does not speak out in favor of the Rohingya. But doing so would put her on the opposite side her father had famously fought for. It would also put her in opposition to most of the people in Myanmar who have little sympathy for the Rohingya and their Jihadi fight. In general many of the 50 million people of the larger Myanmar fear overwhelming immigration from the 160 million Bengalis of the smaller, flood prone and overpopulated Bangladesh.
Moreover - the Chinese OBOR projects are a huge bon for Myanmar and will help with its economic development. The Saudis and Pakistani send guerilla commanders and money to incite the Rohingya to Jihad in Myanmar. This is a historic repeat of the CIA operation against Soviet influence in Afghanistan. But unlike in Afghanistan the people of Myanmar are not Muslim. They will surely fight against, not join, any Jihad in their country. The Rohingya are now pawns in the great game and will suffer from it.
Myanmar, America's Proxy State: West's "Saint Suu Kyi" Tramples Rohingya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/myanmar-americas-proxy-state-wests-saint-suu-kyi-tramples-rohingya/5525305
Myanmar's "de facto leader" Aung San Suu Kyi recently warned the United States to not refer to the Rohingya ethnic minority as "Rohingya," in an attempt to deny them the dignity and human rights she and her party posed as renowned defenders of.
For those critically examining and long-following political developments in Myanmar and their wider geopolitical implications for Southeast Asia, Asia, and the world, Aung San Suu Kyi and her "National League for Democracy" (NLD) political front, along with a vast array of Western-funded NGOs' turning against Myanmar's Rohingya population after predicating their ascent into power upon "human rights" and "democracy" is no surprise.
For those receiving their news from establishment media networks in the US and Europe, Suu Kyi refusing to recognize the Rohingya, many of whom have lived in Myanmar for generations, may seem puzzling, even disappointing, or more disturbingly, an opportunity for excuses.
However, it was warned before recent elections – hailed by the Western media as "historic" – that not only would Suu Kyi fail to deliver on the utopian promises her party represented, and not only would her coming to power begin a process of recolonization by the British Empire's successors in London and on Wall Street, but that it would also herald increasing persecution, violence, and eventually genocide against the Rohingya minority already long-targeted by Suu Kyi's staunchest supporters.
As early as March 2015 in a previous article titled, "Myanmar: Meet Aung San Suu Kyi's Saffron Mobs," the true nature of Suu Kyi's support base was revealed with the "saffron" robed monks often the centerpiece of Suu Kyi and the NLD's street demonstrations exposed as ultra-violent, genocidal, and very much Western-backed.
Not only did this backing including funding and organizational support, but it also included substantial public relations efforts across the Western media to cover up the true nature of their actions and motivations.
More recently, as Suu Kyi assumed power by proxy through a hand-picked "president" Suu Kyi openly pledged to "rule above," it was warned that the stalwart support of Suu Kyi's "saffron" mobs would be rewarded by giving them an increasingly free hand to target and eliminate Myanmar's Rohingya people.
In the article titled, "Myanmar's New Dictator: Aung San Suu Kyi," it was explicitly stated that:
With the diminished role of the military in government and Suu Kyi's self-serving and selective adherence to the rule of law, her supporters likely anticipate a free hand in actualizing their genocidal ambitions versus not only the Rohingya, but all of their political and sociocultural enemies.
Not only is the prospect of wider violence a concern for the people of Myanmar, but the rise of political order in Myanmar unwilling or incapable of stemming genocide spells chaos for its neighbors, particularly Thailand.
Myanmar: The Rohingya, Saudi Backed ISIS Militants, Aung San Suu Kyi is a US Proxy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/myanmar-the-rohingya-saudi-backed-isis-militants-aung-san-suu-kyi-is-a-us-proxy/5607571
The unfolding crisis in Southeast Asia's state of Myanmar has confounded many geopolitical analysts due to its complex history and the intentionally deceptive and now contradictory coverage provided by the Western media.
The current government of Myanmar is headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). It has ascended into power after a decades-long struggle against the nation's military who ruled the nation for decades.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a Creation and Proxy of US and European Interests
Suu Kyi and her NLD are the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in US, British, and European aid. Entire networks of fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been created to undermine and overwrite Myanmar's sovereign institutions.
The extent of this support and funding is covered by many of the Western organizations themselves, including the Burma Campaign UK, who in its 36 page 2006 report, "Failing the People of Burma?" (.pdf) details extensively how it and its American counterparts have built up Suu Kyi's now impressive political domination of Myanmar.
The report states explicitly:
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED – see Appendix 1, page 27) has been at the forefront of our program efforts to promote democracy and improved human rights in Burma since 1996. We are providing $2,500,000 in FY 2003 funding from the Burma earmark in the Foreign Operations legislation. The NED will use these funds to support Burmese and ethnic minority democracy-promoting organizations through a sub-grant program. The projects funded are designed to disseminate information inside Burma supportive of Burma's democratic development, to create democratic infrastructures and institutions, to improve the collection of information on human rights abuses by the Burmese military and to build capacity to support the restoration of democracy when the appropriate political openings occur and the exiles/refugees return.
It also reports:
Both Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) have Burmese services. VOA broadcasts a 30-minute mix of international news and information three times a day. RFA broadcasts news and information about Burma two hours a day. VOA and RFA websites also contain audio and text material in Burmese and English. For example, VOA's October 10, 2003 editorial, "Release Aung San Suu Kyi" is prominently featured in the Burmese section of VOAnews.com. RFA's website makes available audio versions of 16 Aung San Suu Kyi's speeches from May 27 and 29, 2003. U.S. international broadcasting provides crucial information to a population denied the benefits of freedom of information by its government.
Regarding the indoctrination and education of future leaders of this Western proxy political bloc, it states:
The State Department provided $150,000 in FY 2001/02 funds to provide scholarships to young Burmese through Prospect Burma, a partner organization with close ties to Aung San Suu Kyi. With FY 2003/04 funds, we plan to support Prospect Burma's work given the organization's proven competence in managing scholarships for individuals denied educational opportunities by the continued repression of the military junta, but committed to a return to democracy in Burma.
In regards to the Open Society and its role in interfering with Myanmar's internal politics, the report states:
Our assistance to the Open Society Institute (OSI) (until 2004) provides partial support for a program to grant scholarships to Burmese refugee students who have fled Burma and wish to continue their studies at the undergraduate, or post-graduate level. Students typically pursue degrees in social sciences, public health, medicine, anthropology, and political science. Priority is given to students who express a willingness to return to Burma or work in their refugee communities for the democratic and economic reform of the country.
The report, written in 2006 when another US proxy – Thaksin Shinawatra – presided over Thailand as prime minister until his ouster later that year, would detail the role Thailand was then playing to undermine and overthrow Myanmar's political order:
Last year the U.S. government began funding a new program of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide basic health services to Burmese migrants outside the official refugee camps in cooperation with the Thai Ministry of Public Health. This project has been supported by the Thai government and has received favorable coverage in the local press. Efforts such as this that endeavor to find positive ways to work with the Thai government in areas of common interest help build support for U.S.-funded programs that support Burmese pro-democracy groups.
World Cup squad selected
http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/may/08/england-under-20s-world-cup-squad-announced-080517
The England U20s' World Cup squad for Korea has been named by head coach Paul Simpson
Race (human classification)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
A race of humans is a grouping based on shared physical traits, ancestry, or genetics. Although such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology, they continue to have a strong influence over contemporary social relations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[7] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[8][9]
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[11] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[12][13][14][15][16]
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[17] While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[12] or simplistic way,[18] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]
Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories of scientific racism has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic.[according to whom?] Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[7][21]
Defining race
A popular view in American sociology is that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Nonetheless, some biologists argue that racial categories correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype), and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation.[29][undue weight? – discuss]
When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved.[30] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[31] These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[32] While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.
Socioeconomic factors, in combination with early but enduring views of race, have led to considerable suffering within disadvantaged racial groups.[33] Racial discrimination often coincides with racist mindsets, whereby the individuals and ideologies of one group come to perceive the members of an outgroup as both racially defined and morally inferior.[34] As a result, racial groups possessing relatively little power often find themselves excluded or oppressed, while hegemonic individuals and institutions are charged with holding racist attitudes.[35] Racism has led to many instances of tragedy, including slavery and genocide.[36]
In some countries, law enforcement uses race to profile suspects. This use of racial categories is frequently criticized for perpetuating an outmoded understanding of human biological variation, and promoting stereotypes. Because in some societies racial groupings correspond closely with patterns of social stratification, for social scientists studying social inequality, race can be a significant variable. As sociological factors, racial categories may in part reflect subjective attributions, self-identities, and social institutions.[37][38]
Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately.[39][improper synthesis?] For example, John Hartigan, Jr. argued in 2008 that race as a biological concept is becoming more tenable in a way "that renders claims about its social construction tenuous and uncertain."[40] Accordingly, the racial paradigms employed in different disciplines vary in their emphasis on biological reduction as contrasted with societal construction.
In the social sciences, theoretical frameworks such as racial formation theory and critical race theory investigate implications of race as social construction by exploring how the images, ideas and assumptions of race are expressed in everyday life. A large body of scholarship has traced the relationships between the historical, social production of race in legal and criminal language, and their effects on the policing and disproportionate incarceration of certain groups.
Historical origins of racial classification
Groups of humans have always identified themselves as distinct from neighboring groups, but such differences have not always been understood to be natural, immutable and global. These features are the distinguishing features of how the concept of race is used today. In this way the idea of race as we understand it today came about during the historical process of exploration and conquest which brought Europeans into contact with groups from different continents, and of the ideology of classification and typology found in the natural sciences.[41]
Race and colonialism
According to Smedley and Marks the European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.[41][42] As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups. The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves.[43] Drawing on sources from classical antiquity and upon their own internal interactions—for example, the hostility between the English and Irish powerfully influenced early European thinking about the differences between people[44]—Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups based on physical appearance, and to attribute to individuals belonging to these groups behaviors and capacities which were claimed to be deeply ingrained. A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities.[45] Similar ideas can be found in other cultures,[46] for example in China, where a concept often translated as "race" was associated with supposed common descent from the Yellow Emperor, and used to stress the unity of ethnic groups in China. Brutal conflicts between ethnic groups have existed throughout history and across the world.[47]
Balkanization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or uncooperative with one another.[1][2] Balkanization is a result of foreign policies creating geopolitical fragmentation as can be seen at times in the Western Balkans with respect to the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Third Reich, the United Nations and NATO. Foreign policies can be precipitous to Balkanization.
Nations and societies
The term refers to the division of the Balkan peninsula, formerly ruled almost entirely by the Ottoman Empire, into a number of smaller states between 1817 and 1912.[3] It was coined in the early 19th century and has a strong negative connotation.[4] The term however came into common use in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, with reference to the numerous new states that arose from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
The larger countries within Europe, often being the result of the union of several historical regions or nations, have faced the perceived issue of Balkanization. The Iberian Peninsula and Spain especially has from the time of Al-Andalus had to come to terms with Balkanization,[5] with several separatist movements existing today including the Basque Country and Catalan independentism.
Canada is a stable country but does harbor separatist movements, the strongest of which is the Quebec sovereignty movement which seeks to create a nation-state that would encompass the majority of Canada's French-Canadian population. Two referendums have been held to decide this question, one in 1980 and the last one in 1995 being lost by the separatist side by a tiny margin. Less mainstream, smaller movements also exist in the western provinces, namely Alberta, to protest what is seen as a domination by Quebec and Ontario of Canadian politics. Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow had also considered separation from Canada if the 1995 Quebec independence referendum had succeeded; which would have led to the balkanization of Canada.
Quebec has been the scene of a small but vociferous partition movement from the part of anglophone activist groups opposed to the idea of Independence of Quebec, as such a country would be dominated by francophones on the order of 80%. One such project is the Proposal for the Province of Montreal, which wishes for the establishment of a separate province from Quebec from Montreal's strongly anglophone Anglo-Saxon and immigrant communities.
In January 2007, regarding the growing support for Scottish independence, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and later Prime Minister, Gordon Brown talked of a "Balkanisation of Britain".[6] Independence movements within Britain also exist in England, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland.
Balkanization in Africa
As Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson would argue, Balkanisation was observed to a great extent in Africa. During the 1960s, Countries in the Communauté Financière Africaine have started to opt for "autonomy within the French community" in this post-colonial era.
Countries within the CFA zone were allowed to impose tariffs, regulate trade and manage transport services. Zambia, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania achieved independence in the post-colonial era. This period also saw the break down of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland as well as the East African High Commission. Balkanization was a result of the movement towards a closed economy. Countries were adopting antitrade and anti-market policies. Tariff rates were 15% higher than OECD countries during the 1970s and 1980s. [7]Furthermore, countries took approaches to subsidize their own local industries yet the market within the country was small-scale. Transport networks were fragmented; regulations on labor and capital flow were more regulated; prices were under control. Between 1960 and 1990, balkanization led to disastrous results. The GDP of these regions were 1/10 of OECD countries.[8] Balkanization also resulted in what van de Valle called "typically fairly overvalued exchanged rates" in Africa. Balkanization contributed to what Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson claimed to be a lost decade in Africa.
Economic situations only took a turn during the mid-1990s. Countries within the region started to input more stabilization policies. What was originally a high exchange rate eventually fell to a more reasonable exchange rate after devaluations in 1994. 18 countries had an exchange rate 50% higher than the official exchange rate, by 1994, the number of countries that had such exchange rate was decreased to 4.[9] However, there is still limited progress in improving trade policies within the region according to van de Walle. In addition, the post-independent countries still rely heavily on donors for development plans. Balkanization still has an impact on today's Africa.
Other uses
The term is also used to describe other forms of disintegration, including, for instance, the subdivision of the Internet into separate enclaves.[10] However, Robert Morgus' and Tim Maurer's study suggests that the alarmist term "Balkanization" should be replaced with more appropriate terms such as fragmentation and diversity.[11] The term has been used in American urban planning to describe the process of creating gated communities.
Sectarian violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence
Sectarian violence and/or sectarian strife is a form of communal violence inspired by sectarianism, that is, between different sects of one particular mode of ideology or religion within a nation/community. Religious segregation often plays a role in sectarian violence.
Concept
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:
Traditionally, sectarian violence implies a symmetrical confrontation between two or more non-state actors representing different population groups.[1]
Sectarian violence differs from the concept of race riot. It may involve the dynamics of social polarization, the balkanization of a geographic area along the lines of self-identifying groups, and protracted social conflict.
Some of the possible enabling environments for sectarian violence include power struggles, political climate, social climate, cultural climate, and economic landscape.
Economic conflict: capitalist versus collectivist
Political conflict: communist versus nationalist
Christian conflict: Catholic versus Protestant
Interreligious conflict: Muslim versus Christian, Muslim versus Buddhist
Islamic conflict: Shia versus Sunni
Self-fulfilling lethal prophecies in Myanmar
http://www.atimes.com/article/self-fulling-lethal-prophecies-myanmar/
The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army's attacks on security forces elicited a predictable violent response, one that has triggered the largest exodus ever of Rohingya refugees and threatens a wider crisis
By Carlos Sardiña Galache
Myanmar's Rakhine State is in flames once again. An estimated 270,000 Rohingya Muslims have crossed from this troubled region in northwest Myanmar to Bangladesh, fleeing counterinsurgency operations carried out by the Myanmar Army.
The military offensive is a response to a series of coordinated attacks launched in Maungdaw District on August 25 against three dozen police outposts by an estimated 1,000 militants associated with the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), an armed group that emerged for the first time in October last year.
The violence has already triggered the biggest Rohingya exodus in history and is ongoing at the time of writing.
The Myanmar military, or Tatmadaw, is fighting a particular "war on terror." Immediately after ARSA launched it attacks last month, the government officially declared it a "terrorist organization." Government officials have claimed that ARSA has links with jihadist groups like Islamic State or al-Qaeda. While nobody has shown any evidence so far, there is a distinct possibility that these groups could enter the picture if the region descends into further chaos.
The portrayal of ARSA as a Rohingya terrorist outfit is helping the Tatmadaw to boost its popularity in the country to an unprecedented degree. The civilian wing of the government, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and most of the population are closing ranks with the military against the foreign threat posed by what officials refer to as "Bengali terrorists", often without making clear distinctions between militants and the general Rohingya population.
Whether the word terrorism is adequate to describe ARSA or not, it carries strong emotional connotations – all the more intense in our post-9/11 world. The use of the term in connection with the Rohingya is more plausible now than before: for the first time in decades there is a Rohingya armed group active in Rakhine.
ARSA, or elements associated with it, seem to have targeted civilians in Rakhine state, despite claims made its leadership of fighting only against security forces.
The emergence of this "terrorist threat" is to a certain extent a self-fulfilling prophecy which has been years in the making. The portrayal of the Rohingya as "terrorists" has been touted for years, long before ARSA emerged, and got widespread currency among the local Rakhine population after the waves of sectarian violence that pitted them against the Muslims in 2012.
With the allegations of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and the "demographic explosion" of the Rohingya population, estimated before the recent exodus at around 1.1 million in Rakhine state, is one of the main elements that has underpinned their demonization.
The Rohingya have a history of armed struggle, as do most ethnic groups in the country, whose zenith was the Mujahid Rebellion in the aftermath of independence in 1948. But that insurgency was defeated in 1961, and subsequent armed groups like the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) have been largely inactive for decades.
Rohingya leaders have for years advocated non-violent strategies to regain their people's rights, fully aware that taking weapons against the Tatmadaw would unleash a terrible backlash against their own people.
ARSA had allegedly recruited and trained Rohingya young men three years before the attacks of last October. At that time, four years had passed since the sectarian violence of 2012 that sent up to 140,000 Rohingya to camps in Bangladesh without any prospect of returning to their homes.
With the ostensible rationale of maintaining peace between the Muslim Rohingya and the Buddhist Rakhine communities, the government has maintained a strict separation in many areas of the state which will make any possible reconciliation difficult.
Until May 2015, many Rohingya were able to flee to Malaysia (and to a lesser extent Indonesia), often putting themselves in the hands of ruthless mafias of human smugglers. But that exit route was closed when the Thai and Malaysian governments dismantled those criminal networks.
Unable to vote in the 2015 elections, the Rohingya were also deprived of even a token participation in the country's political life. The victory of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) in the 2015 elections arouse some hopes among the Rohingya community. But the new government has not brought any tangible or positive change to their lives.
The appeal of ARSA is far from universal among the Muslim population in Rakhine state, but this context of utter hopelessness provides the key to understanding why so many young men have decided to join a struggle doomed to failure.
The only glimmer of hope for the Rohingya was the commission headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, appointed by Suu Kyi in 2016 to investigate the situation in Rakhine state and submit recommendations for policy change. The recommendations were contained in a report submitted only a few hours before ARSA launched its attacks last month.
It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that ARSA timed its attacks to coincide with the report's release. In a statement made public after the attacks, the militants claimed that the Tatmadaw had increased its military presence in the Maungdaw district and conducted raids against the area's Rohingya to "derail" the report recommendations.
Then ARSA launched its attacks to "defend the helpless people and ourselves." According to this twisted logic, it would seem that ARSA conducted the attacks that derailed the commission's recommendations in order to prevent the Tatmadaw from doing so.
Whatever the immediate circumstance preceding ARSA's latest wave of attacks, it is impossible to portray them as "defensive." And while the ultimate goal of ARSA's leadership remains a mystery, it is inconceivable that they did not foresee an entirely predictable brutal backlash against their own civilian population. Moreover, such a backlash could well have been part of their calculations.
There is possibly only one specific context in which it is possible to portray as "defensive" clearly offensive actions and justify as "protective" a move that will lead one's own civilians to an almost certain death: the context of a genocide, a crime that ARSA has attributed to the Tatmadaw
Some activists and rights groups have argued that the Rohingya are the victims of "genocide" carried out by the Myanmar state, a notion that gained wider currency after 2012. The word has been increasingly used in media reports since then and has become associated with the Rohingya's plight.
The genocide narrative has also become deeply embedded in the psyche of the Rohingya themselves, both in Myanmar and among the diaspora. As the accusation of terrorism from the other side, it makes any negotiated solution highly difficult.
Some have argued that a "slow burning" genocide started around 1978, when the regime of General Ne Win launched the Operation Dragon King with the stated purpose of identifying illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. At that time, 250,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh from the heavy-handed methods of the army and security forces, but most were allowed to return after a few months.
Ever since, the Rohingya have been subjected to oppressive policies that have been increasingly pervasive, but also erratic. The Myanmar state has acted in an ad-hoc manner throughout, sometimes provoking events and at other times reacting to them; sometimes using the Rohingya as political pawns – as when it allowed them to vote in the elections held in 2010 to counterweight the Rakhine nationalist parties – and sometimes as convenient scapegoats.
The Rohingya have been the victims of multiple state-sponsored crimes against humanity, as have other ethnic minorities and the Bamar majority. Others have been directed specifically at the Rohingya, most importantly the crime of apartheid, to which they have been subjected for decades, including policies aimed at reducing their birth rates. They have also suffered bouts of ethnic cleansing, as the Rakhine state capital of Sittwe, a city that drove out its Rohingya population five years ago, shows.
Realities on the ground, harsh as they are, belie the notion of genocide. While the Rohingya are victimized in general terms, the conditions vary enormously from place to place. And not all Rohingya are victims to the same degree; some are even relatively wealthy. Most Rohingya live in abject misery, but so do most of their Rakhine neighbors, whose lives are not much different in the second poorest state in the country.
The sum of these crimes does not amount to genocide, but it has contributed to create the conditions in which a genocide, or at least an even more brutal ethnic cleansing, is possible provided there is a trigger strong enough to make the Rohingya appear as an existential threat to Myanmar. ARSA's emergence might well be such a trigger.
The tragedy unfolding in Rakhine state now is further alienating the Rohingya still living in Myanmar. Both sides in the fighting seem to be feeding each other's fires: the more ARSA attacks, the more brutal the Tatmadaw's response and the more popular support it gets.
And the more the Tatmadaw attacks civilians, the more Rohingya youth will be pushed to join ARSA. It is difficult to make predictions in an extremely volatile situation, but the Rohingya crisis appears to be reaching a point of no return. Both ARSA and the Tatmadaw seem to be sleepwalking into the self-fulfillment of their worst prophecies.
Border
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border
Borders are geographic boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions, such as governments, sovereign states, federated states, and other subnational entities. Borders are established through agreements between political or social entities that control those areas; the creation of these agreements is called boundary delimitation.
Some borders—such as a state's internal administrative border, or inter-state borders within the Schengen Area—are often open and completely unguarded. Other borders are partially or fully controlled, and may be crossed legally only at designated border checkpoints and border zones may be controlled.
Borders may even foster the setting up of buffer zones. A difference has also been established in academic scholarship between border and frontier, the latter denoting a state of mind rather than state boundaries.[1]
Borders
In the past, many borders were not clearly defined lines; instead there were often intervening areas often claimed and fought over by both sides, sometimes called marchlands. A special case in recent times was the neutral zones that were set up along parts of Saudi Arabia's borders with Kuwait and Iraq. (However, these zones no longer exist.)[citation needed]. In modern times, marchlands have been replaced by clearly defined and demarcated borders. For the purposes of border control, airports and seaports are also classed as borders. Most countries have some form of border control to regulate or limit the movement of people, animals, and goods into and out of the country. Under international law, each country is generally permitted to legislate the conditions that have to be met in order to cross its borders, and to prevent people from crossing its borders in violation of those laws.
Some borders require presentation of legal paperwork like passports and visas, or other identity documents, for persons to cross borders. To stay or work within a country's borders aliens (foreign persons) may need special immigration documents or permits; but possession of such documents does not guarantee that the person should be allowed to cross the border.
Moving goods across a border often requires the payment of excise tax, often collected by customs officials. Animals (and occasionally humans) moving across borders may need to go into quarantine to prevent the spread of exotic infectious diseases. Most countries prohibit carrying illegal drugs or endangered animals across their borders. Moving goods, animals, or people illegally across a border, without declaring them or seeking permission, or deliberately evading official inspection, constitutes smuggling. Controls on car liability insurance validity and other formalities may also take place.
In places where smuggling, migration, and infiltration are a problem, many countries fortify borders with fences and barriers, and institute formal border control procedures. But some borders are merely signposted. This is common in countries within the European Schengen Area and on rural sections of the Canada–United States border. Borders may even be completely unmarked, typically in remote or forested regions; such borders are often described as "porous". Migration within territorial borders, and outside of them, represented an old and established pattern of movement in African countries, in seeking work and food, and to maintain ties with kin who had moved across the previously porous borders of their homelands. When the colonial frontiers were drawn, Western countries attempted to obtain a monopoly on the recruitment of labor in many African countries, which altered the practical and institutional context in which the old migration patterns had been followed, and some might argue, are still followed today. The frontiers were particularly porous for the physical movement of migrants, and people living in borderlands easily maintained transnational cultural and social networks.
A border may have been:
Agreed by the countries on both sides
Imposed by the country on one side
Imposed by third parties, e.g. an international conference
Inherited from a former state, colonial power or aristocratic territory
Inherited from a former internal border, such as within the former Soviet Union
Never formally defined.
In addition, a border may be a de facto military ceasefire line.
Classification of borders
Political borders are imposed on the world through human agency.[2] This means that, although a political border may follow a river or mountain range, such a feature does not automatically define the political border, even though it may be a major physical barrier to crossing. Political borders are often classified by whether or not they follow conspicuous physical features on the earth.
Borders that are natural
Natural borders are geographical features that present natural obstacles to communication and transport. Existing political borders are often a formalization of these historical, natural obstacles.
Some geographical features that often constitute natural borders are:
Oceans: oceans create very costly natural borders. Very few nation-states span more than one continent. Only very large and resource-rich states are able to sustain the costs of governance across oceans for longer periods of time.
Rivers: some political borders have been formalized along natural borders formed by rivers. Some examples are: the Niagara River (Canada–USA), the Rio Grande (Mexico–USA), the Rhine (France–Germany), and the Mekong (Thailand–Laos). Where a precise line is desired, it is often drawn along the thalweg, the deepest line along the river. In the Hebrew Bible, Moses defined the middle of the river Arnon as the border between Moab and the Israelite tribes settling east of the river Jordan (Deuteronomy 3:16). The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1910 that the boundary between the American states of Maryland and West Virginia is the south bank of the Potomac River.
Lakes: larger lakes create natural borders. One example is the natural border created by Lake Tanganyika, with DR Congo and Zambia on its west shore and Tanzania and Burundi on the east.
Forests: denser jungles or forests can create strong natural borders. One example of a natural forest border is the Amazon rainforest, separating Brazil and Bolivia from Peru, Colombia, Venezuela and Guyana.
Mountain ranges: research on borders suggests that mountains have especially strong effects as natural borders. Many nations in Europe and Asia have had their political borders defined along mountain ranges, often along a drainage divide.
Throughout history, technological advances have reduced the costs of transport and communication across these natural borders. This has reduced the significance of natural borders over time. As a result, political borders that have been formalized more recently — such as those in Africa or Americas — typically conform less to natural borders[citation needed] than very old borders — such as those in Europe or Asia — do.
Geometric borders
Geometric boundaries are formed by straight lines (such as lines of latitude or longitude), or occasionally arcs (Pennsylvania/Delaware) regardless of the physical and cultural features of the area. Political boundaries of this kind can often be found around the states that developed out of colonial holdings, such as in Africa and the Middle East.
Fiat borders
A generalization of the idea of geometric borders is the idea of fiat boundaries, by which is meant any sort of boundary which does not track an underlying bona fide physical discontinuity. Fiat boundaries are typically the product of human demarcation—for example in demarcating electoral districts or postal districts.[3]
Relict borders
A relict border is a former boundary, which may no longer be a legal boundary at all. However, the former presence of the boundary can still be seen in the landscape. For instance, the boundary between East and West Germany is no longer an international boundary, but can still be seen because of historical markers on the landscape and continues to be a cultural and economic division in Germany today.
Maritime borders
A maritime border is a division enclosing an area in the ocean where a nation has exclusive rights over the mineral and biological resources,[4] encompassing maritime features, limits and zones.[5] Maritime borders represent the jurisdictional borders of a maritime nation[6] and are recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Maritime borders exist in the context of territorial waters, contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones; however, the terminology does not encompass lake or river boundaries, which are considered within the context of land boundaries.
Some maritime borders have remained indeterminate despite efforts to clarify them. This is explained by an array of factors, some of which illustrate regional problems.[7]
Border economics
The presence of borders often fosters certain economic features or anomalies. Wherever two jurisdictions come into contact, special economic opportunities arise for border trade. Smuggling provides a classic case; contrariwise, a border region may flourish on the provision of excise or of import–export services — legal or quasi-legal, corrupt or legitimate. Different regulations on either side of a border may encourage services to position themselves at or near that border: thus the provision of pornography, of prostitution, of alcohol and/or of narcotics may cluster around borders, city limits, county lines, ports and airports. In a more planned and official context, Special Economic Zones (SEZs) often tend to cluster near borders or ports.
Even if the goods are not perceived to be undesirable, states will still seek to document and regulate the cross-border trade in order to collect tariffs and benefit from foreign currency exchange revenues.[8] Thus, there is the concept unofficial trade in goods otherwise legal; for example, the cross-border trade in livestock by pastoralists in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia sells an estimated $250 to $300 million of livestock to Somalia, Kenya and Djibouti every year unofficially, over 100 times the official estimate.[8]
Human economic traffic across borders (apart from kidnapping) may involve mass commuting between workplaces and residential settlements. The removal of internal barriers to commerce, as in France after the French Revolution or in Europe since the 1940s, de-emphasises border-based economic activity and fosters free trade. Euroregions are similar official structures built around commuting across boundary.
Politics
Political borders have a variety of meanings for those whom they affect. Many borders in the world have checkpoints where border control agents inspect persons and/or goods crossing the boundary.
In much of Europe, controls on persons were abolished by the 1985 Schengen Agreement and subsequent European Union legislation. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam, the competence to pass laws on crossing internal and external borders within the European Union and the associated Schengen Area states (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the European Union, except where states have used a specific right to opt out (United Kingdom and Ireland, which maintain the Common Travel Area amongst themselves).
The United States has notably increased measures taken in border control on the Canada–United States border and the United States–Mexico border during its War on Terrorism (See Shantz 2010). One American writer has said that the 3,600 km (2,200 mi) US-Mexico border is probably "the world's longest boundary between a First World and Third World country".[9]
Historic borders such as the Great Wall of China, the Maginot Line, and Hadrian's Wall have played a great many roles and been marked in different ways. While the stone walls, the Great Wall of China and the Roman Hadrian's Wall in Britain had military functions, the entirety of the Roman borders were very porous, which encouraged Roman economic activity with neighbors.[10] On the other hand, a border like the Maginot Line was entirely military and was meant to prevent any access in what was to be World War II to France by its neighbor, Germany; Germany ended up going around the Maginot Line through Belgium just as it had done in World War I.
Cross-border regions
Macro-regional integration initiatives, such as the European Union and NAFTA, have spurred the establishment of cross-border regions. These are initiatives driven by local or regional authorities, aimed at dealing with local border-transcending problems such as transport and environmental degradation.[11] Many cross-border regions are also active in encouraging intercultural communication and dialogue as well as cross-border economic development strategies.
In Europe, the European Union provides financial support to cross-border regions via its Interreg programme. The Council of Europe has issued the Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation, providing a legal framework for cross-border co-operation even though it is in practice rarely used by Euroregions.
Border studies
There has been a renaissance in the study of borders during the past two decades, partially from creation of a counter narrative to notions of a borderless world that have been advanced as part of globalization theory.[12] Examples of recent initiatives are the Border Regions in Transition network of scholars,[13] the International Boundaries Research Unit at the University of Durham,[14] the Association of Borderlands Studies based in North America,[15] the African Borderlands Research Network (ABORNE) and the founding of smaller border research centres at Nijmegen[16] and Queen's University Belfast.[17]
Imam tells Muslim migrants to 'breed children' with Europeans to 'conquer their countries' and vows: 'We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295/Imam-tells-Muslim-migrants-breed-children-Europeans-conquer-countries-vows-trample-underfoot-Allah-willing.html
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed gave the speech at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem
He said Americans, Italians, Germans and French forced to take refugees
Claims Europe was only welcoming refugees as a source of labour
A top Iman has told Muslims to use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens and 'conquer their countries'.
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed gave the speech at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem claiming Europe was only welcoming refugees as a new source of labour.
He said Europe was facing a demographic disaster and urged Muslims to have children with westerners so they could 'trample them underfoot, Allah willing.'
'Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst,' Infowars reports.
'We will give them fertility. We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries.'
In the full video, he said Americans, Italians, Germans and the French will be forced to take refugees.
Italy has the lowest birth rate since 1861 with 8.4 per 1,000 people and much or Europe is following the same trend.
Birth rates are far higher in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which is where most migrants are coming from.
The notion of using mass migration as a form of stealth jihad is outlined in the Koran, which states, 'And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance.'
To move to a new land in order to bring Islam is considered a meritorious act.
What Is "Hijrah" and Is It a Trojan Horse?
http://network.crcna.org/muslim-ministry/what-hijrah-and-it-trojan-horse
The Islamic calendar contains two small letters which are a bit like the letters BC or AD or CE in the Gregorian calendar. These letters are "A.H" and they stand for the year of the hijrah. All of Islamic time is measured that way and to a strict Muslim this year is 1436 AH [until mid-October] and then 1437 AH thereafter. Now all of this sounds a bit trivial, but it is loaded with meaning.
A bit of history:
In 622 AD, Muhammad and his band of followers who did not have much of any political power moved to a city called Yathrib [now renamed Medina, which in Arabic means the city of the prophet]. Yathrib had a thriving Jewish population who were quite well off. Muhammad moved from his tribe's city of Mecca because he was not accepted in his role as a prophet or leader. In Medina he gained power by multiple methods, some of which changed over time. These included:
Convincing people of Medina to follow him due to his charismatic leadership
Convincing other people of Mecca to come over an join him
Convincing some Jewish people to join him
In a fashion, this was still the non-compulsion stage of expanding his influence. Quickly, however, he realized that strategic alliances, force, and subjugation could achieve his goal of political and religious power much more quickly. This became the compulsion stage of his career and his methods included:
Expropriation of property
Forced conversions
Religious and political domination of all other groups
Expulsion of those who did not agree with him.
Islamic history is thus dated from the time of the immigration to Medina as it marks the turning point in Islamic history from being in an oppressed minority situation to becoming the majority in terms of religious, political, and military power. This pattern has repeated itself throughout history.
Fast forward to today
The Islamic doctrine of hijrah or conquest via immigration is alive and well. In a similar fashion to the movement to Medina, the purpose is to first establish a beach-head, and then slowly gain increasing influence and power, likely in a peaceful way at first, and then more violent later. The goal, as it was in Medina, is not to cooperate and to assimilate to the local customs and culture—although that can be done for a short time in order to gain a critical mass of Muslims—but it is to strategically take over more an more areas of religious and political influence. Recall that the Albanian leader of ISIS said (quoting the example of Abraham from Sura 60:3), "We say to you as Ibrahim said to his father: "Verily we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has started between us and you hostility and hatred forever, until you believe in Allah alone." If one looks at areas of London, Amsterdam, Paris and Stockholm, this replay of Islamic history is patently obvious. At present four hijrah tactics are being used to gain control of certain areas:
Multiplication of Muslims by birth rates
Multiplication of Muslims by immigration
Multiplication of Muslim influence via political systems
Expulsion of non-Muslims from certain areas by numerical and sometimes dominance by force—[think of the effect of documented rape-gangs in areas of Great Britain]
So what does this have to do with refugees?
ISIS has gone on record that it will swamp Europe with refugees. It is doing so and is simply using the playbook of Muhammad at Mediina as very consistently ISIS is living out the adage "What Did Muhammad Do?" If we had a chance to replay history or to re-write history, the Jews of Medina who either were forced to convert to Islam, turned into sex slaves, killed or expelled, might have second thoughts about welcoming the "poor and oppressed and weak" band of followers of Muhammad and him as their leader. It would appear that non-Muslim countries today would need a great deal of discernment as to who is truly "poor and oppressed and weak" and whether or not they have any other agendas.
For reflection:
A lot of talk of the Syrian refugee crisis does not consider the doctrine of hijrah. Is that wise?
What might the people of Medina have done differently and lived—not just in subjugation, but in freedom—to tell about it?
One author has gone on record as calling hijrah "civilization jihad" that is to say, a holy war designed to take over a civilization. Is that logical or pure hysteria?
Bal·kan·ize
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Balkanize
or bal·kan·ize (bôl′kə-nīz′)
tr.v. Bal·kan·ized, Bal·kan·iz·ing, Bal·kan·iz·es or bal·kan·ized or bal·kan·iz·ing or bal·kan·iz·es
1. To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units.
2. To divide (an organization or system) into small, incompatible units
The New Face Of America
http://www.onlinedigitalpubs.com/article/The+New+Face+Of+America/649650/62244/article.html
Susan Saulny
The number of young Americans who identify themselves as multiracial is soaring. What effect will they have on the country's racial identity?
Ask Michelle López-Mullins, a junior at the University of Maryland and the president of the school's Multiracial and Biracial Student Association, how she marks her race on forms like the census, and she says, "It depends on the day, and it depends on the options."
López-Mullins, 20, is Chinese and Peruvian on one side and white and American Indian on the other. She's is part of a generation of young adults of mixed racial backgrounds who are rejecting the color lines that have defined Americans for decades in favor of a more fluid sense of identity.
The crop of students moving through college right now includes the largest group of mixed-race people ever to come of age in the United States, and they are only the vanguard: The country is in the midst of a demographic shift driven by both immigration and intermarriage.
It's a sea change from how things were 50 years ago: In 1961, mixed-race marriages were illegal in at least 16 states. Then in 1967, those laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia ruling. In the years since, interracial marriage among all groups has skyrocketed.
Today one in seven new marriages is between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to the Pew Research Center. Multiracial and multiethnic Americans (usually grouped together as "mixed race") are one of the country's fastest-growing demographic groups; census estimates from 2009 indicate there are about 7.5 million. And the racial results of the 2010 Census are expected to show the trend continuing or even accelerating.
Transcending Race?
Laura Wood, 19, a sophomore at the University of Maryland, is half black and half white. "I think it's really important to acknowledge who you are and everything that makes you that," she says. "If someone tries to call me black I say, 'Yes—and white.' "
No one knows how the growth of the multiracial population might change the country. Optimists say the blending of the races is a step toward transcending race, toward an America free of bigotry and prejudice.
Pessimists say that a more powerful multiracial presence will lead to more stratification and come at the expense of other minority groups, particularly African-Americans, who could lose influence.
And some sociologists say that grouping all multiracial people together glosses over differences in circumstances between someone who is, say, black and Latino and someone who is Asian and white. Among interracial couples, white-Asian pairings tend to be better educated and have higher incomes, according to Reynolds Farley at the University of Michigan. And the rates of intermarriage are lowest between blacks and whites, which may be a result of the economic and social distance between them.
Rainier Spencer, director of the Afro- American Studies program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, thinks there is too much "emotional investment" in the notion of multiracialism as a panacea for the nation's age-old divisions.
"The mixed-race identity is not a transcendence of race; it's a new tribe," he says.
Americans mostly think of themselves in singular racial terms. Consider President Barack Obama's answer to the race question on the 2010 Census: Although his mother was white and his father was black, the President checked only one box, black, even though he could have marked both races.
'One-Drop Rule'
Of course, some portion of the country's population has been mixed-race since the first white settlers had children with Native Americans. What has changed is how mixedrace Americans are defined and counted.
A century ago, the nation saw itself in a range of hues: The 1890 Census included categories for racial mixtures such as quadroon (one-fourth black) and octoroon (one-eighth black). And all the censuses from 1850 to 1920, with one exception, included a mulatto category, which was for people who had any perceptible trace of African blood.
But by the 1930 Census, terms for mixedrace people had disappeared, replaced by the so-called one-drop rule, an antebellum (pre- Civil War) convention that held that anyone with even a bit of African ancestry was black, period. (Similarly, people who were white and Indian were generally counted as American Indian.)
By the 1970s, Americans were expected to designate themselves as members of one officially recognized racial group: black, white, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, or "other," an option used frequently by people of Hispanic origin. (The census considers "Hispanic" an ethnicity, not a race.)
The 2000 Census was the first in which Americans were allowed to choose more than one race. The multiracial option came about after years of complaints, mostly by the white mothers of biracial children who objected to their children being allowed to check only one race. In 2000, 7 million people—about 2.4 percent of the population— reported being more than one race.
According to estimates from the Census Bureau, the mixed-race population has grown by roughly 35 percent since 2000. And many researchers think the census and other surveys undercount the mixed-race population. The 2010 mixed-race statistics are being released a few states at a time over the next few months.
"There could be some big surprises," says Jeffrey Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center, meaning that the number of mixed-race Americans could be substantially higher than the estimates. "There's not only less stigma to being in these groups, there's even positive cachet."
The faces of mixed-race America are not just visible on college campuses; they're in politics, business, and sports. And the ethnically ambiguous are especially ubiquitous in movies, television shows, and advertising.
"Advertisers want to make sure they're reaching everybody," says Robert Thompson, a professor of media at Syracuse University. "If anybody wants to be inclusive, featuring mutiracial people is one way to appear diverse in a very abbreviated way."
Not 'Ozzie and Harriet'
And since so much advertising is aimed at young people, New York Times advertising columnist Stuart Elliott says, featuring multiracial Americans "is a way to say, 'See, we get it: It's not Ozzie and Harriet anymore; it's a different America.' "
There are news, social networking, and dating Web sites focusing on the mixedrace audience. There are mixed-race film festivals, conferences, and student groups like the one at the University of Maryland, which offer peer support and activism.
"The No. 1 reason why we exist is to give people who feel like they don't want to choose a side, that don't want to label themselves based on other people's interpretations of who they are, to give them a place, that safe space," says López-Mullins.
Not all of the 100 or so members of the Multiracial and Biracial Student Association at the University of Maryland are multiracial; the group welcomes anyone.
At a meeting in the fall, David Banda, who is Hispanic, and Julicia Coleman, who is black and Indian, came just to unwind among supportive listeners. They discussed the frustrations of being an interracial couple, even today, especially back in their hometown, Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
"When we go back home, let's say for a weekend or to the mall, they see us walking and I get this look, you know, sort of giving me the idea: 'Why are you with her? You're not black, so she should be with a black person,' " says Banda, 20. "Even some of my friends tell me, 'Why don't you date a Hispanic girl?' "
Banda and Coleman are thinking about having children someday. "One of the main reasons I joined is to see the struggles mixed people go through," Banda says, "so we can be prepared when that time comes."
Kilts and Dashikis
Despite the growth of the mixed-race population, there are challenges.
Ian Winchester, a junior who is part Ghanaian, part Scottish-Norwegian, says he has always felt both lucky and torn about being biracial. His Scottish grandfather was keen on dressing him in kilts as a boy. The other side of the family would put him in a dashiki, a brightly colored shirt common in West Africa.
"I do feel empowered being biracial," he says. "The ability to question your identity— identity in general—is really a gift."
But, Winchester continues, "I don't even like to identify myself as a race anymore. My family has been pulling me in two directions about what I am. I just want to be a person."
Fifteen Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes All Three WTC Towers Collapsed on 9/11 Due to Controlled Demolition
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fifteen-years-later-physics-journal-concludes-all-three-wtc-towers-collapsed-on-911-due-to-controlled-demolition/5545488
By Jay Syrmopoulos
Global Research, September 13, 2016
The Mind Unleashed 11 September 2016
Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings.
But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as "tin foil hat" conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.
"Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities," the four physicists conclude in the damning report.
The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.
The comprehensive study in Europhysics Magazine directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative.
In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology remarked that the case was exceptionally bizarre. There were no other known cases of total structural collapses in high-rise buildings caused by fires and so it is deeply unusual that it should have happened three times in the space of one day, noted NIST.
Official investigations have never been able to thoroughly and coherently explain how this might have happened and various teams tasked with examining the collapse have raised difficult questions about the veracity of the government's story.
Perhaps most damning of all, the experts claimed that after a thorough forensic analysis of video footage of the building's collapse, it revealed signs of a controlled implosion. Additionally, Jones has co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.
The authors of the study note that the buildings fell with such speed and symmetry that they there was no other feasible explanation for the sudden collapse at free fall speeds – directly refuting studies that attempted to debunk the idea that the building fell without resistance. These respected experts' new forensic analysis only adds to the growing movement of people calling for a new and impartial investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Revealing the scope and breadth of public disbelief in the official government narrative surrounding the events of 9/11, even presidential candidate Jill Stein has recently called for a new investigation.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.11, 08:54:41
"The mixed-race identity is not a transcendence of race; it's a new tribe," he says.
ain't that the truth..
Abraham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם, Modern Avraham, Tiberian ʾAḇrāhām, Arabic: إبراهيم Ibrahim), originally Avram or Abram, is the common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions.[1] In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God; in Christianity, he is the prototype of all believers, Jewish or Gentile; and in Islam he is seen as a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad.[2]
The narrative in Genesis revolves around the themes of posterity and land. Abraham is called by God to leave the house of his father Terah and settle in the land originally given to Canaan, but which God now promises to Abraham and his progeny. Various candidates are put forward who might inherit the land after Abraham, but all are dismissed except for Isaac, his son by his half-sister Sarah. Abraham purchases a tomb (the Cave of the Patriarchs) at Hebron to be Sarah's grave, thus establishing his right to the land, and in the second generation his heir Isaac is married to a woman from his own kin, thus ruling the Canaanites out of any inheritance. Abraham later marries Keturah and has six more sons, but on his death, when he is buried beside Sarah, it is Isaac who receives "all Abraham's goods", while the other sons receive only "gifts" (Genesis 25:5–8).[3]
The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history.[4] A common hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counter-claim on Moses and the Exodus tradition.[5]
Historicity
In the early and middle 20th century, leading archaeologists such as William F. Albright, and biblical scholars such as Albrecht Alt, believed that the patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged these views; these arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[6] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[7]
Origins of the narrative
Abraham's name is apparently very ancient, as the tradition found in Genesis no longer understands its original meaning (probably "Father is exalted" – the meaning offered in Genesis 17:5, "Father of a multitude", is a popular etymology).[8] The story, like those of the other patriarchs, most likely had a substantial oral prehistory.[9] At some stage the oral traditions became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch; a majority of scholars believe this stage belongs to the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE.[10] The mechanisms by which this came about remain unknown,[11] but there are currently two important hypotheses.[12] The first, called Persian Imperial authorisation, is that the post-Exilic community devised the Torah as a legal basis on which to function within the Persian Imperial system; the second is that Pentateuch was written to provide the criteria for who would belong to the post Exilic Jewish community and to establish the power structures and relative positions of its various groups, notably the priesthood and the lay "elders".[12]
Nevertheless, the completion of the Torah and its elevation to the centre of post-Exilic Judaism was as much or more about combining older texts as writing new ones – the final Pentateuch was based on existing traditions.[13] In Ezekiel 33:24, written during the Exile (i.e., in the first half of the 6th century BCE), Ezekiel, an exile in Babylon, tells how those who remained in Judah are claiming ownership of the land based on inheritance from Abraham; but the prophet tells them they have no claim because they don't observe Torah.[14] Isaiah 63:16 similarly testifies of tension between the people of Judah and the returning post-Exilic Jews (the "gôlâ"), stating that God is the father of Israel and that Israel's history begins with the Exodus and not with Abraham.[15] The conclusion to be inferred from this and similar evidence (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah), is that the figure of Abraham must have been preeminent among the great landowners of Judah at the time of the Exile and after, serving to support their claims to the land in opposition to those of the returning exiles.[15]
Abraham in religious traditions
Overview
Abraham is given a high position of respect in three major world faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God – a belief which gives the Jews a unique position as the Chosen People of God. In Christianity, the Apostle Paul taught that Abraham's faith in God – preceding the Mosaic law – made him the prototype of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised. The Islamic prophet Muhammad claimed Abraham, whose submission to God constituted Islam as a "believer before the fact" and undercut Jewish claims to an exclusive relationship with God and the Covenant.[16]
Judaism
In Jewish tradition, Abraham is called Avraham Avinu (אברהם אבינו), "our father Abraham," signifying that he is both the biological progenitor of the Jews (including converts, according to Jewish tradition), and the father of Judaism, the first Jew.[17] His story is read in the weekly Torah reading portions, predominantly in the parashot: Lech-Lecha (לֶךְ-לְךָ), Vayeira (וַיֵּרָא), Chayei Sarah (חַיֵּי שָׂרָה), and Toledot (תּוֹלְדֹת).
A cryptic story in the Babylonian Talmud states that "On the eve of every Shabbat, Judah the Prince's pupils, Rab Hanina and Rab Hoshaiah, who devoted themselves especially to cosmogony, used to create a delicious calf by means of the Sefer Yetzirah, and ate it on the Sabbath."[18] Mystics[19] assert that the biblical patriarch Abraham used the same method to create the calf prepared for the three angels who foretold Sarah's pregnancy in the biblical account at Genesis 18:7.
Christianity
Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam. It is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is central to Christianity, and the idea of a divine Messiah is what separates Christianity from the other two religions.[20] In Romans 4, Abraham's merit is less his obedience to the divine will than his faith in God's ultimate grace; this faith provides him the merit for God having chosen him for the covenant, and the covenant becomes one of faith, not obedience.[21] I
The Roman Catholic Church calls Abraham "our father in Faith" in the Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Canon, recited during the Mass (see Abraham in the Catholic liturgy). He is also commemorated in the calendars of saints of several denominations: on 20 August by the Maronite Church, 28 August in the Coptic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (with the full office for the latter), and on 9 October by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. In the introduction to his 15th-century translation of the Golden Legend's account of Abraham, William Caxton noted that this patriarch's life was read in church on Quinquagesima Sunday.[22] He is the patron saint of those in the hospitality industry.[23][page needed] The Eastern Orthodox Church commemorates him as the "Righteous Forefather Abraham", with two feast days in its liturgical calendar. The first time is on 9 October (for those churches which follow the traditional Julian Calendar, 9 October falls on 22 October of the modern Gregorian Calendar), where he is commemorated together with his nephew "Righteous Lot". The other is on the "Sunday of the Forefathers" (two Sundays before Christmas), when he is commemorated together with other ancestors of Jesus. Abraham is also mentioned in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, just before the Anaphora, and Abraham and Sarah are invoked in the prayers said by the priest over a newly married couple.
Islam
Islam regards Abraham as a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad.[2]
Ibrāhīm is mentioned in 35 chapters of the Quran, more often than any other biblical personage apart from Moses.[24] He is called both a hanif (monotheist) and muslim (one who submits),[25] and Muslims regard him as a prophet and patriarch, the archetype of the perfect Muslim, and the revered reformer of the Kaaba in Mecca.[26] Islamic traditions consider Ibrāhīm (Abraham) the first Pioneer of Islam (which is also called millat Ibrahim, the "religion of Abraham"), and that his purpose and mission throughout his life was to proclaim the Oneness of God. In Islam, he is referred to as "Ibrahim Khalilullah", meaning "Abraham the Friend [of Allah]".
Mysterious September 11 2001 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill
by Michel Chossudovsky
The following text published by Global Research in 2002, provides details on the breakfast meeting hosted by Sen Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss on the morning of September 11.
In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were in Islamabad for consultations. Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan's military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, "Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country." 1
Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001. The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August, the mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August, General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit to Washington, General Mahmoud met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration.2
9/11 "Follow-up Meeting" on Capitol Hill
On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were also present. This meeting was described by one press report as a "follow-up meeting" to that held in Pakistan in late August. "On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) 'was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.' (...) On 9/11, Graham was back in DC 'in a follow-up meeting with' Pakistan intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee chair Porter Goss (R-FL)" 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):
"When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.
(...)
Mahmood Ahmed, director general of Pakistan's intelligence service, was "very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States," Graham said.
Goss could not be reached Tuesday [September 11]. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed "secure location." Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI." 4
While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks: "Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic 'He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him'. Graham said."5
Again the political significance of the personal relationship between General Mahmoud (the alleged "money man" behind 9/11) and Secretary of State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September), not a word was mentioned in the US media's September coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.
"A Cloak but No Dagger"
Eight months later on the 18th of May, two days after the "BUSH KNEW" headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: "A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11". Focusing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a "war on terrorism". Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that "Ahmad :ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban":
"Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy — 13 agencies spending billions of dollars — paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.
Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. "A lot of nonsense," he calls this week's uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden's associates might be planning airline hijackings.
"None of this is news, but it's all part of the finger-pointing," Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. "It's foolishness." [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged "money-man" behind 9-11 on the morning of September 11]
(...) Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an "intelligence failure" for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA's clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency's "fine work."
(...)
On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. 6 (Washington Post, 18 May 2002)
"Putting Two and Two together"
While the Washington Post scores in on the "notoriously close" links between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 "money-man" at breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was this mysterious breakfast venue a "political lapse", an intelligence failure or something far more serious? How come the very same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry "to reveal the truth on 9-11."(see p. )
The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple fait divers and fails to "put two and two together". Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that "the money-man" behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan's "collaboration" in the "war on terrorism" in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)
Smoking Gun
When the "foreknowledge" issue hit the street on May 16th, "Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found 'no smoking gun' that would warrant another inquiry." 8 This statement points to an obvious "cover-up". The smoking gun was right there sitting in the plush surroundings of the Congressional breakfast venue on Capitol on the morning of September 11.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/mysterious-september-11-2001-breakfast-meeting-on-capitol-hill/5544262 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/mysterious-september-11-2001-breakfast-meeting-on-capitol-hill/5544262)
Ron
Monotheismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of only one god that created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world.[1][2][3] A broader definition of monotheism is the belief in one god.[4][5][6][7] A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform (panentheistic) monotheism which, while recognising various distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.[8]
Monotheism is distinguished from henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity, and monolatrism, the recognition of the existence of many gods but with the consistent worship of only one deity.
The broader definition of monotheism characterizes the traditions of Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Hindu sects such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, Islam, Judaism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho no Ie, Sikhism, Tengrism (Tangrism), Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Yazidism, and Zoroastrianism, and elements of pre-monotheistic thought are found in early religions such as Atenism, Ancient Chinese religion, and Yahwism.[9]
EtymologyThe word monotheism comes from the Greek μόνος (monos)[10] meaning "single" and θεός (theos)[11] meaning "god".[12] The English term was first used by Henry More (1614–1687).[13]
OriginsQuasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten. A possible inclination towards monotheism emerged during the Vedic period[14] in Iron-Age South Asia. The Rigveda exhibits notions of monism of the Brahman, particularly in the comparatively late tenth book,[15] which is dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya sukta. Bonpa Dharma, perhaps from twentieth century BCE,[16] was the first recorded religion to declare that there is one God above all, whom it calls Sangpo Bumtri.[17] However, it does not encourage monotheistic worship of a Sangpo Bumtri or any god for salvation but rather it focuses on karma.
Since the sixth century BCE, Zoroastrians have believed in the supremacy of one God above all: Ahura Mazda as the "Maker of All"[18] and the first being before all others.[19][20][21][22] Nonetheless, Zoroastrianism was not strictly monotheistic[23] because it venerated other yazatas alongside Ahura Mazda. Ancient Hindu theology, meanwhile, was monist, but was not strictly monotheistic in worship because it still maintained the existence of many gods, who were envisioned as aspects of one supreme God, Brahman.[24] Numerous ancient Greek philosophers, including Xenophanes of Colophon and Antisthenes believed in a similar polytheistic monism that came close to monotheism, but fell short.[24] Judaism was the first religion to conceive the notion of a personal monotheistic God within a monist context.[24] The concept of ethical monotheism, which holds that morality stems from God alone and that its laws are unchanging,[25][26] first occurred in Judaism,[27] but is now a core tenet of most modern monotheistic religions, including Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Bahá'í Faith.[28]
According to Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition, monotheism was the original religion of humanity; this original religion is sometimes referred to as "the Adamic religion", or, in the terms of Andrew Lang, the "Urreligion". Scholars of religion largely abandoned that view in the 19th century in favour of an evolutionary progression from animism via polytheism to monotheism, but by 1974 this theory was less widely held, and a modified view similar to Lang's became more prominent.[2][need quotation to verify] Austrian anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt had postulated an Urmonotheismus, "original" or "primitive monotheism" in the 1910s.[29] It was objected[by whom?] that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had grown up in opposition to polytheism as had Greek philosophical monotheism.[2] Karen Armstrong[30] and other authors have written that the concept of monotheism gradually developed through a series of periodic transitions; first came animism, which developed into polytheism, which developed into henotheism, which developed into monolatry, which developed into true monotheism.[31]
Abrahamic religionsWhile all adherents of the Abrahamic religions consider themselves to be monotheists, Judaism does not consider Christianity to be monotheistic, recognizing only Islam as monotheistic.[32] Islam likewise does not recognize modern-day Christianity as monotheistic, primarily due to the Christian doctrine of Trinity, which Islam argues was not a part of the original monotheistic Christianity as preached by Jesus.[33] Christians, on the other hand, argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is a valid expression of monotheism, citing that the Trinity does not consist of three separate deities, but rather the three persons, who exist consubstantially (as one substance) within a single Godhead.[34][35][36]
JudaismJudaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world.[37] God in Judaism is strictly monotheistic,[38] an absolute one, indivisible, and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. The Babylonian Talmud references other, "foreign gods" as non-existent entities to whom humans mistakenly ascribe reality and power.[39] One of the best-known statements of Rabbinical Judaism on monotheism is the Second of Maimonides' 13 Principles of faith:
God, the Cause of all, is one. This does not mean one as in one of a pair, nor one like a species (which encompasses many individuals), nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements, nor as a single simple object that is infinitely divisible. Rather, God is a unity unlike any other possible unity.[40]
Judaism[41] and Islam reject the Christian idea of monotheism. Judaism uses the term shituf to refer to the worship of God in a manner which Judaism does not deem to be monotheistic.
In Ancient IsraelDuring the 8th century BCE, the worship of YHWH in Israel was in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible reflect this competition, as in the books of Hosea and Nahum, whose authors lament the "apostasy" of the people of Israel, threatening them with the wrath of God if they do not give up their polytheistic cults.[42][43]
Ancient Israelite religion was originally polytheistic;[44] the Israelites worshipped many deities,[45] including El, Baal, Asherah, and Astarte. YHWH was originally the national god of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.[46] As time progressed, the henotheistic cult of Yahweh grew increasingly militant in its opposition to the worship of other gods.[44] Later, the reforms of King Josiah imposed a form of strict monolatrism. After the fall of Judah to Babylon, a small circle of priests and scribes gathered around the exiled royal court, where they first developed the concept of YHWH as the sole God of the world.[24]
The ShemaShema Yisrael ("Hear,
- Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah, and is the title of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Hebrew: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' אֶחָד), found in Deuteronomy 6:4, sometimes alternatively translated as "The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, and its twice-daily recitation as a mitzvah (religious commandment). It is traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words, and for parents to teach their children to say it before they go to sleep at night.
Christianity
Among early Christians there was considerable debate over the nature of the Godhead, with some denying the incarnation but not the deity of Jesus (Docetism) and others later calling for an Arian conception of God. Despite at least one earlier local synod rejecting the claim of Arius, this Christological issue was to be one of the items addressed at the First Council of Nicaea.
The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea (in present-day Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical[47] council of bishops of the Roman Empire, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general ecumenical councils of bishops (synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define a common creed for the Church and address heretical ideas.
One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. All but two bishops took the first position; while Arius' argument failed.
Christian orthodox traditions (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestants) follow this decision, which was reaffirmed in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople and reached its full development through the work of the Cappadocian Fathers. They consider God to be a triune entity, called the Trinity, comprising three "persons", God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three are described as being "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος).
Christians overwhelmingly assert that monotheism is central to the Christian faith, as the Nicene Creed (and others), which gives the orthodox Christian definition of the Trinity, begins: "I believe in one God". From earlier than the times of the Nicene Creed, 325 CE, various Christian figures advocated[48] the triune mystery-nature of God as a normative profession of faith. According to Roger E. Olson and Christopher Hall, through prayer, meditation, study and practice, the Christian community concluded "that God must exist as both a unity and trinity", codifying this in ecumenical council at the end of the 4th century.[49]
Most modern Christians believe the Godhead is triune, meaning that the three persons of the Trinity are in one union in which each person is also wholly God. They also hold to the doctrine of a man-god Christ Jesus as God incarnate. These Christians also do not believe that one of the three divine figures is God alone and the other two are not but that all three are mysteriously God and one. Other Christian religions, including Unitarian Universalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism and others, do not share those views on the Trinity.
Some Christian faiths, such as Mormonism, argue that the Godhead is in fact three separate individuals which include God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.[50] Each individual having a distinct purpose in the grand existence of human kind.[51] Furthermore, Mormons believe that before the Council of Nicaea, the predominant belief among many early Christians was that the Godhead was three separate individuals. In support of this view, they cite early Christian examples of belief in subordinationism.[52]
Unitarianism is a theological movement, named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism.[53]
Islam
In Islam, Allāh (God) is all-powerful and all-knowing, the creator, sustainer, ordainer and judge of the universe.[54][55] God in Islam is strictly singular (tawhid)[56] unique (wahid) and inherently One (ahad), all-merciful and omnipotent.[57] Allāh exists without place[58] and the Qur'an states that "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (Qur'an 6:103)[55] Allāh is the only God and the same God worshiped in Christianity and Judaism. (29:46).[59]
Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in the context of both Christianity and Judaism, with some thematic elements similar to Gnosticism.[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] Islamic belief states that Muhammad did not bring a new religion from God, but is rather the same religion as practiced by Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and all the other prophets of God.[68] The assertion of Islam is that the message of God had been corrupted, distorted or lost over time and the Quran was sent to Muhammad in order to correct the lost message of the Torah, New Testament and prior scriptures from God.[69]
The Qur'an asserts the existence of a single and absolute truth that transcends the world; a unique and indivisible being who is independent of the creation.[70] The Qur'an rejects binary modes of thinking such as the idea of a duality of God by arguing that both good and evil generate from God's creative act. God is a universal god rather than a local, tribal or parochial one; an absolute who integrates all affirmative values and brooks no evil.[71] Ash'ari theology, which dominated Sunni Islam from the tenth to the nineteenth century, insists on ultimate divine transcendence and holds that divine unity is not accessible to human reason. Ash'arism teaches that human knowledge regarding it is limited to what was has been revealed through the prophets, and on such paradoxes as God's creation of evil, revelation has to accepted bila kayfa (without [asking] how).[72]
Tawhid constitutes the foremost article of the Muslim profession of faith, "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.[73] To attribute divinity to a created entity is the only unpardonable sin mentioned in the Qur'an.[71] The entirety of the Islamic teaching rests on the principle of tawhid.[74]
As they traditionally profess a concept of monotheism with a singular person as God, Judaism[41] and Islam reject the Christian idea of monotheism. Judaism uses the term Shituf to refer to non-monotheistic ways of worshiping God. Though Muslims venerate Jesus (Isa in Arabic) as a prophet, they do not accept the doctrine that he was a begotten son of God.
Grand strategy wargame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy_wargame
A grand strategy wargame is a wargame that places focus on grand strategy: military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources.
Scope of games
Grand strategy wargames typically focus on a war or series of wars, often over a long period of time. Individual units, even armies, may not be represented; instead, attention is given to theaters of operation. All of the resources of the nations involved may be mobilized as part of a long-term struggle. The simulation typically involves political and economic as well as military conflict. At the most extreme end of this is the branch of strategy games in which the player assumes the role of the government of an entire nation-state and in which not conducting war is a possibility, such as in Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun.
Examples of grand strategy games where military tactics are highly abstracted or eliminated entirely include the board games Risk and Diplomacy. Another example which is slightly more realistic is Axis & Allies, although in it military factors are still highly abstracted. Games such as Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, Empires in Arms, and Empires of the Middle Ages are true wargames, in the sense that military units are specifically represented, and engage in direct combat based on specific military attributes. The Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis,Supreme Ruler Ultimate and Total War series are examples of computer-based grand strategy games.[1]
Gameplay and dynamics
Games use various techniques and features to simulate aspects of national military strategy. Some games simulate industrial production of resources and military units. Others may enable various diplomatic moves and alliances.
For example, the game Axis & Allies utilizes a "price" for producing units, consisting of a quantity of production units allocated each turn and used to "pay" for each unit produced. Some games allow various nations to produce units at a set rate, corresponding to their actual real-world industrial and economic history.
Academic use
Because such games go beyond simple warfare to deal with economics, geography, history and politics they are especially useful in education and studies of international affairs.[2]
Disguise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disguise
A disguise can be anything which conceals or changes a person's physical appearance, including a wig, glasses, makeup, costume or other items. Camouflage is a type of disguise for people, animals and objects. Hats, glasses, changes in hair style or wigs, plastic surgery, and make-up are also used.
Disguises can be used by criminals and secret agents seeking to avoid identification. A person working for an agency trying to get information might go 'undercover' to get information without being recognised by the public; a celebrity may go 'incognito' in order to avoid unwelcome press attention. In comic books and films, disguises are often used by superheroes, and in science fiction they may be used by aliens. Dressing up in costumes is a Halloween tradition.
Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".[1] However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]
Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the Universe and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[9] There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[10] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[11]
The study of religion encompasses a wide variety of academic disciplines, including theology, comparative religion and social scientific studies. Theories of religion offer various explanations for the origins and workings of religion.
With the onset of the modernisation of and the scientific revolution in the western world, some aspects of religion have cumulatively been criticized. The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[12]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.14, 19:38:33
A grand strategy wargame is a wargame that places focus on grand strategy: military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources.
aka.. sovereign or faux sovereign foreign policy.
sovereignRelated to sovereign: Sovereign nation, Sovereign wealth funds
sov·er·eign (sŏv′ər-ĭn, sŏv′rĭn)
n.
1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
a. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
b. A national governing council or committee.
2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
3. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.
Foreign policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy
A country's foreign policy, also called foreign relations or foreign affairs -policy, consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve goals within its international relations milieu. The approaches are strategically employed to interact with other countries. The study of such strategies is called foreign policy analysis. In recent times, due to the deepening level of globalization and transnational activities, the states will also have to interact with non-state actors. The aforementioned interaction is evaluated and monitored in attempts to maximize benefits of multilateral international cooperation. Since the national interests are paramount, foreign policies are designed by the government through high-level decision making processes. National interests accomplishment can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or through exploitation. Usually, creating foreign policy is the job of the head of government and the foreign minister (or equivalent). In some countries the legislature also has considerable effects. Foreign policies of countries have varying rates of change and scopes of intent, which can be affected by factors that change the perceived national interests or even affect the stability of the country itself. The foreign policy of one country can have profound and lasting impact on many other countries and on the course of international relations as a whole, such as the Monroe Doctrine conflicting with the mercantilist policies of 19th-century European countries and the goals of independence of newly formed Central American and South American countries.
HistoryThe ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle described humans as social animals. Therefore, friendships and relations have existed between humans since the beginning of human interaction. As the organization developed in human affairs, relations between people also organized. Foreign policy thus goes back to primitive times. The inception in human affairs of foreign relations and the need for foreign policy to deal with them is as old as the organization of human life in groups. Before writing, most of these relations were carried out by word of mouth and left little direct archaeological evidence.
The literature from ancient times, the Bible, the Homeric poems, the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and many others, show an accumulation of experience in dealing with foreigners. Ancient Chinese and Indian writings[which?] give much evidence of thought concerned with the management of relations between peoples in the form of diplomatic correspondence between rulers and officials of different states and within systems of multi-tiered political relations such as the Han dynasty and its subordinate kings, the more powerful of which[which?] conducted their own limited foreign relations as long as those did not interfere with their primary obligations to the central government, treatises by Chanakya and other scholars, and the preserved text of ancient treaties, as well as frequent references by known ancient writers to other, even older sources which have since been lost or remain in fragmentary form only.
MeaningAccording to Business Dictionary.com, foreign policy is plan of action adopted by one nation in regards to its diplomatic dealings with other countries. Foreign policy is established as a systemic way to deal with issues that may arise with other countries. In the modern era, no country can afford to live in isolation in this age of interdependence.
20th centuryGlobal wars were fought three times in the twentieth century. Consequently, international relations became a public concern as well as an important field of study and research. After the Second World War and during the 1960s, many researchers[who?] in the U.S. particularly, and from other countries in common, brought forth a wealth of research work and theory. This work was done for international relations and not for foreign policy as such. Gradually, various theories began to grow around the international relations, international systems and international politics but the need for a theory of foreign policy, that is the starting point in each sovereign state, continued to receive negligible attention. The reason was that the states used to keep their foreign policies under official secrecy and it was not considered appropriate for public, as it is considered today, to know about these policies.[citation needed] This iron-bound secrecy is an essential part for the framework of foreign policy formulation.
World War II and its devastation posed a great threat and challenge for humanity which revealed to everyone the importance of international relations. Though foreign policy formulation continued to remain a closely guarded process at the national level, wider access to governmental records and greater public interest provided more data from which academic work placed international relations in a structured framework of political science. Graduate and post-graduate courses developed. Research was encouraged, and gradually, international relations became an academic discipline in universities throughout the world.
The subject of whether or not constructive attempts at involvement by citizens benefits the disciplines of the "art," or whether or not such disciplines as intercultural and interpersonal communications and others may play a significant part in the future of international relations could be a subject for further study by interested individuals/groups and is encouraged at the educational level.
Writers[who?] researching foreign policy in the 20th century were unaware of whether or not agencies who most closely dealt with foreign policy kept logs of statistical experience not unlike the actuarial statistics kept by organizations of the insurance industry assessing the risk and danger involved (e.g. when situation "C" happened before, and subject included instances of "E" and "L", how was it handled and what was the result? When were peaceful and amicable results leading to better relations ever obtained through considered action and what was that action?).
The writers who worked with the foreign policy can be divided in two groups:
World war writers who treat international politics and foreign policy as an indifferent, single field of study.
Writers who recognize foreign policy as a source rather than the substance of international politics and bring it under study as a subject.
(The second group restricts its work to foreign policy making.)
The works of second group comes closer to the theory of foreign policy but there is no attempt to formulate a basic theory of foreign policy. Hans Morgenthau's works on principal elements of foreign policy seem to have covered the most ground.[1]
Need for a general theory of foreign policyMcGowan and Shapiro, in their work on comparative study of foreign policy of different countries, felt that the lack of a basic theory of foreign policy was particularly disabling, and pointed out the harmful effect of the absence of a general theory of foreign policy on the foreign policy literature.
The most fundamental question that arises here is: why do we lack theories of foreign policy? Or why do we need general theory of foreign policy?
The absence of a general theory in this field leads to some serious consequences. Without theory:
We cannot explain the relationships we discover; we can make predictions only about the foreign policy behavior.
We will have to depend on luck and educative guesses to come up with worthwhile research hypothesis.
Research will become an ad-hoc or unplanned research, with no justification provided for the selection of cases—no system and no consistency.
A field without theory is hardly an area of disciplined scientific inquiry.
A diplomat will be likely to have a more complex estimate or knowledge of other governments. His or her estimate, however, will certainly be simplistic and heavily influenced by his or her own perceptual blinders, leading to faulty (or biased) policy judgments.
A theoretical framework of foreign policy is needed to analyze the day-to-day interactions in international relations and to compare individual foreign policies. The focus is primarily on the policies of state actors with defined territories and jurisdictional boundaries, and less so on non-state actors, except in the context of how they impact national government decisions and policies. The formal field of study of international relations is itself fairly[clarification needed] recent and a specific subset of international relations such as foreign policy analysis does not receive wide attention as a field of scientific study, as opposed to the widespread use of terms like 'foreign policy' and 'foreign policy expert' in news media and general discussions about government when such experts may have more extensive backgrounds in fields other than foreign policy analysis. The organization Foreign Policy Interrupted recognized the gender disparity in foreign policy expert representation, and is amplifying the number of female voices in foreign policy media coverage. Government officials involved in making foreign policy often perceive risk in giving away information to about their policy making processes and do not discuss the subject, as control of information is itself often a part of foreign policy.
The vast record of empirical data and research is given academic attention to fit it into the framework of a general theory of foreign policy.
The second group of writers has made contributions in its development in many ways:
Collation of systematic empirical studies with a view to articulating general pro-positions pertaining to state behavior.
Analysis of foreign policy making with an emphasis on the process itself and the determinants that influence foreign policy.
Development of a scientific approach to and model for foreign policy analysis such as the rational actor model, domestic-public model, etc.
Studies undertaken to prepare world order models.
Religion in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
Religion in the United Kingdom and in the countries that preceded it has been dominated, for over 1,400 years, by various forms of Christianity. Religious affiliations of United Kingdom citizens are recorded by regular surveys, the four major ones being the national decennial census, the Labour Force Survey, the British Social Attitudes survey and the European Social Survey. According to the 2011 Census, Christianity is the major religion, followed by Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in terms of number of adherents. Among Christians, Anglicans are the most common denomination, followed by the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. This, and the relatively large number of individuals with nominal or no religious affiliations, has led commentators to variously describe the United Kingdom as a multi-faith and secularised society.
The United Kingdom was formed by the union of previously independent countries in 1707, and consequently most of the largest religious groups do not have UK-wide organisational structures. While some groups have separate structures for the individual countries of the United Kingdom, others have a single structure covering England and Wales or Great Britain. Similarly, due to the relatively recent creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, most major religious groups in Northern Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis.
While the United Kingdom as a whole lacks an official religion, the Church of England remains the state church of its largest constituent country, England. The Monarch of the United Kingdom is the Supreme Governor of the Church, and accordingly, only a Protestant may inherit the British throne.
History
Pre-Roman forms of religion in Britain included various forms of ancestor worship and paganism.[3] Little is known about the details of such religions (see British paganism). Forms of Christianity have dominated religious life in what is now the United Kingdom for over 1,400 years. It was introduced by the Romans to what is now England, Wales, and Southern Scotland. The doctrine of Pelagianism, declared heretical in the Council of Carthage (418), originated with a British-born ascetic, Pelagius.
The Anglo-Saxon invasions briefly re-introduced paganism in the 5th and 6th centuries; Christianity was again brought to Great Britain by Catholic Church and Irish-Scottish missionaries in the course of the 7th century (see Anglo-Saxon Christianity).[4] Insular Christianity as it stood between the 6th and 8th centuries retained some idiosyncrasies in terms of liturgy and calendar, but it had been nominally united with Roman Christianity since at least the Synod of Whitby of 664. Still in the Anglo-Saxon period, the archbishops of Canterbury established a tradition of receiving their pallium from Rome to symbolize the authority of the Pope.
The Catholic Church remained the dominant form of Western Christianity in Britain throughout the Middle Ages, but the (Anglican) Church of England became the independent established church in England and Wales in 1534 as a result of the English Reformation.[5] It retains a representation in the UK Parliament and the British monarch is its Supreme Governor.[6]
In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, established in a separate Scottish Reformation in the sixteenth century, is recognized as the national church. It is not subject to state control and the British monarch is an ordinary member, required to swear an oath to "maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government" upon his or her accession.[7][8]
The adherence to the Catholic Church continued at various levels in different parts of Britain, especially among recusants and in the north of England,[9] but most strongly in Ireland. This would expand in Great Britain, partly due to Irish immigration in the nineteenth century,[10] the Catholic emancipation and the Restoration of the English hierarchy.
Particularly from the mid-seventeenth century, forms of Protestant nonconformity, including Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers and, later, Methodists, grew outside of the established church.[11] The (Anglican) Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920 and, as the (Anglican) Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1870 before the partition of Ireland, there is no established church in Northern Ireland.[12]
The Jews in England were expelled in 1290 and only emancipated in the 19th century. British Jews had numbered fewer than 10,000 in 1800 but around 120,000 after 1881 when Russian Jews settled permanently in Britain.[13]
The substantial immigration to the United Kingdom since the 1920s has contributed to the growth of foreign faiths, especially of Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism,[14] Buddhism in the United Kingdom experienced growth partly due to immigration and partly due to conversion (especially when including Secular Buddhism).[15]
As elsewhere in the western world, religious demographics have become part of the discourse on multiculturalism, with Britain variously described as a post-Christian society,[16] as "multi-faith",[17] or as secularised.[18] Scholars have suggested multiple possible reasons for the decline, but have not agreed on their relative importance. Martin Wellings lays out the "classical model" of secularization, while noting that it has been challenged by some scholars.
The familiar starting-point, a classical model of secularization, argues that religious faith becomes less plausible and religious practice more difficult in advanced industrial and urbanized societies. The breakdown or disruption of traditional communities and norms of behavior; the spread of a scientific world-view diminishing the scope of the supernatural and the role of God; increasing material affluence promoting self-reliance and this-worldly optimism; and greater awareness and toleration of different creeds and ideas, encouraging religious pluralism and eviscerating commitment to a particular faith, all form components of the case for secularization. Applied to the British churches in general by Steve Bruce and to Methodism in particular by Robert Currie, this model traces decline back to the Victorian era and charts in the twentieth century a steady ebbing of the sea of faith.[19][20][21]
Religious affiliations
In the 2011 census, Christianity was the largest religion, stated as their affiliation by 59.5% of respondents.[22][23][25] This figure was found to be 53% in the 2007 Tearfund survey,[56] 42.9 percent in the 2009 British Social Attitudes Survey[53] and 42.98 percent in the EU-funded European Social Survey published in April 2009[40] for those identifying as Christian.
Although there was no UK-wide data in the 2001 or the 2011 census on adherence to individual Christian denominations,[57] Ceri Peach estimated in 2005 that 62% of Christians were Anglican, 13.5% Catholic, 6% Presbyterian and 3.4% Methodist, with small numbers in other Protestant denominations and the Orthodox church.[58] The 2009 British Social Attitudes Survey, which covers Great Britain but not Northern Ireland, indicated that over 50 percent would self-classify as not religious at all, 19.9 percent were part of the Church of England, 9.3% non-denominational Christian, 8.6% Catholic, 2.2% Presbyterian/Church of Scotland, 1.3% Methodist, 0.53% Baptist, 1.17% other Protestant, 0.23% United Reformed Church/Congregational, 0.06% Free Presbyterian, 0.03% Brethren Christian and 0.41% other Christian.[53]
In a 2015 survey conducted by BSA (British Social Attitudes) on religious affiliation; 49% of respondents indicated 'no religion' and 42% indicated they were Christians, while 8% affiliated with non-Christian religions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc.)[59]
The Pew Research Center Western Europe Survey held in August 2017 asked the question "What is your present religion, if any?" with 17% of respondents selcting 'Catholicism', 54% selecting 'Protestantism', and 24% selecting 'Unaffiliated'.
Religions other than Christianity, such as Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism, have established a presence in the United Kingdom, both through immigration and by attracting converts. Others that have done so include the Bahá'í Faith, the Rastafari movement and Neopaganism.
Attendance
Society in the United Kingdom is markedly more secular than it was in the past and the number of churchgoers fell over the second half of the 20th century.[60] The Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 reported that 18% were "a practising member of an organised religion".[48] The Tearfund Survey in 2007 found that only 7% of the population considered themselves as practising Christians. Some 10% attended church weekly and two-thirds had not gone to church in the past year.[56][61] The Tearfund Survey also found that two-thirds of UK adults (66%) or 32.2 million people had no connection with the Church at present (nor with another religion). These people were evenly divided between those who have been in the past but have since left (16 million) and those who have never been in their lives (16.2 million).
A survey in 2002 found Christmas attendance at Anglican churches in England varied between 10.19% of the population in the diocese of Hereford, down to just 2.16% in Manchester.[62] Church attendance at Christmas in some dioceses was up to three times the average for the rest of the year. Overall church attendance at Christmas has been steadily increasing in recent years; a 2005 poll found that 43 per cent expected to attend a church service over the Christmas period, in comparison with 39% and 33% for corresponding polls taken in 2003 and 2001 respectively.[63]
A December 2007 report by Christian Research showed that the services of the Catholic Church had become the best-attended services of Christian denominations in England, with average attendance at Sunday Mass of 861,000, compared to 852,000 attending Anglican services. Attendance at Anglican services had declined by 20% between 2000 and 2006, while attendance at Catholic services, boosted by large-scale immigration from Poland and Lithuania, had declined by only 13%. In Scotland, attendance at Church of Scotland services declined by 19% and attendance at Catholic services fell by 25%.[64] British Social Attitudes Surveys have shown the proportion of those in Great Britain who consider they "belong to" Christianity to have fallen from 66% in 1983 to 43% in 2009.[53]
In 2012 about 6% of the population of the United Kingdom regularly attended church, with the average age of attendees being 51; in contrast, in 1980, 11% had regularly attended, with an average age of 37. It is predicted that by 2020 attendance will be around 4%, with an average age of 56.[60] This decline in church attendance has forced many churches to close down across the United Kingdom, with the Church of England alone closing 1,500 churches between 1969 and 2002. Their fates include dereliction, demolition, and residential, artistic and commercial conversion.[65] In October 2014 weekly attendance at Church of England services dropped below 1 million for the first time. At Christmas 2014, 2.4 million attended. For that year baptisms were 130,000, down 12% since 2004; marriages were 50,000, down 19%; and funerals 146,000, down 29%. The Church estimated that about 1% of churchgoers were lost to death each year; the Church's age profile suggested that attendances would continue to decline.[66]
One study showed that in 2004 at least 930,000 Muslims attended a mosque at least once a week, just outnumbering the 916,000 regular churchgoers in the Church of England.[67] Muslim sources claim the number of practising Muslims is underestimated as nearly all of them pray at home.[68]
Belief
There is a disparity between the figures for those identifying themselves with a particular religion and for those proclaiming a belief in a God:
In a 2011 YouGov poll, 34% of UK citizens said they believed in a God or gods.[70]
A Eurobarometer opinion poll in 2010 reported that 37% of UK citizens "believed there is a God", 33% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force" and 25% answered "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force".[71]
The 2008 European Social Survey suggested that 46.94% of UK citizens never prayed and 18.96% prayed daily.[40]
A survey in 2007 suggested that 42% of adults resident in the United Kingdom prayed, with one in six praying daily.[72]
Jedi census phenomenon
In the 2001 census, 390,127 individuals (0.7 percent of total respondents) in England and Wales self-identified as followers of the Jedi faith. This Jedi census phenomenon followed an internet campaign that stated, incorrectly, that the Jedi belief system would receive official government recognition as a religion if it received enough support in the census.[73] An email in support of the campaign, quoted by BBC News, invited people to "do it because you love Star Wars ... or just to annoy people".[74] The Office for National Statistics revealed the total figure in a press release entitled "390,000 Jedi there are".[75]
Christianity
The United Kingdom was formed by the union of previously independent states in 1707,[76][77][78] and consequently most of the largest religious groups do not have UK-wide organisational structures. While some groups have separate structures for the individual countries of the United Kingdom, others have a single structure covering England and Wales or Great Britain. Similarly, due to the relatively recent creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, most major religious groups in Northern Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis.
Islam
Estimates in 2009 suggested a total of about 2.4 million Muslims over all the United Kingdom.[112][113] According to Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the number of Muslims in Britain could be up to 3 million.[114] The vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom live in England and Wales: of 1,591,126 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, 1,546,626 were living in England and Wales, where they form 3 per cent of the population; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.8 per cent of the population;[115] and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.[116] Between 2001 and 2009 the Muslim population increased roughly 10 times faster than the rest of society.[117]
Most Muslim immigrants to the United Kingdom came from former colonies. The biggest groups of Muslims are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian and Arab origins,[118] with the remainder coming from Muslim-dominated areas such as Southwest Asia, Somalia, Malaysia, and Indonesia.[119] During the 18th century, lascars (sailors) who worked for the British East India Company settled in port towns with local wives.[120] These numbered only 24,037 in 1891 but 51,616 on the eve of World War I.[121] Naval cooks, including Sake Dean Mahomet, also came from what is now the Sylhet Division of Bangladesh.[122] From the 1950s onwards, the growing Muslim population has led to a number of notable Mosques being established, including East London Mosque, London Central Mosque, Manchester Central Mosque, London Markaz, and the Baitul Futuh of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. According to Kevin Brice, a researcher at the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, thousands convert to Islam annually and there are approximately 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain, where they run two mosques.[123]
According to a Labour Force Survey estimate, the total number of Muslims in Great Britain in 2008 was 2,422,000, around 4 per cent of the total population.[124] Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population grew by more than 500,000.[124] In 2010, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated 2,869,000 Muslims in Great Britain.[125] The largest age-bracket within the British Muslim population were those under the age of 4, at 301,000 in September 2008.[124] The Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Forum of Europe are the umbrellas organisations for many local, regional and specialist Islamic organisations in the United Kingdom, although it is disputed how representative this organisation is of British Muslims as a whole.
Judaism
The Jewish Naturalisation Act, enacted in 1753, permitted the naturalisation of foreign Jews, but was repealed the next year. The first graduate from the University of Glasgow who was openly-known to be Jewish was in 1787. Unlike their English contemporaries, Scottish students were not required to take a religious oath. In 1841 Isaac Lyon Goldsmid was made baronet, the first Jew to receive a hereditary title. The first Jewish Lord Mayor of the City of London, Sir David Salomons, was elected in 1855, followed by the 1858 emancipation of the Jews. On 26 July 1858, Lionel de Rothschild was finally allowed to sit in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom when the law restricting the oath of office to Christians was changed. (Benjamin Disraeli, a baptised, teenage convert to Christianity of Jewish parentage, was already an MP at this time and rose to become Prime Minister in 1874.) In 1884 Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the British House of Lords; again Disraeli was already a member.
British Jews number around 300,000 with the United Kingdom having the fifth largest Jewish community worldwide.[126] However, this figure did not include Jews who identified 'by ethnicity only' in England and Wales or Scottish Jews who identified as Jewish by upbringing but held no current religion. A report in August 2007 by University of Manchester historian Dr Yaakov Wise stated that 75 per cent of all births in the Jewish community were to ultra-orthodox, Haredi parents, and that the increase of ultra-orthodox Jewry has led to a significant rise in the proportion of British Jews who are ultra-orthodox.[127]
However various studies suggest that within some Jewish communities and particularly in some strictly Orthodox areas, many residents ignored the voluntary question on religion following the advice of their religious leaders resulting in a serious undercount, therefore it is impossible to give an accurate number on the total UK Jewish population. It may be even more than double the official estimates, heavily powered by the very high birth rate of orthodox families and British people who are Jewish by origin but not religion; as it currently stands, the Jewish as ethnicity section is not documented on the census.[citation needed]
Bahá'í Faith
The Bahá'í Faith in the United Kingdom has a historical connection with the earliest phases of the Bahá'í Faith starting in 1845 and has had a major effect on the development of communities of the religion in far flung nations around the world. It is estimated that between 1951 and 1993, Bahá'ís from the United Kingdom settled in 138 countries.[128]
Religion and politics
Though the main political parties are secular, the formation of the Labour Party was influenced by Christian socialism and by leaders from a nonconformist background, such as Keir Hardie. On the other hand, the Church of England was once nicknamed "the Conservative Party at prayer", though this has changed since the 1980s as the Church has moved to the left of the Conservative Party on social and economic issues.[142]
Some minor parties are explicitly 'religious' in ideology: two 'Christian' parties – the Christian Party and the Christian Peoples Alliance, fielded joint candidates at the 2009 European Parliament elections and increased their share of the vote to come eighth, with 249,493 votes (1.6% of total votes cast), and in London, where the CPA had three councillors,[143] the Christian parties picked up 51,336 votes (2.9% of the vote), up slightly from the 45,038 gained in 2004.[144]
The Church of England is represented in the UK Parliament by 26 bishops (the Lords Spiritual) and the British monarch is a member of the church (required under Article 2 of the Treaty of Union) as well as its Supreme Governor.[145] The Lords Spiritual have seats in the House of Lords and debate government policies affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. The Church of England also has the right to draft legislative measures (related to religious administration) through the General Synod that can then be passed into law by Parliament.[146] The Prime Minister, regardless of personal beliefs, plays a key role in the appointment of Church of England bishops, although in July 2007 Gordon Brown proposed reforms of the Prime Minister's ability to affect Church of England appointments.[147]
Religion and education
Religious education and Collective Worship are compulsory in many state schools in England and Wales by virtue of clauses 69 and 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Clause 71 of the act gives parents the right to withdraw their children from Religious Education and Collective Worship[148] and parents should be informed of their right in accordance with guidelines published by the Department for Education; "a school should ensure parents or carers are informed of this right".[149] The content of the religious education is decided locally by the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education.
In England and Wales, a significant number of state funded schools are faith schools with the vast majority Christian (mainly either of Church of England or Catholic) though there are also Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith schools. Faith schools follow the same national curriculum as state schools, though with the added ethos of the host religion. Until 1944 there was no requirement for state schools to provide religious education or worship, although most did so. The Education Act 1944 introduced a requirement for a daily act of collective worship and for religious education but did not define what was allowable under these terms. The act contained provisions to allow parents to withdraw their children from these activities and for teachers to refuse to participate. The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced a further requirement that the majority of collective worship be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".[150] According to a 2003 report from the Office for Standards in Education, a "third of governing bodies do not fulfil their statutory duties adequately, sometimes because of a failure to pursue thoroughly enough such matters as arranging a daily act of collective worship."[151]
In Scotland, the majority of schools are non-denominational, but separate Catholic schools, with an element of control by the Catholic Church, are provided within the state system. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 imposes a statutory duty on all local authorities to provide religious education and religious observance in Scottish schools. These are currently defined by the Scottish Government's Curriculum for Excellence (2005).[152]
Northern Ireland has a highly segregated education system. 95 per cent of pupils attend either maintained (Catholic) schools or controlled schools, which are open to children of all faiths and none, though in practise most pupils are from the Protestant community.[citation needed]
Religion and prison
Prisoners are given religious freedom and privileges while in prison. This includes access to a chaplain or religious advisor, authorised religious reading materials,[153] ability to change faith, as well as other privileges.[154] Several faith-based outreach programmes provide faith promoting guidance and counselling.[155][156][157]
Every three months, the Ministry of Justice collects data, including religious affiliation, of all UK prisoners and is published as the Offender Management Caseload Statistics.[158] This data is then compiled into reports and published in the House of Commons library.
On 31 March 2015 the prison population of England and Wales was recorded as 49% Christian, 14% Muslim, 2% Buddhist, 2% other religions and 31% no religion.[159]
Religion and the media
The Communications Act 2003 requires certain broadcasters in the United Kingdom to carry a "suitable quantity and range of programmes" dealing with religion and other beliefs, as part of their public service broadcasting.[160] Prominent examples of religious programming include the BBC television programme Songs of Praise, aired on a Sunday evening with an average weekly audience of 2.5 million,[161] and the Thought for the Day slot on BBC Radio 4. Channels also offer documentaries on, or from the perspective of a criticism of organised religion. A significant example is Richard Dawkins' two-part Channel 4 documentary, The Root of all Evil?. Open disbelief of, or even mockery of organised religion, is not regarded as a taboo in the British media, though it has occasionally provoked controversy – for example, the movie Monty Python's Life of Brian,[162] the poem "The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name",[163] and the musical Jerry Springer: The Opera,[164] all of which involved characters based on Jesus, were subject to public outcry and blasphemy allegations, while The Satanic Verses, a novel by British Indian author Salman Rushdie which includes a fantasy sequence about Muhammed, caused global protests including several by British Muslims.[165] British comedy has a history of parody on the subject of religion.[citation needed]
Interfaith dialogue
The Interfaith Network for the United Kingdom encompasses the main faith organisations of the United Kingdom, either directly with denominational important representatives or through joint bodies for these denominations, promotes local interfaith cooperation, promotes understanding between faiths and convenes meetings and conferences where social and religious questions of concern to the different faith communities can be examined together, including meetings of the Network's 'Faith Communities Consultative Forum'.[167]
Ecumenical friendship and cooperation has gradually developed between Christian denominations and where inter-sect prejudice exists this has via education and employment policy been made a pressing public matter in dealing with its two prominent examples – sectarianism in Glasgow and Northern Ireland – where segregation is declining.
Tolerance and Religious Discrimination
In the early 21st century, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 made it an offence in England and Wales to incite hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished with the coming into effect of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 on 8 July 2008.
2005–2010 polls have shown that public opinion in the United Kingdom generally tends towards a suspicion or outright disapproval of radical or evangelical religiosity, though moderate groups and individuals are rarely subject to less favourable treatment from society or employers.[168]
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of religion, in the supply of goods and services and selection for employment, subject to very limited exceptions (such as the right of schools and religious institutions to appoint paid ministers).
Secularism
There is no strict separation of church and state in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, most public officials may display the most common identifiers of a major religion in the course of their duties – for example, turbans. Chaplains are provided in the armed forces (see Royal Army Chaplains' Department, RAF Chaplains Branch) and in prisons.
Although school uniform codes are generally drawn up flexibly enough to accommodate compulsory items of religious dress, some schools have banned wearing the crucifix in a necklace, arguing that to do so is not a requirement of Christianity where they prohibit all other necklaces. Post-adolescence, the wearing of a necklace is permitted in some F.E. colleges who permit religious insignia necklaces on a wider basis, which are without exception permitted at universities.[169]
Some churches have warned that the Equality Act 2010 could force them to go against their faith when hiring staff.[170]
In 2011 two judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld previous statements in the country's jurisprudence that the (non-canon) laws of the United Kingdom 'do not include Christianity'. Therefore, a local authority was acting lawfully in denying a Christian married couple the right to foster care because of stated negative views on homosexuality. In terms of the rights recognised "in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality should take precedence over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values."[171]
Bahá'í Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith
The Bahá'í Faith (Persian: بهائی Bahā'i) is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people.[1] Established by Bahá'u'lláh in 1863, it initially grew in the Middle East and now has between 5 and 7 million adherents, known as Bahá'ís, spread out into most of the world's countries and territories, with the highest concentration in Iran.[2][3]
The religion was born in Iran, where it has faced ongoing persecutions since its inception.[4] It grew from the mid-19th century Bábí religion, whose founder taught that God would soon send a prophet in the manner of Jesus or Muhammad.[5] In 1863, after being banished from his native Iran, Bahá'u'lláh announced that he was this prophet. He was further exiled, spending over a decade in the prison city of Akka in the Ottoman province of Syria, in what is now Israel. Following Bahá'u'lláh's death in 1892, leadership of the religion fell to his son `Abdu'l-Bahá (1844-1921), and later his great-grandson Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957). Bahá'ís around the world annually elect local, regional, and national Spiritual Assemblies that govern the affairs of the religion, and every five years the members of all National Spiritual Assemblies elect the Universal House of Justice, the nine-member supreme governing institution of the worldwide Bahá'í community, which sits in Haifa, Israel near the shrine of Báb.
Bahá'í teachings are in some ways similar to other monotheistic faiths: God is considered single and all-powerful. However, Bahá'u'lláh taught that religion is orderly and progressively revealed by one God through Manifestations of God who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent in the period before the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. As such, Bahá'ís regard the major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. There is a similar emphasis on the unity of all people, openly rejecting notions of racism and nationalism. At the heart of Bahá'í teachings is the goal of a unified world order that ensures the prosperity of all nations, races, creeds, and classes.[6][7]
The first frame of reference is a personal one. I am an Anglo-Saxon Celt by birth and culture and I live in England. I have no religion but instead I have a value system based upon positive morality.
There are no religions that can claim to be moral because they teach faith, not facts.
Nationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Nationalism is a range of political, social, and economic systems characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland. The political ideology therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism. In some cases, nationalism referred to the belief that a nation should be able to control the government and all means of production.[3]
From a political or sociological outlook, there are three main paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. The first, known as primordialism or perennialism, sees nationalism as a natural phenomenon. It holds that, although the concept of nationhood may be recent, nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, which is a complex perspective seeking to explain nationalism by contextualizing it throughout history as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and by further examining the strength of nationalism as a result of the nation's subjective ties to national symbols imbued with historical meaning. The third and most dominant paradigm is modernism, which sees nationalism as a recent phenomenon that needs the structural conditions of modern society to exist.[4]
There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[5] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[6] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[6] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[6] Nationalism means devotion for the nation. It is a sentiment that binds the people together. National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[7][8][9][10]
Boundary delimitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_delimitation
Boundary delimitation (or simply delimitation) is the drawing of boundaries, particularly of electoral precincts, states, counties or other municipalities.[1] In the context of elections, it can be called redistribution and is used to prevent unbalance of population across districts.[1] Unbalanced or discriminatory delimitation is called "gerrymandering."[2] Though there are no internationally agreed processes that guarantee fair delimitation, several organizations, such as the Commonwealth Secretariat, the European Union and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems have proposed guidelines for effective delimitation.
In international law, the related national delimitation is the process of legally establishing the outer limits ("borders") of a state within which full territorial or functional sovereignty is exercised.[3] Occasionally this is used when referring to the maritime boundaries as well, in this case called maritime delimitation.
Democratic delimitation
Methods
Countries delimit electoral districts in different ways.[1] Sometimes these are drawn based on traditional boundaries, sometimes based on the physical characteristics of the region and, often, the lines are drawn based on the social, political and cultural contexts of the area.[1] This may need to be done in any form of electoral system even though it is primarily done for plurality or majority electoral system.[1]
These processes of boundary delimitation can have a variety of legal justifications. Often, because of the powerful effects this process can have on constituencies, the legal framework for delimitation is specified in the constitution of a country.[4] The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) recommends the following pieces of information be included in this legal framework:[4]
The frequency of such determination;
The criteria for such determination;
The degree of public participation in the process;
The respective roles of the legislature, judiciary and executive in the process;and
The ultimate authority for the final determination of the electoral units.
Established democracies
Delimitation is regularly used in the United States and Commonwealth countries. This is called redistricting or redistribution respectively. In these countries non-partisan commissions draw new districts based on the distribution of population according to a census.
European Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. It has an area of 4,475,757 km2 (1,728,099 sq mi), and an estimated population of over 510 million. The EU has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states. EU policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market,[11] enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on trade,[12] agriculture,[13] fisheries, and regional development.[14] Within the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished.[15] A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency.
The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original members of what came to be known as the European Communities, were the Inner Six; Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. The Communities and its successors have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the addition of policy areas to its remit. While no member state has left the EU or its antecedent organisations, the United Kingdom enacted the result of a membership referendum in June 2016 and is currently negotiating its withdrawal. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union in 1993 and introduced European citizenship.[16] The latest major amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009.
The European Union accumulated a higher portion of GDP as a form of foreign aid than any other economic union.[17] Covering 7.3% of the world population,[18] the EU in 2016 generated a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.477 trillion US dollars, constituting approximately 22.2% of global nominal GDP and 16.9% when measured in terms of purchasing power parity.[19] Additionally, 27 out of 28 EU countries have a very high Human Development Index, according to the United Nations Development Programme. In 2012, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.[20] Through the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU has developed a role in external relations and defence. The union maintains permanent diplomatic missions throughout the world and represents itself at the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the G7, and the G20. Because of its global influence, the European Union has been described as an emerging superpower.[21]
Background
"A day will come when all nations on our continent will form a European brotherhood ... A day will come when we shall see ... the United States of America and the United States of Europe face to face, reaching out for each other across the seas."
Victor Hugo, International Peace Congress, 1849.
Several European States claimed to be the successors (translatio imperii) of the Roman Empire after the fall of Rome in 476: the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire were attempts to resurrect the Empire in the West; while the Russian Tsardom in Eastern Europe claimed to be the Third Rome and inheritor of the Byzantine tradition after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.[22][23]
Ideals of European unity re-emerged during the 19th century after the fall of Napoléon's Empire, in the ideas of Wojciech Jastrzębowski[24], Giuseppe Mazzini or Theodore de Korwin Szymanowski.[25] The term United States of Europe (French: États-Unis d'Europe) was famously used by Victor Hugo during a speech at the International Peace Congress held in Paris in 1849, when he favoured the creation of "a supreme, sovereign senate, which will be to Europe what parliament is to England".[26]
One of the first to imagine of a modern union of the European nations was Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who wrote the Pan-Europa manifesto in 1923 and founded the Pan-Europa Movement.[27] His ideas influenced Aristide Briand, who gave a speech in favour of a European Union in the League of Nations on 8 September 1929, and who in 1930 wrote a Memorandum on the Organisation of a Regime of European Federal Union for the Government of France[28].
History of the European Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union
The European Union is a geo-political entity covering a large portion of the European continent. It is founded upon numerous treaties and has undergone expansions that have taken it from 6 member states to 28, a majority of the states in Europe.
Apart from the ideas of federation, confederation, or customs union, the original development of the European Union was based on a supranational foundation that would "make war unthinkable and materially impossible"[1][2] and reinforce democracy amongst its members[3] as laid out by Robert Schuman and other leaders in the Schuman Declaration (1950) and the Europe Declaration (1951). This principle was at the heart of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), the Treaty of Paris (1951), and later the Treaty of Rome (1958) which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). Both the ECSC and EEC were later incorporated into the European Union while the EAEC maintains a distinct legal identity despite sharing members and institutions.
The Maastricht Treaty (1992) created the European Union with its pillars system, including foreign and home affairs alongside the European Community. This in turn led to the creation of the single European currency, the euro (launched 1999). The Maastricht Treaty has been amended by the treaties of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007).
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.18, 19:10:06
The first frame of reference is a personal one. I am an Anglo-Saxon Celt by birth and culture and I live in England.
Let us look at another frame of reference, a fictional one from the past:
Porridge 1973 Season 1 Episode 5https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g4gkBPTMFk
Porridge (1973) s01e05 Episode Script https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=porridge-1973&episode=s01e05
'Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges.
'It is now my duty to pass sentence.
'You are an habitual criminal who accepts arrest and imprisonment as occupational hazards.
'We therefore commit you to the maximum term for these offences.
'You'll go to prison for five years.
' Oh, shshame on it! What's the matter? I dropped a stitch.
OhOW! Is something wrong? The whole flamin' job's wrong! Grown men, sewing fishing nets! Is there anything more demeaning? It's a step up from mail bags.
Oh, yeah? ^ It's ne'er a job.
It's punishment because we've been bad boys.
It's a shame you lost that farm job.
Free eggs every day! What d'ya mean, "free"? More like half-a-dozen! I KNEW you were pilfering eggs! As young McClaren says 'ere, we're all being punished for it.
What chance has a man got, eh? Fletcher, you've been inside long enough to know the score.
It's because you've upset Mr Mackay.
I thought you'd appeal on my behalf.
The Governor's got no time for you.
He's very disappointed.
All right, we know the public wants revenge on them that never had a chance.
You never had a chance, did ya? I'm used to it.
He's being punished, too.
Oh? I spoilt the stinkin' soup.
And for that, he's doing penance? What chance have any of us got? That is not the whole truth.
You spoilt the soup by holding a prison officer's head under it! You tried to drown a prison officer.
It was a vicious, unprovoked attack.
Drowning, eh? He asked for it.
You could have scalded him.
Not with the soup in this nick! It wouldn't burn a baby's bottom! It could poison him.
What sort of soup was it? Mixed vegetable.
Ooh, dear! I bet he was livid, with all them bits of carrot up his nose.
It's not funny, Fletcher! It was a vicious, unprovoked attack.
That is why McClaren is here.
It's equally plain why you are here.
Oh, well, yeah.
I was provoked.
Yes.
He called me a black bastard.
If that were true, you could have gone to the Governor.
He wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Technically, the facts as stated were not wholly inaccurate.
He is both negroid and illegitimate.
It was the way he said it.
That's enough! Get on with your work.
Work, huh? Knitting string vests for hippos! I bet it don't fit me, when I've finished it.
I wanted it in cerise, really! They know we're not gonna screw up the brave fishermen of England, eh? Too many holes, and they come back a tonne of cod short, don't they? The cost of fish fingers would soar.
Not to mention cod pieces.
Characters of Porridge (TV series)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Porridge_(TV_series)
Jim McClarenJim McClaren is played by Tony Osoba. McClaren, who claims to have been adopted, is black and from Greenock, Scotland. This led to a string of racist abuse when he first arrived at Slade Prison. Fletch, in reference to his Scottish upbringing, frequently calls him "Jock". Upon arrival, he was an angry young man, and it was left up to Fletcher to calm him down and to curb the abuse he received. A keen football player, he was soon turning out every Saturday afternoon for the inter-wing football matches. He supports Greenock Morton F.C.
Along with Godber and Warren, McClaren is a regular conspirator with Fletch. He is the last of their circle to be released, and Fletcher is seen bidding him farewell in the first episode of Going Straight.
According to a 2003 TV special, Life Beyond the Box, approved by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais but not written by them, thirty years later McClaren is a member of the Scottish Parliament.
Journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that impacts society to at least some degree. The word applies to the occupation (professional or not), the methods of gathering information, and the organizing literary styles. Journalistic media include: print, television, radio, Internet, and, in the past, newsreels.
Concepts of the appropriate role for journalism varies between countries. In some nations, the news media is controlled by a government intervention, and is not a fully independent body.[1] In others, the news media is independent from the government but the profit motive is in tension with constitutional protections of freedom of the press. Access to freely available information gathered by independent and competing journalistic enterprises with transparent editorial standards can enable citizens to effectively participate in the political process. In the United States, journalism is protected by the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment.
The role and status of journalism, along with that of the mass media, has undergone changes over the last two decades with the advent of digital technology and publication of news on the Internet.[2] This has created a shift in the consumption of print media channels, as people increasingly consume news through e-readers, smartphones, and other electronic devices, challenging news organizations to fully monetize their digital wing, as well as improvise on the context in which they publish news in print. Notably, in the American media landscape, newsrooms have reduced their staff and coverage as traditional media channels, such as television, grapple with declining audiences. For instance, between 2007 and 2012, CNN edited its story packages into nearly half of their original time length.[3]
This compactness in coverage has been linked to broad audience attrition, as a large majority of respondents in recent studies show changing preferences in news consumption.[3] The digital era has also ushered in a new kind of journalism in which ordinary citizens play a greater role in the process of news making, with the rise of citizen journalism being possible through the Internet. Using video camera equipped smartphones, active citizens are now enabled to record footage of news events and upload them onto channels like YouTube, which is often discovered and used by mainstream news media outlets. Meanwhile, easy access to news from a variety of online sources, like blogs and other social media, has resulted in readers being able to pick from a wider choice of official and unofficial sources, instead of only from traditional media organizations.
Production
Journalistic conventions vary by country. In the United States, journalism is produced by media organizations or by individuals. Bloggers are often, but not always, journalists. The Federal Trade Commission requires that bloggers who receive free promotional gifts, then write about products, must disclose that they received the products free. This is to eliminate conflicts of interest and protect consumers.[4]
"Fake news" is information distributed which is deliberately not truthful or is produced by unreliable organizations. Fake news is easily spread on social media such as fake news websites. Readers can determine fake news by evaluating whether the news has been published by a credible news organization. In the US, a credible news organization is an incorporated entity; has an editorial board; and has a clear division between editorial and advertising departments. Credible news organizations, or their employees, belong to one or more professional organizations such as the American Society of News Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, Investigative Reporters & Editors, or the Online News Association. All of these organizations have codes of ethics that members abide by. Many news organizations have their own codes of ethics that guide journalists' professional publications. The New York Times code of standards and ethics[5] is considered particularly rigorous.
When they write stories, journalists are concerned with issues of objectivity and bias. Some types of stories are intended to represent the author's own opinion; other types of stories are intended to be more neutral or balanced. In a physical newspaper, information is organized into sections and it is easy to see which stories are supposed to be opinion and which are supposed to be neutral. Online, many of these distinctions break down. Readers should pay careful attention to headings and other design elements to ensure that they understand the journalist's intent. Opinion pieces generally are written by regular columnists or appear in a section titled "Op-ed." Feature stories, breaking news, and hard news stories are generally not opinion pieces.
According to Robert McChesney, healthy journalism in a democratic country must provide an opinion of people in power and who wish to be in power, must produce the range of opinions and must regard the informational needs of all people.[6]
Many debates center on whether journalists are "supposed" to be "objective" or "neutral." Journalists are people who produce news out of and as part of a particular social context. They are guided by professional codes of ethics and do their best to represent all legitimate points of view.
Forms
There are several different forms of journalism, all with diverse audiences. Journalism is said to serve the role of a "fourth estate", acting as a watchdog on the workings of the government. A single publication (such as a newspaper) contains many forms of journalism, each of which may be presented in different formats. Each section of a newspaper, magazine, or website may cater to different audiences.[7][8]
Definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1] Definitions can be classified into two large categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the essence of a term) and extensional definitions (which proceed by listing the objects that a term describes).[2] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.[3][a]
In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, instead of describing a pre-existing term. Definitions and axioms are the basis on which all of mathematics is constructed.[4]
Basic terminology
In modern usage, a definition is something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words. The word or group of words that is to be defined is called the definiendum, and the word, group of words, or action that defines it is called the definiens. In the definition "An elephant is a large gray animal native to Asia and Africa", the word "elephant" is the definiendum, and everything after the word "is" is the definiens.[5]
Note that the definiens is not the meaning of the word defined, but is instead something that conveys the same meaning as that word.[5]
There are many sub-types of definitions, often specific to a given field of knowledge or study. These include, among many others, lexical definitions, or the common dictionary definitions of words already in a language; demonstrative definitions, which define something by pointing to an example of it ("This," [said while pointing to a large grey animal], "is an Asian elephant."); and precising definitions, which reduce the vagueness of a word, typically in some special sense ("'Large', among female Asian elephants, is any individual weighing over 5,500 pounds.").[5]
Intensional definitions vs extensional definitions
An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being a member of a specific set.[2] Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional definition.
An extensional definition, also called a denotative definition, of a concept or term specifies its extension. It is a list naming every object that is a member of a specific set.[2]
Thus, the "seven deadly sins" can be defined intensionally as those singled out by Pope Gregory I as particularly destructive of the life of grace and charity within a person, thus creating the threat of eternal damnation. An extensional definition would be the list of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. In contrast, while an intensional definition of "Prime Minister" might be "the most senior minister of a cabinet in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system", an extensional definition is not possible since it is not known who future prime ministers will be.
Trump's UN Speech
Paul Craig Roberts
"I listened to part of Trump's UN speech this morning. I was so embarrassed for him and for my country that I had to turn it off.
I wonder if whoever wrote the deplorable speech intended to embarrass Trump and inadvertently embarrassed America as well, or whether the speechwriter(s) is so imbued with the neoconservative arrogance and hubris of our time that the speechwriter was simply blind to the extraordinary contradictions that stood out like sore thumbs all through the speech.
I am not going to describe all of them, just a couple of examples.
Trump went on at great length about how America respects the sovereignty of every country and the people's will of every country, and how the US, despite its overwhelming military power, never tries to impose its will on any country. What was the administration thinking, or can it think? What about Yugoslavia/Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Crimea, Ukraine, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, just to mention countries in the 21st century that have been subjected to US military attacks, government overthrows, and removals of political leaders who did not conform to US interests?
Is it respect for the sovereignty of countries to force them to support US sanctions against Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela? Is it respect for the sovereignty of countries to impose sanctions on the countries? If this is not imposing Washington's will on other countries, what is?
Is it respect for other countries to inform them that unless they do as they are told, "we will bomb you into the stone age"?
I heard Trump complain that the UN Human Rights commission had as members countries with the worst human rights records of our time, and I wondered if he was talking about the United States. Clearly, Trump, the speechwriter(s), the State Department, the National Security Council, the US Ambassador to the UN, indeed the entire administration, do not think that the endless slaughter, maiming, orphaning, widowing, and dispossessing of millions of peoples in many countries, producing waves of refugees, comprise human rights violations.
The arrogance conveyed by Trump's speech is unprecedented.
After assurances that America respects everyone, Trump then made demand after demand and threat after threat against the sovereignty of Iran and North Korea, demanding that the rest of the world back him up.
Neither country is a threat to the US. Unlike the US and Israel, Korea has not been at war since 1953. Iran's last war was in the 1980s when Iran was attacked by Iraq. Yet both North Korea and Iran are subjected to constant threats from the US. At the UN Trump threatened North Korea with destruction, and Washington is telling more lies about Iran in order to justify military action.
Here is what former Secretary of State Colin Powell says about how carefully Washington thinks about other peoples:
"We thought we knew what would happen in Libya. We thought we knew what would happen in Egypt. We thought we knew what would happen in Iraq, and we guessed wrong. In each one of these countries the thing we have to consider is that there is some structure that's holding the society together. And as we learned, especially in Libya, when you remove the top and the whole thing falls apart . . . you get chaos."
That's what Washington does. It brings chaos to tens of millions of peoples, destroying their lives and the prospects of their countries. This is the behavior that Trump described as American compassion for others. This is what Trump says is respecting others and the sovereignty of their countries. Washington dresses up its crimes against humanity as a "war on terror." The tens of millions of slaughtered, maimed, and displaced persons are merely "collateral damage."
This is why the US is considered the greatest threat to peace. International polls show that the world regards the US as a much greater threat to peace than North Korea and Iran. Yet Trump described the US, universally regarded as the greatest threat to the world, as the great protector of peace. Has there ever been a greater disturber of peace?
One wonders if the rest of the world, especially Russia and China, got Washington's message. Washington's plan for UN "reform" is a plan to turn the organization into another instrument of US foreign policy, like NATO and the EU. The message that Trump was sent to deliver to the UN is that henceforth the UN is expected to support Washington's foreign policy agenda. Opponents to Washington's war policy are to be isolated and lumped together with the bad countries as defined by Washington.
In other words Washington accepts no limits on its unilateralism. This means war for every country that does not accept Washington's hegemony."
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/19/54625/ (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/19/54625/)
Ron
Descent into Barbarism: Trump Makes Virtue Out of War And Genocide at The UN
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47855.htm
By Finian Cunningham
September 20, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - It can't get more outrageous. US President Donald Trump stood in front of the United Nations and openly threatened unilateral war and genocide. It's a sign of the times that such criminal rhetoric is so casually spouted by the world's biggest military state.
When American leaders address the UN General Assembly, people are generally used to hearing a litany of falsehoods about world events and narcissistic deceptions over America's global role.
But when Trump made his debut speech on Tuesday, it marked, in addition to the usual American delusions, an unprecedented embrace of criminal militarism.
The nadir in his 40-minute rant came when Trump said the US would "totally destroy" North Korea – if it threatened America or its allies. The qualifier is a threadbare legal justification. It's also just a cynical excuse for American aggression.
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," said Trump. Mocking North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, he added: "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime."
'Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime' – Trump on Kim Jong Un https://t.co/YWHAISNdPopic.twitter.com/qp4lEx1TdG
— RT (@RT_com) September 19, 2017
Trump also called for forceful confrontation – regime change – against Iran, which he vilified as a "corrupt, murderous dictatorship." He made similar veiled threats against Venezuela and its "socialist dictator" President Nicolas Maduro.
International war crimes lawyer Christopher Black said Trump's speech amounted to a stunning self-indictment. The Canadian-based attorney said the American president's words were a shockingly explicit repudiation of UN principles and international law on several counts.
With regard to North Korea, Black said: "The US president is threatening aggression under the false guise of 'defense.' By openly stating the US will act alone to use military force is a violation of the United Nations' Charter. Such unilateral use of military force is also a violation of the Nuremberg principles which condemned Nazi Germany for promulgating similar baseless justifications for its aggression."
The lawyer also added that Trump's warning to "totally destroy North Korea is advocating the genocide of an entire people." Says Black: "Any military response to any attack has to be proportional – just enough to stop the attack. Trump's stated objective to wipe the North Korean state and its people from the face of the earth is the crime of genocide under international law."
It should be deeply troubling that the supposed leader of the world's most powerful country so openly and disgustingly makes a virtue of barbarism. As American writer Tom Feeley succinctly described Trump's diatribe at the UN: "An ignorant savage who spewed hatred all over the nations of the world."
No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping opted to skip Trump's landmark speech. So too did German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It's amazing how anyone could sit through such torturous distortions. In a sane world, someone should have slapped handcuffs on Trump and hauled him off to a criminal court.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was also absent. While the North Korean ambassador walked out of the General Assembly chamber as Trump was taking the podium for his address.
When Trump declared his criminal intent toward North Korea there were audible gasps of disquiet among the hundreds of delegates. Several times during Trump's tirade, the White House Chief of Staff John Kelly was seen covering his face with his hand or shifting uncomfortably in his seat. The body language spoke of shameful "embarrassment" – a word that Trump, ironically, used twice during his address referring disparagingly to others.
Anyone with a normal cognition of recent world events had to have cringed at almost every sentence uttered by Trump. It says something that the few delegates who appeared happy with Trump's harping included Israel's premier Benjamin Netanyahu and the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia – two actual rogue states that were unsurprisingly left out of Trump's harangue.
Even the US media seemed embarrassed by the president's boorish and bloodcurdling tone.
Pundits on CNN were staggered by Trump's threats of annihilation toward North Korea. The New York Times called it "a bellicose debut" while the Washington Post said Trump's "bellicosity and swagger" was "an incoherent mess." Admittedly, those news outlets have been opposed to Trump's presidency all the way since his election. But there was a different quality to their reaction to his UN speech - one of aghast disbelief that an American president could be so uncouth and unabashedly criminal in what he was advocating.
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blasted Trump for "ignorant hate speech" which, he said, was unworthy of a considered response.
Zarif is right. The torrent of falsehoods and delusions that Trump verbalized are hardly worth rebutting in detail, so crass were they in their upside-down view of the world. It's so unhinged, it's beyond argumentation and reason.
But let's do a few illustrative choice quotes where irony is dead as a rock.
Trump said: "Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity."
That's cloying, considering the recent reports of the American CIA allegedly funneling $2.2 billion worth of weapons to terrorist groups in Syria to overthrow the elected government of President Bashar Assad. And considering that Trump in front of 193 nations was threatening North Korea with "total destruction."
Trump made a dig at Russia and China when he said: "We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow."
Eh, this sanctimonious advice from the leader of a country that has subverted the sovereignty and borders of more nations than any other in history, including that of Ukraine where Washington violently installed a neo-Nazi regime in February 2014. American aerial bombing of numerous countries simultaneously, including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, is a curious "respect for borders, sovereignty, and law."
Trump talks about the "scourge of rogue regimes" without a hint of self-awareness about his own country's depredations or of its Israeli and Saudi allies. He said: "The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries."
Finally, perhaps the crowning absurdity was this: "The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all."
Trump's predecessor Barack Obama and other US presidents were also remarkable for their skill at spouting similar distortions and delusions. In that regard, Trump's bravura nonsense was more of the same ridiculous "American exceptionalism."
But setting Trump's speech apart was his flagrant embrace of criminal militarism as a matter of US foreign policy, and his nauseating invocation of genocide in a war on North Korea.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.
More Thoughts on Trump's UN Declaration of War Against Iran and North Korea
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47853.htm
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 20, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - Trump's UN speech makes it clear that Trump's presidency, in terms of his campaign promise to remove Washington from the "policeman of the world" role, exit the Middle East, and repair the damaged relations with Russia, is over. The CIA and the military/security complex are in full control of the US government. Trump has accepted his captivity and his assigned role as the enforcer of Washington's hegemony over every other country. Washington uber alles is the only foreign policy that Washington pursues.
At the UN Trump actually threatened to wipe North Korea off of the face of the earth. He added to this threat threats against Venezuela (http://stephenlendman.org/2017/09/trump-threatens-venezuela/) and Iran. He demonized these countries as "rogue states," but it is Washington that is playing that role. Washington has destroyed in whole or part eight countries in the young 21st century and has 3 to 5 more in its crosshairs.
One question is: why did not the UN audience shout Trump down, a man standing before them telling obvious lies? The answer, of course, is money. The US taxpayers pay roughly one-quarter of the UN's annual budget, leaving the other 130+ countries a light load. Washington is succeeding in driving the world to Armageddon, because the world's leaders prefer money to truth, to justice, to survival. The UN diplomats see in their cooperation with Washington the opportunity to make money by sharing in the West's exploitation of their own countries.
Washington, absorbed in its effort to destroy Syria, left it to its Saudi Arabian puppet to destroy Yemen. The Saudi autocracy, a major sponsor with the US of terrorism, has done a good job, thanks to US supplying the weapons and to the US refueling the Saudi attack airplanes. This totally gratuitous war has helped to maximize the profits of the American military/security complex, a collection of evil never before present on the face of the earth. UNICEF reports that one million Yemeni children will be the victims of "American compassion" of which Trump bragged in the CIA's UN speech.
One wonders if the Russians and Chinese are so absorbed in getting rich like America's One Percent that they are unaware that they are on the list of countries to be eliminated for not accepting Washington's hegemony. Really, where was the Russian government when Washington overthrew the Ukranian government? It was at a sports event. And I call Americans insouciant. Where was the Russian government? How could it have not known?
To be frank. The point is this. Unless Russia and China can take out the US, the US will take out Russia and China. The only question is who strikes first. The only way to avoid this is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington's hegemony. This is the firm undeviating path on which the neoconservatives, the CIA, and the military/security complex have set the United States. The entire point of North Korea is US nuclear missiles on China's border. The entire point of Iran is US nuclear missiles on Russia's border.
As far as I can ascertain, hardly anyone is aware that Armageddon is just around the corner. There is no protest from the Western presstitutes, a collection of whores. In the US the only protests are against ancient "civil war" statues, which the ignorant rabble say are symbols of black slavery. There is no peace movement and no peace marches. In London the transgendered and the radical feminists are protesting one another, engaging in fist fights in Hyde Park. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891484/Fists-fly-politically-correct-rally.html No one seems to have any awareness.
In US online propaganda websites such as Americans for Limited Government—funded by who? serving who?—endorse Trump's destabilizing UN speech as a non-threat to world peace:
"President Trump has provided a cogent and inspiring defense of America and the American constitutional system of governance to the world not as imposition but an example to be followed, while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of other nations. However, the President also made it clear to those nations that threaten humanity with nuclear destruction [which Washington has done to N. Korea and Iran] that the United States will not be held hostage, and continuing down their current paths guarantees their annihilation. While many will focus on Trump's threat to North Korea and Iran, the real focus of his speech is that it is a call to all nations to embrace their own sovereignty without threatening world peace."
I have never in my long life read such a misrepresentation of a speech. The United States has become the complete propaganda state. No truth ever emerges.
It is only the US government, which is not a government of the people, that has ever threatened another country with total destruction as Trump did to North Korea in the CIA's UN speech.
This is a first. It trumps Adolf Hitler. The US has become the 4th Reich. It is doubtful that the world will survive the foreign policy of the United States of America.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
Russian special forces repel a US-planned attack in Syria, denounce the USA and issue a stark warning
http://thesaker.is/russian-special-forces-repel-a-us-commanded-attack-in-syria-denounce-the-usa-and-issue-a-stark-warning/
Something rather unprecedented just happened in Syria: US backed "good terrorist" forces attempted a surprise attack against Syrian government forces stationed to the north and northeast of the city of Hama. What makes this attack unique is that it took place inside a so-called "de-escalation zone" and that it appears that one of the key goals of the attack was to encircle in a pincer-movement and subsequently capture a platoon of Russian military police officers deployed to monitor and enforce the special status of this zone. The Russian military police forces, composed mainly of soldiers from the Caucasus region, fought against a much larger enemy force and had to call for assistance. For the first time, at least officially, Russian special operations forces were deployed to rescue and extract their comrades. At the same time, the Russians sent in a number of close air support aircraft who reportedly killed several hundred "good" terrorists and beat back the attack (Russian sources speak of the destruction of 850 fighters, 11 tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, 46 armed pickup trucks, five mortars, 20 freighter trucks and 38 ammo supply points; you can see photos of the destroyed personnel and equipment here). What also makes this event unique is the official reaction of the Russians to this event.
Head of the Main Operations Department at Russia's General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi declared that:
"Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra and joining them units that don't want to comply with the cessation of hostilities terms, launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in Idlib de-escalation zone from 8 am on September 19 (...) According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir ez-Zor".
Today, other Russian officials have added a not-so-veiled threat to this accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov has declared that:
Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed (...) Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary.
This is unprecedented on many levels. First, the Russians clearly believe that this attempt to kill or capture a platoon of the Russian military police was planned by the United States. The fact that they are making this accusation officially shows the degree of irritation felt by the Russians about the duplicity of the Americans. Second, this is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that Russian Spetsnaz forces had to be sent in to rescue a surrounded Russian subunit. All Spetsnaz operators survived, but three of them were wounded in the operation (the Russians are not saying how badly). The close air support by very low flying SU-25 aircraft was obviously coordinated by Spetsnaz forward air controllers and probably saved the day. In other words, this was a close call and things could have ended much more badly (just imagine what the Takfiri crazies would have done, on video, to any captured Russian serviceman!). Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a "de-confliction" zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.
The big question now is "do the Russians mean it?" or are they just whining with real determination to hit back if needed.
There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. So the Russians are not in a position of force. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else's country. This might seem paradoxical, but the Russians fear war but they are ready for it. In contrast to the Russians, the Americans don't fear war, but neither are they ready for it. In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control.
Remember how Hillary promised that she would unilaterally impose a so-called "no-fly" zone over Syria? She promised not only to deploy US aircraft above Russian forces in Syria, but she also promised that she would force the Russian Aerospace forces out of the Syrian skies. Thank God, this crazy witch was not elected, but it appears that folks with the same arrogant and,frankly, completely irresponsible point of view are now back in power under Trump.
My fear now is that the incompetent, arrogant, not too bright and generally ignorant commanders at the Pentagon and the CIA will simply ignore clear warning signs coming from the Russians, including the public announcement that the Kremlin has given the authority to use force to protect Russian personnel to the local Russian commanders in Syria. In plain English, this means that if they are attacked the Russians in Syria do not need to consult with Moscow before using force to protect themselves. By the way, such rules of engagement are pretty common, there is nothing earth shattering here, but the fact that they were made public is, again, a message to the AngloZionist and the "good" terrorist they use to try to conquer Syria.
This time around we (the world) were lucky. The Syrians fought hard and the "good" terrorists were probably surprised by the ruthless determination of the Russian military police forces (in reality, mostly Chechen special forces) and of the Spetsnaz operators. It is one thing to fight Syrian conscripts, quite another to deal with these hardened warriors. But the next time around the outcome could be different.
The bigger picture is also one which gives me a great deal of concern. The Syrians, with Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian help, have freed Deir ez-Zor and have crossed the Euphrates river and are moving further East. In plain English this means that the US and Daesh have lost the war and that the last region of Syrian from which the AngloZionists can hope to partition the country (their current "plan B") and establish a permanent US military presence is now threatened by the Syrian advance. The distance between the US forces currently deployed in northeastern Syria and Syrian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian forces is becoming shorter and shorter each day. I can just imagine how, say, Iranian or Hezbollah forces which are already "smelling" the nearby presence of US forces are drooling with hunger for the moment they will finally be able to get their hands on their old and most hated foe. I feel sincerely sorry for the first US unit to make contact with the Iranians or Hezbollah forces.
Right now the Americans are hiding behind the Kurds, but sooner or later the Iranians or Hezbollah will find them. As for the Kurds, their situation in Syria is precarious, to put it mildly: they are surrounded on all sides by the Turks, the Syrians and the Iranians and their only more or less stable zone of control is in Iraq. The Americans understand that perfectly, hence their desperate attempts to stop the Syrians.
This is a very dangerous situation: even though CENTCOM and NATO are by far the "biggest guys on the block", in Syria the Americans are cornered, their corner is shrinking fast and it remains entirely unclear how this process can be stopped. Hence the attack on the de-confliction zone we just witnessed.
I hope that eventually the Americans will do what they did in al-Taif and simply pack, declare victory and leave. That would be the only rational thing to do. But after listening to Trump at the UN I don't get the feeling that being rational is at the top of the US priority list. That's all rather frightening.
The Saker
Robert Steele: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is US...
http://phibetaiota.net/2017/09/robert-steele-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us/
https://ahtribune.com/world/unga/1913-enemy-is-us.html
The US Government (USG) is in enemy hands. More specifically, the USG is owned and operated by the Deep State led by the Rothschilds and the Jesuit Superior General, with four major "action groups" able to subvert any country: the City of London, Wall Street, and Central Banks; the Freemasons; the Knights of Malta; and the Zionist leadership of Israel (not to be confused with peace-loving Jews). [1]
The First Holy War
https://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/04/07/the-first-holy-war
The truth about the epic clash between east and west.
By Andrew Curry, Contributor | April 7, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
It was the fall of 1187, and an emissary from the besieged city of Jerusalem had come to beg the sultan of Egypt for mercy. After barely four days of assaults, the Christian defenders saw that the sultan, Saladin, had them hopelessly outmatched. Waiting in his tent outside the city walls, the Muslim ruler knew both sides had a lot riding on the outcome of this battle.
For the city's defenders, the prospect of Saladin's wrath loomed. The last time Jerusalem had been sacked by invaders its narrow streets ran red with blood. For Saladin, his honor depended on capturing Jerusalem. All summer his armies had battled their way through the Holy Land, sweeping through the Christian fiefs like an angry desert wind. Their only goal: recapturing the holy city that had been occupied by European invaders for 88 years.
Now the sultan stood on the hills north of Jerusalem. But the Christian emissary trudging toward him had no prize to offer, only surrender. For days, Saladin's men had bombarded the city from the north, finally breaching St. Stephen's Gate. The few defenders who remained knew that prolonging the fight would only worsen the consequences of defeat.
And so a triumphant Saladin entered Jerusalem on Oct. 2, 1187. For the sultan's army, it was a moment of both joy and sadness. The Christians had profaned some of Islam's holiest sites. The al-Aqsa mosque had been used as a stable for horses. Pieces of the rock from which Muhammad was said to have ascended to heaven had been chipped away to sell in Constantinople.
But the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence. A token ransom was arranged for the residents. Saladin and his brother paid for hundreds of the poorest themselves and arranged guards for the caravans of refugees.
If this account sounds less than familiar, it's because Saladin doesn't get much ink in western history books. They are more likely to feature Richard the Lion-Hearted, the leader of the European expedition to retake Jerusalem (most often remembered from Robin Hood tales). But most Muslims will focus on Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred. And they will be right.
The battle between Saladin and Richard marked the high point of the Crusades, the first major clash between Islam and western Christendom, which lasted more than three centuries. And though they left only a faint imprint on western minds, in the Muslim world the Crusades still loom large. When Osama bin Laden declared his own jihad in 1998, he accused America of "[spearheading] the crusade against the Islamic nation." He later promised the world would "see again Saladin carrying his sword, the blood of unbelievers dripping from it."
His words tapped into a reservoir of ill will. "The impact of the Crusades created a historical memory which is with us today," says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic studies at American University. Its legacy was profound. For Muslims, then probably the strongest and most vibrant civilization on the globe, the Crusader victories and the destruction that followed were a confidence-shaking blow. At the same time, the Crusades were a tipping point for Europe, pushing the continent out of the Dark Ages and into the modern world.
From their beginnings in 1095, the Crusades inspired more passion than anyone ever expected. The First Crusade was preceded by droughts and famine and heralded by meteor showers. The idea of an expedition to reclaim Jerusalem from the unbelievers seized the imagination of people from all social classes. Led by deeply religious knights, armies of European Christians marched through what is now Hungary to the city of Constantinople, the great center of Christianity in the East.
When the Crusaders arrived in the Holy Land, they looked like one undifferentiated barbaric mob to their Muslim foes. But the Franks were tough. In 1099, they assaulted the heavily defended Jerusalem and finally broke through. Bloodthirsty after the long siege, they swarmed over the walls and set upon the city's inhabitants. In later accounts, they boasted of wading through the city's holy sites knee deep in blood. Their brutality horrified the Muslim world. Writes British historian Steven Runciman: "When later, wiser Latins in the East sought to find some basis on which Christian and Moslem could work together, the memory of the massacre stood always in the way."
It took almost a century before a leader strong enough to unite the Muslim Middle East appeared. When Saladin finally retook Jerusalem, it was Christendom's turn to be shocked. Chroniclers say that when Pope Urban III learned of Saladin's victory, he died of grief. His successor, Gregory VIII, sent messengers to spread the word of a new crusade to wrest back the holy city. He spoke of "the fierceness of the barbarians who thirst for Christian blood." And he promised salvation through violence: He would "acquit before God all the sins of those who would bear the sign of the cross to go recover the Promised Land, provided they confessed and were truly penitent," wrote contemporary chronicler William of Tyre.
The pope's message of salvation and the opportunity for earthly glory drew the most powerful kings of Europe—like the young Richard the Lion-Hearted, who sailed east leading armies of knights and peasants. Expeditions like Richard's would be repeated for almost five centuries. Many scholars now believe that crusading eventually spanned the entire continent of Europe, as the church used it to fight "heretical" Christians and convert pagans at sword point.
The First Crusade, in which wide swaths of the Holy Land were seized by Latin Christians, is the only one that can be considered a European victory. Crusades thereafter were either catastrophes or barely successful attempts to preserve European strongholds in the Middle East. The Third Crusade is the best remembered, perhaps because of the personalities involved, like Richard the Lion-Hearted, the handsome and temperamental king of England. Though known today as a paragon of chivalry, Richard was a merciless adversary. He took a different view of war from Saladin's. After one battle, he had thousands of captured men beheaded within full view of their own armies. For 16 months, Saladin and Richard battled across the parched plains of the Holy Land. Finally, ill and leading an exhausted army, Richard negotiated a truce and headed home. He never returned.
In the early 20th century, western expansion into the Middle East was embittering Arabs. "For [Muslims], imperialism is a dirty word, and they turned the western memory of the Crusades on its head and demonized it," says Jonathan Riley-Smith, a historian at the University of Cambridge in Britain. Angry Muslim nationalists adopted the Crusades as a convenient metaphor. It still works. "Since the late 19th century, western imperialism and Zionism were portrayed as a modern crusade," says Hebrew University historian Benjamin Kedar. "This is why the topic is so timely in Arab political discourse."
Undoubtedly, George W. Bush had a different sense of the term in mind when he told the nation, after Sept. 11, 2001, that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Bush's statement resounded like thunder among Muslims. "It was precisely the worst word he could have used—it allowed bin Laden and others to conceptualize the nature of the struggle into resisting Christian and Jewish invaders and point out the hostility of the West to the Muslim world," Ahmed says. "Crusader lore is only part of this rage, but it's a significant part."
This rage is a relatively recent phenomenon, beginning just over a century ago, when memories of the Crusades were revived as a historical analogy to colonialism. Before Europe's colonial expansion into the Middle East, Muslim chroniclers paid little attention to the Crusades. "In actual historical reality, the Crusades were far more important for the West than for the Muslim world," says John Voll, director of the Georgetown University Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
For decades, western historians held on to the idea that the Crusades were a colonial venture motivated by just about everything but the cross: greed, lack of opportunity in Europe, territorial expansion. Few gave credence to the idea that the Crusaders were motivated by genuine religious feeling. But recently Crusades scholarship has recognized that faith could move people to violence as easily as greed or land.
The best example is the First Crusade. Eager to unite warring Christians, Pope Urban II spoke in 1095 to a massive crowd in France. Describing the cruelties inflicted by Muslims on Christian pilgrims trying to visit Jerusalem, he called on all of western Christendom to rescue their eastern breth-ren. "They should leave off slaying each other and fight instead a righteous war, doing the work of God, and God would lead them...." Runciman writes. "Here they were poor and unhappy; there they would be joyful and prosperous and true friends of God."
The response was tremendous. Urban's speech was interrupted by cries of "Deus lo volt"—"God wills it." Hundreds begged to go on the holy expedition. Soon tens of thousands of commoners and knights were heading off to the Holy Land. Across Europe, preachers called on the faithful to sew crosses on their clothes, to mark them until they succeeded in their quest.
The key to Urban's call was a revolutionary (and doomed) theology: salvation through the sword. "There is a very powerful devotional element," says Riley-Smith. "West European Catholics believed they could aid their salvation by fighting the infidel in the East. [Crusading is] as much a penance as fasting on bread and water.... This idea is without precedent in Christian history."
Jerusalem was the medieval Christians' equivalent of Mecca, Christ's tomb their quest. To take up the cross in the city's defense was a deeply spiritual act for many. Superstitious peasants saw the journey as a road to heaven. Fiery itinerant preachers like Peter the Hermit, whose army of starving peasants had no place in Urban's vision of an orderly march on Jerusalem, promised paradise. "Many...believed that he was promising to lead them out of their present miseries to the land flowing with milk and honey of which the Scriptures spoke," Runciman writes.
Peter's success was cited repeatedly. The defeats suffered by better-organized Crusades led many to believe that it was the humble who were destined to succeed, not the proud, rich military classes. In the end, these "People's Crusades" ended in disaster, too. None ever reached the Holy Land, and most of the peasant Crusaders were either slaughtered as they plundered their way across Europe or disbanded before ever reaching a port. Without the resources to reach the Holy Land, many turned on more convenient targets, like local Jewish enclaves. "[Why] are we going to seek out our profanity and to take vengeance on the Ishmaelites for our Messiah, when here are the Jews who murdered and crucified him?" was the rationale, as recorded by a Jewish eyewitness.
But persuading landed knights to take up the cross took more than anti-Semitic rants and vague stories of the Promised Land. Europe's warrior class, the fighting force Pope Urban II really wanted, had much to lose: Crusaders faced death, disease, or capture. There were also more-mundane risks. A knight's lands and title could be stolen in his absence. If his Crusade failed, the returning knight risked the scorn of those who blamed him for failing to do God's work. And the costs involved in crusading were a risk in themselves. King Louis IX of France (later to become St. Louis) set out in 1249 on a crusade from a harbor he had specially constructed with an artificial canal and grand tower, stocked with plentiful supplies. He spent six times his annual revenue on the venture, which ended when he was captured and forced to pay a 400,000-pound ransom. "Most Crusaders engaged in a dangerous, unpleasant, unprofitable, and extremely expensive enterprise," says Riley-Smith, "and they do not seem to have expected anything else."
Though most were military and financial fiascoes, the Crusades had a long-term impact on European civilization that went beyond finding an outlet for the violence of warring Christian kingdoms. "[The Crusades] made the Continent more cosmopolitan and gave Europeans a far greater awareness of the wider world. Like all wars, veterans came back and had seen things they never would have if they had stayed in their villages," says James Reston Jr., author of Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade. The stories they brought back also sparked a blaze of creativity. Beginning in the 12th century, or around the time of the First Crusade, literature and verse flowered in the form of memoir and song. Coming after the virtual silence that marked the Dark Ages, the proliferation of Crusader epics like the French Song of Roland is called by some scholars the "12th-century Renaissance."
Many Crusaders chose not to return at all, especially second and third sons with no chance of inheriting. Those who stayed created a cultural, military, and mercantile outpost in the Holy Land. The fortresses they built after the First Crusade were usually transplanted reflections of the European feudal system, but over time the "Latin kingdoms" in the Holy Land also served as a powerful integrating force. Contact with the libraries of the Arab world opened up new worlds for the isolated scholars of Europe, who gradually gained access to a wealth of ancient Greek texts that had been preserved in Arabic since the beginning of the fall of Rome. "Violent interactions were paralleled by economic and conceptual exchanges," says Georgetown's Voll. "In some ways, the Crusades' positive intellectual dimensions outweigh the negative impact."
"The Crusades were an absolute failure, but they did integrate European travelers and traders into an ongoing world system," says Janet Abu-Lughod, author of Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350. Increased demand for Middle Eastern luxury items meant that Europeans had to come up with trade goods of their own, helping build industries like wool and textiles. "By stimulating an interest in the goods of the East, they had a double-back effect on the development of European economies." Even later failures may have hidden some positive benefits. The end of the Crusades and the Latin kingdoms meant the end of easy ac-cess to Asian trade goods but not to demand for them. Some historians have speculated that the closing of the Middle East to European merchants in the 15th century accelerated the voyages of discovery that led to the New World.
But even the Europeans' increasing sophistication did little to redeem them in the eyes of the Muslims whose land they occupied and controlled. To the Arabs, they were "illiterate barbarians, for whom physical force is a supreme virtue, their religion is a despised polytheism, their medicine a collection of superstitions," writes historian Joshua Prawer in The Crusaders' Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. "Far from feeling inferior to the conqueror, the conquered regarded himself not only as his equal but by far his superior."
More than nine centuries after Urban II called the First Crusade, the legacy of misunderstanding and animosity is still with us. In the West, many of the most lasting misperceptions of Islam stem from that time. In the Arab and Muslim world, the Crusades have made an unfortunate rhetorical comeback. "Such analogies are really not very helpful to understand the Crusades or present-day realities—they obscure rather than clarify," says Kedar. "People get so obsessed with...the past that they don't react to the reality but to the reflection." With that reflection so distorted today by rhetoric and misunderstanding, a clearer vision of the past has never been more important.
https://www.ftsd.org/cms/lib6/MT01001165/Centricity/Domain/159/Crusades%20-%20US%20News%20reduced%20size.pdf
1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis
http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle
Richard C. Csaplar, Jr.
I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."
Let me explain.
The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.
To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.
A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.
But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.
Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.
You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.
Imperialistic
The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."
Colonialist
The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad -- later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers' language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their colonialist rulers did not have to pay.
Although the law differed in different places, the following are examples of colonialist laws to which colonized Christians and Jews were made subject to over the years:
Christians and Jews could not bear arms -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews could not ride horses -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to get permission to build -- Muslims did not;
Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not;
Christians could not proselytize -- Muslims could;
Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and
Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law.
In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was allowed the conquering colonialist rulers. Even non-Arab Muslim inhabitants of the conquered lands became second class citizens behind the ruling Arabs. This is the classic definition of colonialist -- "a group of people who settle in a distant territory from the state having jurisdiction or control over it and who remain under the political jurisdiction of their native land."
We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.
In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.
The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.
The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.
I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.
But let us return to Jerusalem.
Jerusalem
The U.S. News article states that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem, "the victorious Saladin forbade acts of vengeance. There were no more deaths, no violence." True, as far as it goes. The article goes on to say, "most Muslims [will] tell you about Saladin and his generosity in the face of Christian aggression and hatred." Thus, the PC people and the Muslims ignore 450 years of prior Muslim aggression and approach the Crusades as being Christian or Western aggression against Islam, beginning out of the blue, without any prior history. Let us go back to the Muslim colonialist occupation of Jerusalem.
When we left our truthful history of Jerusalem, the Muslims, headquartered in Arabia, had just captured Jerusalem. For approximately 100 years, chiefly under the Umayyads, Jerusalem prospered under Muslim rule. Under the succeeding Abbasids, Jerusalem began to decline -- beginning at approximately 725 A.D. The occasion, among other things, was the decline of the central Muslim government, the breaking away from Arabia of far-flung provinces, the growth of warlike revolutionary groups, the growth of extremist Muslim sects, and, perhaps most important, the decision (relatively new) that Muslims had an obligation to convert all Christians and Jews (and "other pagans") to Islam. Thereafter, the true colonial nature of Jerusalem became more apparent. The Abbasids drained wealth from Jerusalem to Baghdad for the benefit of the caliphs, and Jerusalem declined economically. The language of the government became Arabic, and forcible conversion to Islam became the Muslim policy.
In approximately 750, the Caliph destroyed the walls of Jerusalem, leaving it defenseless (they were later rebuilt, in time to defend against the Crusaders). The history of the following three hundred years is too complex and too tangled to describe in a single paragraph. Jerusalem and its Christian and Jewish majority suffered greatly during alternating periods of peace and war. Among the happenings were repeated Muslim destruction of the countryside of Israel (970-983, and 1024-1077) of Jerusalem; the wholesale destruction by the Muslims of Christian churches -- sometimes at the direct order of the Caliph, as in 1003, and sometimes by Muslim mobs; the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Caliph of Cairo in the early 1020s; building small mosques on the top of Christian churches; enforcing the Muslim laws limiting the height of Christian churches; attacking and robbing Christian pilgrims from Europe; attacking Christian processions in the streets of Jerusalem; etc.
Why the change after nearly 100 years of mostly peaceful Muslim rule? From what I read, there is a general view among the historians that the caliphs had begun to add a religious importance to their conquests, setting conversion to Islam as an important priority; their later caliphs had no first-hand remembrance of Mohammed; the vast distances of the empire led to independent rulers being established in Spain, North Africa, Cairo, Asia Minor, etc.; and the instability of the caliphates and resulting civil wars.
The point about conversion to Islam I find particularly interesting. Many historians believe that the first one hundred years of Muslim conquest were imperialist and colonialist only with little significant forced conversion content. With respect to Jerusalem, there was a particular problem in the fact that generally the Christians and their churches (and to a lesser degree, the Jews) were significantly wealthier than the Muslims. This was largely because beginning in the early 800s with Charlemaigne, Europe adopted a sort of prototype "foreign aid" program for the churches located at the holy places in Jerusalem, where, to the embarrassment of the Muslims, Christian churches and monasteries outshone their Muslim rivals. Many of these churches and monasteries were run by western religious orders reporting directly to Rome under western leaders appointed by Rome (more were subject to Constantinople). Literally thousands of European Christian pilgrims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from such places as Germany, France, and Hungary (particularly in the years 1000, 1033, 1064, and 1099). Finally, Muslim rulers and European rulers frequently sought to enter into treaties of support with each other. As a result, Christian churches became the target of Muslims when enemies of those with whom there were European ties were victorious in a civil war. From time to time, Christian churches were rebuilt with Muslim funds when pro-western rulers came to power.
So much for the PC, U.S. News, Muslim outright lie that begins with the statement, "During the Crusades, East and West first met," and that later in the article called the Crusades, "the first major clash between Islam and Western Christendom." What about the long, prior conquest by Islam of Spain and Portugal? What about the battle of Portiers?
The following is just an aside, which I cannot prove, but I have noticed that PC and Muslim statements frequently cut off history when it is not in their favor. Thus, the article gives credence to the widespread belief in Islam that east-west history began with the Crusades. See also as an example of this tendency to begin history where it is convenient, today's Muslim description of the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank without mentioning the fact that the current occupation was caused by the widespread cold-blooded murder of Israeli civilians by Muslims.
But let us move on to the Crusades themselves.
The Crusades
First, a word about my personal view of the Crusades. I believe that the murderous and pillaging acts of the Crusaders when they entered Jerusalem were barbaric, unchristian, and evil. This is particularly so as those barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts were carried on in the name of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness. I believe that the vast bulk of thinking Christians agree with me. I cite as evidence the large numbers of Christians who have recently taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Crusaders, repenting for the Crusader's acts, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Crusader's barbaric, unchristian, and evil acts.
A question occurs to me here. How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, "For [Muslims] imperialism is a dirty word" Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?
Let us rewrite the beginning of the U.S. News article as follows: "In 1095, after suffering from the murderous invasions of Muslim conquerors who killed tens of thousands of Christians through four-and-one-half centuries of Muslim imperialist, colonialist conquest, made slaves and eunuchs of Christians for the pleasure of the caliphs, burned down or sacked the holiest churches in Christendom, robbed and killed thousands of Christians on holy pilgrimage, brutally sacked and pillaged Jerusalem, and pillaged the countryside of Israel, western Europe, under the leadership of the Pope, decided to free the people of the Holy Land from their brutal masters and reclaim Christianity's holiest places for free Christian worship."
Now, I fully realize that the previous paragraph is one-sided, that the six centuries of Muslim colonial, imperialist occupation were more complex than are shown in the previous paragraphs, and that the Christians were not always blameless, little babes. However, the previous paragraph has the benefit of not being an outright lie, which is more than I can say for the U.S. News article.
To beat the dog one more time, you may have noted that I stated above that Muslim imperialism has continued until the present. Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.
Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:
1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.
2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.
3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.
4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.
5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.
6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.
7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.
8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.
9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.
10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.
11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.
12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.
13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.
14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.
Yes, I know that the reverse has been true. For example, Christian Serbia entered and massacred Bosnian Muslims. The western response was instructive. The west sent troops to protect the Muslims. Serbia gave up its leader to be tried for the crime by an international panel. Will Indonesia do the same with respect to Timor? Or Sudan with respect to southern Sudan?
Question: What is the title of the shortest book in the world? Answer: "The list of Muslim nations who have risked the lives of their soldiers to protect (as with the U.S. protection of Muslims in Kuwait) Christian or Jewish citizens from Muslim imperialism."
Yes, I also know that in the 20th century the west fought two of the bloodiest wars in history. But in the past more than 55 years, the west has developed methods that have led to peace among the west, and all but totally ended western imperialism and colonialism. With former colonies having a large majority in the UN, and the example of the west before it, Islam has continued its imperialist, colonial, bloody wars unabated.
One final point. Muslims base their claim to the city of Jerusalem upon the belief that Jerusalem has been a Muslim city for centuries. It may be that Muslims were never a majority in Jerusalem. We cannot prove this for all time periods, but we know that Muslims were a minority in the first several centuries after the Muslim imperialist conquest and during the century of Christian occupation during the Crusades. And we know that in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem was not considered important to the Muslims, but it was to the Christians and Jews. The Muslims made cities other than Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian colony. Many Caliphs never even visited Jerusalem. Therefore, there was a steady stream of Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) immigrants into Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, including a major immigration of Karaite Jews in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, and a steady stream of Armenians for hundreds of years, until there were so many Armenians that an Armenian Quarter was established in Jerusalem. Finally, we know that for at least more than the last 160 years, Muslims were a clear minority in Jerusalem. The Muslim Ottomans, and then the British and Israelis, kept careful census record showing the following percentages of Muslim population in Jerusalem:
1844 -- 33%
1896 -- 19%
1910 -- 13%
1922 -- 22%
1931 -- 22%
1948 -- 24%
1967 -- 21%
1972 -- 23%
1992 -- 25%
Abrahamic Covenant
http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Abrahamic_Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant, found in Genesis 15, granted the Israelites a promised land in the Land of Israel. In this covenant, God promises (see Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22):
To make from Abraham a great nation and to multiply his seed exceedingly and to make him a father of great many nations.
To bless Abraham and make him great.
To make Abraham a blessing to all the families of the earth.
To bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him.
To give Abraham and his seed forever all the land which he could see.
To give him a sign of the covenant (circumcision).
INTRODUCTION
Around 2000 B.C., the Almighty Creator, Yahweh [God], made a sacred promise to Abraham of Ur, that He would bless him and make him great. He also promised to make him a blessing to all the families of the earth and to bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him. God promised to give Abraham and his seed all the land that he could see forever, and to give him a sign of the covenant which was circumcision. This sworn oath of God [Covenant] was predicated on Abraham's faith in Him as the one and only true God. Because of his faith, Abraham's left his homeland and journeyed to an unknown land.
To make the Covenant binding, however, a stipulation was made. God ordered Abraham to circumcise himself and all male members of his household - those who were related or unrelated to him. As mentioned earlier, circumcision would be a sign of the Covenant, a reminder to all that it was in effect. As time went on and Abraham was becoming more and more knowledgeable of the land that his offspring would inherit Canaan, God made repeated reassurances of His initial promise of blessings. Abraham continued to walk before God all his life, demonstrating, in many ways, his faith in God and in what he had promised to do. On one particular occasion, Abraham's act of faith was followed by God's reassuring words, "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me" [Genesis 22:18].
Although there exists varying views about which group or groups are included in the blessings of the Covenant, all can agree on the fact that the promises inherent in it were unconditional. The circumcision of the flesh, though commanded by God, was not the motivating factor in His making the promises, Abraham's faith was. Achieving the blessings, however, would depend upon those who have been included in the Covenant.
Finally, the Abrahamic Covenant is seen by Christians as a forerunner to the New Covenant under the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ, taken during the Eucharist [Holy Communion, The Lord's Last Supper, etc.]ceremony, brought about a remission of sins so that all men could partake of the blessings of Abraham, for through Christ, the faithful are also heirs of Abraham. The Apostle Paul says, "If you be Christ's, then you are the seed of Abraham" (Galatians 3:39). Also see Romans 1:5, 4:11 and 16:26. [1] [2] [3].
PARTIES INVOLVED
Yahweh, the Eternal God of heaven and earth, and the creator of all things seen and unseen, is the originator of the covenant with Abraham. Abraham, the primary party to this covenant, is known as the founding father of the Israelites as well as the father of the faithful. He was born in Ur of the Chaldees around the year 2000 B.C. and later moved, with his family, to Haran [Northern Mesopotamia]. It was while Abraham was living in Haran that God made the Covenant promises to him [See the "Abraham and Archaeology" section below.].
The other present and future parties to the Covenant were members of Abraham's household and those bought with money from foreigners, Abraham's natural heirs, the Israelites through Jacob, and much later, the "many nations" of the world.
Jdgray 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
TRANSPIRING EVENTS
God Reaffirms His Oath
Several important events transpired after God first called Abraham from Haran. After heeding this call, and journeying with his wife, Sarai, his nephew Lot and his servants, to the land of Canaan [4], God appeared to him a second time in Shechem [a city of Canaan] and promised the land of Canaan to him and his descendants [See Genesis 12:6 and Numbers 34:1-29]. [5]. At Shechem, Abraham built the first altar. The altar was a place of worship, and it was on the altar that a fellowship offering was undoubtedly made. The act itself was indicative of Abraham's total submission to God, and marked the start of a faithful and loving relationship.
At Bethel, following Lot's departure, God shows Abraham Canaan's furthermost boundaries. Here, God is providing Abraham with physical evidence and reassurance. Note what it says at Genesis 13:14-16, "After Lot departs from Abraham, God repeats His promise'...Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.'" [6] Jdgray 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Abraham's Blessing by God's High Priest/Altar Ritual
A very significant act takes place on Abraham's behalf after he returns to Hebron following the defeat of Kedorlaomer and the kings. Here, Melchizedek, King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God, comes out to bless Abraham, bringing him "bread and wine". This is viewed as a foreshadowing of [and tie-in to] the New Covenant instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, for it is by means of these very same sacraments [bread and wine] that Christians receive sanctification. Melchizedek says, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth." (See Genesis 14:16-20) [7]. (See also Matthew 26:17-30) [8]In addition to the literal blessings in the covenant, is the all-important spiritual blessing of God.
This act of blessing is soon followed by a ritual that appears to validate the Covenant. The Biblical text reads, "9 So the LORD said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon." 10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. We then read at verse 17, "When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."
It does now say why this event had to occur, but one can reason from other covenants in the Bible that this act had to occur before the Covenant could be validated. For nowhere in the Bible is it shown where God has instituted a covenant without a ritual sacrifice. This Covenant, though based on faith, also falls under God's Law that says, "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness" [Hebrews 9:22].
Biblical evidence shows that Moses first had to perform a purification ritual [sprinkle the Israelites with the sacrificial blood of an undefiled animal] before the Mosaic Law Covenant could be enacted [Exodus 24:3-8 says, "...He [Moses] got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey." 8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."]
Jesus Christ, the pure and undefiled "Lamb of God," had to give up Himself [and shed His blood] before the New Covenant could come into existence [Matthew 26:27 reads, "Then he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."] So the altar, in this instance, appears to have validated the Covenant when considering the fact that Abraham and his descendants' had "inherited sin." And this sin would have most likely had to first be atoned for before the Covenant could be validated. [9] [10]. [(For Noah's covenant, see Genesis 9:1-17.) [11]]
Circumcision - A Sign of the Covenant
The next event involved a stipulation. After God changed Abraham's name from Abram to Abraham ["the father of many nations"] and reaffirmed the covenantal promises made earlier, He explained to Abraham, the deed that would make the Covenant binding, and that was "circumcision." The passage reads, "3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God" 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you" (Genesis 17:3-11 ). The fact that this regulation came after the promises, by the way, proves that the promises were not dependant upon it. Nevertheless, those who wished to be a part of the covenant had to become circumcised as commanded. The circumcision would be a constant reminder of their covenantal relationship with God. This sign would, no doubt, strengthen the participants' faith in God and in His promises. [12]
Verses twelve through fourteen state, " For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." [13]
The Promise of a Natural Heir [Isaac]
God promises Abraham a natural heir in this important event. This is in keeping with His promise to make Abraham the father of many.Genesis 18:10 reads, "10 Then the LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son." We then read in verses 13-14 , "Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
Abraham's Testing on Mt. Moriah
The final event which draws the Covenant to its conclusion occurs when Abraham's faith and obedience was put to the test on Mt. Moriah. God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Genesis 22: 9-14 reads, 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son." 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." [14]
This test on Mt. Moriah was a test of Abram's faith, and the obedience that came through his faith. [Romans 1:5 states, "Through him (Christ) and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."] [15]. After passing the test, God reaffirmed the Covenant that had already been established between them, and adds that all nations ill be blessed through his offspring. Genesis 22:15-18 states, "15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
In promising to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring or seed, God was clearly referring to a future heir of Abraham's who would arrive at a time when God decides to bless all nations in addition to the Israelites. Christians know that the seed to whom God was referring was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, whose lineage is traced back to Abraham and who is the only through whom all nations on the earth could be blessed. This major event served to connect the Abrahamic Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ Jesus. [16]
THE NATURE OF THE COVENANT
The Abrahamic Covenant, as stated before, was unconditional, predicated on Abraham's faith in the true God. There were many promises that came with the covenant such as, to make Abraham a great nation, to bless him to make his name great and to make him a blessing, to bless them that bless him and to curse them that curse him; and finally, that in him [or through his seed] all nations of the earth will be blessed.
The fact that God had promised to bless Abraham's offspring, without a showing of their faith or obedience proves also that this Covenant was unconditional. Later on, God even tells Moses of His disappointment with the Israelites prior to their entering the promised land, but says that He will allow them to still enter the land because of the promise He had made to Abraham.
Although God made no statement to Abraham concerning the obedience of his heirs, He must have felt that they should obey Him as Abraham did, or that their failure to "walk before him" would hamper their receiving the blesings; for God instituted a law covenant as a way of bringing them into obedience. Biblical records indicate that while the Israelites were encamped in the wilderness, God instituted the Mosaic Law Covenant mentioned above, for He was not able to abide with them in their present spiritual state of disobedience. This could also indicate, and very strongly I might add, that Yahweh had known beforehand that He would bring the the Israelites into submission through the Law Covenant, and thereby made the promises to Abraham. So the Law Covenant, a covenant requiring very strict obedience, would not nullify the Abrahamic Covenant, but would aid the Israelites in obtaining the promises already made to them.[to add reference]. For the Christian, such spiritual aid would come through the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.
In respect to the blessing that was promised to come through Abraham's seed [Christ], God made a statement that corroborates the belief that Christ was the promised seed, for it reveals that God viewed Himself as the nations' promised blessing. God says, "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield and your exceeding great reward" (Gen. 15:1).
THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISE IN CHRIST
When God told Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed, He was referring to the Messiah of heaven and earth, the Lord Jesus Christ. This promise was assuredly fulfilled in the Messiah at the time of His crucifixion and resurrection. His redemptive sacrifice made it possible for all who exercise faith in God and in Him to become partakers of the blessings promised to Abraham.
Once persons of faith come to belong to Christ, they are considered Abraham's heirs. The Apostle Paul's says at Galatians 3:39, "If you be Christ's, then you are the seed of Abraham." Entrance into the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, therefore, must come through Christ alone.
The circumcision of the flesh regulation stated previously was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant,but Christ circumcises those who have faith in Him, and this circumcision is of the heart [Rom 2:28-29] [Luke 22:20]. Note what it says at Colossians 2:11, "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ."
Jesus Christ left a ritual for those of faith to perform regularly in order stay in remembrance of Him and His role of redemption, and this allows Christians to "remain in Him." This ritual is known as "the Eucharist" [aka, "The Lord's Supper","Holy Communion", "The Divine Liturgy" etc.]. This is where the faithful partake of the 'bread, "christ's body," and the wine, "Christ's blood". [Loving one another was a commandment that all Christians have to follow as well.]
It was by Christ's blood alone that our sins were forgiven in order that we could receive of His grace [the Abrahamic promises]. If we remain "in Christ," we are then heirs of the promises God made to Abraham. Jdgray 14:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, God covenanted with Abraham, promising him many blessings. While doing so, God revealed to him the kind of God He truly was: truthful, trustworthy, faithful, loving, forgiving and generous. Knowing beforehand, man's weaknesses, He still made unconditional promises to bless Abraham's natural offspring as well as the nations of the world through his seed. The Abrahamic Covenant found fulfillment in the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who by His crucifixion, bought salvation for all men and made it possible for them to become partakers of the blessings God had promised earlier. One can only marvel at the love and faithfulness of God who never broke His promise to Abraham even when all men went astray.
Russia Warns US In Unprecedented "Secret" Face-To-Face Meeting Over Syria, But What's The Endgame?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-22/russia-warns-us-unprecedented-face-face-meeting-over-syria-whats-endgame
The moment the first Russian jet landed in Syria at the invitation of the Assad government in 2015, Putin placed himself in the driver's seat concerning the international proxy war in the Levant. From a strategic standpoint the armed opposition stood no chance of ever tipping the scales against Damascus from that moment onward. And though US relations with Russia became more belligerent and tense partly as a result of that intervention, it meant that Russia would set the terms of how the war would ultimately wind down.
Russia's diplomatic and strategic victory in the Middle East was made clear this week as news broke of "secret" and unprecedented US-Russia face to face talks on Syria. The Russians reportedly issued a stern warning to the US military, saying that it will respond in force should the Syrian Army or Russian assets come under fire by US proxies.
The AP reports that senior military officials from both countries met in an undisclosed location "somewhere in the Middle East" in order to discuss spheres of operation in Syria and how to avoid the potential for a direct clash of forces. Tensions have escalated in the past two weeks as the Syrian Army in tandem with Russian special forces are now set to fully liberate Deir Ezzor city, while at the same time the US-backed SDF (the Arab-Kurdish coalition, "Syrian Democratic Forces") - advised by American special forces - is advancing on the other side of the Euphrates. As we've explained before, the US is not fundamentally motivated in its "race for Deir Ezzor province" by defeat of ISIS terrorism, but in truth by control of the eastern province's oil fields. Whatever oil fields the SDF can gain control of in the wake of Islamic State's retreat will then used as powerful bargaining leverage in negotiating a post-ISIS Syria. The Kurdish and Arab coalition just this week captured Tabiyeh and al-Isba oil and gas fields northeast of Deir Ezzor city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDVOq2LP_k
At various times the Syrian-Russian side has come under mortar fire from SDF positions, even as Russia and the US are theoretically said to coordinate through a special military hotline. The SDF for its part claims it too has come under attack from the Syrian Army. The most significant event occurred just over a year ago when the US coalition launched a massive air attack on Syrian government troops in Deir Ezzor near the city's military airport at the very moment they were fighting ISIS. The US characterized it as a case of mistaken identity while Syria accused the US coalition of directly aiding ISIS by the attack. The end result was about 100 Syrian soldiers dead and over a hundred more wounded while ISIS terrorists were able to advance and entrench their positions.
Though US officials disclosed few elements of this week's unusual meeting, the US side did confirm Russia's threat of returning fire should Syrian soldiers come under attack. US coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon confirmed that, "They had a face-to-face discussion, laid down maps and graphics." But the Russians publicly delivered further details outlining its message to the US military. Russian Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement,"A representative of the U.S. military command in Al Udeid (the U.S. operations center in Qatar) was told in no uncertain terms that any attempts to open fire from areas where SDF fighters are located would be quickly shut down." He added that, "Fire points in those areas will be immediately suppressed with all military means." Russia has further openly accused the US of violating previously agreed to 'de-escalation' zones in Idlib (as part of Astana talks) using al-Qaeda proxies to engaged the Syrian Army in Idlib.
The US coalition hinted in its statements that future military-to-military talks could continue regarding coordination in Syria. Though Russian warnings sound alarmist, and though the situation is increasingly very dangerous for the prospect of escalation, the US side appears to be in a vulnerable enough position to listen. The fact that the meeting occurred in the first place and was publicly acknowledged by the Pentagon is hugely significant as a US ban on such direct military talks was put in place after the collapse in relations between the two nations following the outbreak of the Ukraine proxy war in 2014.
In reality some degree of US-Russian back channel communication and intelligence sharing probably existed long before the SDF made gains in Syria's east - this according to Seymour Hersh's 2016 investigation entitled, "Military to Military". Though (ironically) the CIA's push for regime change against Damascus was still operational and presumably in full gear at that time, the Pentagon's actions in Syria were always perhaps more humble regarding pursuit of regime change.
But what are current Pentagon plans for its SDF proxy?
It's no secret that the core component force of the SDF - the Kurdish YPG - has at times loosely cooperated with the Syrian government when the situation pragmatically served both sides. At the same time Damascus has over the past few years recognized the Kurds as a militarily effective buffer against both ISIS and other powerful jihadist groups like al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham. While many Russian and pro-Damascus analysts have accused the SDF of being a mere pawn of US imperialism meant to permanently Balkanize the region, this is only partially true - the truth is likely more nuanced.
No doubt, the US is laying plenty of concrete in the form of forward operating bases across Kurdish held areas of northern and eastern Syria (currently about a dozen or more). And no doubt the US is enabling the illegal seizure of oil fields formerly held by the Islamic State, but Kurdish and US interests are not necessarily one and the same. The Kurds know that the best they can hope for in a post-war Syria is a federated system which allows Kurdish areas a high degree of autonomy. They also know, as decades of experience has taught them, that they will eventually be dumped by the US should the political cost of support grow too high or become untenable. For now the Kurds are gobbling up as many oil fields as possible before they are inevitably forced to cut deals with Damascus.
That is it. #Kurdistan referendum has gone ahead. Diaspora Kurds can begin early voting. First vote has been cast in China.
— Namo Abdulla (@namo_abdulla) September 22, 2017
Though the US endgame is the ultimate million dollar question in all of this, it appears at least for now that this endgame has something to do with the Pentagon forcing itself into a place of affecting the Syrian war's outcome and final apportionment of power: the best case scenario being permanent US bases under a Syrian Kurdish federated zone with favored access to Syrian oil doled out by Kurdish partners. While this is the 'realist' scenario, there's of course always the question that an independent Iraqi Kurdistan could one day be realized out of the merging of Kurdish northern Iraq and Syria. But this would be nothing less than a geopolitical miracle. For now, early voting has begun in the Kurdish diaspora ahead of the planned for September 25th referendum on Kurdish independence, with the very first votes reportedly being cast in China.
Hat tip to the zerohedge commentator who made me aware of this article O0
How Independent Kurdistan Will Allow Israel to Kill Two Birds With One Stone
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201709221057624450-kurdistan-independence-israel-syria-iraq/
The Kurdistan independence vote scheduled for September 25 will play into Tel Aviv's hands: an independent Kurdish state would allow Israel to solve its energy issues and weaken its regional rivals Iraq and Syria, Iraqi expert told Sputnik. For his part, a Syrian general revealed what steps the Syrian Army is taking to halt Kurdish separatism.
Israel has good reason to support the creation of an independent Kurdistan in the Middle East, Iraqi security expert Ahmed al-Sharifi told Sputnik Arabic: This project targets Damascus and Baghdad to guarantee water and energy supplies to Tel Aviv.
"Since 2005 [Benjamin] Netanyahu has spoken about the necessity of building an oil pipeline from [the Iraqi cities of] Kirkuk and Mosul to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria, to provide Israel with a constant source of energy," al-Sharifi emphasized.
According to the expert, Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) was created "to replace the governments in Syria and Iraq with pro-American authorities." It would also have played into the hand of Israel, he believes.
"It would have allowed Israel to maintain control over oil and water resources," al-Sharifi suggested. "Additionally, [Tel Aviv] would have had loyal neighbors from the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean basin."
However, due to the Syrians' determination to resist terrorism the plan didn't turn into reality, the expert pointed out, adding that "the Kurdish project" aimed at separating Syria and Iraq has recently emerged as a natural progression.
The expert called attention to Baghdad's balanced response to the Iraqi Kurdistan initiative to gain independence: "People who make decisions in Baghdad are trying to be extremely diplomatic, trying to solve the problem through dialogue."
He emphasized that the Iraqi government doesn't want the problem of Kurdistan to become an international headache.
For his part, Syrian Brigade General Haisam Hassun told Sputnik, "The Syrian [Arab] Army has already begun to fight the Kurdish threat backed by American masterminds in the territory of Syria."
"First of all, [the operation includes] the transfer of [Syrian government forces] to the east bank of the Euphrates River," General Hassun explained. "In the near future [the SAA is going] to return the lands occupied by the Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF] under its control."
The general remarked that the SDF "can safely be called a branch of Daesh since they have illegally occupied Syrian territories."
In June, President of Iraqi Kurdistan Masoud Barzani set September 25 as the date for the independence referendum, prompting strong opposition from Baghdad as well as deep concerns among regional players that the creation of a new independent entity may trigger a domino effect across the Middle East.
However, in mid-August The Jerusalem Post reported, citing sources familiar with the matter, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed a "positive attitude" toward a Kurdish state in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, calling the nation one of "brave, pro-Western people who share our [Israeli] values."
A month later Netanyahu reiterated his support for Iraqi Kurdistan's efforts to create its own state. Netanyahu's statement came just weeks before the referendum in the Kurdistan Autonomous Region in Iraq. However, the Israeli prime minister's remarks were not something new: He had already made similar statements in 2004 and 2014.
In contrast, Turkey and Iran have voiced their opposition to the creation of a sovereign state in the Kurdish-dominated region of Iraq, citing national security issues.
According to Reuters, in August, Turkish and Iranian military leaders held talks on the Syrian conflict and counterterrorism, as well as the issue of dealing with Kurdish militants in the Turkish-Iranian border region.
For its part, Damascus fears that the Syrian Kurds, who hold vast territories in northern Syria, may follow into Iraqi Kurdistan's footsteps thus splitting the country up.
Commenting on the upcoming Iraqi Kurdistan independence vote Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that Russia supports the territorial integrity of Middle Eastern countries.
The Kurds, who account for about 20 percent of the Iraqi population, have been seeking self-governance for decades. In 2005, Iraq's Constitution recognized Kurdistan as an autonomous region run by the Kurdistan Regional Government.
Iraq's Supreme Court Rules to Halt Independence Referendum in Kurdistan
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201709181057480174-iraq-court-halts-kurdistan-referendum/
"The court issued a ruling on suspension of referendum, scheduled for September 25, 2017, according to the decree of the Kurdistan president, until a decision ... on unconstitutionality of this decision is taken," the Iraqi supreme court's spokesman said in a statement.
Iraq: We will not allow creation of a second Israel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/235633
An Iraqi vice president warned Sunday that Baghdad would not tolerate the creation of "a second Israel" after the Jewish state became the only country to support a planned Kurdish independence
referendum in northern Iraq.
200,000 Jewish Kurds headed for Iraqi Kurdistan, howls Turkish press
https://al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/09/jewish-israeli-kurds-bound-for-krg-after-referendum.html
Several Turkish media outlets reported Sept. 13 that Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani had reached a secret agreement with the Israeli government. The alleged deal involves the settlement of Jewish Israelis of Kurdish origin — a community of some 200,000 people — from Israel to the KRG after the independence referendum on Sept. 25.
'Squatter' builder who renovated and moved into empty £400,000 three-bedroom house after elderly owner died wins right to KEEP it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622995/Squatter-400-000-three-bedroom-house-owned-elderly-woman-WINS-right-ownership-10-years-claiming-squatters-rights.html
Builder Keith Best 'treated the house as his own' after hearing it was empty
Owner died and her son had not visited since he was attacked in the area
High Court judge rules the house is Best's due to 'no action by the owner'
Neighbours furious that builder 'trespassed and got a free house out of it'
The Rohingya Crisis: Reality, Rumors and Ramifications
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201709051057114181-myanmar-after-rohingya-violence/
Andrew Korybko
The world, and especially the Ummah, is incensed at what is being portrayed as genocide against Muslims in Myanmar, but the reality of what's happening there is a lot more complex than the simplistic rumors lead one to believe, and the geopolitical ramifications of this crisis could become very far-reaching.
Right off the bat, killing innocent people is wrong, and everyone is justified for feeling outraged when they believe this is happening, as it plainly is in some cases in Myanmar's coastal Rakhine State. The question, though, comes down to identifying who's doing the killing and why, and whether the victims were intentionally targeted or "collateral damage," be it from a military "anti-terrorist" operation or a "rebel" one against the government. It's also important to ponder what the geopolitical ramifications of all of this could be in terms of the larger dynamics at play in the New Cold War.
Rakhine Review
To oversimplify the situation for brevity's sake, the Rohingya are Muslims who live in the northern part of Rakhine State and claim to be native to the region, though the Myanmarese government says that they're just Bengali migrants and their descendants who began moving into the area after the late-19th-century imposition of British colonial rule. The other main demographic group in this territory is the Rakhine people, who are Buddhists that inherited the legacy of the long-standing Kingdom of Mrauk U.
The immediate post-independence period in Myanmar, called Burma until 1989, saw the many ethno-religious minorities of the country's resource-rich periphery rebel against the central authorities in favor of federalization or, as the Rohingyas wanted, unification with the neighboring state that they more closely identified with (East Pakistan, but Bangladesh since 1971), thereby setting off the world's longest-running and still-unresolved civil war.
Pertaining to Rakhine State, this conflict has ebbed and flowed throughout the decades, most recently climaxing in 2012, 2015 and just recently this summer, with the latest three escalations seeing reprisal violence by some of the hyper-nationalist Buddhist majority against the minority Muslim population. In response, the more impoverished Rohingya, who don't have citizenship rights because most of them don't qualify for such under the country's pertinent laws, had little to leave behind in Rakhine State and would flee en mass to Bangladesh for safety.
It's worthwhile here to point out that the Myanmarese military, known as the Tatmadaw, claims that its operations in their locales are triggered by the deadly attacks that Rohingya rebels — seen as terrorists by Naypyidaw and accused of having links to al-Qaeda and other such notorious groups — carried out against them and Buddhist villagers. The fog of war is such that civilians are obviously getting killed as a result, but it's unclear whether this constitutes genocide, or who's actually behind it all.
A "South Asian Kosovo"
It's impossible to tell at this moment exactly what's going on in Rakhine State and part of the reason is because of the heavy information war against Myanmar right now and Naypyidaw's refusal to let independent journalists into the region out of what it says are security concerns, but the general dynamics at play right now are oddly reminiscent of the run-up to NATO's 1999 War on Yugoslavia in carving the West's protectorate of Kosovo out of what is now Serbia.
Back then, the world suddenly became aware of a newly popularized sub-identity of Muslims called "Kosovars," just as they're now becoming quickly acquainted with the "Rohingyas," and they too claimed that their rights were being violated and that this therefore justified them committing acts of violence against the state and sometimes even civilians.
Another common thread is how much-publicized mainstream media images and stories, many of which were later proven to be fake or totally decontextualized, served to inspire the global Muslim community (Ummah) to rise up in rage and send volunteer fighters to help their co-confessionals, as is the traditional duty of this religion when they believe one of their own is being persecuted.
The problem, however, is that the situation is never as black and white as it's made out to be by the mainstream media, as anyone following the war on Syria for the past six and a half years knows by now, especially when it comes to the never-ending accusations that President Assad is also carrying out a "genocide" against Muslims like Milosevic before him and now the Tatmadaw apparently too. The intrinsic human urge for people to get upset by what they believe to be the senseless and deliberate killing of an entire identity group is often abused by "perception managers" to gin up support for their patrons' upcoming wars, and this is especially so when Muslim victims are involved.
Unfortunately, these sorts of situations have a track record of attracting international terrorists and leading to the explosion of domestic ones, like what happened with the "Kosovo Liberation Army" and its al-Qaeda backers in Yugoslavia; the "moderate rebels," al-Qaeda and eventually Daesh in Syria; and now the "Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army" and what increasingly looks to be Daesh's next Asian hot spot in Myanmar.
Correspondingly, each conflict was linked to either capturing the whole country or partitioning off a strategic corner of it, with post-conflict Kosovo hosting the US's gigantic Camp Bondsteel; all of Syria at one time being planned to become the US's pivot of control over the entire Levant; and a future "South Asian Kosovo" of "Rohingyaland" giving its patron powerful influence over the two oil and gas pipelines from coastal Kyaukphyu to China's Kunming and accordingly dominating this envisioned New Silk Road hub.
Yugoslavia 2.0
The point here isn't to whitewash what might eventually turn out to be proven is the Tatmadaw's excessive and disproportionate counterinsurgency operations against civilians, but to draw attention to how the overall conflict momentum is being guided in the direction of an externally provoked identity-centric hybrid war through a coordinated and one-sided information campaign. This is aimed most immediately at demonizing the Myanmarese state while deflecting attention away from the attacks of Rohingya "rebels," which contributed to the rapidly deteriorating military and humanitarian situation.
The medium-term purpose behind provoking such targeted global outrage is to inspire countless Muslim "volunteers" (some of whom will undoubtedly be actual terrorists) to flood into Rakhine State and then set the stage for a multilateral "humanitarian intervention" following the Kosovo model or an anti-terrorist campaign like what the US-led coalition experimented with in Syria in order to ultimately gain control of a territory indispensable to China's One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity.
Furthermore, remembering how none of this is taking place in a vacuum and that the country is still engulfed in a multi-sided civil war all along its periphery, it's possible that the ongoing federalization talks could give way to the all-out "Balkanization" of the former Burma along the lines of what happened to the former Yugoslavia. The end result of this tragedy would be the birth of a host of new states through their own bloody baptisms of fire, which would allow hostile foreign powers to more easily control this strategic space at the juncture of South, Southeast and East Asia.
Moreover, another fault line would instantly emerge in the so-called "Clash of Civilizations" (itself nothing more than a blueprint for dividing and ruling the Eastern Hemisphere through identity-centric Hybrid War) between not only Muslims and Buddhists in Rakhine State, but possibly even eventually the Buddhists and Christians in the central part of Myanmar and its Northern-Eastern peripheries respectively. In addition, one could expect Buddhist and Christian "volunteers" from abroad to flood into the battlefield too, potentially catalyzing what might go on to one day become their religions' own form of Daesh.
Other than the geopolitical removal of Myanmar from the world map and the untold suffering of its over 50 million people, the other victim would of course be China, which would have to confront a Syrian-like Hybrid War along its porous southwestern border on top of the other many security challenges ringing its periphery (North Korea, East China Sea, South China Sea and India). Any plans for a CPEC-complementing Myanmar Corridor to the Indian Ocean would also be dashed, and Buddhist troublemakers in Tibet might become radicalized and inspired to commence another round of violence.
The likelihood of these forecasted scenarios could naturally compel China to take the lead in jump-starting emergency conflict resolution measures in Myanmar if the situation continues to spiral out of control there, which might help establish exactly which of the two sides started this whole mess and hopefully bring justice to all the perpetrators without the large-scale geopolitical consequences that threaten to unfold otherwise.
MEDIA: BNP WAS RIGHT ON MUSLIM RAPE GANGS
https://bnp.org.uk/media-bnp-was-right-on-muslim-rape-gangs/
January 5 2011
The controlled media has finally admitted that there are Muslim paedophile gangs operating in Britain which prey on young white females, a fact for which Nick Griffin was twice put on trial for daring to say.
In a front page article in The Times newspaper, the existence of the Muslim paedophile gangs is openly acknowledged, although that paper quite falsely claims that it has the story "exclusively."
In reality, Mr Griffin was arrested in 2004 after comments he made about the Muslim paedophile groom gangs scandal were broadcast on the BBC documentary, 'The Secret Agent'.
The British National Party leader was charged with "using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred" for pointing out what The Times today has repeated and now presented as an 'exclusive' story.
As readers will doubtless be aware, Mr Griffin was acquitted of all the charges after two trials.
According to The Times' "revelation," police and social services have fuelled a "culture of silence" which has "allowed hundreds of young white girls to be exploited by Asian men for sex."
According to figures printed by The Times, an "alarmingly" high number of prosecutions for on-street grooming of girls aged between 11 and 16 have involved "men of Pakistani heritage."
In 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white, according to The Times.
Worse still, experts were quoted as saying that the statistics "represent a mere fraction of a tidal wave of offending" in counties across the Midlands and the north of England which has been going on for more than a decade.
The media quoted a senior officer at West Mercia police as saying that these white "girls are being passed around and used as meat."
Chief Inspector Alan Edwards was quoted as saying that to "stop this type of crime you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor.
"No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."
Mr Griffin said that The Times story which claimed that there was a "conspiracy of silence" was ironic, because that newspaper had long been part of the conspiracy to cover up the issue.
"We first raised this issue in 2001," Mr Griffin told an interview with Radio RWB.
"This is not, as The Times has claimed, an 'Asian' or even a 'Pakistani' problem, but actually a Muslim problem," Mr Griffin said.
"In Wrexham for example, the problem is found amongst Iraqis. It is not a Pakistani problem, but a Muslim problem, as this behaviour comes from the core of that religion," he said.
British National Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party in the United Kingdom. It is headquartered in Wigton, Cumbria, and its current leader is Adam Walker. A minor party, it currently has one councillor in UK local government. During its heyday in the 2000s, it had over fifty seats in local government, one seat on the London Assembly, and two Members of the European Parliament.
The BNP was formed in 1982 by John Tyndall and other former members of the National Front (NF). By Tyndall's admission, it remained ideologically identical to the NF, and took its name from that of a defunct 1960s party. During its first two decades, the BNP placed little emphasis on contesting elections, in which it did poorly, but rather focused on street marches and rallies. A growing 'moderniser' faction was frustrated by Tyndall's leadership and in 1999 ousted him. The new leader Nick Griffin sought to broaden the BNP's electoral base by moderating some of its policies, targeting concerns about rising immigration rates, and emphasising localised community campaigns. This resulted in increased electoral growth throughout the 2000s, to the extent that it became the most electorally successful far-right party in British history. Concerns regarding financial mismanagement resulted in Griffin being ousted in 2014. By this point the BNP's membership and vote share had declined dramatically, and members had split to form rival groups like Britain First.
Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the BNP has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists. Under Tyndall's leadership, it was more specifically regarded as Neo-Nazi. The party is ethnic nationalist, and it espouses the view that only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom. It calls for an end to non-white migration into the UK and the removal of settled non-white populations from the country. Initially, it called for the compulsory expulsion of non-whites, although it has since advocated voluntary removals with financial incentives. It promotes biological racism and the white genocide conspiracy theory, calling for global racial separatism and condemning mixed-race relationships. Under Tyndall, the BNP emphasised anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, although Griffin switched the party's focus on to Islamophobia. It promotes economic protectionism, Euroscepticism, and a transformation away from liberal democracy, while its social policies oppose feminism, LGBT rights, and societal permissiveness.
The BNP has a highly centralised structure that gives its chairman near total control. It established a range of sub-groups—such as a youth wing, record label, and trade union—and built links with extreme-right parties across Europe. Regarded as the most successful far-right party in British history, the BNP attracted most support from within White British working-class communities in Northern and Eastern England, particularly among middle-aged and elderly men. More widely, it was highly unpopular and faced much opposition from anti-fascists, religious organisations, and mainstream politicians and media. BNP members were banned from a number of professions and polling suggested that a majority of Britons favoured the party's criminalisation.
Ethnic nationalism and biological racism
The BNP adheres to biological racist ideas,[152] displaying an obsession with the perceived differences of racial groups.[153] Both Tyndall and Griffin believed that there was a biologically distinct white-skinned "British race" which was one branch of a wider Nordic race.[154] In this, Tyndall's views were similar both to Hitler and to prominent British fascist Arnold Leese.[155]
The BNP adheres to an ideology of ethnic nationalism.[13] It promotes the idea that not all citizens of the United Kingdom belong to the British nation.[13] Instead, it claims that the nation only belongs to "the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh along with the limited numbers of peoples of European descent, who have arrived centuries or decades ago and who have fully integrated into our society".[13] This is a group that Griffin referred to as the "home people" or "the folk".[156] According to Tyndall, "The BNP is a racial nationalist party which believes in Britain for the British, that is to say racial separatism."[25] Richard Edmonds in 1993 told The Guardian's Duncan Campbell that "we [the BNP] are 100% racist".[157] The BNP does not regard UK citizens who are not ethnic white Europeans as "British", and party literature calls on supporters to avoid referring to such individuals as "black Britons" or "Asian Britons", instead describing them as "racial foreigners".[158]
The party emphasises what it sees as the need to protect the racial purity of the white British.[152] It condemns miscegenation and "race mixing", claiming that this is a threat to the British race.[159] Tyndall stated that he "felt deeply sorry for the child of a mixed marriage" but had "no sympathy whatsoever for the parents".[160] Griffin similarly stated that mixed-race children were "the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism", and that the party would not "accept miscegenation as moral or normal... we never will."[161] In its 1983 election manifesto, the BNP stated that "family size is a private matter" but still called for white Britons who are "of intelligent, healthy and industrious stock" to have large families and thus raise the white British birth-rate.[162] The encouragement of high birth rates among white British families continued under Griffin's leadership.[163]
Tyndall believed the Nordic race to be superior to other races,[155] and under his leadership, the BNP promoted a variety of pseudoscientific claims in support of white supremacy.[164] Following Griffin's ascendency to power in the party, it officially repudiated racial supremacism and insisted that no racial group was superior or inferior to another.[64] Instead it foregrounded an "ethno-pluralist" racial separatism, claiming that different racial groups had to be kept separate and distinct for their own preservation, maintaining that global ethno-cultural diversity was something to be protected.[165] At the same time it switched focus from openly promoting biological racism to stressing what it perceived as the cultural incompatibility of racial groups.[61] It placed great focus on opposing what it referred to as "multiculturalism",[166] characterising this as a form of "cultural genocide",[167] which promotes the interests of non-whites at the expense of the white British population.[168] However, internal documents produced and circulated under Griffin's leadership demonstrated that it retained its dedication to biological racist ideas.[158] In focusing on culture rather than biology and speaking of 'ethno-pluralism', Griffin's BNP borrowed much of its discourse from the French Nouvelle Droite.[167]
During Tyndall's period of leadership, the BNP promoted eugenics, calling for the forced sterilisation of those with genetically transmittable disabilities.[169] In party literature, it talked of improving the British 'racial stock' by removing "inferior strains within the indigenous races of the British Isles".[170] Tyndall argued that medical professionals should be responsible for determining who to sterilise, while a lowering of welfare benefits would discourage breeding among those he deemed to be genetic inferiors.[171] In his magazine Spearhead, Tyndall also stated that "the gas chamber system" should be used to eliminate "sub-human elements", "perverts", and "asocials" from British society.[146]
Turkey 'will not allow fait accompli' in Iraq's north
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-will-not-allow-fait-accompli-in-iraqs-north.aspx?pageID=238&nID=118131&NewsCatID=510
Ankara has once again stressed that it will not allow any fait accompli in northern Iraq and will take all necessary measures against the independence referendum to be held by the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) on Sept. 25.
The Turkish Armed Forces expanded the scope of the military exercise it launched on Sept. 18 on the Iraqi border near the Habur Border Gate, in parallel with the government's harshened rhetoric on the KRG's bid.
"Turkey will not allow fait accompli in northern Iraq. The world stood up, we stood up [against the referendum]. Arabs and Turkmens rejected it and even Kurds in the region are against it," Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ said at a ceremony marking the start of the academic year at Bozok University in the Central Anatolian province of Yozgat on Sept. 19.
Despite opposition from the world as well as the United Nations, the "sick mentality" in northern Iraq seems to be determined in holding the referendum, Bozdağ said.
"These kinds of steps in the region will ruin regional security and will shatter comfort, peace and stability. Not only the region but all countries in the region will be negatively affected by it and no one can tolerate this," he added.
Recalling that Turkey has always supported the KRG until now through good neighborly relations amid economic stability, Bozdağ stressed it will continue to do so "if Arbil moves forward with good intentions."
"But if they go ahead to hold the referendum despite all these warnings, then it will surely be responded to. Our president has declared: 'We will hold our cabinet meeting right after the National Security Council on Friday [Sept. 22] and will announce our last steps to the world," he said, vowing that Ankara would "not tolerate" steps that would endanger its security and future.
"We will take all necessary measures to this end and implement them decisively," he added.
Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli also told reporters on Sept. 19 that Turkey could never allow the foundation of an "ethnic-based state in northern Iraq."
"All of our security forces are on duty. We are following the developments very closely. If a decision needs to be taken, it will be taken and implemented with determination," Canikli stressed.
Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Myanmar
There is a history of persecution of Muslims in Myanmar that continues to the present day.[2] Myanmar is a Buddhist majority country, with a significant Muslim minority. While Muslims served in the government of Prime Minister U Nu (1948-63), the situation changed with the 1962 Burmese coup d'état. While a few continued to serve, most Muslims were excluded from positions in the government and army. [3] In 1982, the government introduced regulations that denied citizenship to anyone who could not prove that his ancestors lived in Myanmar prior to 1823.[4] This disenfranchised many Muslims in Myanmar, even though they had lived in Myanmar for several generations.[5]
The largest Muslim group in Myanmar are the Rohingya people; the Rohingyas have been the most persecuted group under Myanmar's military regime.[6] (The UN states that the Rohingyas are one of the most persecuted groups in the world)[citation needed]. Since 1948, successive governments have carried out 13 military operations against the Rohingya (including in 1975, 1978, 1989, 1991-2, 2002).[7] During the operations, Myanmar security forces have driven the Rohingyas off their land, burned down their mosques and committed widespread looting, arson and rape of Rohingya Muslims.[7] Outside of these military raids, Rohingya are subjected to frequent theft and extortion from the authorities and many are subjected to forced labor.[8] In some cases, land occupied by Rohingya Muslims has been confiscated and reallocated to local Buddhists.[8]
Land of Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, Modern Eretz Yisrael, Tiberian ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl) is the traditional Jewish name for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine (see also Israel (disambiguation)). The definitions of the limits of this territory vary between passages in the Hebrew Bible, with specific mentions in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Nine times elsewhere in the Bible, the settled land is referred as "from Dan to Beersheba, and three times it is referred as "from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt" (1 Kings 8:65, 1 Chronicles 13:5 and 2 Chronicles 7:8).".
These biblical limits for the land differ from the borders of established historical Israelite and later Jewish kingdoms; over time these have included the United Kingdom of Israel, the two separated kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah, the Hasmonean Kingdom, and the Herodian Kingdom, which at their heights ruled lands with similar but not identical boundaries.
The Jewish religious belief defining the land as where Jewish religious law prevailed and excluding territory where it was not applied,[1] holds that the area is a God-given inheritance of the Jewish people based on the Torah, particularly the books of Genesis and Exodus, as well as on the later Prophets.[2] According to the Book of Genesis, the land was first promised by God to the descendants of Abram; the text is explicit that this is a covenant between God and Abram for his descendants.[3] Abram's name was later changed to Abraham, with the promise refined to pass through his son Isaac and to the Israelites, descendants of Jacob, Abraham's grandson. This belief is not shared by most adherents of replacement theology (or supersessionism), who hold the view that the Old Testament prophecies were superseded by the coming of Jesus,[4] a view often repudiated by Christian Zionists as a theological error.[5] Evangelical Zionists variously claim that Israel has title to the land by divine right,[6] or by a theological, historical and moral grounding of attachment to the land unique to Jews (James Parkes),[7] The idea that ancient religious texts can be warrant or divine right for a modern claim has often been challenged,[8][9] and Israeli courts have rejected land claims based on religious motivations.[10]
During the mandatory period (1920-1948) the term "Eretz Yisrael" or the "Land of Israel" was part of the official Hebrew name of Mandatory Palestine. Official Hebrew documents used the Hebrew transliteration of the word "Palestine" פלשתינה (Palestina) followed always by the two initial letters of "Eretz Yisrael", א״י Aleph-Yod.[11][12]
The Land of Israel concept has been evoked by the founders of the State of Israel. It often surfaces in political debates on the status of the West Bank, which is referred to in official Israeli discourse as Judea and Samaria, from the names of the two historical Jewish kingdoms.[13]
List of messiah claimants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
This is a list of people who have been said to be a messiah, either by themselves or by their followers. The list is divided into categories, which are sorted according to date of birth (where known).
Jewish messiah claimants
In Judaism, "messiah" originally meant a divinely appointed king, such as David, Cyrus the Great[1] or Alexander the Great.[2] Later, especially after the failure of the Hasmonean Kingdom (37 BC) and the Jewish–Roman wars (AD 66–135), the figure of the Jewish Messiah was one who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in an Olam Haba ("world to come") or Messianic Age. However the term "false messiah" was largely absent from rabbinic literature. The first mention is in the Sefer Zerubbabel, from the mid-seventh century, which uses the term, mashiah sheker, ("false messiah").[3]
Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BCE – 30 CE), leader of a Jewish sect who was crucified by the Romans for sedition.[4] Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians.[5] Muslims,[6][7] Christians[8] and Messianic Jews[9] believe him to be the real Messiah.
Athronges (c. 3 CE),[10] a shepherd turned rebel leader.
Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.
Moses of Crete, who in about 440–470 persuaded the Jews of Crete to walk into the sea, as Moses had done, to return to Israel. The results were disastrous and he soon disappeared.
Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684–705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.
David Alroy, born in Kurdistan, who around 1160 agitated against the caliph before being assassinated.
Moses Botarel of Cisneros, active around 1413; claimed to be a sorcerer able to combine the names of God.
Asher Lämmlein, a German near Venice who proclaimed himself a forerunner of the Messiah in 1502.
David Reubeni (1490–1541?) and Solomon Molcho (1500–1532), messianic adventurers who travelled in Portugal, Italy and Turkey; Molcho, who was a baptised Catholic, was tried by the Inquisition, convicted of apostasy and burned at the stake.
Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam; still has followers today in the Dönmeh.
Jacob Querido (?–1690), claimed to be the new incarnation of Sabbatai; later converted to Islam and led the Dönmeh.
Miguel Cardoso (1630–1706), another successor of Sabbatai who claimed to be the "Messiah ben Ephraim".
Löbele Prossnitz (?–1750), attained some following amongst former followers of Sabbatai, calling himself the "Messiah ben Joseph".
Jacob Joseph Frank (1726–1791), who claimed to be the reincarnation of King David and preached a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism.
Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (r. 1920–1950), sixth Rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad Lubavitch.[11][12]
Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994), seventh Rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
Christian messiah claimants
Verses in the Christian Bible tell that Jesus will come again in some fashion; various people have claimed to, in fact, be the second coming of Jesus. Others have been styled a new messiah still under the umbrella of Christianity. The Synoptic gospels (Matthew 24:4, 6, 24; Mark 13:5, 21-22; and Luke 21:3) all use the term pseudochristos for messianic pretenders.[22]
Simon Magus (early 1st century), was a Samaritan, and a native of Gitta; he was considered a god in Simonianism; he "darkly hinted" that he himself was Christ, calling himself the Standing One.
Dositheos the Samaritan (mid 1st century), was one of the supposed founders of Mandaeanism. After the time of Jesus he wished to persuade the Samaritans that he himself was the Messiah prophesied by Moses.[23] Dositheus pretended to be the Christ (Messiah), applying Deuteronomy 18:15 to himself, and he compares him with Theudas and Judas the Galilean.[23][24]
Tanchelm of Antwerp (c. 1110), who violently opposed the sacrament and the Eucharist.
Ann Lee (1736–1784), a central figure to the Shakers,[25] who thought she "embodied all the perfections of God" in female form and considered herself to be Christ's female counterpart in 1772.[26]
Bernhard Müller (c. 1799–1834) claimed to be the Lion of Judah and a prophet in possession of the Philosopher's stone.
John Nichols Thom (1799–1838), who had achieved fame and followers as Sir William Courtenay and adopted the claim of Messiah after a period in a mental institute.[27]
Arnold Potter (1804–1872), Latter Day Saint schismatic leader; called himself "Potter Christ"
Hong Xiuquan (1814–1864), Hakka Chinese; claimed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ; started the Taiping Rebellion and founded the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. Committed suicide before the fall of Tianjing (Nanjing) in 1864.
Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri, Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1864), born Shiite, adopting Bábism later in life, he claimed to be the promised one of all religions, and founded the Bahá'í Faith.
Jacobina Mentz Maurer (1841 or 1842–1874) was a German-Brazilian woman who lived and died in the state of Rio Grande do Sul who emerged as a messianic prophetess, a representation of God, and later declared the very reincarnation of Jesus Christ on earth by her German-speaking community called Die Muckers (or the false saints) by her enemies, Die Spotters (or the mockers). After a number of deadly confrontations with outsiders, Jacobina was shot to death together with many of her followers by the Brazilian Imperial Army.
William W. Davies (1833–1906), Latter Day Saint (Mormon) schismatic leader; claimed that his infant son Arthur (born 1868) was the reincarnated Jesus Christ.
Cyrus Reed Teed (October 18, 1839 – December 22, 1908, erroneously Cyrus Tweed) was a U.S. eclectic physician and alchemist turned religious leader and messiah. In 1869, claiming divine inspiration, Dr. Teed took on the name Koresh and proposed a new set of scientific and religious ideas he called Koreshanity.
Abd-ru-shin (18 April 1875 – 6 December 1941), founder of the Grail Movement.[28][29][30][31]
Father Divine (George Baker) (c. 1880 – September 10, 1965), an African American spiritual leader from about 1907 until his death who claimed to be God.
André Matsoua (1899–1942), Congolese founder of Amicale, proponents of which subsequently adopted him as Messiah in the late 1920s.
Samael Aun Weor (1917–1977), born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez, Colombian citizen and later Mexican, was an author, lecturer and founder of the 'Universal Christian Gnostic Movement', according to him, 'the most powerful movement ever founded'. By 1972, he referenced that his death and resurrection would be occurring before 1978.[32]
Ahn Sahng-hong (1918–1985), founder of the World Mission Society Church of God and worshiped by the members as the messiah.[33]
Sun Myung Moon (1920–2012), founder and leader of the Unification Church established in Seoul, South Korea, who considered himself the Second Coming of Christ, but not Jesus himself.[34] Although it is generally believed by Unification Church members ("Moonies") that he was the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and was anointed to fulfill Jesus' unfinished mission.[34]
Yahweh ben Yahweh (1935–2007), born as Hulon Mitchell, Jr., a black nationalist and separatist who created the Nation of Yahweh and allegedly orchestrated the murder of dozens of persons.
Laszlo Toth (1940–2012) claimed he was Jesus Christ as he battered Michelangelo's Pieta with a geologist hammer.
Wayne Bent (born 1941), also known as Michael Travesser of the Lord Our Righteousness Church, also known as the "Strong City Cult", convicted December 15, 2008 of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 2008.[35]
Iesu Matayoshi (born 1944), in 1997 he established the World Economic Community Party based on his conviction that he is God and the Christ.
Jung Myung Seok (born 1945), a South Korean who was a member of the Unification Church in the 1970s, before breaking off to found the dissenting group[36] now known as Providence Church in 1980.[37][38] He also considers himself the Second Coming of Christ, but not Jesus himself in 1980.[39] He believes he has come to finish the incomplete message and mission of Jesus Christ, asserting that he is the Messiah and has the responsibility to save all mankind.[40] He claims that the Christian doctrine of resurrection is false but that people can be saved through him.[41]
Claude Vorilhon now known as Raël "messenger of the Elohim" (born 1946), a French professional test driver and former automobile journalist became founder and leader of UFO religion the Raël Movement in 1972, which teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call Elohim. He claimed he met an extraterrestrial humanoid in 1973 and became the Messiah.[42] Then devoted himself to the task he said was given by his "biological father", an extraterrestrial named Yahweh.[43]
José Luis de Jesús (1946–2013), founder and leader of Creciendo en Gracia sect (Growing In Grace International Ministry, Inc.), based in Miami, Florida. He claimed to be both Jesus Christ returned and the Antichrist, and exhibited a "666" tattoo on his forearm. He has referred to himself as Jesucristo Hombre, which translates to "Jesus Christ made Man".
Inri Cristo (born 1948) of Indaial, Brazil, a claimant to be the second Jesus.[44]
Apollo Quiboloy (born 1950), founder and leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ religious group, who claims that Jesus Christ is the "Almighty Father," that Quiboloy is "His Appointed Son," and that salvation is now completed. Proclaims himself as the "Appointed Son of the God" not direct to the point as the "Begotten Son of the God" in 1985.[45]
David Icke (born 1952), of Great Britain, has described himself as "the son of God", and a "channel for the Christ spirit".
Brian David Mitchell was born on October 18, 1953 in Salt Lake City, Utah, he believed himself the fore-ordained angel born on earth to be the Davidic "servant" prepared by God as a type of Messiah who would restore the divinely led kingdom of Israel to the world in preparation for Christ's second coming. (Mitchell's belief in such an end-times figure – also known among many fundamentalist Latter Day Saints as "the One Mighty and Strong" – appeared to be based in part on a reading of the biblical book of Isaiah by the independent LDS Hebraist, Avraham Gileadi, with which Mitchell became familiar from his former participation with Stirling Allan's American Study Group.)[46][47]
David Koresh (Vernon Wayne Howell) (1959–1993), leader of the Branch Davidians.
Maria Devi Christos (born 1960), founder of the Great White Brotherhood.
Sergey Torop (born 1961), who started to call himself "Vissarion", founder of the Church of the Last Testament and the spiritual community Ecopolis Tiberkul in Southern Siberia.
Alan John Miller (born 1962), founder of Divine Truth, a new religious movement based in Australia. Alan John Miller, also known as A.J., who claims to be Jesus of Nazareth through reincarnation. Miller was formerly an elder in the Jehovah's Witnesses.
David Shayler (born 1965), former MI5 agent and whistleblower who declared himself the Messiah on 7 July 2007.[48]
Muslim messiah claimants
Islamic tradition has a prophecy of the Mahdi, who will come alongside the return of Isa (Jesus).
Muhammad Jaunpuri (1443–1505), who traveled Northeastern India; he influenced the Mahdavia and the Zikris.
Báb (1819–1850), who declared himself to be the promised Mahdi in Shiraz, Iran in 1844. (Related to Baha'i claims.)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India (1835–1908), claimed to be the awaited Mahdi as well as (Second Coming) and likeness of Jesus the promised Messiah at the end of time, being the only person in Islamic history who claimed to be both. He claimed to be Jesus in the metaphorical sense; in character. He founded the Ahmadiyya Movement in 1889 envisioning it to be the rejuvenation of Islam, and claimed to be commissioned by God for the reformation of mankind.[49] He declared that Jesus survived crucifixion and died a natural death (lived over the age of 100) having migrated towards the east- Kashmir.[50]
Muhammad Ahmad ("The Mad Mahdi") (1844–1885), who declared himself the Mahdi in 1881, defeated the Ottoman Egyptian authority, and founded the Mahdist Sudan.
Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (1864–1920), who led the Dervish State in present-day Somalia in a two-decade long resistance movement between 1900 and 1920.
Rashad Khalifa (1935–1990), an Egyptian-American biochemist who claimed that he had discovered a mathematical code in the text of the Qur'an involving the number 19; he later claimed to be the "Messenger of the Covenant" and founded the "Submitters International" movement before being murdered.
Juhayman al-Otaybi (1936–1980), who seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca in November 1979 and declared his son-in-law the Mahdi.
Other/combination messiah claimants
This list features people who are said, either by themselves or their followers, to be some form of a messiah that do not easily fit into only Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia (1892–1975), Messiah of the Rastafari movement. Never claimed himself to be Messiah, but was thus proclaimed by Leonard Howell, amongst others.
André Matsoua (1899–1942), Congolese founder of Amicale, proponents of which subsequently adopted him as Messiah.
Samael Aun Weor (1917–1977), born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez, Colombian citizen and later Mexican, was an author, lecturer and founder of the Universal Christian Gnostic Movement. By 1972, Samael Aun Weor referenced that his death and resurrection would be occurring before 1978.
Nirmala Srivastava (1923–2011), guru and goddess of Sahaja Yoga, proclaimed herself to be the Comforter promised by Jesus (that is, the incarnation of the Holy Ghost / Adi Shakti).[51][52]
Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda (born 1946 – died 2013), a Puerto Rican preacher who had claimed to be both "the Man Jesus Christ" and the Antichrist at the same time. He claimed he was indwelled with the same spirit that dwelled in Jesus, however, Miranda also contradicted his claims of being Christ incarnate by also claiming he was the Antichrist, even going as far as tattooing the number of the beast (666) on his forearm, a behavior his followers also adopted. Founder of the "Growing in Grace" ministries, Miranda died on August 14, 2013 due to liver cancer.
Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (born 25 November 1941) is a spiritual leader and the founder of the spiritual movements Messiah Foundation International (MFI) and Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam.[53][54] He is controversial for being declared the Mehdi, Messiah, and Kalki Avatar by the MFI.[55][56][57]
Raël, founder and leader of Raëlism (born 30 September 1946); Rael claimed he met an extraterrestrial being in 1973 and became the Messiah.
World Teacher (unknown), a being claimed to be the Theosophical Maitreya and the Messiah (promised one) of all religions. He is said to have descended from the higher planes and manifested a physical body in early 1977 in the Himalayas, then on 19 July 1977 he is said to have taken a commercial airplane flight from Pakistan to England. He is currently said to be living in secret in London;[58][59][60] promoted by New Age activist Benjamin Creme and his organization, Share International (See Maitreya (Benjamin Creme)).
Ryuho Okawa (born 7 July 1956), is the founder of Happy Science in Japan. Okawa claims to channel the spirits of Muhammad, Christ, Buddha and Confucius and claims to be the incarnation of the supreme spiritual being called El Cantare.
Scientology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices developed in 1954 by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86). Hubbard initially developed a program of ideas called Dianetics, which was distributed through the Dianetics Foundation. The foundation soon entered bankruptcy, and Hubbard lost the rights to his seminal publication Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1952. He then recharacterized the subject as a religion and renamed it Scientology,[4] retaining the terminology, doctrines, the E-meter, and the practice of auditing.[5][6] Within a year, he regained the rights to Dianetics and retained both subjects under the umbrella of the Church of Scientology.[7][8][9][10][11][12]
Hubbard describes the etymology of the word Scientology as coming from the Latin word "scio", meaning know or distinguish, and the Greek word "logos", meaning "the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known". Hubbard writes, "thus, Scientology means knowing about knowing, or science of knowledge".[13]
Hubbard's groups have encountered considerable opposition and controversy.[14] In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against Dianetics Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license.[15] Hubbard's followers engaged in a program of criminal infiltration of the U.S. government.[16][17]
Hubbard-inspired organizations and their classification are often a point of contention. Germany classifies Scientology groups as an "anti-constitutional sect".[18][19] In France, they have been classified as a dangerous cult by some parliamentary reports.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][excessive citations]
Scientology beliefs and practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices
The Church of Scientology says that a human is an immortal, spiritual being (thetan) that is resident in a physical body. The thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is observed in advanced Scientology texts that lives preceding the thetan's arrival on Earth were lived in extraterrestrial cultures. Based on case studies at advanced levels, it is predicted that any Scientologist undergoing auditing will eventually come across and recount a common series of events.
According to the Church, founder L. Ron Hubbard's discovery of the thetan places Scientology at the heart of the human quest for meaning, and proves that "its origins are as ancient as religious thought itself." However, Scientology considers that its understanding of the thetan distinguishes it from other religious traditions, especially Judaism and Christianity, in three important ways. First, while many religions fuse the concept of the body and the soul, the thetan (spirit) is separate and independent. Second, unlike the three great world monotheisms, Scientologists believe in past lives and that the thetan has lived through many, perhaps thousands of lifetimes. Third, contrary to Christian concepts of original sin, Scientology holds to the intrinsic goodness of a being and believes that the spiritual essence has lost touch with its nature. "The spirit, then, is not a thing," Hubbard writes. "It is the creator of things."[1]
Scientology describes itself as the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others, and all of life. Scientologists also believe that people have innate, yet suppressed, power and ability which can be regained if cleared of enforced and unwanted behaviour patterns and discomforts.[2][3] Scientology is described as "a religion to help people use scientific approaches to self-actualize their full potential."[4] Believers reach their full potential "when they understand themselves in their true relationship to the physical universe and the Supreme Being. "[4] There have been many scholarly studies of Scientology and the books are freely available in bookshops, churches and most libraries.[4]
The Church of Scientology believes that "Man is basically good, that he is seeking to survive, (and) that his survival depends on himself and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe," as stated in the Creed of the Church of Scientology.[5]
Roy Wallis of Columbia University describes Scientology as "a movement that straddles the boundaries between psychology and religion, [offering] a graded hierarchy of 'auditing' and training" with the intention of releasing the individual's full potential.[6]
Scientology does not require that their members must exclusively believe in Scientology, distinguishing it from biblical religions. Scientologists may profess belief in other religions, such as Protestantism and Catholicism, and may participate in their activities and sacred rites. Jacob Neusner emphasizes this in the section on Scientology in his book World Religions in America.[7] According to J. Gordon Melton, "Scientologists aim to utterly make the world instead of taking refuge from it," as they participate in culture instead of being isolated.[8] Scientology is inherently nondenominational and open to individuals, regardless of religious background; according to Mary A. Mann, it contains the elements necessary for a global religion and caters to people of all different ethnicities and educational upbringing.[9]
Wilson writes that Scientology "constitutes a religious system set forth in the terms of scientific discourse." Hubbard similarly states that "along with science, Scientology can achieve positive invariable results. Given the same conditions, one always get the same results ... What has happened is the superstition has been subtracted from spiritual studies."[10]
Flying Spaghetti Monster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism. Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian) is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[3] It is legally recognized as a religion in the Netherlands[4] and New Zealand – where Pastafarian representatives have been authorized to celebrate weddings and where the first legally recognized Pastafarian wedding was performed in April 2016.[5][6][7] However, in the United States, a federal judge has ruled that the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not a real religion.[8]
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.[9] In the letter, Henderson demanded equal time in science classrooms for "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", alongside intelligent design and evolution.[10] After Henderson published the letter on his website, the Flying Spaghetti Monster rapidly became an Internet phenomenon and a symbol of opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.[11]
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. Pastafarianism has received praise from the scientific community and criticism from proponents of intelligent design. Pastafarians have engaged in disputes with creationists, including in Polk County, Florida, where they played a role in dissuading the local school board from adopting new rules on teaching evolution.[12]
Pastafarian tenets (generally satires of creationism) are presented both on Henderson's Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website, where he is described as "prophet", and in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, written by Henderson in 2006. The central belief is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Pirates are revered as the original Pastafarians.[13] Henderson asserts that a decline in the number of pirates over the years is the cause of global warming.[10] The FSM community congregates at Henderson's website to share ideas about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and crafts representing images of it.[3]
https://litemind.com/problem-definition/
Einstein is quoted as having said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution.
This quote does illustrate an important point: before jumping right into solving a problem, we should step back and invest time and effort to improve our understanding of it. Here are 10 strategies you can use to see problems from many different perspectives and master what is the most important step in problem solving: clearly defining the problem in the first place!
The Problem Is To Know What the Problem Is
The definition of the problem will be the focal point of all your problem-solving efforts. As such, it makes sense to devote as much attention and dedication to problem definition as possible. What usually happens is that as soon as we have a problem to work on we're so eager to get to solutions that we neglect spending any time refining it.
What most of us don't realize — and what supposedly Einstein might have been alluding to — is that the quality of the solutions we come up with will be in direct proportion to the quality of the description of the problem we're trying to solve. Not only will your solutions be more abundant and of higher quality, but they'll be achieved much, much more easily. Most importantly, you'll have the confidence to be tackling a worthwhile problem.
No Brexit until 2021 - May confirms transition deal but Leavers shouldn't feel betrayed
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/857541/theresa-may-florence-speech-live-brexit-transition-deal-immigration-free-movement
THERESA May has confirmed a Brexit transition period of "around two years" will take place once Britain leaves the European Union (EU).
Date of Brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
Despite the formal[91] departure being scheduled to occur on 29 March 2019,[92] May proposed on 22 September 2017 that a two-year transition period should occur, thus setting up a delay in the de facto departure until 2021.[93][clarification needed]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.23, 16:23:55
https://litemind.com/problem-definition/
Einstein is quoted as having said that if he had one hour to save the world he would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution.
This quote does illustrate an important point: before jumping right into solving a problem, we should step back and invest time and effort to improve our understanding of it. Here are 10 strategies you can use to see problems from many different perspectives and master what is the most important step in problem solving: clearly defining the problem in the first place!
The Problem Is To Know What the Problem Is
The definition of the problem will be the focal point of all your problem-solving efforts. As such, it makes sense to devote as much attention and dedication to problem definition as possible. What usually happens is that as soon as we have a problem to work on we're so eager to get to solutions that we neglect spending any time refining it.
What most of us don't realize — and what supposedly Einstein might have been alluding to — is that the quality of the solutions we come up with will be in direct proportion to the quality of the description of the problem we're trying to solve. Not only will your solutions be more abundant and of higher quality, but they'll be achieved much, much more easily. Most importantly, you'll have the confidence to be tackling a worthwhile problem.
As a systems engineer dealing with missile systems I was introduced to the "don't know squared" problem. People don't know that they don't know. And that leads them down all sorts of false trails.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2017.09.24, 07:21:13
As a systems engineer dealing with missile systems I was introduced to the "don't know squared" problem. People don't know that they don't know. And that leads them down all sorts of false trails.
Smudge
I think in Germany we say for this "The only thing I know is that I do not know anything." Das einzigste was ich weiß ist, dass ich nichts weiß.
Quote from: Smudge on 2017.09.24, 07:21:13
As a systems engineer dealing with missile systems I was introduced to the "don't know squared" problem. People don't know that they don't know. And that leads them down all sorts of false trails.
Smudge
The fact that people don't know that they don't know is a significant problem that arises from a narrow information perspective. This is why we have a controlled media in the west with an agenda driven narrative that inhibits the ability to question more.
For example, using publicly available material we can determine why the BNP is a failed political movement:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.23, 15:35:24
British National Party
Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the BNP has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists. Under Tyndall's leadership, it was more specifically regarded as Neo-Nazi. The party is ethnic nationalist, and it espouses the view that only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom. It calls for an end to non-white migration into the UK and the removal of settled non-white populations from the country. Initially, it called for the compulsory expulsion of non-whites, although it has since advocated voluntary removals with financial incentives. It promotes biological racism and the white genocide conspiracy theory, calling for global racial separatism and condemning mixed-race relationships. Under Tyndall, the BNP emphasised anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, although Griffin switched the party's focus on to Islamophobia. It promotes economic protectionism, Euroscepticism, and a transformation away from liberal democracy, while its social policies oppose feminism, LGBT rights, and societal permissiveness.
Ethnic nationalism and biological racism
The BNP adheres to biological racist ideas,[152] displaying an obsession with the perceived differences of racial groups.[153] Both Tyndall and Griffin believed that there was a biologically distinct white-skinned "British race" which was one branch of a wider Nordic race.[154] In this, Tyndall's views were similar both to Hitler and to prominent British fascist Arnold Leese.[155]
The BNP adheres to an ideology of ethnic nationalism.[13] It promotes the idea that not all citizens of the United Kingdom belong to the British nation.[13] Instead, it claims that the nation only belongs to "the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh along with the limited numbers of peoples of European descent, who have arrived centuries or decades ago and who have fully integrated into our society".[13] This is a group that Griffin referred to as the "home people" or "the folk".[156] According to Tyndall, "The BNP is a racial nationalist party which believes in Britain for the British, that is to say racial separatism."[25] Richard Edmonds in 1993 told The Guardian's Duncan Campbell that "we [the BNP] are 100% racist".[157] The BNP does not regard UK citizens who are not ethnic white Europeans as "British", and party literature calls on supporters to avoid referring to such individuals as "black Britons" or "Asian Britons", instead describing them as "racial foreigners".[158]
They call themselves "British" without understanding that the political label is a construct that has removed the right to sovereign racial identity, by defining the sovereign area as a land mass with borders and all those born within it with that label. It is a mechanism for racial replacement which has further been exploited by joining that political entity "Britain" subordinate to the "EU".
Religion is the other significant factor:
Practising Muslims 'will outnumber Christians by 2035'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1936418/Practising-Muslims-will-outnumber-Christians-by-2035.html
Christians could be minority by 2018, census analysis reveals https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/11/christians-minority-2018-census-analysis
Is the UK still a Christian country?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32722155
and interestingly they reveal what the plan is:
Are we losing our religion? The answer for the UK seems to be "Yes", while the answer for the developing world is a resounding "No".That was the conclusion of a recent analysis by the Pew Research Center in the US.
It suggests that in the UK, if current trends continue, the proportion of the population identifying themselves as Christians will fall from 64% in 2010 to 45% by 2050, while the proportion of Muslims will rise from 5% to 11%.
The proportion of the population claiming no religion in the UK - the "unaffiliated" - will also rise significantly, from 28% to 39%.
Pew's research also suggests there are likely to be more Muslims than Christians in the world by 2070, with Islam's share of global population equalling that of Christianity at just above 30% each by 2050.
Equally eye-catching is its conclusion that by 2050, under half of the population will be Christian not just in the UK, but also France, the Netherlands, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Australia and New Zealand, while Muslims will make up about 10% of Europe's population, up from 6% now, thanks to higher birth rates.
However, Christianity globally will continue to grow, with the number of Christians projected to rise significantly in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
According to demographer Conrad Hackett at Pew, in 1910 some 66% of the world's Christians lived in Europe. Now that has fallen to about 25%.
By 2050, however, Europe will be home to just 16% of the world's Christians, while four out of every 10 Christians globally will live in sub-Saharan Africa, thanks to high birth rates and falling infant mortality.
You have to remember that Christianity is an occupying religion, it is not native to "Britain" and the native people reject it. Bring the muslim's from Africa to occupy and colonise Europe, and occupy Africa with Christianity, and the three tribes of Abraham maintain religious control, completely destroying all native ethnic races and sovereignty in the process.
A good example of a tightly controlled public narrative is provided by this report, which has not been plastered all over the front page news in the west:
The Pentagon's $2.2 Billion Soviet Arms Pipeline Flooding Syria
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/the-pentagon-s-2-2-billion-soviet-arms-pipeline-flooding-syria-09-12-2017
The Pentagon is on a spending spree as it scrabbles to amass vast quantities of Soviet-style weapons and ammunition. But it's running into problems sourcing them, and is using misleading legal documents to disguise their final destination: Syria.
Ivan Angelovski, Lawrence Marzouk BIRN Washington, Belgrade
The defeat of Islamic State in Syria is reliant on a questionable supply-line, funnelling unprecedented quantities of weapons and ammunition from Eastern Europe to some 30,000 anti-ISIS rebel fighters.
Armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades fresh from state-owned production lines and stockpiles of the Balkans, Central Europe and increasingly the former Soviet Union, these US-backed troops are spearheading the battle to reclaim Raqqa, the capital of the so-called caliphate, and liberate other areas of Syria held by ISIS.
But the flow of weapons to these Pentagon-backed militia depends on misleading official paperwork, an investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN, and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, OCCRP, has uncovered.
The operation has been criticised by arms transfer experts and even worried officials in Berlin, who have seen large quantities of weapons passing through US military bases in Germany on the way to Syria.
Reporters have pinpointed more than $700 million of spending on weapons and ammunition likely destined for Syrian rebels since September 2015, when the Pentagon's anti-ISIS train and equip programme shifted strategy.
The Department of Defense has budgeted $584 million specifically for this Syrian operation for the financial years 2017 and 2018, and has earmarked another $900 million of spending on Soviet-style munitions between now and 2022.
The total, $2.2 billion, likely understates the flow of weapons to Syrian rebels in the coming years.
The weapons and ammunition that the Pentagon is supplying to Syria are dispatched through a sprawling logistical network, including an army of arms dealers, shipping companies, cargo airlines, German military bases and Balkan airports and ports.
The purchases are routed through two channels. One is run by the US military's Special Operations Command, SOCOM, and the other is operated by Picatinny Arsenal, a little-known New Jersey weapons depot.
The Pentagon's anti-ISIS programme became Washington's sole military campaign in Syria in July 2017 after President Trump closed the CIA-funded Operation Syacamore, aimed at arming Syrian rebels fighting President Assad.
Trump has pledged to "wipe out" ISIS and has allocated increased funding for the Pentagon campaign, which now has many former anti-regime groups on its pay-roll.
With vast quantities of weapons continuing to pour into Syria, concerns abound about a wider conflict emerging once the common enemy of ISIS is defeated.
Asked about the unprecedented purchase of Soviet-style arms for Syrian rebels, the Pentagon said that it had carefully vetted the recipients and was releasing equipment incrementally.
Train and equip: A Major Shift in Strategy
As ISIS swept across Syria in 2014, the Pentagon hastily launched a $500 million train and equip programme that December to build up a new force of Syrian rebels, armed with modern US weapons, in an attempt to counter the threat.
But nine months later, the programme had collapsed, with only a handful of recruits having made it onto the battlefield.
Amid a flurry of negative headlines, the Pentagon needed a new plan: Starting in September 2015, and largely unnoticed by the media, it quietly shifted focus to arming Syrian rebels already on the ground with the Eastern Bloc arms and ammunition they were already using, according to a previously unreported Pentagon document from February 2016.
This Soviet-type equipment, both newly produced and sourced from stockpiles, is available from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet countries, as well as China and Russia. The latter two large suppliers are out of bounds, as their military equipment falls under US sanctions.
The first Pentagon delivery, which included 50 tonnes of ammunition, arrived in October 2015, just a month after the shift in policy. The munitions were airdropped to Arab units within the then recently formed Syrian Democratic Forces, SDF, a Kurdish-led coalition currently spearheading the fight to reclaim Raqqa, and the Pentagon's main ally in Syria.
The shipment was far from a one-time event and the SDF was not the only group to receive support – a changing coalition of rebel fighters in Syria's south east is also being armed by the Pentagon.
Socom supply-line
Special Operations Command, SOCOM, has not previously acknowledged its role in the Syria train and equip programme, but in a written statement to BIRN and OCCRP, the Pentagon confirmed that it had been charged with procuring weapons and ammunition for Syrian rebels.
From the swift in strategy to May 2017, it has purchased weapons and ammunition worth $240 million from Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Poland and Romania, according to an analysis of thousands of procurement records by BIRN and OCCRP. Prior to the start of the programme, its spending on Eastern Bloc weaponry had been negligible.
While SOCOM is known to covertly supply US partners in other conflicts, documentary evidence, expert analysis, and the testimony of a contractor involved in the supply-line confirmed that Syria is the main destination for these purchases.
Between December 2015 and September 2016, SOCOM also chartered four cargo ships from Romanian and Bulgarian Black Sea ports, laden with 6,300 tonnes of the purchased munitions to be delivered to military bases in Turkey and Jordan, the main logistics bases for supplying Syrian rebels, according to procurement documents, packing lists and ship tracking data.
It also commissioned commercial cargo flights with the Azerbaijan airline Silk Way to air bases in Turkey and Kuwait, other key hubs in the anti-ISIS mission.
The Pentagon has requested an additional $322.5 million for the financial year ending October 2017 and has asked for $261.9 million for the following 12 months [see infographic], to buy munitions for the Syria train and equip programme.
This will include tens of thousands of AK-47s and Rocket Propelled Grenades, RPGs, and hundreds of millions of pieces of ammunition, according to the funding requests made by the Pentagon and the Trump administration.
SOCOM had already made a dent in the budget by February, after it issued a $90 million shopping list specifically for Syria, seen by reporters, which includes 10,000 AK-47s, 6,000 rocket launchers, 6,000 heavy and light machine guns and 36 million pieces of ammunition.
Picatinny: A New Supply-Line Revealed
SOCOM is not, however, the only Pentagon unit that is buying munitions for the Syria train and equip programme.
The Picatinny Arsenal, a military base in New Jersey, with the help of its sister facility in Rock Island New Jersey, is also a critical part of the supply-chain.
It has bought up to $480 million worth of Soviet-style arms and ammunition for Syrian rebels since the switch in strategy, this investigation can reveal, from Afghanistan, Bulgaria, BIH, Croatia, Romania, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Poland and Serbia.
Picatinny boasts of its record supplying large quantities of Eastern Bloc equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has been far more circumspect about its role in the Syrian conflict, which is politically divisive internationally and involves supplying militia groups rather than state armies.
This means that while purchases of non-standard munitions – the US's euphemism for Soviet-style equipment – were clearly marked for Iraq or Afghanistan, it appears to be Pentagon policy not to label procurement goods destined for Syria.
BIRN and OCCRP discovered seven contracts worth $71 million that were signed in September 2016 and cited Syria either by name or the Department of Defense's internal code – V7 – for the Syria train and equip programme. But these references were quickly deleted from the public record after BIRN and OCCRP asked the Department of Defense and supplier countries about these deliveries in March of this year.
Reporters made copies of all documents before they were deleted. The Pentagon has declined to explain the alterations.
On top of the $71 million marked for Syria, a further $408 million of Eastern Bloc equipment was made since the strategy switch with no destination mentioned.
Deliveries to Syrian rebels are set to increase in coming years as Picatinny has already earmarked as much as $950 million to be spent on Soviet-style ammunition by 2022 – it spent $1.3billion in the preceding decade – placing further pressure on the supply-line.
Picatinny's CIA Pipeline
The CIA used a little-known Pentagon arsenal to purchase weapons for anti-Assad rebels, a contractor has claimed.
The SOCOM contractor, who asked not to be named, identified the Pentagon's Picatinny Arsenal as a source for the CIA-run programme to arm Syrian rebels fighting President Assad as well as the Pentagon's anti-ISIS campaign.
The CIA's covert Operation Timber Sycamore, which was started in 2013 under President Obama, was stopped in July 2017 by President Trump.
Procurement records show that the Picatinny Arsenal previously bought Soviet-style ammunition for Camp Stanley in Texas, which, according to a 2015 report by a former CIA analyst, is the likely home of a secretive CIA depot that armed rebel groups from Nicaragua to Afghanistan.
A June 2016 Picatinny contract for "non-standard weapons" also points to CIA involvement. It says that unspecified quantities of weapons such as AK-47s and RPGs will be purchased on behalf of "Other Government Agency (OGA)," a euphemism for the CIA.
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel
The newly revealed $2.2 billion pipeline financed by the US, as well as an earlier 1.2 billion euro pipeline financed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates that was previously revealed by BIRN, have meant boom times for arms producers in Central and Eastern Europe.
Factories such as the Krusik missile manufacturer in Serbia and the VMZ military plant in Bulgaria have drastically increased production in response. Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic promised on July 1 to turn "meadows and forests" into arms factories and almost double Serbia's arms exports to $750 million by 2020 as he toured Belom, a recently opened bullet factory.
While the pipeline has yet to dry up, Pentagon contractors have been forced to scour the world for new sources and have requested permission to provide aging stockpiled material rather than newly produced material, according to documents obtained by reporters.
The US had traditionally turned to Romania and Bulgaria for non-standard armaments, but the surge in demand has forced contractors to look to the Czech Republic, BiH, Serbia, and now Russia's neighbours Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan, and even Afghanistan, according to US procurement records.
As demand continues to grow, the competition between contractors to secure weapons, is becoming increasingly fierce, forcing them to look even further afield, including Pakistan and Vietnam, a source said.
The Pentagon contractor, who asked to remain anonymous, said that this had created an "environment where greed is the motivating factor among most ... contractors involved".
Scarce supplies have pushed the Pentagon to lower its standards for weapons and ammunition. Previously it had required suppliers to provide equipment of less than five years old but in February it dropped this requirement for some equipment, according to official documents obtained by BIRN and OCCRP.
Munitions stored in poor conditions degrade, sometimes becoming unusable or even dangerous. A Pentagon contractor due to train Syrian rebels died in June 2015 when the 30-year-old RPG he was handling exploded at a firing range in Bulgaria.
Undermining the Arms Control System
The smooth functioning of the weapons supply-line to Syria depends not only on keeping the final destination of the arms secret but also – say experts who have reviewed the evidence obtained by BIRN and the OCCRP – on supplier countries in Eastern Europe not asking too many questions about why the US is seeking so much Eastern Bloc weaponry.
These experts believe that as a result, both sides are likely in breach of their international obligations.
A valid end-user certificate guaranteeing the final destination of arms and ammunition is a standard international legal requirement to secure an arms export licence, but an end user certificate issued by SOCOM under the Syria programme and seen by BIRN and OCCRP does not mention the Middle East country.
Instead, it lists SOCOM as the final user, despite the fact the US army does not use Eastern Bloc weaponry itself. The document states that "the material will be used for defense purposes in direct use by US government, transferred by means of grants as military education or training program or security assistance."
The document is similar in wording to four SOCOM end user certificates leaked online earlier this month, which detail how the weapons or ammunition will be for the "exclusive use of the US Special Operations Command, its NATO allies and partners in support of United States training, security assistance and stability operations".
In a detailed written response, the Pentagon did not dispute designating the US Army as the end user, adding it viewed the transfer of weapons to Syrian rebels as part of its "security assistance" programme, a term it uses in the legal document.
But Patrick Wilcken, an arms researcher at Amnesty International, described these end-user certificate as "very misleading" adding: "An end user certificate that did not contain this information [final destination] would be self-defeating and highly unusual."
Washington has not yet ratified the UN's Arms Trade Treaty, an international agreement attempting to regulate the transfer of weapons by preventing the diversion of weapons to war zones and improving transparency, and is therefore not legally bound by it. But as a signatory, the US is expected not to undermine the deal, something Wilcken argues that Washington is doing.
As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Washington has, however, signed a series of measures to prevent weapons trafficking -- including a binding decision that end-user certificates include the final destination country.
European exporter states have ratified the ATT and are also bound by the OSCE's decisions and the EU's even stricter rules, known as the Common Position on Arms Exports. The EU rules apply to most prospective members.
Under the ATT and EU Common Position, exporters must weigh up the risks that arms and ammunition will be diverted and used to commit war crimes or "undermine peace and security" before issuing a licence.
Without knowing the final destination, such an assessment is impossible meaning that exporting states are acting "negligently", Wilcken said.
Roy Isbister of Saferworld, a non-governmental organisation that works to strengthen controls on the international arms trade , said: "If the US is manipulating the process and providing cover for others to claim ignorance of the end users of the weapons in question, the whole control system is at risk."
Authorities in Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia were presented with US procurement documents showing that weapons they had exported were destined to Syria. Romania, the Czech Republic and Serbia told BIRN and OCCRP that they had granted export licences with the US, not Syria, listed as the final destination. Prague's Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that it supported the US's fight against ISIS, but refused to confirm it was aware of the arms' final destination.
Georgia's Ministry of Defence said an export deal was under negotiation but it had not received an end-user certificate from the Pentagon and no contract had been signed. Ukraine and Bulgaria did not respond to requests for comment.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Poland, Kazakhstan and Afghanistan, which have all agreed to exports to SOCOM or Picatinny for an unspecified destination since September 2015, were also asked whether they were aware if these weapons had ended up in Syria.
BiH confirmed that it had issued export licenses to SOCOM but not Syria, while Poland and Croatia said it obeyed by all international rules. Kazakhstan and Afghanistan did not respond.
German authorities appear to have been less comfortable with how the weapons pipeline was operating. A leaked Pentagon email obtained by BIRN and OCCRP reveals how Berlin had become "very sensitive" to the huge quantities of Eastern Bloc weapons passing through its territory to US bases, apparently forcing a reroute of the supply-line to Syria.
Weapons continue to pour into Syria to fight ISIS, and fears are growing about what will happen to the arms and fighters when the jihadists are defeated.
Wilcken said that he feared for the future of the Middle East.
"Given the very complex, fluid situation in Syria ... and the existence of many armed groups accused of serious abuses," he said. "It is difficult to see how the US could ensure arms sent to the region would not be misused."
Additional reporting from Pavla Holcova, Maria Cheresheva, Roxana Jipa, David Bloss, Roberto Capocelli, Ana Babinets, Atanas Tchobanov, Aubrey Belford and Frederik Obermaier.
This investigation is produced by BIRN as a part of Paper Trail to Better Governance project.
The Moral Hazard of Proxy Warfare
https://warontherocks.com/2015/10/the-moral-hazard-of-proxy-warfare/
Adam Elkus
October 14, 2015
It has been a very bad month for advocates of the "indirect" approach to U.S. national security policy. U.S.-trained rebels in Syria handed over their weapons to al-Qaeda; and the United States has been forced to sit back helplessly and watch as Russian bombers target CIA-backed rebel forces. The Department of Defense's train-and-equip program has been cancelled after blowing an obscene amount of money to train what amounts to a fire team of operational fighters. The separate CIA proxy program remains, but nonetheless faces an uncertain future. And that's just a small slice of what seems to be a flood of bad news about the outcomes of train-and-equip programs designed to create pliable, pro-American proxies to fight our wars. Even the most vociferous critics of President Obama's Syria policy, however, fail to notice the larger problem.
Proxy warfare, while tempting, is by definition what economists call a "moral hazard," or a situation in which one party can take risks that will be wholly borne by the other party in the partnership. Because no American lives are on the line, and men saying they will fight America's enemies are not uncommon, U.S. policymakers often imagine they can create a "third force" to advance American interests. Not only does this attitude lead to ill-chosen interventions, it also ignores the asymmetry of interest inherent in asking others to risk their lives for a distant foreign power.
Certainly the raising of proxy armies has an undeniable appeal. The United States can achieve its strategic aims without devoting blood and much treasure directly to the fight. Moreover, in certain situations proxies may be the only way to influence the outcome. In fact, certain states — such as Iran and Pakistan — have exerted influence far above their normal station in international politics through their backing and direction of proxy forces. During the Cold War, the United States both benefited from its proxies and was harmed by the proxies of other powers, offering a misleading lesson about their effectiveness. So why shouldn't the United States use proxies?
First, the interests of proxies and their sponsors may not be aligned. It is quite understandable, for instance, that Syrian rebels would care more about fighting the hated dictator Bashar al-Assad than taking on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). To Americans, ISIL is the main problem. But to many Sunni Arab Syrians, it is a distraction from the real horror of Assad's murderous repression. Even if their aims did converge a bit more, proxies understand full well that their distant sponsor has limited interest in their struggle. At the end of the day, the friendly CIA officer working with them can always go back to his or her family and children in a peaceful and prosperous country. The proxy, however, cannot do the same because "home" is the very battleground that is being contested. Hence, proxies are canny survivors that will do business with anyone willing to lend a helping hand. Do not be surprised that the ostensibly pro-American Kurds will cheer on Russia's airstrikes. They care only about their own fight, not Washington's geopolitical rivalry with Moscow.
Proxies also create perverse incentives for U.S. decision-making concerning intervention abroad. They are cheap, flexible, scalable, and above all else expendable. Because a dead foreign proxy will never come home to the United States in a star-spangled coffin, the United States can engage in adventurism of questionable direction and value. A far older mess with proxies, the Bay of Pigs, nearly triggered nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The broadening of the Vietnam War into a struggle that destabilized the whole of Indochina was possible due to the ease with which the United States raised armies of proxies that could act as foot soldiers in the expansion of an ultimately futile war. The White House's petulant response to criticism of the Syrian train-and-equip program suggests a lot about the problematic incentives that proxies present to American national security policymakers.
In blaming political opponents for supposedly forcing it to train a Syrian opposition army, the White House unintentionally revealed its Syrian decision calculus. The White House claims it invested in the Syrian train-and-equip program, in other words, in large part because it wanted to deflect potential criticism from domestic hawks. There are a lot of valid reasons for supplying weapons, training, and large sums of money to a Middle Eastern group of militants. It should go without saying that getting political opponents off your back is not one of them. If, indeed, this was one of the core drivers of the U.S. effort to back Syrian rebels then we should not be surprised that it has turned out to be a bloody disaster.
Finally, there is something very unjust and disturbing in the way in which the United States can encourage men to risk their lives under the false hope that Uncle Sam will be with them the whole way. In reality, we will write them off and abandon them to their fates as soon as supporting them becomes inconvenient. That is, unfortunately, the reality of international politics. If we are forced to choose between, say, keeping faith with the men we have backed in Syria and avoiding a confrontation with Russia, we will obviously not trigger World War III over a group of rebel fighters in the Middle East. But therein lies the problem. Is it right to encourage others to fight and die for us under false pretenses of U.S. support? More often than not, when following through on our promises to proxies poses far lesser challenges for us, we elect to let them burn instead of lending a helping hand. We have a long and sordid history of this, and our hapless Syrian pawns are only the latest to realize that the United States' promises cannot be trusted.
This is, to be sure, not a blanket call to abandon the policy and strategy of using proxies to aid American interests. It is, however, a call to recognize the perverse incentives inherent in the enterprise, and the difficulties of pulling it off. Proxies are often deployed in situations where using any form of coercive force may not be in America's interests. Proxies also allow policymakers to dodge the question of whether or not intervention is justified. We certainly — as opposed to rare situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis — will avoid any severe long-term costs. But the men who fight for us will pay with their lives for being foolish enough to believe that our word is our bond; and those who do not can be expected to do whatever it takes to survive (including flirting with our enemies). Like anything else associated with American defense and national security, the training and funding of proxies ought not to be done glibly. It should be accompanied by sober assessment of the risks, costs, benefits, and challenges inherent in the matter. However, due to the enormous temptations that proxies pose to pressured policymakers looking for solutions to difficult security problems, it is unlikely that such sober assessment will always occur when proxies are considered.
Why Jihadism Won't Be Allowed to Die
https://geopolitics.co/2017/09/02/why-jihadism-wont-be-allowed-to-die/
A serious working hypothesis is being discussed for a while now among independent geopolitical analysts. Here it is, in a nutshell.
by Pepe Escobar
Daesh may be dying – but the world is still encumbered with its walking corpse. Plan B of Daesh's masters may have been to indoctrinate repeated waves of misguided youth across the EU and "seduce" them into D.I. Y. jihadi terror, creating fear and insecurity in Europe. I've just been to Barcelona — and that's not happening. No Fear.
Daesh can also manipulate its brand name to stake a claim into what we may call the New War Belt in Southwest Asia. That's also not happening, because the "4+1" – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – with the addition of Turkey, and with China in a "leading from behind" role, are all working together.
The unfinished war across "Syraq" coupled with spasms of jihadism in Europe could certainly still metastasize into a massive Eurasian cancer, spreading like a plague from Afghanistan to Germany and vice-versa, and from the South China Sea to Brussels via Pakistan and vice-versa.
What would happen under this cataclysmic scenario is the complete derailment of the Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); its integration with the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEC); and a massive security threat to the domestic stability of the Russia-China strategic partnership, with uncontrollable bellicose scenarios developing very close to their borders.
It's no secret which elements and institutions would very much cherish internal political chaos in both Russia and China.
Charlie gets stronger
Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski may be dead, but geopolitics is still encumbered with his corpse. Brzezinski's life obsession is that no peer competitor to the US should be allowed to emerge. Imagine as he lay dying contemplating the ongoing, ultimate nightmare; a Russia-China pan-Eurasian alliance.
The less disastrous scenario in this case would be to seduce either Moscow or Beijing into becoming a US partner, based on which one would pose a lesser "threat" in the future. Brzezinski focused on Russia as the immediate threat and China as the long game threat.
Thus the obsession of the US deep state and the Clinton machine in demonizing all things Russia – like an infantile neo-McCarthyism on steroids. Inevitably, what this geopolitical back hole has precipitated is China's even more rapid advance on all fronts.
Not to mention that the Russia-China strategic partnership kept getting stronger every day – an eerie echo of Capt. Willard's line in Coppola's Apocalypse Now; "Every minute I stay in this room I get weaker, every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger".
And yet Charlie is not squatting; he's conquering via trade and investment. And he's not in the bush; he's all over the Eurasian plains.
A basket of Hobbesian flare-ups
The other American dalang, Henry Kissinger, is still alive, at 94. Advising President Trump before the January inauguration, and posing as the supreme gray eminence on China matters, he suggested Russia should be courted.
But then came the clincher. Clearly identifying that the Russia-China-Iran alliance holds the key to Eurasia integration, Kissinger revealed his true colors; it's the weakest link – Iran – that should be neutralized.
Thus his recent proclamation/warning about an "Iranian radical empire" developing/stretching from Tehran to Beirut as the "vacuum" left by Daesh is filled by the Persians.
And here we have Kissinger once again as the unreconstructed Cold Warrior that he is; exit Communism, enter Khomeinism as the supreme "evil." And may the Lord bask in praise of the Wahhabi matrix of jihadism enablers; the House of Saud.
The Kissingerian recipe sounds like music to the US deep state; Daesh should not be routed, it should be "realigned" as a tool against Iran.
Who cares that the notion of an "Iranian radical empire" per se does not even qualify as a joke? Lebanon is multicultural. Syria will continue to be ruled by the secular Baath Party. Iraq rejects Khomeinism – with tremendously influential Ayatollah Sistani privileging the parliamentary system.
The "4+1" – backed by China — have forged a serious alliance in the fire of the Syrian war. None of this will change by a Kissinger decree. As for "filling the vacuum", the alternative is Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria. "But wait!" — say the neocons/neoliberalcons of the War Party. "We like that!"
And that brings us full circle to the initial working hypothesis. Daesh won't be allowed to die – as much as the geopolitical re-engineering of what Dr. Zbig used to call the "Eurasian Balkans" refuses to die.
ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K – that regroup in Afghanistan – can be so handy to wreak havoc in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia, so close to key BRI development corridors.
Moscow and Beijing though, know exactly what's goin' on. The phony Caliphate was useful in an attempt to break off BRI across "Syraq", as much as Maidan in Ukraine was useful to break off the EAEU. Other war fronts will follow – from the Philippines to Venezuela, all bent on disrupting regional integration projects under a Divide and Rule strategy of US satraps manipulated into Hobbesian asymmetrical flare-ups.
Sixteen years after 9/11, the name of the game is not GWOT (Global War on Terror) anymore; is how, under the cover of GWOT, to disturb geostrategic expansion by the people who matter; "peer competitors" Russia and China.
Armed Soldiers To Replace Cops On Danish Streets
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-29/armed-soldiers-replace-cops-danish-streets
Even as Europe's political establishment professes its liberal ideals by accepting - or in the case of the ongoing spat between Brussels and Central Europe, forcing others to accept - as many refugees as humanitarian virtue signalling will require, the true face of Europe is gradually emerging behind the scenes, and according to The Local.de, starting today armed soldiers from the Danish Armed Forces (Forsvaret) will replace police officers at both Denmark's southern border to Germany and at potential terror targets in Copenhagen.
According to the Danish National Police (Rigspolitiet) and Copenhagen Police, 160 soldiers will patrol the border and take over guard duties at Jewish institutions including the Great Synagogue in central Copenhagen.
The synagogue has been under constant police protection since a Danish-born terrorist of Palestinian descent shot and killed 37-year-old Dan Uzan, a volunteer security guard, outside the building in February 2015. The gunman, Omar El-Hussein, had earlier in the night opened fire with an automatic rifle outside a cultural centre hosting a free speech event, killing 55-year-old Finn Nørgaard and injuring police officers. El-Hussein was later shot and killed by police.
The soldiers' role at the German border was described as ancillary and will not entail actively checking the IDs of those entering the country. That role will still be filled by police officers and members of the Danish Home Guard (Hjemmeværnet), which has been active in border checks since April 2016.
The plan to put armed military soldiers at the border and potential terror targets has been under discussion for well over a year, or not long after Europe realized the consequences of the great welcome party thrown by Angela Merkel in 2015. The official explanation is that it is being implemented as a way "to ease the workload of an overworked and undermanned police force." The unofficial, of course, is that the police desperately need help against an ongoing influx of potential terrorists.
The 160 soldiers will relieve the police force of the equivalent of 128 full-time police officers. According to news agency Ritzau, police currently use the equivalent of 456 full-time officers on border controls and patrolling potential terror targets.
Meanwhile, Denmark has long since lost the idealistic illusion it is a noble, humanitarian home welcoming the world's refugees. As the WaPo wrote last year, "as Europe walls itself off, the continent is left to reckon with what's become of its long- cherished humanitarian beliefs. And to many in Denmark, the chasm between reputation and reality looks particularly gaping.
"We're losing respect for the values upon which we built our country and our European Union," said Andreas Kamm, secretary general of the Danish Refugee Council. "It's becoming very hard to defend human rights."
This Scandinavian nation of compulsively friendly people is celebrated by U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as a social-welfare utopia, one that was recently judged the world's happiest place. Ranking high in the country's pantheon of heroes are those who protected Jews during the Holocaust or who helped the oppressed escape from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.
But when it came to those fleeing 21st-century conflicts on Europe's doorstep, Denmark went into overdrive to broadcast its hostility. While Germany continued to welcome asylum seekers, and other European countries such as Sweden held their doors open for as long as they could, Denmark took a hard line almost from the beginning. The government slashed refugees' benefits, then advertised the cuts in Lebanese newspapers. It enabled police to confiscate refugees' valuables, including cash and jewelry. And authorities made it far more difficult for those already here to reunite with their families, upping the wait time from one year to three.
And now, just in case the measures were insufficient, heavily armed soliders will be there to make sure there are no more casualties as a result of Angela Merkel's "shared" generosity.
Grand strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy
Grand strategy or high strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community".[1] Military historian B. H. Liddell Hart states:
The role of grand strategy – higher strategy – is to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of a nation, or band of nations, towards the attainment of the political object of the war – the goal defined by fundamental policy.
Grand strategy should both calculate and develop the economic resources and man-power of nations in order to sustain the fighting services. Also the moral resources – for to foster the people's willing spirit is often as important as to possess the more concrete forms of power. Grand strategy, too, should regulate the distribution of power between the several services, and between the services and industry. Moreover, fighting power is but one of the instruments of grand strategy – which should take account of and apply the power of financial pressure, and, not least of ethical pressure, to weaken the opponent's will. ...
Furthermore, while the horizons of strategy is bounded by the war, grand strategy looks beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It should not only combine the various instruments, but so regulate their use as to avoid damage to the future state of peace – for its security and prosperity.[2]
Grand strategy expands on the traditional idea of strategy in three ways:[3]
expanding strategy beyond military means to include diplomatic, financial, economic, informational, etc. means
examining internal in addition to external forces – taking into account both the various instruments of power and the internal policies necessary for their implementation (conscription, for example)
including consideration of periods of peacetime in addition to wartime
Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of primary versus secondary theaters in war, distribution of resources among the various services, the general types of armaments manufacturing to favor, and which international alliances best suit national goals. With considerable overlap with foreign policy, grand strategy focuses primarily on the military implications of policy. A country's political leadership typically directs grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations.
The concept of grand strategy has been extended to describe multi-tiered strategies in general, including strategic thinking at the level of corporations and political parties. In business, a grand strategy is a general term for a broad statement of strategic action.[citation needed] A grand strategy states the means that will be used to achieve long-term objectives. Examples of business grand strategies that can be customized for a specific firm include: concentration, market development, product development, innovation, horizontal integration, divestiture, and liquidation.
Limits
Strategy is considered "the essential ingredient for making war either politically effective or morally tenable."[23] Without strategy, power is a "loose cannon and war is mindless."[23] Because strategy is necessary, however, does not mean that it is possible. Political scientist Richard K. Betts has detailed some of the critiques raised by skeptics regarding the feasibility and practicability of strategy, explaining "[t]o skeptics, effective strategy is often an illusion because what happens in the gap between policy objectives and war outcomes is too complex and unpredictable to be manipulated to a specified end."[24] Beyond the difficulty of organizing resources for effective grand strategy, Betts explores both the retrospective fallacy of coherence – the tendency to see the actions of states as more coherent and purposeful than they actually were or to assume particular actions and choices as more decisive in the outcome of events than they actually were – and the prospective fallacy of control – the tendency of policymakers to believe they can exert far greater influence over events than they can. Betts highlights 10 of the skeptics' critiques that question the predictability of strategy.
Critique 1: Luck Versus Genius. Strategy is an illusion because it is impractical to judge in advance which risk is reasonable or which strategy is less justifiable than another. The illusion persists because observers confuse what they know about results of past strategic choices with what they can expect strategies to know before the choices are tested. Almost any strategy can be rationalized and no rationale falsified at the time that a strategy must be chosen.
Critique 2: Randomness Versus Prediction. Strategy is an illusion because results do not follow plans. Complexity and contingency preclude controlling causes well enough to produce desired effects. Hindsight reveals little connection between the design and denouement of strategies. The problem before the fact appears to be estimating risk (probability of failure), but the record after the fact suggests that the real problem is pure uncertainty.
Critique 3: Psychoanalysts Versus Conscious Choice. Strategy is an illusion because leaders do not understand what motives drive them, and they delude themselves about what they are really trying to do. They use war not for manifest political purposes but for subliminal personal ones, so the link between political ends and military means is missing at the outset.
Critique 4: Cognition Versus Complex Choice. Cognitive constraints on individual thought processes limit strategists' ability to see linkages between means and ends, or to calculate comprehensively.
Critique 5: Culture Versus Coercion. Coercive strategies aimed at an adversary's will depend on communication. Cultural blinders prevent the common frames of reference necessary to ensure that the receiver hears the message that the signaler intends to send.
Critique 6: Friction Versus Fine-Tuning. Even if cultural blinders do not foreordain deafness when coercive signals are sent, normal operational friction delays execution of plans and decouples signals from the events to which they are meant to respond. Strategy that depends on coupling then collapses.
Critique 7: Goal Displacement Versus Policy Control. Organizational processes deflect attention from policymakers' priorities to implement organizations' habits of operation and institutional interests. Means may be applied effectively toward goals, but only to the instrumental goal of the operations, rather than the higher political objectives meant to govern strategy.
Critique 8: War Versus Strategy. Strategy is an illusion because practice reverses theory. In theory, strategy shapes the course of war to suit policy. In actual war, the target resists strategy and counters it, confounding plans, and redirecting strategy and policy to suit the unanticipated requirements for operational success. This puts the cart before the horse and negates the rational basis for strategy.
Critique 9: Democracy Versus Consistency. The logic of strategy depends on clarity of preferences, explicitness of calculation, and consistency of choice. Democratic competition and consensus building work against all of these.
Critique 10: Compromise Versus Effectiveness. Compromise between opposing preferences is the key to success in politics but to failure in military strategy. Since political leaders have the last word on strategy in a democracy, they tend to resolve political debates about whether to use forces massively or not at all by choosing strategic half-measures that turn out to serve no good objectives at all.[25]
Military occupation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
Military occupation is effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[1][2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[2][5][6][7]
Military government may be broadly characterized as the administration or supervision of occupied territory, or as the governmental form of such an administration. Military government is distinguished from martial law, which is the temporary rule by domestic armed forces over disturbed areas.
The rules of military government are delineated in various international agreements, primarily the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as established state practice. The relevant international conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentaries, and other treaties by military scholars provide guidelines on such topics as rights and duties of the occupying power, protection of civilians, treatment of prisoners of war, coordination of relief efforts, issuance of travel documents, property rights of the populace, handling of cultural and art objects, management of refugees, and other concerns which are very important both before and after the cessation of hostilities. A country that establishes a military government and violates internationally agreed upon norms runs the risk of censure, criticism, or condemnation. In the current era, the practices of military government have largely become a part of customary international law, and form a part of the laws of war.
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare specify that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government." Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of "invasion". The terminology of "occupation" is used exclusively.
Military occupation and the laws of war
From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation,[citation needed] the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758).[citation needed] The clear distinction has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century.[citation needed] These customary laws of belligerent occupation which evolved as part of the laws of war gave some protection to the population under the military occupation of a belligerent power.[citation needed]
The Hague Convention of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws, specifically within "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[8] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state's territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.
Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Protocol I (1977): "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts" has additional articles which cover military occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.
In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a "receiving country" in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted.
"Military government continues until legally supplanted" is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.
Beginning of military government
There does not have to be a formal announcement of the beginning of "military government," nor is there any requirement of a specific number of people to be in place, or "on site" before military government can be said to have commenced.
See Birkhimer, p. 25–26:
No proclamation of part of the victorious commander is necessary to the lawful inauguration and enforcement of military government. That government results from the fact that the former sovereignty is ousted, and the opposing army now has control. Yet the issuing such proclamation is useful as publishing to all living in the district occupied those rules of conduct which will govern the conqueror in the exercise of his authority. Wellington, indeed, as previously mentioned, said that the commander is bound to lay down distinctly the rules according to which his will is to be carried out. But the laws of war do not imperatively require this, and in very many instances it is not done. When it is not, the mere fact that the country is militarily occupied by the enemy is deemed sufficient notification to all concerned that the regular has been supplanted by a military government.
The occupying power
The terminology of "the occupying power" as spoken of in the laws of war is most properly rendered as "the principal occupying power," or alternatively as "the occupying power." This is because the law of agency is always available (When the administrative authority for the military occupation of particular areas is delegated to other troops, a "principal -- agent" relationship is in effect).[9]
Because the law of agency is a very general pattern, primarily appliable in this case as the means of regulating the relationships between the said "powers", but a question however in which considerations of logistics are sometimes to be taken in consideration, that definition is not always appliable outside of those contexts which can be analysed by analogy as related to warlording, even though it does relate more generally to all possible types of military coalitions.
In most contexts determined by the application of the defined and modern laws of war, delegation to agencies generally tends to relating to civilian organizations. Juridical considerations like the above remain in the other cases merely consensual between the said powers. For example, in 1948 the U.S. Military Tribunal in Nuremberg states:
In belligerent occupation the occupying power does not hold enemy territory by virtue of any legal right. On the contrary, it merely exercises a precarious and temporary actual control. This can be seen from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which grants certain well limited rights to a military occupant only in enemy territory which is 'actually placed' under his control.
[10]
The conqueror is the principal occupying power.
End of military government
Rule: Military occupation continues until legally supplanted. According to Eyal Benvenisti, military occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition."[11]
This is explained as follows. For the situation where no territorial cession is involved, the military government of the principal occupying power will end with the coming into force of the peace settlement.
Example: (1) Japan after WWII. Japan regained its sovereignty with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952. In other words, a civil government for Japan was in place and functioning as of this date.
In the situation of a territorial cession, there must be a formal peace treaty. However, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty.
Example: (1) Puerto Rico after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in Puerto Rico past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 1, 1900 with the beginning of Puerto Rico's civil government.
Example: (2) Cuba after the Spanish–American War. Military government continued in Cuba past the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 on April 11, 1899, and only ended on May 20, 1902 with the beginning of the Republic of Cuba's civil government.
Hence, at the most basic level, the terminology of "legally supplanted" is interpreted to mean "legally supplanted by a civil government fully recognized by the national (or "federal") government of the principal occupying power."
List of military occupations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations
This article presents a list of military occupations. Only military occupations since the customary laws of belligerent military occupation were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907[1] are included In this article.
Military occupation is a type of effective control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign, and provisional in nature.[2][3][4] Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[a] by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.[3][5][6][7]
Power behind the throne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_behind_the_throne
The phrase "power behind the throne" refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of a high-ranking office, such as a head of state. In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or nominal subordinate of a political leader (often called a "figurehead") who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through possessing great influence and/or skillful manipulation.
The original concept of a power behind the throne was a Medieval-era figure of speech referring to the fact that the king's policies could be set by a counselor not seated in the throne but standing behind it—perhaps whispering in the king's ear—out of common sight. Among the earliest examples of such powerful advisors were the Mayors of the Palace under the Merovingian kings.
In history
Historical examples of a "power behind the throne" include: Nogai Khan, Mamai and Edigu in the Golden Horde; Diego Portales of Chile; Chancellor of Germany and Minister President of Prussia Otto von Bismarck, with German Emperor and King of Prussia William I as a de facto figurehead; Martin Bormann of Nazi Germany.
The Genrō had this role in Meiji period of Japan.
Another example is the rule of Pol Pot in Cambodia from 1975-78, who led the Khmer Rouge to victory following a devastating civil war. King Norodom Sihanouk returned to reign over Cambodia, but held no executive power.
In the United States, Edith Wilson – the second wife of President Woodrow Wilson – took over many of the routine duties and details of the government after her husband had been incapacitated by a stroke. Another modern example was Deng Xiaoping in China, who was recognized as China's paramount leader without holding the position of either General Secretary, head of state or head of government.
Much earlier examples that come to mind, are the magistri militum of the later decades of the Western Roman Empire. Examples of such are Stilicho the general of Emperor Honorius, Aetius, the power behind the throne of Honorius' nephew Valentinian III, Ricimer the puppet master of Emperors Avitus, Majorian, Libius Severus, Procopius Anthemius and Olybrius, and then finally Flavius Orestes, the father of the usurper emperor Romulus Augustulus, and the Germanic chieftain Odoacer, who were the masters in the West during the reigns of Emperor Julius Nepos and then Orestes' son, the aforementioned Romulus. Odoacer then deposed the figurehead Roman ruler, captured and executed Orestes, and established his own Italian kingdom as the Dux Italiae, only to be overthrown by the Ostrogothic chieftain Theodoric on the behest of the Eastern Emperor Zeno.
In Latin America, a good example was Joseph-Marie Córdoba Montoya during the Presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). Córdoba Montoya, a French naturalized Mexican, was the Head of the Office of the Presidency, and was considered the second-most powerful man in Mexico at the time.[1] Another example in the same region is the one of the former general Manuel Noriega, who was the military leader and the de facto chief of state of Panama from 1983 to 1989.
Related terms
A related term is éminence grise (French: "gray eminence"), a powerful advisor or decision-maker who operates secretly or otherwise unofficially. This phrase originally referred to Cardinal de Richelieu's right-hand man, François Leclerc du Tremblay (also known as the Père Joseph), a Capuchin friar who wore grey robes. Because the Cardinal de Richelieu, the power behind the throne of King Louis XIII of France, as a Catholic cardinal was styled Son Eminence ("His Eminence"), his alter ego Père Joseph was called l'éminence grise (which is also the English title of his biography by Aldous Huxley). Martin Bormann was referred to as the Brown Eminence, brown referring to the brown uniform of the Nazi Party.
The modern usage of the term Proconsul, as analogy for a person from a foreign power manipulating another country's internal affairs, is also referred as the power behind the throne.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg64801#msg64801
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.11, 22:01:34
Abraham in religious traditions
Overview
Abraham is given a high position of respect in three major world faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God – a belief which gives the Jews a unique position as the Chosen People of God. In Christianity, the Apostle Paul taught that Abraham's faith in God – preceding the Mosaic law – made him the prototype of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised. The Islamic prophet Muhammad claimed Abraham, whose submission to God constituted Islam as a "believer before the fact" and undercut Jewish claims to an exclusive relationship with God and the Covenant.[16]
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg64935#msg64935
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.23, 09:41:48
THE NATURE OF THE COVENANT
The Abrahamic Covenant, as stated before, was unconditional, predicated on Abraham's faith in the true God. There were many promises that came with the covenant such as, to make Abraham a great nation, to bless him to make his name great and to make him a blessing, to bless them that bless him and to curse them that curse him; and finally, that in him [or through his seed] all nations of the earth will be blessed.
The fact that God had promised to bless Abraham's offspring, without a showing of their faith or obedience proves also that this Covenant was unconditional. Later on, God even tells Moses of His disappointment with the Israelites prior to their entering the promised land, but says that He will allow them to still enter the land because of the promise He had made to Abraham.
Although God made no statement to Abraham concerning the obedience of his heirs, He must have felt that they should obey Him as Abraham did, or that their failure to "walk before him" would hamper their receiving the blesings; for God instituted a law covenant as a way of bringing them into obedience. Biblical records indicate that while the Israelites were encamped in the wilderness, God instituted the Mosaic Law Covenant mentioned above, for He was not able to abide with them in their present spiritual state of disobedience. This could also indicate, and very strongly I might add, that Yahweh had known beforehand that He would bring the the Israelites into submission through the Law Covenant, and thereby made the promises to Abraham. So the Law Covenant, a covenant requiring very strict obedience, would not nullify the Abrahamic Covenant, but would aid the Israelites in obtaining the promises already made to them.[to add reference]. For the Christian, such spiritual aid would come through the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.
In respect to the blessing that was promised to come through Abraham's seed [Christ], God made a statement that corroborates the belief that Christ was the promised seed, for it reveals that God viewed Himself as the nations' promised blessing. God says, "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield and your exceeding great reward" (Gen. 15:1).
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg65031#msg65031
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.09.30, 09:09:25
Pew's research also suggests there are likely to be more Muslims than Christians in the world by 2070, with Islam's share of global population equalling that of Christianity at just above 30% each by 2050.
Conflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation
Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.
Communication and reasoning
The result of conflating concepts may give rise to fallacies of ambiguity, including the fallacy of four terms in a categorical syllogism. For example, the word "bat" has at least two distinct meanings: a flying animal, and a piece of sporting equipment (such as a baseball bat or cricket bat). If these meanings are not distinguished, the result may be the following categorical syllogism, which may be seen as a joke (pun):
All bats are animals.
Some wooden objects are bats.
Therefore, some wooden objects are animals.
Logical conflation
Using words with different meanings can help clarify, or can cause real confusion. English words with multiple (verb) meanings can be illustrated by instances in which a motion is merged with or a causation with manner,[3] e.g. The bride floated towards her future. In this example, the bride may: Be married on a boat, airplane, or hot-air balloon, etc. —not all marriages occur in a church.[4] She could be gracefully walking the aisle towards matrimony.[5] The verb "float" has multiple meanings, and both verb meanings in the example may be proper uses of a bride "floating" toward a future. The "manner" of the scene, described by further context, would explain the true meaning of the sentence.
In an alternate illustrative example, respect is used both in the sense of "recognise a right" and "have high regard for". We can recognise someone's right to the opinion the United Nations is secretly controlled by alien lizards on the moon, without holding this idea in high regard. But conflation of these two different concepts leads to the notion that all ideological ideas should be treated with respect, rather than just the right to hold these ideas. Conflation in logical terms is very similar to, if not identical to, equivocation.
Deliberate idiom conflation is the amalgamation of two different expressions. In most cases, the combination results in a new expression that makes little sense literally, but clearly expresses an idea because it references well-known idioms.
Types
All conflations fit into one of two major categories: "congruent" conflations and "incongruent" conflations.
Congruent conflations
Congruent conflations are the more ideal, and more sought-after, examples of the concept. These occur when the two root expressions reflect similar thoughts. For example, "look who's calling the kettle black" can be formed using the root expressions "look who's talking" and "the pot calling the kettle black". These root expressions really mean the same thing: they are both a friendly way to point out hypocritical behavior. Of course, "look who's calling the kettle black" does not directly imply anything, yet the implication is understood because the conflation clearly refers to two known idioms.
An illustrative conflation brings together two Roman Catholic saints named Lazarus. One, a lame beggar covered with sores which dogs are licking, appears in the New Testament (Luke 16:19–31).[6] The other, Lazarus of Bethany, is identified as the man whom Jesus raised from the dead (John 11:41–44).[7] The beggar's Feast Day is June 21, and Lazarus of Bethany's day is December 17.[8] However, both saints are depicted with crutches; and the blessing of dogs, associated with the beggar saint, usually takes place on December 17, the date associated with the resurrected Lazarus. The two characters' identities have become conflated in most cultural contexts, including the iconography of both saints.[9]
Incongruent conflations
Incongruent conflation occurs when the root expressions do not mean the same thing, but share a common word or theme. For example, "a bull in a candy store" can be formed from the root expressions "a bull in a china shop" and "a kid in a candy store". The latter expression paints a picture of someone ("a kid") who is extraordinarily happy and excited, whereas the former brings to mind the image of a person ("a bull") who is extremely clumsy, indelicate, not suited to a certain environment, prone to act recklessly, or easily provoked. The conflation expresses both of these ideas at the same time. Without context, the speaker's intention is not entirely clear.
An illustrative conflation seems to merge disparate figures as in Santería. St. Lazarus is conflated with the Yoruba deity Babalu Aye, and celebrated on December 17,[8] despite Santería's reliance on the iconography associated with the begging saint whose Feast Day is June 21.[9] By blending the identity of the two conflated St. Lazarus individuals with the identity of the Babalu Aye, Santería has gone one step further than the conflation within Catholicism, to become the kind of religious conflation known as syncretism, in which deities or concepts from two different faiths are conflated to form a third.
Humorous conflations
Idiom conflation has been used as a source of humor in certain situations. For example, the Mexican character El Chapulín Colorado once said
"Mas vale pájaro en mano que dios lo ayudará...no, no...Dios ayuda al que vuela como pájaro...no... bueno, la idea es esa."
meaning
"A bird in the hand will get the worm...no, wait...The early bird is worth two in the bush...no... well, that's the idea."
by combining two popular expressions:
"Más vale pájaro en mano que cientos volando" ("A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.")
"Al que madruga Dios lo ayuda" ("The early bird gets the worm.")
This was typical of the character, and he did it with several other expressions over the course of his comedy routine.[citation needed]
In popular culture, identities are sometimes intentionally conflated. In the early 2000s, the popular American actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were dating, and the tabloid press referred to them playfully as a third entity, Bennifer.[10]
Taxonomic conflation
In taxonomies, a conflative term is always a polyseme.[11]
Polysemy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy
Polysemy (/pəˈlɪsɪmi/ or /ˈpɒlɪsiːmi/;[1][2] from Greek: πολυ-, poly-, "many" and σῆμα, sêma, "sign") is the capacity for a sign (such as a word, phrase, or symbol) to have multiple meanings (that is, multiple semes or sememes and thus multiple senses), usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field. Polysemy is thus distinct from homonymy – or homophony – which is an accidental similarity between two words (such as bear the animal, and the verb to bear); while homonymy is often a mere linguistic coincidence, polysemy is not.
Charles Fillmore and Beryl Atkins' definition stipulates three elements: (i) the various senses of a polysemous word have a central origin, (ii) the links between these senses form a network, and (iii) understanding the 'inner' one contributes to understanding of the 'outer' one.[3]
Polysemy is a pivotal concept within disciplines such as media studies and linguistics. The analysis of polysemy, synonymy, and hyponymy and hypernymy is vital to taxonomy and ontology in the information-science senses of those terms. It has applications in pedagogy and machine learning, because they rely on word-sense disambiguation and schemas.[citation needed]
Polysemes
A polyseme is a word or phrase with different, but related senses. Since the test for polysemy is the vague concept of relatedness, judgments of polysemy can be difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing words to new situations is a natural process of language change, looking at words' etymology is helpful in determining polysemy but not the only solution; as words become lost in etymology, what once was a useful distinction of meaning may no longer be so. Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so etymology is not an infallible test for polysemy, and dictionary writers also often defer to speakers' intuitions to judge polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology. English has many polysemous words. For example, the verb "to get" can mean "procure" (I'll get the drinks), "become" (she got scared), "understand" (I get it) etc.
In vertical polysemy a word refers to a member of a subcategory (e.g., 'dog' for 'male dog').[4] A closely related idea is metonymy, in which a word with one original meaning is used to refer to something else connected to it.
There are several tests for polysemy, but one of them is zeugma: if one word seems to exhibit zeugma when applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts bring out different polysemes of the same word. If the two senses of the same word do not seem to fit, yet seem related, then it is likely that they are polysemous. The fact that this test again depends on speakers' judgments about relatedness, however, means that this test for polysemy is not infallible, but is rather merely a helpful conceptual aid.
The difference between homonyms and polysemes is subtle. Lexicographers define polysemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata. Semantic shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example, check as in "bank check" (or Cheque), check in chess, and check meaning "verification" are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word derived from chess in the 14th century. Psycholinguistic experiments have shown that homonyms and polysemes are represented differently within people's mental lexicon: while the different meanings of homonyms (which are semantically unrelated) tend to interfere or compete with each other during comprehension, this does not usually occur for the polysemes that have semantically related meanings.[5][6][7][8] Results for this contention, however, have been mixed.[9][10][11][12]
For Dick Hebdige[13] polysemy means that, "each text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings," making, according to Richard Middleton,[14] "any homology, out of the most heterogeneous materials, possible. The idea of signifying practice—texts not as communicating or expressing a pre-existing meaning but as 'positioning subjects' within a process of semiosis—changes the whole basis of creating social meaning".
One group of polysemes are those in which a word meaning an activity, perhaps derived from a verb, acquires the meanings of those engaged in the activity, or perhaps the results of the activity, or the time or place in which the activity occurs or has occurred. Sometimes only one of those meanings is intended, depending on context, and sometimes multiple meanings are intended at the same time. Other types are derivations from one of the other meanings that leads to a verb or activity.
The Saker's most important article to date, with extremely interesting discussion in the comments!
A crash course on the true causes of "antisemitism"
http://thesaker.is/a-crash-course-on-the-true-causes-of-antisemitism/
This article was written for the Unz Review.
This is a topic which has had so much written about it that you could fill an entire city library with books entirely dedicated to this topic. Marx took a shot at it. As did Sartre. There were, of course, also plenty of good books written on this topic, but rather than list them all, I want to suggest a few simple common sense points and then go to what I consider an authoritative explanation of this thing we call "antisemitism" and which, of course, has nothing to do with Semites.
So first, let's dump this silly term and replace it by a simple and straightforward one: judeophobia. Just like any other phobia (say, for example, russophobia) the phobia of X is the 1) fear and/or hatred of X. Some people hate Jews, others fear them (think of the "fear of the Jews" in the Scripture), some do both. So judeophobia seems both logical and uncontroversial to me.
Second, it is a truism to say that everything in the universe has a cause. That includes phobias. Including russophobia and judeophobia. For example, I would be the first person to admit that there are objective characteristics of the Russian people which makes other people fear and hate them. Like the fact that all western attempts at conquering Russia have failed. Or that the Russians have always, and still are, rejecting the Papacy. Just these two factors will create plenty of russophobia in the West, for sure.
So, the next thing we can ask ourselves is what is it in Jews which causes judeophobia. Alas, before I look into this, I need to clarify a number of assumptions I make.
The first one is that Jews are not a race or ethnicity. To prove that, I defer to Shlomo Sand's book "The Invention of the Jewish People". As I explained elsewhere, Jews are a tribe: A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see "Jewishness" as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. However, I also fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are not a race, but that Jewish culture/politics/ideology is racist (more about that later).
Next, there is also what is commonly known as "Judaism". That, by the way, is also a misnomer, at least if by "Judaism" you refer the faith of the Old Testament, the faith of the Ancient Israel, the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers". Modern "Judaism" which was created well after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD. Modern "Judaism" ought be to called "Pharisaic Talmudism" and its true creators are Shimon bar Yochia, Maimonides (aka "Rambam" in the video below), Joseph Karo and Isaac Luria. The reason why this religion ought to be referred to as Pharisaic Talmudism is modern Judaism is the continuation of the sect of the Pharisees (the only Jewish sect which survived the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple – all modern forms of "Judaism" trace their roots to the Pharisees) and that it's main source of authority is the Talmud, a collection of writings based on the ideas of the sect of the Pharisees and complied from the beginning of the 2nd century. To separate them from non-religious Jews, some authors have offered the term "Judaic" to describe a person adhering to this faith. Seems reasonable to me.
Here is the key thing, while many modern Jews are non-religious and really members of a self-described Jewish tribe, there is no such thing in history as a "Jewish culture" distinct from Pharisaic Talmudism. Remember that national categories are recent creations from the 18th and 19th centuries. For most of history people defined them in reference to 1) their place of residence or birth 2) their religious affiliation and 3) the identity of the ruler they were subjects of. In contrast, nationality and ethnicity are largely modern concepts. The only thing common to a Jew from the Middle-East, Central Europe and North Africa would be teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. It is only logical therefore to look at this unique common characteristic to try to identify the causes of the hatred and fear Jews have inspired pretty much everywhere they have ever resided.
I will use two official Jewish sources to ascertain the causes of antisemitism, first the Simon Wiesenthal Multi-Media Learning Center's website and a lecture by Rabbi David Bar Hayim.
Here is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center writes on the page "Why The Jews? The Patterns of Persecution"
Jewish communities existed continuously in Europe for over 2,000 years. Many of these communities were older than the countries in which they existed. Nevertheless, as the countries of Europe developed, Jews were rarely given complete citizenship status. At best they were tolerated as guests. Their social and religious distinctiveness made them persistent targets for persecution; and such persecution, in turn, intensified the cohesiveness of Jewish communities.
The emergence of Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe intensified the persecution of Jews. Since both the religious and political life of Europe became organized around the Christian faith, Jews were seen as outcasts, the deniers and "killers" of Christ. For millions of European Christians, for over 1600 years, the hatred and persecution of Jews was religiously sanctioned. Antisemitism intensified during the l9th and 20th century industrialization of Europe as Jews participated more directly in European economic and social life.
By 1933, the patterns of economic, social, and personal persecution of European Jews were well established. Nazi racial antisemitism and propaganda amplified and manipulated these patterns, ultimately adding one deadly tenet–that all Jews must be eliminated.
This is the garden variety cop-out: they were older, but never given citizenship, they were tolerated as guests, their social and religious distinctiveness made them targets for persecution, then the Christians accused them of killing Christ, antisemitism was religiously sanctioned, then came the Nazis and added their racist propaganda. But it has a grain of truth buried deep inside the rest of the platitudes: "social and religious distinctiveness". What are we talking about here exactly?
This sounds interesting so let's immediately delve into it!
The following is a lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim whose biography, and gently smiling face, you can find on Wikipedia. For our purposes, just the first paragraph will be enough. It says that Bar-Hayim is an "Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel". Not a lightweight by any means, and a man with established credentials. Now let's listen to what he has to say.
I strongly encourage you to take the time to carefully listen to his entire lecture (1h47m) to not only convince yourself that my chosen excerpts are not partial or taken out of context, but also to get an emotional "feel" for the man who not only is an articulate speaker who is clearly used to teaching, but who also conveys a coherent picture of a man who gave these topics a great deal of thought and who has to courage to call things by their names rather than to "remain silent" like so many of his "politically correct" colleges.
So here is this lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8
also, and just in case this lecture would "mysteriously" disappear from YouTube following the publication of my article, I decided to re-upload it here:
http://www.myvi.ru/watch/Why-are-the-Rabbis-Silent-about-Gaza_RMl1JJ_ftUy7fjzY7Ehgug2
Next, here are a key statements from the beginning of this lecture posted along their time-stamp so you can check for their authenticity:
09:20 The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
10:00 God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
11:00 The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) "the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare" because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
25:16 Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.
Here an explanation is needed about the so-called "Noahide Laws". According to Wikipedia (I use it as the hyper-politically-correct source) the Noahide Laws "are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity". Here are these laws as listed by Maimonides himself:
Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of Homicide
Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Limb of a Living Creature
Imperative of Legal System
Sounds "kinda not modern", but hey, that is no "worse" than the 10 Commandants, right? Wrong! Wrong for two crucial reasons. First, the penalty for breaking any one of these laws, at least according to Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, is death (listen to the lecture for yourself!). Second, this list uses a euphemism when is speaks of "idolatry". What is meant here is not some pagan blood ceremony to sacrifice babies to some god of thunder, but "Avodah Zarah". How do I know that? Listen to the lecture again, the Rabbi is very clear about it. And what exactly is "Avodah Zarah"? It is "foreign worship" or, to put it simply, the religions of the aliens, the others, the nations, the goyim. This is exactly the accusation made by Pharisaic Judaics against Christianity: making "That Man" (the typical Talmudic reference to Christ) into an idol. True, during the Middle-Ages overt references to Christianity were obfuscated and even today to the question whether Avodah Zarah is applicable to Christianity the official answer is wonderfully hypocritical: Christianity is a "special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin". First, this is an explicit modern Jewish admission that those Jews who convert to Christianity are committing a crime deserving the death penalty. But, more importantly, this is clearly a cop-out as this "special type of avodah zarah" has no basis in traditional Pharisaic Talmudic teachings. So this might come as a shock to many, but according to Pharisaic Talmudists, all Christians deserve to be killed for the sin of idolatry. Feel the love...
Now here is the sad part, in the USA these rabidly anti-Christians laws have been proclaimed as the "bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization" by both President Reagan and Congress. And to think that these guys fancy themselves as "Christians"...
I am sure that there are those who are absolutely convinced that what I wrote above is a gross misrepresentation of fact, that there is no way "Judaism" would really teach any such horrors. Think again, and listen to the Rabbi himself:
25:33 Those who do not keep the Seven Noahide Laws are all therefore guilty of a capital offense
25:49 "Avoda Zara", i.e. idolatry meaning Christianity was the most common offense.
Of course, for those who know anything about Pharisaic Talmudism none of the above will come as any surprise. After all, did the Rabbi not also clearly state that:
16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) "the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare" because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
Non-Jews are explicitly compared to snakes! He also says something similar later in the lecture:
26:15 since you cannot bring a perishing non-Jew to court to establish his guilt, you take a neutral position by neither helping him nor killing him.
You got that? Since, like with snakes, it is impossible to tell a dangerous non-Jews apart from a safe one, you cannot just kill him. For that you need a ruling by a rabbinical court. But saving him is no option either, because he most likely deserves the death penalty (say, for being a Christian). So you do nothing when you see a non-Jew in danger or even perishing. Interestingly enough, the Rabbi is also asked if that kind of non-assistance to a person in danger could not negatively impact the reputation of Jews and he immediately replies:
1:22:00 if not saving a non-Jew makes Jews look bad, then the Jew ought to lie about his motives
So it is okay to let a non-Jew die and, if challenged, just lie about it!
The key concept here is simple: Jews are more important to God and, therefore, to themselves than non-Jews. This is why
1:00:30 there is no requirement to return a lost object to a non-Jew
1:17:40 Jews can brake the sabbath to save a Jew but not a non-Jew because Jews do not consider all lives to be equal
I will stop the examples here. The Rabbi clearly says that the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah. If after that you don't get it....
What about the so-called Golden Rule about "do unto others"?
What about these:
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18 )
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. (Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud)
Did you notice the key caveats "your kindsfolk" and "your fellow". Pharisaic Talmudism interprets these passages are referring only to fellow Jews and not to the semi-bestial goyim! It is laughable to a Rabbi when he hears a non-Jew saying that all humans were created in the image and likeness of God. Pharisaic Talmudism explicitly contradicts that (and the Kabbalah even more so!). Still don't agree? Which part of " the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah" don't you get?!
The simple truth is that Pharisaic Talmudism (aka modern "Judaism") is the only religion which teaches a God-revealed racism.
This is hardly a new discovery of mine. Just read Michael Hoffman's superb magnum opus Judaism Discovered (available on Amazon and on his on his website). In fact, there have been thousands of books already written on this topic, and many are available online for download in various file formats. What makes the video by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim so interesting is that it is 1) official 2) recent 3) that he really confirms it all. But for those who, like myself and, I am sure, many readers here, have known about it for decades, this was absolutely nothing new.
A couple of crucial caveats here: there are many Jews out there (most, I would say) who are totally unaware of all this. Even "Conservative" and "Reform" synagogues don't preach that too overtly (though sometimes even they do). This kind of religious racism is mostly taught in Orthodox Yeshivas and, of course, in various Haredi institutions in Israel. For these ignorant Jews any such explanations of the causes of antisemitism in world history are not only offensive (blaming the victim) but also completely unfair ("my family never said any such things!"). Second, while this kind of, frankly, demonic teachings have only been taught in religious circles, they nevertheless also have had a deep impact upon the outlook of many (but not all!) secular Jews many of whom might never have been told that all Christians deserve to be executed, but who still will have a profound and almost knee-jerk repulsion towards Christianity. The distance between Rabbi David Bar-Hayim and Sarah Silverman and her famous quote "I hope that Jews did kill Christ, I'd do it again in a second" is very, very short.
Finally, for all the (alas many) bone-headed racists out there, none of that Pharisaic ideology is transmissible by genes so please don't give me that "all Jews" nonsense. Some Jews do espouse these views, others don't. Remember, Jews are not a race or ethnicity, they are a tribe. A Jew who completely rejects all this religiously-sanctioned racism about goyims does not somehow still mysteriously carry in himself some "Talmudic bacillum" which can flare up and turn him overnight into a hate-filled racist.
[Sidebar: For whatever it is worth, in my life I have seen more kindness and compassion from (secular) Jews than from my fellow Orthodox Christians. Very often in my life I have had secular Jews being like the Good Samaritan from the Gospel (Luke 10:25-37):
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Notice two things: first, Christ frontally debunks the racist interpretation of the words "thy neighbor" and, second, He also clearly commands us how we should treat all of our neighbors.]
So now we have it: the root causes of antisemitism are not to be found in some weird cause-less aberration common to every single nation on earth, but in the teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. What is exceptionally pernicious is that by what could be referred to as cultural-osmosis non-religious Jews find themselves raised in a secular culture which still holds this kinds of beliefs, minus their external religious trappings.
Furthermore, there are many non-Jews who, when seeing both religious secular Jews equally hostile to their religion and traditions, come to the conclusion that "all Jews" are bad. Throw in enough politicians (on both sides) to bring a flame to this toxic mix and you end up with an inevitable explosion. Hence all the persecutions.
Judeophobia has its roots in the demonic teachings of the sect of the Pharisees whose religiously-sanctioned racism has, unfortunately, permeated the worldview of many secular Jews. As long as Orthodox rabbis will stick to their demented self-worship (this is real idolatry, by the way!), "antisemitism" will continue to "mysteriously" rear its ugly head.
Brecht was right, "'The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang". He just got the 'belly' wrong.
The Saker
THE RISING OF BRITAIN'S 'NEW POLITICS'
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-rising-of-britain-s-new-politics
As the Tories plot to get rid of Prime Minister Theresa May, John Pilger analyses the alternative Labour Party, specifically its foreign policy, which may not be what it seems.
6 October 2017
by John Pilger
Delegates to the recent Labour Party conference in the English seaside town of Brighton seemed not to notice a video playing in the main entrance. The world's third biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, supplier to Saudi Arabia, was promoting its guns, bombs, missiles, naval ships and fighter aircraft.
It seemed a perfidious symbol of a party in which millions of Britons now invest their political hopes. Once the preserve of Tony Blair, it is now led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose career has been very different and is rare in British establishment politics.
Addressing the Labour conference, the campaigner Naomi Klein described the rise of Corbyn as "part of a global phenomenon. We saw it in Bernie Sanders' historic campaign in the US primaries, powered by millennials who know that safe centrist politics offers them no kind of safe future."
In fact, at the end of the US primary elections last year, Sanders led his followers into the arms of Hillary Clinton, a liberal warmonger from a long tradition in the Democratic Party.
As President Obama's Secretary of State, Clinton presided over the invasion of Libya in 2011, which led to a stampede of refugees to Europe. She gloated at the gruesome murder of Libya's president. Two years earlier, Clinton signed off on a coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. That she has been invited to Wales on 14 October to be given an honorary doctorate by the University of Swansea because she is "synonymous with human rights" is unfathomable.
Like Clinton, Sanders is a cold-warrior and "anti-communist" obsessive with a proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He supported Bill Clinton's and Tony Blair's illegal assault on Yugoslavia in 1998 and the invasions of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, as well as Barack Obama's campaign of terrorism by drone. He backs the provocation of Russia and agrees that the whistleblower Edward Snowden should stand trial. He has called the late Hugo Chavez - a social democrat who won multiple elections - "a dead communist dictator".
While Sanders is a familiar liberal politician, Corbyn may be a phenomenon, with his indefatigable support for the victims of American and British imperial adventures and for popular resistance movements.
For example, in the 1960s and 70s, the Chagos islanders were expelled from their homeland, a British colony in the Indian Ocean, by a Labour government. An entire population was kidnapped. The aim was to make way for a US military base on the main island of Diego Garcia: a secret deal for which the British were "compensated" with a discount of $14 million off the price of a Polaris nuclear submarine.
I have had much to do with the Chagos islanders and have filmed them in exile in Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they suffered and some of them "died from sadness", as I was told. They found a political champion in a Labour Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn.
So did the Palestinians. So did Iraqis terrorised by a Labour prime minister's invasion of their country in 2003. So did others struggling to break free from the designs of western power. Corbyn supported the likes of Hugo Chavez, who brought more than hope to societies subverted by the US behemoth.
And yet, now Corbyn is closer to power than he might have ever imagined, his foreign policy remains a secret.
By secret, I mean there has been rhetoric and little else. "We must put our values at the heart of our foreign policy," said Corbyn at the Labour conference. But what are these "values"?
Since 1945, like the Tories, British Labour has been an imperial party, obsequious to Washington: a record exemplified by the crime in the Chagos islands.
What has changed? Is Corbyn saying Labour will uncouple itself from the US war machine, and the US spying apparatus and US economic blockades that scar humanity?
His shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, says a Corbyn government "will put human rights back at the heart of Britain's foreign policy". But human rights have never been at the heart of British foreign policy - only "interests", as Lord Palmerston declared in the 19th century: the interests of those at the apex of British society.
Thornberry quoted the late Robin Cook who, as Tony Blair's first Foreign Secretary in 1997, pledged an "ethical foreign policy" that would "make Britain once again a force for good in the world".
History is not kind to imperial nostalgia. The recently commemorated division of India by a Labour government in 1947 - with a border hurriedly drawn up by a London barrister, Gordon Radcliffe, who had never been to India and never returned - led to blood-letting on a genocidal scale.
Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.
W.H. Auden, 'Partition'
It was the same Labour government (1945--51), led by Prime Minister Clement Attlee - "radical" by today's standards - that dispatched General Douglas Gracey's British imperial army to Saigon with orders to re-arm the defeated Japanese in order to prevent Vietnamese nationalists from liberating their own country. Thus, the longest war of the century was ignited.
It was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, whose policy of "mutuality" and "partnership" with some of the world's most vicious despots, especially in the Middle East, forged relationships that endure today, often sidelining and crushing the human rights of whole communities and societies. The cause was British "interests" - oil, power, wealth.
In the "radical" 1960s, Labour's Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, set up the Defence Sales Organisation (DSO) specifically to boost the arms trade and make money from selling lethal weapons to the world. Healey told Parliament, "While we attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable market."
The doublethink was quintessentially Labour. When I later asked Healey about this "valuable market", he claimed his decision made no difference to the volume of military exports. In fact, it led to an almost doubling of Britain's share of the arms market. Today, Britain is the second biggest arms dealer on earth, selling arms and fighter planes, machine guns and "riot control" vehicles, to 22 of the 30 countries on the British Government's own list of human rights violators.
Will this cease under a Corbyn government? The preferred model - Robin Cook's "ethical foreign policy" - is revealing. Like Jeremy Corbyn, Cook made his name as a backbencher and critic of the arms trade. "Wherever weapons are sold," wrote Cook, "there is a tacit conspiracy to conceal the reality of war" and "it is a truism that every war for the past two decades has been fought by poor countries with weapons supplied by rich countries".
Cook singled out the sale of British Hawk fighters to Indonesia as "particularly disturbing". Indonesia "is not only repressive but actually at war on two fronts: in East Timor, where perhaps a sixth of the population has been slaughtered... and in West Papua, where it confronts an indigenous liberation movement".
As Foreign Secretary, Cook promised "a thorough review of arms sales". The then Nobel Peace Laureate, Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, appealed directly to Cook: "Please, I beg you, do not sustain any longer a conflict which without these arms sales could never have been pursued in the first place and not for so very long." He was referring to Indonesia's bombing of East Timor with British Hawks and the slaughter of his people with British machine guns. He received no reply.
The following week Cook called journalists to the Foreign Office to announce his "mission statement" for "human rights in a new century". This PR event included the usual private briefings for selected journalists, including the BBC, in which Foreign Office officials lied that there was "no evidence" that British Hawk aircraft were deployed in East Timor.
A few days later, the Foreign Office issued the results of Cook's "thorough review" of arms sales policy. "It was not realistic or practical," wrote Cook, "to revoke licences which were valid and in force at the time of Labour's election victory". Suharto's Minister for Defence, Edi Sudradjat, said that talks were already under way with Britain for the purchase of 18 more Hawk fighters. "The political change in Britain will not affect our negotiations," he said. He was right.
Today, replace Indonesia with Saudi Arabia and East Timor with Yemen. British military aircraft - sold with the approval of both Tory and Labour governments and built by the firm whose promotional video had pride of place at the Labour Party conference - are bombing the life out of Yemen, one of the most impoverished countries in the world, where half the children are malnourished and there is the greatest cholera epidemic in modern times.
Hospitals and schools, weddings and funerals have been attacked. In Ryadh, British military personnel are reported to be training the Saudis in selecting targets.
In Labour's 2017 manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn and his party colleagues promised that "Labour will demand a comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation into alleged violations... in Yemen, including air strikes on civilians by the Saudi-led coalition. We will immediately suspend any further arms sales for use in the conflict until that investigation is concluded."
But the evidence of Saudi Arabia's crimes in Yemen is already documented by Amnesty and others, notably by the courageous reporting of the British journalist Iona Craig. The dossier is voluminous.
Labour does not promise to stop arms exports to Saudi Arabia. It does not say Britain will withdraw its support for governments responsible for the export of Islamist jihadism. There is no commitment to dismantle the arms trade.
The manifesto describes a "special relationship [with the US] based on shared values... When the current Trump administration chooses to ignore them... we will not be afraid to disagree".
As Jeremy Corbyn knows, dealing with the US is not about merely "disagreeing". The US is a rapacious, rogue power that ought not to be regarded as a natural ally of any state championing human rights, irrespective of whether Trump or anyone else is President.
When Emily Thornberry linked Venezuela with the Philippines as "increasingly autocratic regimes" - slogans bereft of facts and ignoring the subversive US role in Venezuela - she was consciously playing to the enemy: a tactic with which Jeremy Corbyn will be familiar.
A Corbyn government will allow the Chagos islanders the right of return. But Labour says nothing about renegotiating the 50-year renewal agreement that Britain has just signed with the US allowing it to use the base on Diego Garcia from which it has bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.
A Corbyn government will "immediately recognise the state of Palestine". But it is silent on whether Britain will continue to arm Israel, continue to acquiesce in the illegal trade in Israel's illegal "settlements" and treat Israel merely as a warring party, rather than as an historic oppressor given immunity by Washington and London.
On Britain's support for Nato's current war preparations, Labour boasts that the "last Labour government spent above the benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP" on Nato. It says, "Conservative spending cuts have put Britain's security at risk" and promises to boost Britain's military "obligations".
In fact, most of the £40 billion Britain currently spends on the military is not for territorial defence of the UK but for offensive purposes to enhance British "interests" as defined by those who have tried to smear Jeremy Corbyn as unpatriotic.
If the polls are reliable, most Britons are well ahead of their politicians, Tory and Labour. They would accept higher taxes to pay for public services; they want the National Health Service restored to full health. They want decent jobs and wages and housing and schools; they do not hate foreigners but resent exploitative labour. They have no fond memory of an empire on which the sun never set.
They oppose the invasion of other countries and regard Blair as a liar. The rise of Donald Trump has reminded them what a menace the United States can be, especially with their own country in tow.
The Labour Party is the beneficiary of this mood, but many of its pledges - certainly in foreign policy - are qualified and compromised, suggesting, for many Britons, more of the same.
Jeremy Corbyn is widely and properly recognised for his integrity; he opposes the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons; the Labour Party supports it. But he has given shadow cabinet positions to pro-war MPs who support Blairism, tried to get rid of him and abused him as "unelectable".
"We are the political mainstream now," says Corbyn. Yes, but at what price?
Judaism, Zionism and Conflation
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/10/9/judaism-zionism-and-conflation
By Gilad Atzmon
Jewish Anti Zionists are occasionally irritated by the 'conflation' of 'Zionism and Judaism' but the terms are inherently related.
Conflation is usually understood as the merging of two or more distinct sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one. Does this concept apply to Zionism and Judaism? Are Zionism and Judaism distinct terms? Are Jews and Zionism categorically different from each other?
For example, can Americanism and exceptionalism be conflated? Can round and circular be conflated? The distinction between terms that are related can be confusing. But the relationship between Jews and Zionism is clear. This is also true of the relationship among Zionism, Jews and Judaism. These terms are intrinsically related politically, culturally, religiously and at times they form a metaphysical continuum.
Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, probably the most eloquent Torah Jew spokesperson, has repeatedly argued that those who'conflate' Judaism and Zionism are "either Zionists or anti-Semites." But Zionism and Judaism, as we will see next, are integrally related.
The vast majority of Rabbinical Jews see Judaism and Zionism as correlated precepts. This is not a recent phenomenon. As early as 1942, at the peak of WWII, 818 orthodox American rabbis signed a document reaffirming the essential bond between Zionism and Judaism. The Rabbis' document reads, "the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it." We can also look to the Judaic teaching of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. Kook, who died in 1935, was the chief rabbi of Mandatory Palestine. He is considered one of the fathers of religious Zionism. For Kook, Eretz Yisrael was the spatial centre of holiness in the world. Like other Zionist agitators, Kook rejected the galut (Jewish Diaspora). The messianic Zionist settler movement is largely inspired by Kook's teaching.
The Rabbis who subscribe to the Zionist enterprise clearly do not differentiate between Judaism and Zionism. For them, Zionism and Judaism are at the core of the contemporaneous Judaic call. These Rabbis do not conflate Zionism with Judaism: they simply do not differentiate the two.
But what about the so-called 'anti Semites,' do they 'conflate' Judaism and Zionism? Some critics of Israel argue that Zionist criminality is the outcome of Judaic dismissal of otherness. They point at some problematic segments within the Talmud and argue that Israeli brutality is a continuation of those inhumane teachings. Whether or not this argument is valid, the suggestion that Zionism inherited its brutality from Judaism suggests that the so called anti Semite's understanding of Zionism and the Talmud are linked by a chain of causality, and is not a case of conflation.
So the rabbinical Zionists and the 'anti Semites' do not conflate Zionism and Judaism, but what about Israel and the Israelis? Israel is invested in a dialectical battle with the merger of Judaism and Zionism. Israel defines itself as the 'Jewish' State not the 'Judaic' State. Secular Zionism has, since its inception, had an ambivalent relationship with Rabbinical institutes. Though the rabbinical institutions in Israel have managed to dictate halakha law, Israeli political institutions have, at least until now, compartmentalised religious and civil matters.
While in Judaism (as in Islam), there is no dichotomy between the religio and the civil, Zionism promised to make Jews into'people like all other people.' This promise was inspired by Christian civilisation -- a social environment that endeavored to maintain a dichotomy between religion and civil laws. Zionism's original promise to civilise the Jews was intended to liberate the newly invented Jewish 'nation' from its 'reactionary' religious heritage. This indicates that even the Israelis do not conflate Judaism and Zionism. They, somehow, differentiate between the two, although they probably admit to themselves that they often overlap.
But if Judaism and Zionism are not distinct notions and, as a result, conflation is not possible, it would also be wrong to argue, as many commentators do, that'Judaism was hijacked by Zionism.' If anything, the facts suggest the opposite. It was Zionism that was hijacked by Judaism. Zionism began as an anti Judaic movement. It promised to emancipate the Jews from their 'reactionary' past by means of a 'homecoming'. It promised to civilise diaspora Jews and make them a part of a productive, functional and autonomous nation. Many early Zionist texts read like anti-Semitic tracts. They spew anti Jewish rants. But it didn't take long for Judaism to contain the emerging tsunami of Early-Zionist ferocity and teach the Jews to love themselves once again. It is important to note that when Zionism was anti Judaic, universalist and humanist, it was a marginal movement. Hardly any Jews followed the few early Zionist idealists. However, as soon as Zionism became tribal, expansionist and even militant, its popularity amongst Jews grew rapidly. It is reasonable to argue that it was Rabbis like Kook and later the Chabbad sect that skillfully and wittingly integrated Zionism into their Judaic teaching. By doing so, they killed Zionist anti Judaic ferocity. They reunited the tribe.
It seems that no one conflates Judaism and Zionism, not the Rabbinical Zionist who see Judaism and Zionism as one, nor the anti-Semite who sees Judaism and Zionism in causal terms. Even the Israelis do not conflate the two. Those who reference to conflation may do so in order to sustain the confusion relating to Jews and their politics.
Kosher Trinity And Jewish Quantum Mechanics
While pre-emancipated Jews where at ease with their ethno-religious identity, the French revolution, emancipation and secularisation introduced complexity to identity issues for European Jews. Since then, secular Jews have found it difficult or even impossible to consolidate their tribal identity within the emerging universal discourse around them. They find it impossible to fuse their cultural racial orientation with their anti racist progressive political rants. Zionism offered a solution. It promised to take the Jews away, to remove the problem. But Zionism only managed to move the problem to a new place.
Diaspora Jews have developed different tactics to deal with their identity crises. Contemporary Jewish identity is shaped like a tri-polar magnetic field in which one pole is religion, another is race and the third is politics.
When Jewish politics is subject to criticism (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby, etc.) some Jews claim to be 'racially offended' in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When Jewish racism is subject to criticism (choseness, Israel race laws, etc.) some Jews are affronted by a perceived attack on their religion. When the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching is disparaged, many Jews are quick to assert that they are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). We are confronting a quantum leap--an evasive identity that is morphing constantly. It moves rapidly within its kosher trinity field, it is everywhere and nowhere. The reason for this is that the Kosher Trinity makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and religion. The Kosher Trinity allows Jews to boast about their cultural symptoms and great achievements while claiming offense when any of these symptoms are discussed by others. This quantum model is set to suppress any possible dissent and avoid Jewish self-reflection. As much as you may find it hard to grasp what Jews are, Jews share the struggle to address who they are and what they are up to.
Hungarian MP: 'Christian duty to fight Satan's Soros plan to bring migrants into Europe'
https://www.sott.net/article/364079-Hungarian-MP-Christian-duty-to-fight-Satans-Soros-plan-to-bring-migrants-into-Europe
A Hungarian MP slammed billionaire George Soros and supporters for attempting to dilute the spirit of Europe with "the forced settlement of tens of millions of migrants." He claimed there is a Christian duty to fight what he called "Satan's Soros" plan.
The lawmaker in question, Andras Aradszki, who represents the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP), claimed that "Soros and his comrades want to destroy the independence and values of nation states," as cited by the Budapest Beacon.
According to Aradszki this is happening "for the purpose of watering down the Christian spirit of Europe with the forced settlement of tens of millions of migrants."
"But the fight against Satan is a Christian duty. Yes, I speak of an attack by Satan, who is also the angel of denial, because they are denying what they are preparing to do - even when it is completely obvious. They frantically try to prove that there is no [refugee] quota, there is no compulsory settlement, and the Soros Plan does not exist," Aradszki noted.
"The national consultation is an outstanding opportunity for us to make our opinions known about Satan's Soros Plan," he concluded. On Sunday, the Chief Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Gyorgy Bakondi, warned of the implications of the "Soros Plan."
"This may have serious consequences for the sovereignty of member states, for the nations themselves, and also with regard to the security of European citizens," he pointed out.
Soros stated in 2015 that the "EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly."
"Adequate financing is critical," the billionaire wrote. "The EU should provide £10,000 (€15,000) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs - and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states."
Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has repeatedly blamed Hungarian-born Soros of fueling the refugee crisis in Europe, said that "Brussels has come under George Soros's influence."
"We have revealed the existence of the Soros plan, and the drafter himself admitted that it exists. We have placed it in the focus of politics," the prime minister said in an interview to public radio on Friday.
In July, Orban accused Soros of using the EU in order to create a "new, mixed, Muslimized Europe," according to AP. The prime minister said that Soros is now more powerful in Brussels than in Washington or Tel Aviv and he argued that European institutions should fight to limit his influence.
He noted that reforming Europe can only begin by stopping illegal migration into the EU and that Hungary's border defenses will help with that effort.
Late last month Orban called on Hungarians to participate in the government's public survey on the "Soros plan," noting that it will help the country shield itself from migration. The survey dubbed "national consultation" will ask Hungarians for their view on whether or not Hungary should become an immigrant country.
"We want a Hungarian Hungary and a European Europe," Orban said on the first day of parliament's autumn session.
Last week Goran Buldioski, director of Soros' Open Society Initiatives in Europe, told AP that Soros and his foundations support "more coherent and humane policies for helping to resettle migrants fleeing oppression and violence in their homelands" but that "there is no such thing as a global conspiracy against Hungary."
Hungary is engaged in a bitter row with the EU over the refugee relocation quotas, together with Poland and Slovakia. The issue dates back to the EU decision made in 2015 to rehouse some 160,000 refugees from Greece and Italy over a period of two years, only around 27,700 of whom have been settled so far.
Hungary claimed in September that its fences on the borders with Croatia and Serbia had helped to cut the inflow of migrants by 99.7 percent since 2015. The small inland nation now has one quarter of the length of its borders protected by a fence. The Hungarian border fence has been repeatedly criticized by other European countries, as well as by EU politicians, but Budapest has resisted pressure to remove it.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.10.11, 20:45:33
He claimed there is a Christian duty to fight what he called "Satan's Soros" plan.
Erm.. was it not the Christian leadership that brought them here in the first place ?Germany's Iron Lady Angela Merkel reveals she believes in God - and religion has always been her constant companionhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228664/Angela-Merkel-believes-God-strong-Christian-beliefs.html
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has enlisted a heavyweight companion to fight alongside her in next year's general election - God.
A day after scrapping an unpopular medical charge and boosting benefits for stay-at-home mothers, Mrs Merkel has taken a leaf out of Tony Blair's book to declare that she has strong religious beliefs.
It is the first time that the former Lutheran minister's daughter, a cool-headed physicist who was raised in former Communist East Germany, has admitted that faith is a vital part of her life.
Religious leaders urge UK Prime Minister to do more for refugeeshttp://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/09/12/484347/Theresa-May-pressured-to-help-refugees
British Prime Minister Theresa May is being criticized by more than 200 religious leaders for her government's lack of concern for refugees.
Faith leaders have signed an open letter to May calling for urgent changes to the government's refugee policy, particularly to allow families to be reunited.
The letter said: "In the face of the unfolding human catastrophe, there are immediate and viable steps that the government can take to offer sanctuary to more refugees. We call on you to create safe, legal routes of travel, for example by adopting fair and humane family reunion policies for refugees."
Signatories to the letter are leaders from Britain's major faiths: Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian.
"All our faiths teach us to alleviate suffering and share with those in need; many of our members and congregants are already active in helping refugees. We call on the Government to do more."
The controlled opposition shares a similar position:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/theresa-may-to-chair-cobra-meeting-after-finsbury-park-terror-attack
Corbyn had visited the scene once he was alerted to it by officials, and later returned to meet community leaders.
He said: "This is a very multi-faith community. Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, all live around here. This is a microcosm of a community working together.
"An attack on a mosque, an attack on a synagogue, an attack on a church, is actually an attack on all of us. We have to protect each other's faith, each other's way of life. That's what makes us a strong society and community."
Believing in something that is not provably true, and supporting those views in an echo chamber of faith, is not a strong society Jeremy.. it is a mass delusion.
Is Jeremy Corbyn on the road to Rome?
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.jeremy.corbyn.on.the.road.to.rome/113334.htm
Jeremy Corbyn is a long-time friend of Bruce Kent, the laicised Catholic priest and prominent CND campaigner. They have attended church together on at least one occason in the past.
In addition he is married to Laura Alvarez, from Mexico, a traditionally Catholic country.
At the funeral of Mary Turner, who was president of the GMB union, and who died in July, Corbyn was seen with his wife in the queue for Holy Communion. He also spoke at the funeral and paid his respects to her family and Mary's memory.
In the same way that someone who is not a member of the Labour Party can't just turn up and vote at a Labour Party Conference, the Catholic Church has strict rules about who can receive communion, which Corbyn will certainly know about. The Westminster Archdiocese, in which the funeral at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn took place, expects people to be 'in full communion with the Catholic Church' if they wish to receive communion.
There are exceptions, but in general, Holy Communion is restricted to baptised and confirmed Catholics. If a baptised Anglican is on holiday and there is no Anglican church within reach, they can receive communion in an RC church.
At events where non-Catholics are likely to be present, such as funerals, Catholic priests will normally invite everyone to the altar rail, but make it clear that non-Catholics should request a blessing.
If Corbyn did actually go on to receive communion, and not merely a blessing, does this mean that he has converted? That he is no longer an agnostic?
A spokesman for the Labour leader told Christian Today: 'Jeremy has not converted to Catholicism.'
Nevertheless, Corbyn has certainly for decades been attracted by the social teaching of the Catholic Church, with its emphasis on justice for the poor and marginalised.
The story, revealed in the New Statesman, echoes those around former Prime Minister Tony Blair when he was still an Anglican. Blair joined his wife Cherie in the Catholic Church – but only after he left Downing Street.
It was common knowledge that Blair was on a journey to Rome. Cardinal Basil Hume, predecessor to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as Archbishop of Westminster, found he had no choice but to write to Blair in 1996 asking him to stop taking communion in Cherie's parish in Islington, the Church of St Joan of Arc.
Corbyn went to a CofE school but has always been understood to be agnostic, although he has never disclosed much about what he believes. In 2015 he said: 'I respect all faiths, I probably spend more time going to religious services than most people, of all types.'
Catholic Canon Law states that the salvation of souls in the Church must always be the supreme law. Maybe someone high up has decided the salvation of Jeremy Corbyn overrides the rules. That really would be God having the most fantastic sense of humour – if Corbyn does one day end up become Britain's first ever Roman Catholic Prime Minister.
Cultural Relativism
http://ironbarkresources.com/mc/mc07.htm
Many multiculturalists promote the idea of cultural relativism, i.e. "that each culture is of equal value, and should not be judged from the cultural perspectives of others". This actually means that no-one can pass judgement on another culture as that person's "value judgement" will be made on the basis of their own cultural values. In this manner of thinking, all cultures are therefore equal; and its adherents maintain that it cannot be said that other cultures, or certain cultural customs, are "wrong" or "inferior", as to do so would be to act as "culturally superior" or, at worst, even "racist".(44)
This half-baked notion would have us believe that the culture of a tribe of New Guinea cannibals is equal to the culture of the Ancient Egyptians. The "good" multiculturalist would maintain that this is so, while the rest of us may laugh at this ridiculous idea, pointing out the Ancient Egyptians' advances in mathematics, astronomy, transport, irrigation, architecture, etc., etc., etc. It would then be pointed out that, in our ignorance, we would've been making a "value judgement" based on our own culture, which is the "wrong" thing to do, and "politically incorrect" to say the least. Maybe we should never hold any opinions, nor judge any matter, ever again? But, of course, if we were ever to point out that it is part of our culture to hold such opinions, and form "value judgements", then wouldn't that be a great dilemma for the multiculturalists? You know the answer already: our cultural values are to be ignored; because, despite their ever-ready claims of cultural equality, multiculturalists place Australian culture a distant second to any other "ethnic" culture.
The absurdity of the argument of cultural relativism is also self-evident to anyone who thinks it through in its practical context. For instance, there will be times when the cultural practices of some ethnic minorities in Australia will be held to be against the law, which itself has been basically produced by, and is usually reflective of, the mainstream Australian culture. Cultural relativism is thus shown to be contradictory and unworkable.
In terms of the law, there are two matters to be pointed out. One, that a multiculturalist who says cultures can be maintained, but only subject to the law, has accepted a basic principle of assimilationism. Two, that there are multiculturalists who advocate that there should be "respect for cultural diversity reflected in the operation of the law by granting some multicultural minorities special consideration in the legal treatment of their otherwise illegal cultural and religious practices". In fact, legal decisions based on cultural considerations are already being enacted, from lighter sentences in some cases, to the allowing of Aboriginal law to operate instead of Australian law (such as the Northern Territory court which released an Aboriginal man, found guilty of a "stabbing manslaughter", on a good behaviour bond, partly in recognition that "under customary law ... [he] ... could expect to be speared through his thighs as a pay-back for the killing").(45)
Jan Pettman, an "anti-racist" lecturer, has pointed out some questions that cultural relativism avoids: "if values or interests conflict, whose should prevail? What happens if there are some values and practices we do not want in Australia? What is it that will ultimately hold us all together?".(46)
Cultural relativism is not only sheer folly, it is plain idiocy.
It is also interesting to note the words of Rush Limbaugh (publicised as "America's #1 radio talk-show host"):
"One of the main vehicles used by liberals to attempt to de-legitimize "all that remains of national culture" for America is multiculturalism. By its very nature, multiculturalism holds that no civilization, no moral code, no way of living, is better than another. In general, it finds fault with little in most cultures - the exception being the actual nation of America, which is usually portrayed as an oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic nation with few redeeming qualities."(47)
Much the same can be said for Australia: Multiculturalists continuously denigrate and attack Australia's way of life - our culture - (as well as attacking that of other Westernised countries, in particular those of the English-speaking world) but rarely do they attack the cultures of foreign peoples (especially those of the Third World). Most multiculturalists seem to view criticism of such foreign cultures as "politically incorrect", or even "racist"; but have no such qualms over attacking the Australian way of life. They fail to realise that this double standard shows them to be fools and hypocrites. What they also fail to realise is that such double standards help to reveal the actual mentality evident behind the ideology of multiculturalism in this country, that of being anti-Australian, if not a form of anti-White racism (for many multiculturalists, this seems to be some sort of perverse self-hatred).
To further explain about their mentality being anti-Australian: For many multiculturalists, rather than their main driving force being to seek some form of "equality" for other cultures, their main driving force is to attack the Australian nation, its culture, way of life, institutions, its British/European population, and - most telling of all - its wealth. The fact that Australia is a wealthy nation, while many Third World countries are very poor, produces a style of thinking evident within the mentality of multiculturalism; a form of what has been termed "the White guilt complex".
It should be realised from this that multiculturalism is not pro-culture (foreign or otherwise) as it purports to be, but is actually anti-culture.
The Jewish and Christian view on female genital mutilation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110570413000258
Abstract
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice involving the removal of all or parts of the female external genitalia. It has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, but due to increasing immigration from these countries to the western world, FGM has become a worldwide human rights and health issue. Contrary to the belief that it is a practice carried out by Muslims only, it is also practiced by Christians and a minority group of Ethiopian Jews. However, FGM is neither mentioned in the Torah, nor in the Gospels, and – like in Islam – bodily mutilation is condemned by both religions. In fact, FGM is a mix of mainly cultural and social factors which may put tremendous pressure on the members of the society in question.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), female genital mutilation (FGM), also referred to as "female circumcision" or "female cutting", "comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons" [1]. The WHO estimates that about 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM and that every year in Africa alone, about 3 million girls are at risk for genital mutilation [1]. FGM has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East [2]. However, it has also become a human rights and health issue in western countries where the practice is continued by immigrants from countries where FGM is commonly performed [3]. For instance, the German organization "Terre des Femmes" estimates that about 30.000 girls and women living in Germany have undergone or are at risk of being subjected to FGM [4].
Given the fact that some Sunni Muslims legitimate FGM by quoting a controversial hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed) in which the Prophet allegedly did not object to FGM provided cutting was not too severe [5,6] and that the least invasive type of FGM (partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce) is also called "Sunna Circumcision" [7], FGM is widely considered to be associated with Islam. However, during a conference held in Cairo/Egypt in 2006, Muslim scholars from various nations declared FGM to be un-islamic [8,9] and, in fact, the traditional cultural practice of FGM predates both Islam and Christianity. Herodotus wrote about FGM being practiced in Egypt as early as 500 BC [3], while the Greek geographer Strabo who visited Egypt in about 25 BC reported that one of the Egyptian customs was "to circumcise the males and excise the females" [10]. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FGM is actually practiced by Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. There are countries, such as Nigeria, Tanzania and Niger, where the prevalence of FGM is even greater among Christian groups [11]. In Egypt, FGM is also practiced on Coptic girls [12], while in Ethiopia, the Beta Israel or Falashas, a Jewish minority, subject their girls to genital mutilation [5].
In this context, it will be interesting to have a look at the attitude of Christianity and Judaism toward FGM.
Jewish view on FGM
While, according to the Hebrew bible, circumcision is required for all male Jewish children in observance of God's commandment to Abraham (Genesis 12-17), female circumcision was never allowed in Judaism, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion [13]. Buff, in his letter to the editor, states that "any form of female circumcision would be considered bodily mutilation and forbidden under Jewish law" [14]. Yet, a Jewish minority group living in Ethiopia, the so-called Falashas or Beta Israel, practice ritual female genital surgery [15]. Buff believes that "as a persecuted and isolated Jewish enclave for thousands of years, the Falashas did not have access to either definitive Jewish texts or informed rabbinical sources" [14]. In fact, the Falashas practice an archaic form of Judaism, strictly adhering to the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. They do not speak or read Hebrew. Their bible is written in Ge'ez, which is the clerical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean orthodox church, and they do not know the other important religious scriptures of Judaism, the Talmud and the Mishnah [16,17]. The Falashas consider themselves descendants of the tribe of "Dan", one of the 10 "lost tribes of Israel", and were acknowledged as such, and therefore as being officially Jewish, by the Israeli government in 1975 [17]. This entitled them to the right of settling in Israel. While until 1984 only few of them immigrated to Israel, the majority of Ethiopian Jews were taken to Israel in the course of two air bridge operations, one between November 1984 and January 1985, rescuing about 8200 Ethiopian Jews who had fled to Sudan from a famine in Ethiopia, and the second one in May 1991, rescuing 14,087 Ethiopian Jews from political constraints in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Abeba. After their immigration to Israel, the Ethiopian Jews were converted to orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Nowadays, only a minority is still living in Ethiopia [17].
In a study conducted by Grisaru et al. on 113 Ethiopian Jewish immigrant women in Israel, the authors found a variety of lesions in one third of the women, with 27% showing partial or total clitoridectomy. Although not all the women interviewed had undergone FGM, all of them stated that FGM was normative among Jews in Ethiopia, but they did not consider it related to religion. The reasons for FGM varied according to the province the women originated from, ranging from the intention to create adhesions that prevent premarital intercourse to esthetic reasons. The authors also found that the customs of FGM is readily given up by Ethiopian Jews right after their immigration to Israel, as "they see themselves a part of a Jewish society without FGM" [15].
Christian view on FGM
Literature dealing with the Christian view on FGM is very scarce, however, Christian authorities unanimously agree that FGM has no foundation in the religious texts of Christianity [18–22]. During the 2006 conference of The East Africa Program, the attending Christian (Coptic) leaders emphasized that "Christian doctrine is clear on the sanctity of the human body" [22]. Yet, as has already been mentioned before, FGM is practiced among Christian groups, e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. Although FGM is not prescribed by religious law, many of those practicing it may consider it a religious obligation, as female sexual purity plays an important role, not only in Christianity, but in all monotheistic religions.
As described above, FGM cannot be justified by any of the three monotheistic religions. The reasons for FGM are various and are clearly a mixture of cultural, social and religious factors [1]. In societies, where FGM is practiced, the social pressure on the families is very high and the necessity to conform to what is considered right may be reason enough to continue the practice. But whatever reason there may be, the fact is that FGM represents a violation of human rights which has to be fought until it has been totally eliminated.
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest.
Expert argues Vikings carried redhead gene to Scotland
http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/expert-argues-vikings-carried-redhead-gene-to-scotland-1-3200177
THE Viking warriors who invaded Scotland in the eighth century may have harboured a fiery secret beneath their horned helmets.
According to a leading academic the Norse invaders depicted in film and history books as rugged blonds were in fact ginger.
The contentious theory could explain the auburn enigma that has long baffled scientists – why do so many Scots have red hair?
Professor Donna Heddle, director of the University of the Highlands and Islands' Centre for Nordic Studies, believes the answer lies in a genetic gift from our Viking ancestors. She argues that the Norse were much more likely to have been red-headed than blond and that they were responsible for transforming Scotland into the world's ginger capital.
"The perception that the Norse were blond is nothing more than a prevalent myth," she said. "Genetically speaking, the chances of them having blond hair weren't that likely. The chances are that they would have had red hair. Interestingly, if you look at where red hair occurs in the world you can almost map it to Viking trading routes."
While only about 0.6 per cent of the world's population has red hair, around 13 per cent of Scots have rust-coloured locks, with an estimated further 40 per cent carrying the recessive redhead gene.
Famous flame-haired Scots include actors Ewan McGregor and Karen Gillan, singer Shirley Manson, Mary Queen of Scots, Scottish national football coach Gordon Strachan, and of course Willie, the cantankerous school janitor from The Simpsons.
"I've looked into the preponderance of the red-haired gene and my supposition is that it is a Norse gene, probably from Germanic and early Celtic roots," said Heddle.
"The only other density of red hair which compares to Scotland and Ireland is in Scandinavia. It becomes a cultural marker of the Norse and of the Vikings.
"If you look at where the red haired patterning is in Ireland, in particular, it is very much around the areas where Vikings settled."
Heddle believes a full scale study investigating the potential links between Nordic and Celtic hair colouring now needs to be carried out.
She said: "At the moment this is purely a theory, but there does appear to be some corroborating evidence.
"If you look at the dispersal patterns there would appear to be a clear connection between a dark red spot on Scotland and a dark red sport on the north of Scandinavia compared to the rest of Europe.
"Research has shown that 60 per cent of the DNA of modern males on the Orkney Islands, where there is a particularly high proportion of redheads, is Norwegian. That evidence backs up the idea of the clear genetic influence."
The Orkney-based academic is also keen to dispel perceptions that Vikings were little more than murderous barbarians.
She said: "Rather than being some kind of band of cutthroat, lawless pirates, hepped up to the back teeth on magic mushrooms, they were, in fact, a very organised and orderly society.
"They did have what can only be described as a hawk-like foreign policy, but when they arrived at a place they ruled it with the utmost legality. They were settlers and traders who left their imprint on our legal system, boat building techniques, literature, languages and place names, not to mention our appearance. The Norse are woven right through the tapestry of Scottish history and it is time that was recognised."
However, not everyone agrees. Dr Jim Wilson, an expert in genetic ancestry research, remains unconvinced by the idea that Norse raiders are at the root of Scotland's abundance of red hair.
The senior lecturer at Edinburgh University said: "There are redheads in Scandinavia and there doubtless were redheaded Vikings. Redheadedness is a north and western European trait, but the pattern of redheads in the British Isles is more consistent with the ancient indigenous Celtic inhabitants who were here before the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. The Vikings maybe brought a few red-hair genetic variants over with them, but the majority of redheads were already here."
Previously it has been argued that Scotland's poor climate was responsible for the high frequency of the ginger mutation. Emily Pritchard, a PhD genetics student at Edinburgh University, made global headlines when she published a paper postulating that in areas where summer temperatures were cooler, and winter days were shorter, people with ginger hair were more likely to survive and evolve. She argued that redhead's pale skin provided an evolutionary advantage as it allowed the body to produce large quantities of Vitamin D.
Last year deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman was forced to apologise to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat cabinet minister and Inverness MP, after she branded him a "ginger rodent" in a conference speech.
In August the UK's first ginger pride march took place in the centre of Edinburgh with the goal of celebrating red hair and combating prejudice.
http://thedockyards.com/red-hair/
Canaan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan
Canaan (/ˈkeɪnən/; Northwest Semitic: knaʿn; Phoenician: Biblical Hebrew/Masoretic: כְּנָעַן Kənā'an; Ḵənā'an) was a Semitic-speaking region in the Ancient Near East during the late 2nd millennium BC. In the Bible it corresponds to the Levant, in particular to the areas of the Southern Levant that provide the main setting of the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., the area of Israel, Philistia, Phoenicia, and other nations.
The name Canaan occurs commonly in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, the references in Genesis 10 and Numbers 34 define the "Land of Canaan" as extending from Lebanon southward to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley.
The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan.[1] Canaanite is by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible.[2] In the Book of Joshua, Canaanites are included in a list of nations to exterminate,[3] and later described as a group which the Israelites had annihilated.[4]
Archaeological attestation of the name Canaan in Ancient Near Eastern sources relates almost exclusively to the period in which the region operated as a colony of the New Kingdom of Egypt (16th–11th centuries BC), with usage of the name almost disappearing following the Late Bronze Age collapse (c. 1206–1150 BC).[5] The references suggest that during this period the term was familiar to the region's neighbors on all sides, although scholars have disputed to what extent such references provide a coherent description of its location and boundaries, and regarding whether the inhabitants used the term to describe themselves.[6] The Amarna Letters and other cuneiform documents use Kinaḫḫu [Kinakh'khu], while other sources of the Egyptian New Kingdom mention numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na.[7]
The name "Canaanites" (כְּנָעַנִיְם kənā'anīm, כְּנָעַנִי kənā'anī) is attested, many centuries later, as the endonym of the people later known to the Ancient Greeks from c. 500 BC as Phoenicians,[4] and following the emigration of Canaanite-speakers to Carthage (founded in the 9th century BC), was also used as a self-designation by the Punics (chanani) of North Africa during Late Antiquity.
Canaan had significant geopolitical importance in the Late Bronze Age Amarna period (14th century BC) as the area where the spheres of interest of the Egyptian, Hittite, Mitanni and Assyrian Empires converged. Much of modern knowledge about Canaan stems from archaeological excavation in this area at sites such as Tel Hazor, Tel Megiddo, and Gezer.
Culture
Canaan included what today are Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, northwestern Jordan, and some western areas of Syria.[55] According to archaeologist Jonathan N. Tubb, "Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites and Phoenicians undoubtedly achieved their own cultural identities, and yet ethnically they were all Canaanites", "the same people who settled in farming villages in the region in the 8th millennium BC."[56]
There is uncertainty about whether the name Canaan refers to a specific Semitic-speaking ethnic group wherever they live, the homeland of this ethnic group, or a region under the control of this ethnic group, or perhaps any combination of the three.
Canaanite civilization was a response to long periods of stable climate interrupted by short periods of climate change. During these periods, Canaanites profited from their intermediary position between the ancient civilizations of the Middle East—Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia (Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia), the Hittites, and Minoan Crete—to become city states of merchant princes along the coast, with small kingdoms specializing in agricultural products in the interior. This polarity, between coastal towns and agrarian hinterland, was illustrated in Canaanite mythology by the struggle between the storm god, variously called Teshub (Hurrian) or Ba'al Hadad (Semitic Amorite/Aramean) and Ya'a, Yaw, Yahu or Yam, god of the sea and rivers. Early Canaanite civilization was characterized by small walled market towns, surrounded by peasant farmers growing a range of local horticultural products, along with commercial growing of olives, grapes for wine, and pistachios, surrounded by extensive grain cropping, predominantly wheat and barley. Harvest in early summer was a season when transhumance nomadism was practiced—shepherds staying with their flocks during the wet season and returning to graze them on the harvested stubble, closer to water supplies in the summer. Evidence of this cycle of agriculture is found in the Gezer calendar and in the biblical cycle of the year.
Periods of rapid climate change generally saw a collapse of this mixed Mediterranean farming system; commercial production was replaced with subsistence agricultural foodstuffs; and transhumance pastoralism became a year-round nomadic pastoral activity, whilst tribal groups wandered in a circular pattern north to the Euphrates, or south to the Egyptian delta with their flocks. Occasionally, tribal chieftains would emerge, raiding enemy settlements and rewarding loyal followers from the spoils or by tariffs levied on merchants. Should the cities band together and retaliate, a neighbouring state intervene or should the chieftain suffer a reversal of fortune, allies would fall away or intertribal feuding would return. It has been suggested that the Patriarchal tales of the Bible reflect such social forms.[57] During the periods of the collapse of Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia and the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, the Hyksos invasions and the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Assyria and Babylonia, and the Late Bronze Age collapse, trade through the Canaanite area would dwindle, as Egypt, Babylonia, and to a lesser degree Assyria, withdrew into their isolation. When the climates stabilized, trade would resume firstly along the coast in the area of the Philistine and Phoenician cities. As markets redeveloped, new trade routes that would avoid the heavy tariffs of the coast would develop from Kadesh Barnea, through Hebron, Lachish, Jerusalem, Bethel, Samaria, Shechem, Shiloh through Galilee to Jezreel, Hazor and Megiddo. Secondary Canaanite cities would develop in this region. Further economic development would see the creation of a third trade route from Eilath, Timna, Edom (Seir), Moab, Ammon and thence to the Aramean states of Damascus and Palmyra. Earlier states (for example the Philistines and Tyrians in the case of Judah and Samaria, for the second route, and Judah and Israel for the third route) tried generally unsuccessfully to control the interior trade.[58]
Eventually, the prosperity of this trade would attract more powerful regional neighbours, such as Ancient Egypt, Assyria, the Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks and Romans, who would control the Canaanites politically, levying tribute, taxes and tariffs. Often in such periods, thorough overgrazing would result in a climatic collapse and a repeat of the cycle (e.g., PPNB, Ghassulian, Uruk, and the Bronze Age cycles already mentioned). The fall of later Canaanite civilization occurred with the incorporation of the area into the Greco-Roman world (as Iudaea province), and after Byzantine times, into the Muslim Arab and proto-Muslim Umayyad Caliphate. Western Aramaic, one of the two lingua francas of Canaanite civilization, is still spoken in a number of small Syrian villages, whilst Phoenician Canaanite disappeared as a spoken language in about 100 AD. A separate Akkadian-infused Eastern Aramaic is still spoken by the existing Assyrians of Iraq, Iran, northeast Syria and southeast Turkey.
Tel Kabri contains the remains of a Canaanite city from the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1550 BC). The city, the most important of the cities in the Western Galilee during that period, had a palace at its center. Tel Kabri is the only Canaanite city that can be excavated in its entirety because after the city was abandoned, no other city was built over its remains. It is notable because the predominant extra-Canaanite cultural influence is Minoan; Minoan-style frescoes decorate the palace.[59]
Promised Land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land
The Promised Land (Hebrew: הארץ המובטחת, translit.: Ha'Aretz HaMuvtahat; Arabic: أرض الميعاد, translit.: Ard Al-Mi'ad; also known as "The Land of Milk and Honey") is the land which, according to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), was promised and subsequently given by God to Abraham and his descendants, and in modern contexts an image and idea related both to the restored Homeland for the Jewish people and to salvation and liberation is more generally understood.
The promise was first made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), then confirmed to his son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), and then to Isaac's son Jacob (Genesis 28:13), Abraham's grandson. The promised land was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river (Exodus 23:31). A smaller area of former Canaanite land and land east of the Jordan River was conquered and occupied by their descendants, the Israelites, after Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt (Numbers 34:1-12), and this occupation was interpreted as God's fulfilment of the promise (Deuteronomy 1:8). Moses anticipated that God might subsequently give the Israelites land reflecting the boundaries of God's original promise, if they were obedient to the covenant (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).
The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through whom they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region.[1]
The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in Negro spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, often which can only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King Jr.:
"I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
Divine promise
The promise that is the basis of the term is contained in several verses of Genesis in the Torah. In Genesis 12:1 it is said:
The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you."
and in Genesis 12:7:
The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [or seed] I will give this land."
Commentators have noted several problems with this promise and related ones:
It is to Abram's descendants that the land will (in the future tense) be given, not to Abram directly nor there and then. However, in Genesis 15:7 it is said: He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it." However, how this verse relates to the promises is a matter of controversy.
There is nothing in the promise to indicate God intended it be applied to Abraham's physical descendants unconditionally, exclusively (to nobody but these descendants), exhaustively (to all of them) or in perpetuity.[2]
Jewish commentators drawing on Rashi's comments to the first verse in the Bible, assert that no human collective ever has any a priori claim to any piece of land on the planet, and that only God decides which group inhabits which land in any point in time. This interpretation has no contradictions since the idea that the Jewish people have a claim to ownership rights on the physical land is based on the idea of God deciding to give the land to the Jewish people and commanding them to occupy it as referred to in Biblical texts previously mentioned.
In Genesis 15:18-21 the boundary of the promised land is clarified in terms of the territory of various ancient peoples, as follows:
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaite, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."
The verse is said to describe what are known as "borders of the Land" (Gevulot Ha-aretz).[3] In Jewish tradition, these borders define the maximum extent of the land promised to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.[4]
The promise was confirmed to Jacob at Genesis 28:13, though the borders are still vague and is in terms of "the land on which you are lying". Other geographical borders are given in Exodus 23:31 which describes borders as marked by the Red Sea, the "Sea of the Philistines" i.e. the Mediterranean, and the "River," (the Euphrates).
The promise is fulfilled at the end of the Exodus from Egypt. Deuteronomy 1:8 says:
See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.
It took a long time before the Israelites could subdue the Canaanite inhabitants of the land. The furthest extent of the Land of Israel was achieved during the time of the united Kingdom of Israel under David.[5][6] The actual land controlled by the Israelites has fluctuated considerably over time, and at times the land has been under the control of various empires. However, under Jewish tradition, even when it is not in Jewish occupation, the land has not lost its status as the Promised Land.
Descendants of Abraham
Traditional Jewish interpretation, and that of most Christian commentators, define Abraham's descendants as Abraham's seed only through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau.[4][7][8][9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This may however reflect an eisegesis or reconstruction of primary verses based on the later biblical emphasis of Jacob's descendants. The promises given to Abraham happened prior to the birth of Isaac and were given to all his offspring signified through the rite of circumcision. Johann Friedrich Karl Keil is less clear, as he states that the covenant is through Isaac, but notes that Ishmael's descendants have held much of that land through time.[17]
Mainstream Jewish tradition regards the promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having been given to all Jews, including proselytes and in turn their descendants,[18] with the traditional view being that a convert becomes a child of Abraham, as in the term "ben Avraham".[citation needed]
Christian interpretation
In the New Testament, the descent and promise is reinterpreted along religious lines.[19] In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul the Apostle draws attention to the formulation of the promise, avoiding the term "seeds" in plural (meaning many people), choosing instead "seed," meaning one person, who, he understands to be Jesus (and those united with him). For example, in Galatians 3:16 he notes:
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ."
In Galatians 3:28-29 Paul goes further, noting that the expansion of the promise from singular to the plural is not based on genetic/physical association, but a spiritual/religious one:
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."[2]
In Romans 4:13 it is written:
"It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."
Genesis 17:8
Great Britain Olympic football team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Olympic_football_team
The Great Britain Olympic football team is the men's football team that represents the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) at the Summer Olympic Games (where it competes as Great Britain, currently branded Team GB). The team is organised by the English Football Association (FA) as the footballing representative of the British Olympic Association. The team only competes in the Olympic Games. In other international football tournaments, the Home Nations of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are represented by their own national teams, a situation which pre-dated the establishment of a GB team.
The team first competed at the FA organised tournament for the 1908 Olympics held in London, which was the first games that featured representative teams using players selected nationally (prior games in 1900 and 1904 used club teams). This team and the two that followed in 1912 and 1920 featured only English amateur players, and is seen by some as merely an extension of the English amateur team, set up in 1906 in response to the rise of the professional game.[3] In this period the team won the gold medal at the 1908 and 1912 tournaments, although exited at Round 1 in 1920. A dispute between the FA and FIFA over the inclusion of professionals saw the FA withdraw from Olympic football in 1924 and 1928, and saw no football at the Olympics at all in 1932.[1]
After the creation of the FIFA World Cup, it was agreed that Olympic football would become exclusively amateur,[4] leading to the team competing again in the 1936 Games, this time incorporating players from other Home Nations. After the break caused by World War II, the team then competed in every games from 1948 until 1972, albeit failing to qualify for the main tournament after 1960.[1] In this period the team's best performance was 4th place in 1948 at the second Games hosted in London, under manager Matt Busby.[1]
After the FA abolished the distinction between amateur and professional players in 1974, it stopped entering a team.[3] By the 1992 Games teams could use professionals, but were restricted to players under 23 years old, with only three over-age players allowed per squad.[4] Despite this change, Great Britain did not enter a football team again until London won the right to host the 2012 Games.[5][6] The FA organised the team, with Stuart Pearce appointed manager.[7] A Great Britain women's Olympic football team also competed at the 2012 Games.
Origins
The FA was formed in London 1863, when thirteen teams met to draw up a shared rule list for football, in order to facilitate matches between clubs.[8] The question of the geographical remit of this organisation does not appear to have been asked, with the FA being formed before the rise of international football. The first football matches between national teams were arranged by the FA, who invited English and Scottish players to form representative teams.[8] The Scottish teams were made up almost entirely of Scottish residents in England and in order to encourage more Scottish based players to compete, an organisation in Scotland was sought to form the Scottish team.[8] For the 1872 game between Scotland and England in Glasgow, Queen's Park Football Club took on this role, and this game is now recognised as the first international match.[9] Within a year, the Scottish Football Association (SFA) was founded to facilitate these matches, and to organise football in Scotland more broadly. The third national football association, the Football Association of Wales was founded in 1876 and a fourth, the Irish Football Association, (IFA), was founded in 1880.
The practice of playing internationals between the four countries of the United Kingdom (also known as the home nations) was thus developed before football associations were developed elsewhere in the world and, no 'United Kingdom football association' was ever formed.[1] Outside of the UK, the first national associations were formed in 1889 (in Denmark and the Netherlands),[1] and these also began to pick their own national teams. When football was included at the 1900 Olympic Games, however, many nations were still struggling to raise a team,[1] and so club teams entered instead. Upton Park represented the UK, winning the gold medal.[3]
New EU map makes Kent part of same 'nation' as France
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527886/New-EU-map-makes-Kent-part-of-same-nation-as-France.html
By Jasper Copping and Melissa Kite
12:01AM BST 03 Sep 2006
They have tried to redraw the map of Europe before. Now a German-led "conspiracy of cartographers" stands accused of trying to use a new European Union directive to give Brussels the power to change national boundaries.
The Conservative Party fears that the directive, currently passing through the European Parliament, could be the first step of a Berlin-inspired masterplan to create a United States of Europe divided, not into nation states, but instead a series of "trans-national" regions, the templates for which have already been drawn up.
Under the changes, those living in Kent and East Sussex would find themselves not inhabitants of Britain, but the TransManche region, where their fellow citizens would not be their English-speaking neighbours but the French-speaking population of northern France.
North of the TransManche would be the North Sea region, taking in all of eastern England and vast areas of Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries.
Western Britain and Ireland would become the Atlantic region, a huge zone that also takes in parts of France, Spain and Portugal.
Perhaps most bizarre would be the Northern Periphery region, lumping together the population of north-west Scotland with their very distant cousins in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland and Iceland.
Draft outlines of these regions have already been drawn up as part of a long-running EU project called Interreg, which has created the areas to foster cross-border- co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment.
The EU says that the directive on "spatial information", which requires all member states to bring their maps and data into line with the European Commission's specifications, is to help to harmonise data across Europe and allow the smoother implementation of social, environmental and transport policies.
However, the Conservative Party fears that the Germans, who are among the most vocal supporters of transnationality, will use it as a tool to dismantle nation states by strengthening and enhancing the regional templates when they take over the EU presidency next year. In June, Wolfgang Tiefensee, a German minister, said: "There is the great hope underlying the goal of a United Europe that we can permanently overcome old borders."
Eric Pickles, the shadow minister for local government and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, said: "Under the Labour Government, Britain has already been sub-divided into regions as part of John Prescott's empire building, yet worse could be to come.
"A conspiracy of cartographers in Brussels is seeking to break up Britain into regions that cross national boundaries. I fear that there is an agenda to undermine national identities and impose a United States of Europe by stealth. Conservatives will fight these attempts to balkanise Britain."
Under the directive, Brussels will also gain access to "spies in the sky" – data provided by satellite and airborne photography and sensors – in addition to property information about people's homes. Critics believe this is a precursor to Brussels creating a new computer database, with which to levy an EU-wide property tax.
Andrew Duff, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the East of England, described the Conservative reaction to the directive and the creation of transnational regions as "childish baloney. This directive is trying to achieve a norm of statistics across Europe to develop social policy, transport infrastructure and so on," he said. "It is just a tool for policy-making."
Leicester Population 2017
http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/leicester-population/
Leicester is not just one of the largest cities in England, it is also one of the oldest. The city dates to the first century B.C. and now owes its popularity to several factors. Leicester is located on two main rail lines running through the heart of the country and has had some recent fame from winning the 2016 Premier League – the first English winner in quite a few decades. The population of Leicester is certainly booming and this very old city looks likely to grow for the foreseeable future.
Demographics
England carries out a new census every 10 years. The last census was in 2011 with the previous in 2001. The 2011 census showed that the current population had reached 329,939. That was an 11.8% increase from the 2001 census. The population density of Leicester shows that the city is currently quite popular as there are 4,494 people per kilometer in the city. These numbers do not include the outlying suburban areas of Leicester where the overall population is substantially higher at 509,000.
Religion
The religious aspects of Leicester are not as diverse as other cities throughout the world, but this is changing as more and more people convert to other religions and the population continues to grow. Currently, Christianity dominates at 32.4% of the overall population. The second religion that is popular in Leicester is Islam, with Muslims making up 18.6% of the population. Hindus are close to Muslims at 15.2% and growing with each passing year. Other religions in Leicester representing smaller proportions of the population are Sikhs at 4.4%, Buddhism at .4% and Jews at .1% of the overall population. Other religions make up .6% of the population and, at 22.8%, a significant number of the population claims to have no religious affiliation.
Education
Leicester has not become a popular city simply because of its proximity to the rail lines. Its popularity also has a lot to do with the educational opportunities in the city. The statistics show that only 8% of the overall population of Leicester lacks at least a high school diploma. Those that have had some high school education or graduated are at 14.3%. The largest percentage are individuals that have had some college education in apprenticeships and trade schools at 31.5%. Associates degrees make up 12.3% of the population, while bachelor degrees make up 23.9%. Those working towards advanced degrees do find themselves in a minority position as only 10% of the population pursues graduate degrees of some form.
Crime Rate
In some cities, crime rates are not something that is commonly talked about, but Leicester is quite a different story. The crime rates for all the standard crimes in the city are far below the national average. The only exception to that rule is the number of burglaries in Leicester. They are 117.17 points above the national average. That is certainly not bad for a city of this size.
Hindu–Islamic relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Islamic_relations
Hinduism is a diversity-filled socio-religious way of life of the Hindu people of the Indian subcontinent, their diaspora, and some other regions which had Hindu influence in the ancient and medieval times. In Hinduism God can be worshiped in the name one believes or in the form one believes and allows idol worship, hence Hinduism's concept of God does not contradict the concept of Allah, the Islamic God. Islam is a monotheistic religion in which the supreme deity is Allah (Arabic: الله "the God": see God in Islam), the last Islamic prophet being Muhammad, whom Muslims believe delivered the Islamic scripture, the Qur'an. Hinduism mostly shares common terms with the dhārmic religions, including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Islam shares common terms with the Abrahamic religions–those religions claiming descent from Abraham–being, from oldest to youngest, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i Faith.
The Qur'an and the Hadiths are the primary Islamic scriptures. The scriptures of Hinduism are the Shrutis (the four Vedas, which comprise the original Vedic Hymns, or Samhitas, and three tiers of commentaries upon the Samhitas, namely the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads[1]); these are considered authentic, authoritative divine revelation. Furthermore, Hinduism is also based on the Smritis, including the Rāmāyana, the Bhagavad Gītā, and the Purānas, which are also considered to be equally sacred.
Hinduism and Islam share some ritual practices such as fasting and pilgrimage, but differ in their views on apostasy, blasphemy, circumcision, consanguineous marriages, idol making, henotheism, social stratification, vegetarianism, and Ahimsa as a virtue. Their historical interaction since the 7th century has witnessed periods of cooperation and syncretism, as well as periods of religious violence.
Theology and Concept of God
Islam is a system of thought that believes in absolute monotheism, called Tawḥīd.[2] Muslims are required to affirm daily, as one of the five pillars of Islam, in Shahada, that is "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."[3][4]
Hinduism is a system of thought that believes in varied traditions. In the Upanishads, one popular interpretation is the Advaita Vedanta tradition. It is absolute monism. A person finds the truth when realizing his/her true nature or the pure soul or self (atman). When the person is devoid of ignorance the person realizes that their inner self (atman) is the Brahman (the ultimate reality). Till the person realizes this truth, the person is usually of ignorance and therefore thinks everything around them is real and indulges in it, when it's actually not and is an illusion (maya). The Brahman which is absolute and pure and the atman which is absolute and pure also are the same in this school of thought. When the person singularly focus on 'I' and indulges in self-enquiry, study of texts, ethical perfection and jnana and the self, they realize the Brahman and don't depend on the material.
Dan Glazebrook's latest op ed is an excellent analysis of the ongoing war against humanity.
West eyes recolonization of Africa by endless war; removing Gaddafi was just first step
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407332-gaddafi-west-sirte-recolonization/
A man stands next to destroyed and damaged buildings in Sabri, a central Benghazi district, Libya © Esam Omran Al-Fetori / Reuters
Exactly six years ago, on October 20th, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was murdered, joining a long list of African revolutionaries martyred by the West for daring to dream of continental independence.
Earlier that day, Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte had been occupied by Western-backed militias, following a month-long battle during which NATO and its 'rebel' allies pounded the city's hospitals and homes with artillery, cut off its water and electricity, and publicly proclaimed their desire to 'starve [the city] into submission'. The last defenders of the city, including Gaddafi, fled Sirte that morning, but their convoy was tracked and strafed by NATO jets, killing 95 people. Gaddafi escaped the wreckage but was captured shortly afterward. I will spare you the gruesome details, which the Western media gloatingly broadcast across the world as a triumphant snuff movie, suffice to say that he was tortured and eventually shot dead.
We now know, if testimony from NATO's key Libyan ally Mahmoud Jibril is to be believed, it was a foreign agent, likely French, who delivered the fatal bullet. His death was the culmination of not only seven months of NATO aggression, but of a campaign against Gaddafi and his movement, the West had been waging for over three decades.
Yet it was also the opening salvo in a new war - a war for the militarily recolonization of Africa.
The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi's murder, was a pivotal one for US-African relations. First, because China overtook the US as the continent's largest trading partner; and second because Gaddafi was elected president of the African Union.
The significance of both for the decline of US influence on the continent could not be clearer. While Gaddafi was spearheading attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was quietly smashing the West's monopoly over export markets and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China - or indeed Libya - for investment. And if the US threatened to cut them off from their markets, China would happily buy up whatever was on offer. Western economic domination of Africa was under threat as never before.
The response from the West, of course, was a military one. Economic dependence on the West - rapidly being shattered by Libya and China - would be replaced by a new military dependence. If African countries would no longer come begging for Western loans, export markets, and investment finance, they would have to be put in a position where they would come begging for Western military aid.
To this end, AFRICOM - the US army's new 'African command' - had been launched the previous year, but humiliatingly for George W. Bush, not a single African country would agree to host its HQ; instead, it was forced to open shop in Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi had led African opposition to AFRICOM, as exasperated US diplomatic memos later revealed by WikiLeaks made clear. And US pleas to African leaders to embrace AFRICOM in the 'fight against terrorism' fell on deaf ears.
After all, as Mutassim Gaddafi, head of Libyan security, had explained to Hillary Clinton in 2009, North Africa already had an effective security system in place, through the African Union's 'standby forces,' on the one hand, and CEN-SAD on the other. CEN-SAD was a regional security organization of Sahel and Saharan states, with a well-functioning security system, with Libya as the lynchpin. The sophisticated Libyan-led counter-terror structure meant there was simply no need for a US military presence. The job of Western planners, then, was to create such a need.
NATO's destruction of Libya simultaneously achieved three strategic goals for the West's plans for military expansion in Africa. Most obviously, it removed the biggest obstacle and opponent of such expansion, Gaddafi himself. With Gaddafi gone, and with a quiescent pro-NATO puppet government in charge of Libya, there was no longer any chance that Libya would act as a powerful force against Western militarism. Quite the contrary - Libya's new government was utterly dependent on such militarism and knew it.
Secondly, NATO's aggression served to bring about a total collapse of the delicate but effective North African security system, which had been underpinned by Libya. And finally, NATO's annihilation of the Libyan state effectively turned the country over to the region's death squads and terror groups. These groups were then able to loot Libya's military arsenals and set up training camps at their leisure, using these to expand operations right across the region.
It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in North Africa - not to mention Manchester - have been either prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya. Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali's Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly benefited from the destruction of Libya.
By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the Western powers had magically created a demand for their military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had literally created a protection racket for Africa.
In an excellent piece of research published last year, Nick Turse wrote how the increase in AFRICOM operations across the continent has correlated precisely with the rise in terror threats. Its growth, he said, has been accompanied by "increasing numbers of lethal terror attacks across the continent including those in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Tunisia.
In fact, data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland shows that attacks have spiked over the last decade, roughly coinciding with AFRICOM's establishment. In 2007, just before it became an independent command, there were fewer than 400 such incidents annually in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, the number reached nearly 2,000. By AFRICOM's own official standards, of course, this is a demonstration of a massive failure. Viewed from the perspective of the protection racket, however, it is a resounding success, with US military power smoothly reproducing the conditions for its own expansion.
This is the Africa policy Trump has now inherited. But because this policy has rarely been understood as the protection racket it really is, many commentators have, as with so many of Trump's policies, mistakenly believed he is somehow 'ignoring' or 'reversing' the approach of his predecessors. In fact, far from abandoning this approach, Trump is escalating it with relish.
What the Trump administration is doing, as it is doing in pretty much every policy area, is stripping the previous policy of its 'soft power' niceties to reveal and extend the iron fist which has in fact been in the driving seat all along. Trump, with his open disdain for Africa, has effectively ended US development aid for Africa - slashing overall African aid levels by one third, and transferring responsibility for much of the rest from the Agency for International Development to the Pentagon - while openly tying aid to the advancement of "US national security objectives."
'US has enough roles': #Trump not interested in #Libya nation-building
Read more: https://t.co/Cf0ndYHdoPpic.twitter.com/OfJDndQaL8
— RT America (@RT_America) April 20, 2017
In other words, the US has made a strategic decision to drop the carrot in favor of the stick. Given the overwhelming superiority of Chinese development assistance, this is unsurprising. The US has decided to stop trying to compete in this area, and instead to ruthlessly and unambiguously pursue the military approach which the Bush and Obama administrations had already mapped out.
To this end, Trump has stepped up drone attacks, removing the (limited) restrictions that had been in place during the Obama era. The result has been a ramping up of civilian casualties, and consequently of the resentment and hatred which fuels militant recruitment. It is unlikely to be a coincidence, for example, that the al Shabaab truck bombing that killed over 300 people in Mogadishu last weekend was carried out by a man from a town in which had suffered a major drone attack on civilians, including women and children, in August.
Indeed, a detailed study by the United Nations recently concluded that in "a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa." Of more than 500 former members of militant organizations interviewed for the report, 71 percent pointed to "government action," including "killing of a family member or friend" or "arrest of a family member or friend" as the incident that prompted them to join a group. And so the cycle continues: drone attacks breed recruitment, which produces further terror attacks, which leaves the states involved more dependent on US military support. Thus does the West create the demand for its own 'products.'
It does so in another way as well. Alexander Cockburn, in his book 'Kill Chain,' explains how the policy of 'targeted killings' - another Obama policy ramped up under Trump - also increases the militancy of insurgent groups. Cockburn, reporting on a discussion with US soldiers about the efficacy of targeted killings, wrote that: "When the topic of conversation came round to ways of defeating the [roadside] bombs, everyone was in agreement. They would have charts up on the wall showing the insurgent cells they were facing, often with the names and pictures of the guys running them," Rivolo remembers. "When we asked about going after the high-value individuals and what effect it was having, they'd say, 'Oh yeah, we killed that guy last month, and we're getting more IEDs than ever.' They all said the same thing, point blank: 'Once you knock them off, a day later you have a new guy who's smarter, younger, more aggressive and is out for revenge."'
Alex de Waal has written how this is certainly true in Somalia, where, he says, "each dead leader is followed by a more radical deputy. After a failed attempt in January 2007, the US killed Al Shabaab's commander, Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, in a May 2008 air strike. Ayro's successor, Ahmed Abdi Godane (alias Mukhtar Abu Zubair), was worse, affiliating the organization with Al-Qaeda. The US succeeded in assassinating Godane in September 2014. In turn, Godane was succeeded by an even more determined extremist, Ahmad Omar (Abu Ubaidah). It was presumably Omar who ordered the recent attack in Mogadishu, the worst in the country's recent history. If targeted killing remains a central strategy of the War on Terror", De Waal wrote, "it is set to be an endless war."
But endless war is the whole point. For not only does it force African countries, finally freeing themselves from dependence on the IMF, into dependence on AFRICOM; it also undermines China's blossoming relationship with Africa.
Chinese trade and investment in Africa continues to grow apace. According to the China-Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins University, Chinese FDI stocks in Africa had risen from just two percent of the value of US stocks in 2003 to 55 percent in 2015, when they totaled $35 billion. This proportion is likely to rapidly increase, given that "Between 2009 and 2012, China's direct investment in Africa grew at an annual rate of 20.5 percent, while levels of US FDI flows to Africa declined by $8 billion in the wake of the global financial crisis". Chinese-African trade, meanwhile, topped $200 billion in 2015.
China's signature 'One Belt One Road' policy - to which President Xi Jinping has pledged $124 billion to create global trade routes designed to facilitate $2 trillion worth of annual trade - will also help to improve African links with China. Trump's policy toward the project was summarised by Steve Bannon, his ideological mentor, and former chief strategist in just eight words: "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road." The West's deeply destabilizing Africa policy - of simultaneously creating the conditions for armed groups to thrive while offering protection against them - goes some way toward realizing this ambitious goal. Removing Gaddafi was just the first step.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Catherine Shakdam's op ed creates the opportunity for definable dialogue:
Dying in Myanmar – When genocide becomes normative rather than aberrational
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/407094-dying-myanmar-genocide-violence/
A Rohingya refugee woman who crossed the border from Myanmar a day before, carries her daughter and searches for help, in Palang Khali, Bangladesh October 17, 2017. © Jorge Silva / Reuters
It's official. Myanmar, according to the UN in its latest report, has given in to wanton murder and systematic oppression to cleanse its streets of its designated undesirables: Rohingya Muslims. However, violence is but the tip of that iceberg.
"Myanmar security forces have driven out half a million Muslim Rohingya from northern Rakhine state, torching their homes, crops, and villages to prevent them from returning," the UN human rights office said on October 11, warning that the findings confirmed atrocious human rights violations, including, but not limited to: rape, murder, and torture of children.
There is something utterly perverse in the targeting of children. It is not so much that their vulnerability commands we offer them protection, but that their very existence represents the future of a people - in this particular case Rohingya Muslims. There is something to be said of the systematic targeting of children when ethnic cleansing becomes a state's primary political narrative.
I would say that Myanmar has long confirmed what many rights activists and experts had decried when it turned repression into a general exercise of ethnic cleansing with a strong sectarian undertone. For all the guilt Aung San Suu Kyi (the leader of the National League for Democracy and the first and incumbent State Counselor, a position akin to a prime minister) may presently carry upon her shoulders, Myanmar's brush with genocide began decades ago when its seat of power choose to anchor its national identity in exclusionism.
Rohingya Muslims' plight crystallized in 1982 when Myanmar introduced a series of law and regulations demanding that all wannabe Burmese proved ancestry as far back as 1823, thus automatically outlawing entire segments of society.
While Rohingya Muslims' suffering may only have reached our screen, their reality has been one the United Nations has decried as profoundly troublesome by the nature of the persecution they have faced.
"The Rohingyas are one of the most persecuted groups in the world,"stated the UN earlier this September.
"A textbook example of ethnic cleansing," Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein asserted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Whichever way one chooses to look at Myanmar, it is somewhat evident that oppression and more pertinently mass-murder has been run from the highest office in the land as part of an agenda which roots are anchored in Myanmar's own sense of national sovereignty. Again, for all the guilt Aung San Suu Kyi should ultimately answer to, our criticism needs to carry further if truly we are to offer justice to Myanmar's victims.
I would argue that Myanmar's genocidal tendencies are a reflection of a malady, or rather an agenda that seeks to rationalize ethnic and/or sectarian-based cleansing as a normative weapon of war - no longer the aberration to be frowned upon, genocide could then be reinvented as an affirmation of a country's national identity. We would do well to remember that only a few decades ago certain European capitals entertained that very idea ... fascism, as it were, remains a powerful plague elites love to flirt with to assert their hold over the political narrative.
If one looks beyond Myanmar to recognize emerging patterns, then connecting those proverbial dots becomes child's play indeed. In that terrible chess game, Myanmar is but one pawn.
I will urge readers here not to get bogged down by numbers or even geography, but instead focus on intent. From Bahrain to Yemen, Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan, specific ethnic and religious groups have suffered either at the hands of governments or armed militants backed by governments. I am not interested in naming those aforementioned governments. I would much rather concentrate on unveiling those dynamics we too often blank out.
'Humanitarian nightmare': Over 500k #Rohingya refugees flee Myanmar violence https://t.co/ZHPqpV4FeDpic.twitter.com/yZIcTgHVQa
— RT (@RT_com) September 30, 2017
Murder, organized socio-political oppression, forced migration, disenfranchisement based on ethnicity or faith, torture, rape, starvation ... those have been the weapons of an elite against designated targets. Which targets have been systematically dehumanized and their suffering watered-down for the sake of geopolitical pragmatism.
One may recall how in 2016 Britain was accused of "waging a behind-the-scenes PR offensive aimed at neutering United Nations criticism of Bahrain for its human rights record, including the alleged use of torture by its security forces."
One may also recall the glee with which the United States provided Saudi Arabia with weapons in the face of Riyadh's implacable war with neighboring Yemen, or again how Henry Kissinger argued the safeguard of ISIS as a means to thwart Iran's traction within the Greater Middle East.
Of course, numbers and intensity have varied! Of course one cannot compare Myanmar's losses, in August the European Rohingya Council reported that an estimated 3,000 Rohingya Muslims had been massacred within three days, and that of Bahrain for example. And yet the nature of the agenda behind such violence is one and the same.
I will posit however that one life is worth that of humanity in general, and that one loss equates to that of our humanity.
In a report for the Daily Telegraph Nicola Smith covered a rather worrying, and yet telling development in the systematic targeting of the Rohingyas: organized starvation.
.@antonioguterres has described the #Rohingya crisis as "the world's fastest developing refugee emergency." https://t.co/LIHCbDps37pic.twitter.com/GWHCrLTcIp
— IOM (@UNmigration) September 29, 2017
She writes: "The Burmese army is now using starvation as a new cruel tactic to drive the remaining communities of the Muslim Rohingya minority out of Burma."
And: "A fresh surge of refugees driven by fears of starvation and violence fled to Bangladesh on Monday. But many others have been stranded on Burma's Maungdaw beach, without food or shelter and unable to pay traffickers to take them across the River Naf to safety."
How is Myanmar's modus operandi against its own designated enemy any different from Saudi Arabia's decision to man a humanitarian blockade against Yemen in its desire to break people's will and die out the opposition, especially if we consider the narrative behind such actions is sectarian-based?
It is because we have failed to uphold international norms by arguing exceptionalism that the abhorrent has become normative and the unspeakable the new normal.
That I believe is the real tragedy lurking behind Myanmar's massacre of Rohingya Muslims.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth:
"Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far.
Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never been stronger.
And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it's long been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a week.
And if that isn't impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes USED military equipment.
And if newness doesn't win everyone's heart, then BEAUTIFUL will definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.
And the best in the world. Of course. That's what makes us all proud to be Americans. And what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy.
And in case you don't fully appreciate that, notice that he adds that it's the best ANYWHERE in the world.
And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! Makes me choke up.
Lucky for the man ... his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment.
He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/capturing-the-wisdom-and-beauty-of-donald-j-trump-the-american-military-has-never-been-stronger/5614492 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/capturing-the-wisdom-and-beauty-of-donald-j-trump-the-american-military-has-never-been-stronger/5614492)
History of Anglo-Saxon England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England
Anglo-Saxon England was early medieval England, existing from the 5th to the 11th century from the end of Roman Britain until the Norman conquest in 1066. It consisted of various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until 927 when it was united as the Kingdom of England by King Æthelstan (r. 927–939). It became part of the North Sea Empire of Cnut the Great, a personal union between England, Denmark and Norway in the 11th century.
The Anglo-Saxons were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural descendants. Anglo-Saxon history thus begins during the period of Sub-Roman Britain following the end of Roman control, and traces the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th and 6th centuries (conventionally identified as seven main kingdoms: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex), their Christianisation during the 7th century, the threat of Viking invasions and Danish settlers, the gradual unification of England under Wessex hegemony during the 9th and 10th centuries, and ending with the Norman conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066.
Anglo-Saxon identity survived beyond the Norman conquest,[1] came to be known as Englishry under Norman rule and ultimately developed into the modern English people.
Harold Godwinson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson
Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. Harold reigned from 6 January 1066[1] until his death at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October, fighting the Norman invaders led by William the Conqueror during the Norman conquest of England. His death marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule over England.
Harold was a powerful earl and member of a prominent Anglo-Saxon family with ties to Cnut the Great. Upon the death of Edward the Confessor in January 1066, the Witenagemot convened and chose Harold to succeed; he was crowned in Westminster Abbey. In late September, he successfully repelled an invasion by rival claimant Harald Hardrada of Norway before marching his army back south to meet William the Conqueror at Hastings some two weeks later.
Battle of Hastings
On 12 September 1066 William's fleet sailed from Normandy.[e] Several ships sank in storms, which forced the fleet to take shelter at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and to wait for the wind to change. On 27 September the Norman fleet finally set sail for England, arriving, it is believed,[by whom?] the following day at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex. Harold's army marched 241 miles (386 kilometres) to intercept William, who had landed perhaps 7,000 men in Sussex, southern England. Harold established his army in hastily built earthworks near Hastings. The two armies clashed at the Battle of Hastings, at Senlac Hill (near the present town of Battle) close by Hastings on 14 October, where after nine hours of hard fighting, Harold was killed and his forces defeated. His brothers Gyrth and Leofwine were also killed in the battle, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Too tired to fight? Harold Godwinson's Saxon army on the march in 1066
https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/mwblog/too-tired-to-fight-harold-godwinsons-saxon-army-on-the-march-in-1066/
The Battle of Hastings was arguably the most important action ever fought on British soil. There, on 14 October 1066, William "the Bastard", Duke of Normandy, won a kingdom and changed the face of Britain forever.
Many historians postulate that the Saxon army which encountered the Normans at Hastings was already greatly depleted by a forced march from the earlier Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire on 25 September 1066. Certainly King Harold's Saxon army was having a busy autumn. Near the end of September they had marched the 200 miles (320 km) from London to Yorkshire to repel the invading forces of the Viking ruler Harald Hardrada and his ally, the English king's brother-turned traitor-Tostig. Then, at the end of the month, the Saxon King received the unpleasant tidings that Duke William had landed on the south coast of Britain. Turning his army about, Harold had no alternative but to march all the way back south in order to meet the new, but not unexpected, Norman threat. By contemporary Western standards this sounds like a tall order, and it is frequently argued that only the elite mounted Saxon housecarls would have been able to make the journey in time.
The question remains as to whether the arduous trek from Yorkshire materially reduced the numerical strength and combat effectiveness of Harold's army as it raced 270 miles (432 km) for the Sussex coast to confront the Norman invaders. It did not. Why? Because the Saxon army which fought the Normans at Hastings was not the same bloodied Saxon host which triumphed at Stamford Bridge.
King Harold's army marches north
The lightning campaign Harold conducted in the north of England against the Norsemen of Harald Hardrada and Tostig was masterful in that it involved speed, surprise and overcoming very difficult terrain. Northern Britain in the mid-eleventh century was divided culturally and politically from the rest of the nation, and was generally left to its own devices. Hard to reach – only a few roads traversed the Humber Estuary and the bogs and swamps of Yorkshire and Cheshire connecting the north and south – the north was an isolated and barren region. The 200 mile (320 km) journey from London to York usually took two weeks, or more depending if the roads were passable.
The fastest way to travel from the south to the north of England was by ship along the country's east coast. Unfortunately for Harold, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a few days before he heard of the Viking incursion in the north, he had disbanded his army which he had assembled some months before in anticipation of an appearance by the hostile William Duke of Normandy. The army had to be broken up, since the customary 60 day enlistment period for most of his soldiers had come to an end. It was also becoming more and more difficult to keep the army and navy intact due to the problem of supplying them. On 8 September, Harold got wind of Hardrada's northern incursion. Prior to that alarming news the Saxon fleet had been sent to London, but, as reported by theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, it had lost many vessels as it made its way to the city around the south coast. The damage to his fleet may have been the prime reason the king did not sail for the north instead of making the arduous overland journey on foot. Given favorable wind and tides a sea voyage would have taken about three days. Thus, Harold could have avoided much of the stress and strain on the troops making the move north, as well as the burdensome supply requirements (i.e. passable roads, wheeled transport and draught animals) needed to support such a march to the north.
Regardless, the Saxons, after leaving London in the middle of September, arrived in Yorkshire, near Tadcaster, on 24 September. They had covered 200 grueling miles in a little over a week, making an impressive 22 to 25 miles (35-40 km) a day. The army's rapid progress surprised the unsuspecting Norsemen, resulting in their complete defeat at the savage Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September.
Having successfully disposed of one menace to his throne, sometime between 29 September and 1 October Harold was notified that the long awaited invasion of Saxon England by William of Normandy had taken place. He now had no choice but to return to the south to deal with this new threat.
Harold marches south
From York the King raced southwards toward London. Again, the earlier damage to his fleet prevented him from moving south by water. But Harold did not lead the same army he had taken north in September. Most likely, he only led the core of that force. These would have included his housecarls (originally mercenary troops recruited from Scandinavia, this elite professional military force rode to battle but fought on foot; read more about them in Raffaele D'Amato's article in Medieval Warfare II-1), as well as his brother Gyrth's contingent of similar troop types. Absent on the return to the south were many of Harold's original army. This was due to the heavy casualties the army had sustained at Stamford Bridge, as well as a lack of vital supplies and transport needed to move all soldiers. This was largely the result of the king's inability to procure these resources from the North Country. (Remember, the crown had no great landed estates or financial institutions in the north from which it could recruit soldiers or gather needed supplies for its army, not even if he paid for it. Politically, as well as culturally, the authority of the crown was almost nil in this part of England.)
The northern earls and their men were also absent from the march to the south. They had suffered severe losses at the Battle of Fulford (25 September 1066), where Hardrada's army crushed the local Saxon forces in Yorkshire under the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar (for more information, read Charles Jones' article about the Battle of Fulford in Medieval Warfare I-3). It took these regional leaders time to raise and equip new forces and then march south, which explains why they were not present at Hastings to aid their king.
An old army replaced by a new one
By 8 or 9 October, Harold reached his capital. Before his arrival in London, he had sent out royal summons to the different shires in the Midlands and southeast of England, calling on his subjects to muster for military service. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D version refers to this as the raising of a new army. The classes of recruits for this new host took two forms: the 'general' fyrd, and the 'select' fyrd. The former were made up of all the freemen of an area which were obligated to turnout for the defense of their locality only. They had practically no military training. The latter was a body of part time militia that would serve the king outside of the region they were originally raised from (more information on the fyrd, as well as on King Alfred the Great's military reforms, can be found in Medieval Warfare III-5). By these calls to the colors, Harold was able to raise another army – a new one – and have it assemble at London. Further, this meant that the bulk of this new army would be reasonably rested and supplied and ready to follow the king to the Sussex coast where the Norman invaders had landed. On the minus side of the ledger, except for the king's household fighters – the housecarls – the bulk of the army Harold lead to Hastings against the Normans would have been untested in battle.
After arriving in London, Harold lingered there for a day or two, resting his veterans from the campaign in the north and absorbing daily arriving reinforcements. Then the king moved the 60 miles (96 km) to where the enemy was encamped, near Hastings. This Saxon maneuver was conducted at a more leisurely pace than the march to York the month before. The three day sojourn, at a rate of about 20 miles a day, did not over overtax the troops, assured secure sources of supply, kept the army concentrated, and allowed for reinforcements to join the main column in a timely manner.
Before the king departed for the coast, his mother and brother, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D version, begged him to be cautious, saying to him that, "You have just returned worn out after the war against the Norwegians; are you now hastening to move against the Normans." Some historians point to this as a sign that the army Harold was gathering was itself tired and in disarray due to its exertions on the march and in battle since September. But the above facts suggest that it was not the army that the king's relatives were concerned about, but Harold's current health and judgment. The force he was leading against the Normans was fresh, strong and probably possessed cohesion; the worry in the royal court was about the mental and physical fatigue Harold must have been suffering from as a result of his exertions of the last few weeks.
A tired Saxon army, or an understrength one?
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle E version suggests that Harold set out from London too soon (on 11 October), "before all his host came up." John of Worchester expanded on this idea by writing that the king had only "half his host" when he marched for Sussex. But the author then goes on to relate that the narrowness of the Saxon position at Hastings prevented a full deployment of Harold's army, rather than there being a depleted number of English troops. This seems logical, since the length of the coming fight – which commenced at around 9 am and ended at dusk (about 8 pm) – and its intensity makes it likely that there was no lack of English troops involved in the engagement.
Norman sources, such as William of Poitiers, chaplain to Duke William, suggest that Harold's motive for quickly coming to grips with the Normans was to prevent further damage to the king's estates in Sussex, which the invaders had been ravanging since early October. But he never says that the king's haste made him move with only a part of his army, or that the Saxons were understrength when they came to Hastings.
Other Norman accounts mention the possibility that Harold's movements were prompted by the desire to repeat the surprise attack on Hardrada, but this time with the Duke of Normandy as the target. This is a logical conclusion, since Harold was a bold commander who had been successful with such stratagem very recently, i.e. at Stamford Bridge. This would seem to counter the argument that the Saxon army was tired or below strength. A force in such a condition is usually unable to execute such ambitious schemes with precision and celerity. Further, this ties in nicely with the general attitude toward war of Anglo-Saxon military forces of the period: the desire to come to grips with the enemy as soon as possible and engage in a decisive battle. (In contrast, the Norman practice stressed campaigns of maneuver and a proclivity towards siege warfare to bring about successful military conclusions).
The physical condition of Harold's army is further brought in to relief on the eve of the Battle of Hastings by the remarks of William of Jumieges in his The Gesta Normanorum Ducum ('Deeds of the Dukes of Normandy'), and the twelfth century Medieval historian William of Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum Anglorum ('History of the Kings of England'). The former states that the English army had marched all night, arriving on the battlefield at dawn. Common sense would indicate that the men would have been worn out by this recent exertion. But William of Malmesbury says that the Saxons spent the entire night before the battle singing and drinking. So were the Saxon's on the move during the time immediately before the fight, or were they encamped resting and enjoying themselves before the blood bath of the next day? Either way, the Saxons fought very well and continuously at Hastings which indicates neither fatigue nor the poor morale which accompanies tired soldiers. On the contrary, both stories seems to point to a force brimming with confidence.
Even after the Saxon defeat at Hastings, there was no sign of a tired or disheartened English army. William of Poitiers wrote that after the battle, London was crammed with Saxon troops, "A crowd of warriors from elsewhere had flocked there, and the city, despite its great size could scarcely accommodate them all." A portion of these men were doubtless soldiers previously summonsed by Harold, others were survivors from the battle, or as the 800 line poem Carmen de Hastings Proelio ('Song of the Battle of Hastings') recorded "the obstinate men who had been defeated in battle."
Conclusion
The Battle of Hastings pitted opposing armies of approximately the same strength (i.e. around 8,000 men) against one another. The ensuing engagement lasted about 11 hours with heavy fighting and severe losses taking place the entire time. The endurance of the Saxon command, assailed by Norman heavy cavalry, showered by enemy arrow volleys, as well as the launching of two major attacks of their own, shows that that force was in no way a spent or tired one before the battle. In fact, it seems to have been a newly raised and rested army which took the field a few weeks before Hastings and in no way was depleted in manpower or resolve, though it is possible that the lack of experience of the newly raised troops gave the Normans another edge in battle.
Balfour merrymaking a potential PR disaster for the British government
http://www.redressonline.com/2017/10/balfour-merrymaking-a-potential-pr-disaster-for-the-british-government/
The extraordinary programme of centenary celebrations in the UK to honour Lord Balfour and his lunatic Declaration – and the British government's continuing part in it – is an affront to citizens here and to countless millions abroad. And many a sharp pin is waiting to burst the pretty Balfour balloon being desperately inflated by Israel-firsters at Westminster.
Balfour's 1917 pledge and its consequences, played out over the last 70 years, ride roughshod over Christian values and humanitarian law. Rothschild replied to Balfour's letter saying that "the British government has opened up, by their message, a prospect of safety and comfort to large masses of people who are in need of it". Well, it also opened up the prospect – and the reality – of a lifetime of abject misery for millions of Palestinians who had no need of it and certainly didn't deserve it. It also helped to plant in the most sacred part of the Middle East an evil regime that shows contempt for human rights and international law and is bent on creating instability all around and confiscating every acre of land and every natural resource to aid its expansion.
The daft thing is, Balfour didn't even write the Declaration. He was simply the upper-class twit who signed it and did so without even bothering to consult the people whose homeland he intended giving away. The carefully worded letter to Rothschild (the so-called Declaration) was the work of Leopold Amery, political secretary to the War Cabinet at the time, who cleverly kept hidden his Jewish ancestry throughout his quite impressive career. He was also largely responsible for forming the Jewish Legion battalions which were the forerunners of the hated Israel Defence Forces, which Israeli Miko Peled describes as "one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organisations in the world".
Amery was an eager Zionist and had a supervisory role in the British mandate government in Palestine during the 1920s, actively preparing it for eventual Jewish takeover. He operated within a government the upper echelons of which were stuffed with Zionist sympathisers such as Winston Churchill and Lloyd George.
In response to the avalanche of pro-Balfour celebratory tosh, the Palestine Mission to the UK commissioned a "Make It Right" campaign featuring contrasting images of Palestinian life before and after 1948, when Israel declared statehood on land it had overrun and ethnically cleansed. The campaign message, of course, objects to the Balfour Declaration, which promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Posters were supposed to appear on buses and in Underground rail stations, but London's transport authority, Transport for London (TfL), has banned the advertisements on the grounds that they "did not comply fully with our guidelines". It seems TfL doesn't like "images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy or sensitivity" or causes that are "party political".
The Palestinian ambassador, Manuel Hassassian, accused TfL of censorship, saying:
Palestinian history is a censored history. There has been a 100-year-long cover-up of the British government's broken promise, in the Balfour Declaration, to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians when it gave away their country to another people. TfL's decision is not surprising as it is, at best, susceptible to or, at worst, complicit with, all the institutional forces and active lobby groups which continuously work to silence the Palestinian narrative. There may be free speech in Britain on every issue under the sun but not on Palestine.
Prime Minister Theresa May has invited her Israeli counterpart, "Bibi" Netanyahu, to the London celebrations. It is unthinkable in government circles for an honoured guest to be confronted with a London plastered with such inconvenient messages. Nevertheless, they'll appear on 52 London black cabs, which aren't under TfL's control, so our prime minister's loathsome visitor may not entirely escape embarrassment, assuming he's capable of feeling it.
Conflating justice and tolerance with anti-Semitism
Speaking of declarations, I'm reminded of a far more sensible one by Shimon Tzabar, who had been a member of Jewish terrorist organisations in Palestine during the British mandate, including the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah. After 1948 and the establishment of the Israeli state, he fought in its 1948-50, 1956 and 1967 wars but spoke out against the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He even began calling himself a "Hebrew-speaking Palestinian". Tzabar and others eventually felt moved to publish the following declaration:
Occupation entails foreign rule. Foreign rule entails resistance. Resistance entails repression. Repression entails terror and counter-terror. The victims of terror are mostly innocent people. Holding on to the occupied territories will turn us into a nation of murderers and murder victims. Let us get out of the occupied territories immediately.
Wouldn't Mrs May prefer to celebrate Tzabar's Declaration? He moved to England where he famously published the MUCH BETTER THAN THE OFFICIAL MICHELIN Guide to Israeli prisons, Jails, Concentration Camps and Torture Chambers. The best and safest way to begin a tour of these horrible establishments, it said, was to look like a Palestinian Arab and get yourself arrested ."Once you look like a Palestinian you have a good chance of being arrested. Your chance is actually so good, that you don't have to do anything in particular."
That other Israeli straight-talker, Miko Peled, mentioned above, put the cat among the pigeons at the Labour Party conference last month when he told activists that Israel is "terrified" of Jeremy Corbyn becoming British prime minister and will do everything it can to stop him. He said:
They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn from being prime minister. It's up to Labour, it's up to you [to ensure] that they don't have the ability to do that... Jeremy Corbyn is an opportunity for Britain that, if it gets lost, won't come back for a very long time.
The reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument, there is nothing to say... How can a call for justice and tolerance be conflated with anti-Semitism? I don't know if they realise this but they are pitting Judaism against everything good and just.
Peled is an Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general, and a former soldier in the Israeli army. You couldn't find a more authentic insider source. Here's a flavour of his message:
The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabizing the country...
By 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible. By 1993 the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank – the settlements were there, billions of dollars were invested, the entire Jordan River valley was settled... there was no place any more for a Palestinian state to be established. That is when Israel said, OK, we'll begin negotiations...
When people talk about the possibility of Israel somehow giving up the West Bank for a Palestinian state, if it wasn't so sad it would be funny. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the objective of Zionism and the Zionist state.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has just announced a temporary easing of the fishing limits imposed on Gaza's fishermen. For two months, in the southern half of Gaza, they will be able to sail out nine miles after which the limit reverts back to six. iles. Sounds generous? No, it's ridiculously cruel. And restrictions remain even tighter in the northern half. Under the Oslo agreements (1993) Israel is supposed to allow the Palestinians to fish up to 12 miles out, in line with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea but, as with so many other agreements, the Zionist regime has never honoured its obligation. Furthermore, Israel's 10-year blockade on Gaza has made it impossible for many fishermen to buy parts to maintain their vessels, so the once flourishing fishing industry has been crippled.
And Netanyahu recently locked up the Palestinians for 11 days while Israelis enjoyed festive holidays. Marilyn Garson, writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported: "Netanyahu seals the gates of the West Bank and Gaza for 11 days, to enjoy Sukkot. How flagrant, to confine millions of people in the name of a holiday that celebrates the flimsy, temporary nature of our walls. If Jews were herded behind concrete walls and locked away for 11 days, so that someone else might enjoy a Jew-free holiday, would we shrug that off?" Haaretz is a relatively honest source and to print such a thing in Israel is quite daring.
On the same subject the Jewish Chronicle had this to say: "Border closures over the High Holidays and other Jewish festivals are routine, but are usually much shorter. The original decision stoked complaints within the Israeli security establishment that it was principally 'grandstanding' by ministers eager to burnish their right-wing credentials." The Jewish Chronicle went on to explain that the 11-day closure had been demanded by Israeli police and the Internal Security minister, and was initially opposed by the Israeli military and senior Defence Ministry officials who said that it would be an unnecessary punishment to tens of thousands of law-abiding Palestinian workers.
However, both Israeli papers omitted to say that, thanks to Balfour's legacy, there has been no freedom of movement for Palestinians since the closure of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel 26 years ago. Closure is the normal state of affairs and not to be confused with foolish ideas that crossings are usually open.
Contradictory promises
The Balfour Project, which promotes justice, security and peace for both Jews and Arabs, has made available a wealth of information. One of its publications sums up the problem very neatly:
The Declaration pledges Britain's support for a "national home" in Palestine for the Jewish people on the understanding that the rights of "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" would not be prejudiced. The failure to uphold this second clause, for which Britain bears much responsibility, has caused conflict between Palestinians and Israelis ever since.
This was just one of Britain's contradictory promises during the First World War. After the war we secured a mandate from the League of Nations which included a "sacred trust" to prepare the people of Palestine for independence. But in the end Britain walked away.
Yes, in 1948 we abandoned the mess we had created. As the last British soldiers marched away, Jewish leaders declared statehood without borders, pushing far beyond the boundaries set out in the UN Partition Plan the year before, their terror militia putting to flight hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, massacring many more and stealing their homes and farms.
What Britain caused to happen in the Holy Land was contrary to all decency and justice. History will not judge kindly the British government's decision to celebrate Balfour "with pride" while refusing to apologise and make amends. There's a fair chance the whole sorry spectacle will backfire on Theresa May and teach her unpleasant associates a sharp lesson.
A colleague wrote only yesterday to one of our government ministers and what she said is worth repeating here:
Ministers, from the prime minister down, should reflect with humility that but for that disastrous decision by their predecessors 100 years ago, the Holy Land might still be a land of peace where all the faiths lived in harmony together.
Philosophy and Christian Theology
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/
First published Mon May 13, 2002; substantive revision Thu Aug 9, 2012
Many of the doctrines central to Christianity have important philosophical implications or presuppositions. In this article, we begin with a brief general discussion of the relationship between philosophy and Christian dogma, and then we turn our attention to three of the most philosophically challenging Christian doctrines: the trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement. We take these three as our focus because, unlike (for example) doctrines about providence or the attributes of God, these are distinctive to Christian theology and, unlike (for example) the doctrine of original sin or the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, these have been the subject of a great deal of discussion over the past couple of decades.
1. Philosophy and Christian Theology
2. Trinity
2.1 The Social Model
2.2 The Psychological Model
2.3 The Constitution Model
3. Incarnation
3.1. The Kenotic View
3.2 The Two Minds View
4. Atonement
4.1 The Ransom Theory
4.2. The Moral Exemplar Theory
4.3. Satisfaction Theories
4.4. Objections
Bibliography
General
Trinity
Incarnation
Atonement
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Links on the Trinity
Links on the Incarnation
Links on Atonement
Related Entries
1. Philosophy and Christian Theology
In the history of Christian theology, philosophy has sometimes been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection, whereas at other times practitioners of the two disciplines have regarded each other as mortal enemies. Some early Christian thinkers such as Tertullian were of the view that any intrusion of secular philosophical reason into theological reflection was out of order. Thus, even if certain theological claims seemed to fly in the face of the standards of reasoning defended by philosophers, the religious believer should not flinch. Other early Christian thinkers, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, argued that philosophical reflection complemented theology, but only when these philosophical reflections were firmly grounded in a prior intellectual commitment to the underlying truth of the Christian faith. Thus, the legitimacy of philosophy was derived from the legitimacy of the underlying faith commitments.
Into the High Middle Ages, Augustine's views were widely defended. It was during this time however that St. Thomas Aquinas offered yet another model for the relationship between philosophy and theology. According to the Thomistic model, philosophy and theology are distinct enterprises, differing primarily in their intellectual starting points. Philosophy takes as its data the deliverances of our natural mental faculties: what we see, hear, taste, touch, and smell. These data can be accepted on the basis of the reliability of our natural faculties with respect to the natural world. Theology, on the other hand takes as its starting point the divine revelations contained in the Bible. These data can be accepted on the basis of divine authority, in a way analogous to the way in which we accept, for example, the claims made by a physics professor about the basic facts of physics.
On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation, the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain. Since this way of thinking about philosophy and theology sharply demarcates the disciplines, it is possible in principle that the conclusions reached by one might be contradicted by the other. According to advocates of this model, however, any such conflict must be merely apparent. Since God both created the world which is accessible to philosophy and revealed the texts accessible to theologians, the claims yielded by one cannot conflict with the claims yielded by another unless the philosopher or theologian has made some prior error.
Since the deliverances of the two disciplines must then coincide, philosophy can be put to the service of theology (and perhaps vice-versa). How might philosophy play this complementary role? First, philosophical reasoning might persuade some who do not accept the authority of purported divine revelation of the claims contained in religious texts. Thus, an atheist who is unwilling to accept the authority of religious texts might come to believe that God exists on the basis of purely philosophical arguments. Second, distinctively philosophical techniques might be brought to bear in helping the theologian clear up imprecise or ambiguous theological claims. Thus, for example, theology might provide us with information sufficient to conclude that Jesus Christ was a single person with two natures, one human and one divine, but leave us in the dark about exactly how this relationship between divine and human natures is to be understood. The philosopher can provide some assistance here, since, among other things, he or she can help the theologian discern which models are logically inconsistent and thus not viable candidates for understanding the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ.
For most of the twentieth century, the vast majority of English language philosophy—including philosophy of religion—went on without much interaction with theology at all. While there are a number of complex reasons for this divorce, three are especially important.
The first reason is that atheism was the predominant opinion among English language philosophers throughout much of that century. A second, quite related reason is that philosophers in the twentieth century regarded theological language as either meaningless, or, at best, subject to scrutiny only insofar as that language had a bearing on religious practice. The former belief (i.e., that theological language was meaningless) was inspired by a tenet of logical positivism, according to which any statement that lacks empirical content is meaningless. Since much theological language, for example, language describing the doctrine of the Trinity, lacks empirical content, such language must be meaningless. The latter belief, inspired by Wittgenstein, holds that language itself only has meaning in specific practical contexts, and thus that religious language was not aiming to express truths about the world which could be subjected to objective philosophical scrutiny.
A third reason is that a great many academic theologians also became skeptical of our ability to think and speak meaningfully about God; but, rather than simply abandon traditional doctrines of Christianity, many of them turned away from more "metaphysical" and quasi-scientific ways of doing theology, embracing instead a variety of alternative construals and developments of these doctrines—including, but not limited to, metaphorical, existentialist, and postmodern construals. This, we might add, seems to be one reason why the methodological rift between so-called "analytic" and "non-analytic" philosophers has to some extent been replicated as a rift between analytic philosophers of religion and their counterparts in theology.
In the last forty years, however, philosophers of religion have returned to the business of theorizing about many of the traditional doctrines of Christianity and have begun to apply the tools of contemporary philosophy in ways that are somewhat more eclectic than what was envisioned under the Augustinian or Thomistic models. In keeping with the recent academic trend, contemporary philosophers of religion have been unwilling to maintain hard and fast distinctions between the two disciplines. As a result, it is often difficult in reading recent work to distinguish what the philosophers are doing from what the theologians (and philosophers) of past centuries regarded as strictly within the theological domain. Indeed, philosophers and theologians alike are now coming to use the term "analytic theology" to refer to theological work that aims to explore and unpack theological doctrines in a way that draws on the resources, methods, and relevant literature of contemporary analytic philosophy. The use of this term reflects the heretofore largely unacknowledged reality that the sort of work now being done under the label "philosophical theology" is as much theology as it is philosophical.
In what follows, we provide a brief survey of work on the three topics in contemporary philosophical theology that—aside from general issues concerning the nature, attributes, and providence of God—have received the most attention from philosophers of religion over the past quarter century. We thus leave aside such staple topics in philosophy of religion as traditional arguments for the existence of God, the problem of evil, the epistemology of religious belief, the nature and function of religious language. We also leave aside a variety of important but less-discussed topics in philosophical theology, such as the nature of divine revelation and scripture, original sin, the authority of tradition, and the like. (For discussions of work falling under some of these topics, see the Related Entries section below, as well as the works under the "General" heading in the bibliography.)
Neck ring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_ring
Neck rings, or neck-rings, are any form of stiff jewellery worn as an ornament around the neck of an individual, as opposed to a loose necklace. Many cultures and periods have made neck rings, with both males and females wearing them at various times.
Of the two most notable types the first is the torc, an often heavy and valuable ornament normally open at the throat. These were worn by various early cultures but are especially associated with the ancient Celts of the European Iron Age, where they were evidently a key indicator of wealth and status, mostly worn by men. The other type is one or more spiral metal coils of many turns, often worn only by women. In a few African and Asian cultures neck rings are worn usually to create the appearance that the neck has been stretched. Padaung (Kayan Lahwi) women of the Kayan people begin to wear neck coils from as young as age two. The length of the coil is gradually increased to as much as twenty turns. The weight of the coils will eventually place sufficient pressure on the clavicles to cause them to deform and create an impression of a longer neck.[1][2]
The custom of wearing neck rings is related to an ideal of beauty: an elongated neck. Neck rings push the clavicle and ribs down.[3] The neck stretching is mostly illusory: the weight of the rings twists the collarbone and eventually the upper ribs at an angle 45 degrees lower than what is natural, causing the illusion of an elongated neck. The vertebrae do not elongate, though the space between them may increase as the intervertebral discs absorb liquid.
The South Ndebele peoples of Africa also wear neck rings as part of their traditional dress and as a sign of wealth and status. Only married women are allowed to wear the rings, called dzilla. Metal rings are also worn on different parts of the body, not just the neck.[4] The rings are usually made of copper or brass. Although it can vary from person to person whether the removal of neck rings can cause pain, if they are removed incorrectly this may result in death. The custom requires that the girls who do choose to wear the neck rings start before puberty in order to get the body used to them. These heavy coils can weigh as much as 11 pounds (5 kg) (before puberty, as they will add more rings later down the line.) The neck rings put a huge strain on the body. Once a persons neck has adjusted to the neck rings they have to leave the neck rings on permanently. Because the rings have been on these women for such a long time, this weakens the neck muscles causing the neck to essentially not being able to support itself. The neck muscles will tire quickly and not be able to carry the weight of the head in other words; when the neck is no longer able to fulfill its function it is very likely that it will collapse, thus resulting in suffocation.[citation needed]
Although it might look as if the neck is being elongated this is an illusion. The neck is forced upwards and the shoulders, collarbone, and upper ribs, pushed downward. For one, bruising in the neck area often result in tumors which sometimes lead to cancers in people who have been wearing the neck rings for an extended amount of time.[citation needed] Because the shoulders, collarbone, upper ribs etc. are being forced downwards, they have spent a lot of time not attaining to its job, when the artificial support system (being the coils) are removed the neck will have nothing to support it resulting in it to collapse.[citation needed] In order for this not to happen the person previously wearing the neck rings will have to replace the rings with some sort of towel, neck brace or some other type of support.
57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple Syrian Government
http://www.makewarshistory.co.uk/?p=1767
Have the U.S. and Its Allies Intentionally Balkanized Syria Into Smaller Regions?
BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government:
Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1?cat=politics&type=article
Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country... by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 [former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom] Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhowerapproved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.
Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.
***
Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".
***
Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt.
Kermit Roosevelt had a proven track record in this sort of thing. According to the New York Times, he was the leader of the CIA's coup in Iran in 1953, which – as subsequently admitted by the CIA – used false flag terror to topple the democratically elected leader or Iran.
BBC continues:
More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.
***
The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension."
***
The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee" [hmmm ... sounds vaguely familiar], and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.
Is it purely coincidence that the U.S. has heavily armed Al Qaeda Muslim extremists in Syria (and see this), and trained the jihadis who later became ISIS?
Regime change in Syria was not a once-off plan. Neoconservatives also planned regime change in Syria more than 20 years ago ... in 1991.
The West Has Been Arbitrarily Breaking Up Middle Eastern Countries for 100 Years
The Western powers agreed 100 years ago to arbitrarily divvy up the Middle East, without regard for historical boundries.
in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion.
The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation. (The same goal has long applied to Iraq and other Arab states as well.)
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrotea book expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units ....
Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
In any event, it is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated:
Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria ....
Michel Chossudovsky pointed out last month:
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
And the following map prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters (retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy) in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006 shows a balkanized Syria and Middle East:
In summary, we don't have conclusive proof that the U.S., Israeli or their allies have intentionally broken up Syria.
But in light of such claims – and the 57-year old American-British plan to stir up Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremists in Syria – maps showing the Islamic jihadi group ISIS' carving up of Syria (and Iraq) into "the Islamic State" are interesting, indeed:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/57-years-ago-u-s-britain-approved-use-islamic-extremists-topple-syrian-government.html
Nice post O0
Regards
Mike 8)
Police Street Parchar interrupted due to Kirpan! ("You're Not English!")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0K1h45dYgs
The old fella was right, Indians are not English. The Indian was wrong, he is not British. The conflation of race and location is plain for all to see, if your honest that is.
Note how on the basis of a belief (something that cannot be proved to be true, for obvious reasons) the law has been changed to allow Indians to carry knives that do not conform to the English knife laws!
The old fella was wrong that you cannot carry a knife in England, if the blade is under 3 inches and has a non lockable blade you can carry one.. I do.
https://www.heinnie.com/spyderco-ukpk-frn-leaf-flat-grind
Sikh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh
A Sikh (/siːk, sɪk/; Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ sikkh [sɪkkʰ]) is a person associated with the Sikh nation, sharing a common history, culture, language (Punjabi) and monotheistic religion.[20][21][22]
A Sikh, according to Article I of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Sikh code of conduct), is "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh; Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru".[23]
The greater Punjab region is the historic homeland of the Sikhs, although significant communities exist around the world. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom, recognize Sikhs as a separate ethnic race on their census.[24][25] The American non-profit organization United Sikhs has fought to have Sikh included on the U.S. census as well, asserting that Sikhs "self-identify as an 'ethnic group' " and believe "that they are more than just a religion."[26]
Male Sikhs have "Singh" (sovereign prince), and female Sikhs have "Kaur" (princess) as their middle or last name. Sikhs who have undergone the khanḍe-kī-pahul (the Sikh initiation ceremony) may also be recognised by the five Ks: Kesh, uncut hair which is kept covered, usually by a turban; kara, an iron or steel bracelet; a kirpan, a sword tucked into a gatra strap or a kamal kasar belt; kachera, a cotton undergarment; and kanga, a small wooden comb. Initiated male and female Sikhs must cover their hair with a turban.
https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/29788/state-prosecutor-maza-dies-in-buenos-aires-hospital
One has to go Hmmmmm!
Possible double sided sword? he did not like what the government made him do in Catalunya and also put the blame on the ex government for his death maybe. The thing is in this day and age a kidney infection normally is not fatal!!
Early to tell what reaction there will be, but I smell a rat.
Regards
Mike 8)
The REAL Welsh know who the REAL English are, and vice versa.
I'll give you a clue.. it is not this fella:
http://theukbulletin.com/2017/06/15/koran-teacher-guilty-of-cardiff-mosque-sex-abuse/
An 81-year-old former Koran teacher has been convicted of a string of child sex offences.
Mohammed Haji Sadiq taught for 30 years at the Madina mosque in Cardiff.
Sadiq, from Cyncoed, was found guilty of 14 child sex offences but cleared of one count of indecent assault at Cardiff Crown Court.
He had denied the charges involving four girls aged between five and 11 and blamed "politics" in the mosque for the accusations.
The offences took place between 1996 and 2006 at the Woodville Road mosque.
The court heard Sadiq "took advantage of his position" and touched the four girls inappropriately as a form of punishment, abusing the girls if they made a mistake while reciting the Koran.
'Threatened pupils'
Some of his victims said they were afraid to attend the mosque because of his abuse.
Jurors were also told Sadiq would use a stick as a form of punishment in class and hit people over the hand or hard on the back.
One victim said he would threaten young pupils.
His Honour Judge Stephen Hopkins QC said Sadiq was found guilty "on the most compelling evidence".
He said the case clearly passed the custody threshold and that Sadiq would be monitored electronically.
Sadiq, who has had no involvement in the mosque since 2006 when it burnt down, was released on bail and will be sentenced at a later date.
Meet a real Englishman, Time Teams Phil Harding:
Time Team - Season 15, Episode 8 - Saxons on the Edge (Stonton Wyville, Leicestershire)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSztI4qqNes
Interesting episode, Phil has his DNA ancestry checked.. skip to 42:00 for the results.
Love the bit where he says "The genetic bedrock if you like, of the whole of Britain and Ireland, is Celtic. The Saxons and the Vikings really only contribute 10 - 20%, invaders who did not displace the Celts"
Guess it's time to get my dna checked, see if the results match my beliefs.. would be nice to have proof of a strong belief, don't ya think ?
Did the Romans Invent Christmas?
http://www.historytoday.com/matt-salusbury/did-romans-invent-christmas
Did the first Christian Roman emperor appropriate the pagan festival of Saturnalia to celebrate the birth of Christ? Matt Salusbury weighs the evidence.
It was a public holiday celebrated around December 25th in the family home. A time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts and the decoration of trees. But it wasn't Christmas. This was Saturnalia, the pagan Roman winter solstice festival. But was Christmas, Western Christianity's most popular festival, derived from the pagan Saturnalia?
The first-century AD poet Gaius Valerius Catullus described Saturnalia as 'the best of times': dress codes were relaxed, small gifts such as dolls, candles and caged birds were exchanged.
Saturnalia saw the inversion of social roles. The wealthy were expected to pay the month's rent for those who couldn't afford it, masters and slaves to swap clothes. Family households threw dice to determine who would become the temporary Saturnalian monarch. The poet Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) has the god Cronos (Saturn) say in his poem, Saturnalia:
'During my week the serious is barred: no business allowed. Drinking and being drunk, noise and games of dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping ... an occasional ducking of corked faces in icy water – such are the functions over which I preside.'
Saturnalia originated as a farmer's festival to mark the end of the autumn planting season in honour of Saturn (satus means sowing). Numerous archaeological sites from the Roman coastal province of Constantine, now in Algeria, demonstrate that the cult of Saturn survived there until the early third century AD.
Saturnalia grew in duration and moved to progressively later dates under the Roman period. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), it was a two-day affair starting on December 17th. By the time Lucian described the festivities, it was a seven-day event. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of Saturnalia to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice.
From as early as 217 BC there were public Saturnalia banquets. The Roman state cancelled executions and refrained from declaring war during the festival. Pagan Roman authorities tried to curtail Saturnalia; Emperor Caligula (AD 12-41) sought to restrict it to five days, with little success.
Emperor Domitian (AD 51-96) may have changed Saturnalia's date to December 25th in an attempt to assert his authority. He curbed Saturnalia's subversive tendencies by marking it with public events under his control. The poet Statius (AD 45- 95), in his poem Silvae, describes the lavish banquet and entertainments Domitian presided over, including games which opened with sweets, fruit and nuts showered on the crowd and featuring flights of flamingos released over Rome. Shows with fighting dwarves and female gladiators were illuminated, for the first time, into the night.
The conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in AD 312 ended Roman persecution of Christians and began imperial patronage of the Christian churches. But Christianity did not become the Roman Empire's official religion overnight. Dr David Gwynn, lecturer in ancient and late antique history at Royal Holloway, University of London, says that, alongside Christian and other pagan festivals, 'the Saturnalia continued to be celebrated in the century afterward'.
The poet Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius wrote another Saturnalia, describing a banquet of pagan literary celebrities in Rome during the festival. Classicists date the work to between AD 383 and 430, so it describes a Saturnalia alive and well under Christian emperors. The Christian calendar of Polemius Silvus, written around AD 449, mentions Saturnalia, recording that 'it used to honour the god Saturn'. This suggests it had by then become just another popular carnival.
Christmas apparently started – like Saturnalia – in Rome, and spread to the eastern Mediterranean. The earliest known reference to it commemorating the birth of Christ on December 25th is in the Roman Philocalian calendar of AD 354. Provincial schisms soon resulted in different Christian calendars. The Orthodox Church in the Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Roman Empire fixed the date of Christmas at January 6th, commemorating simultaneously Christ's birth, baptism and first miracle.
Saturnalia has a rival contender as the forerunner of Christmas: the festival of dies natalis solis invicti, 'birthday of the unconquered sun'. The Philocalian calendar also states that December 25th was a Roman civil holiday honouring the cult of sol invicta. With its origins in Syria and the monotheistic cult of Mithras, sol invicta certainly has similarities to the worship of Jesus. The cult was introduced into the empire in AD 274 by Emperor Aurelian (214-275), who effectively made it a state religion, putting its emblem on Roman coins.
Sol invicta succeeded because of its ability to assimilate aspects of Jupiter and other deities into its figure of the Sun King, reflecting the absolute power of 'divine'emperors. But despite efforts by later pagan emperors to control Saturnalia and absorb the festival into the official cult, the sol invicta ended up looking very much like the old Saturnalia. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was brought up in the sol invicta cult, in what was by then already a predominantly monotheist empire: 'It is therefore possible,' says Dr Gwynn, 'that Christmas was intended to replace this festival rather than Saturnalia.'
Gwynn concludes: 'The majority of modern scholars would be reluctant to accept any close connection between the Saturnalia and the emergence of the Christian Christmas.'
Devout Christians will be reassured to learn that the date of Christmas may derive from concepts in Judaism that link the time of the deaths of prophets being linked to their conception or birth. From this, early ecclesiastical number-crunchers extrapolated that the nine months of Mary's pregnancy following the Annunciation on March 25th would produce a December 25th date for the birth of Christ.
George Soros decries Hungary's PM Orban for anti-Semitic attacks 'reminiscent of the 1930s'
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/george-soros-decries-hungarys-orban-for-anti-semitic-attacks-reminiscent-of-the-1930s.html
Soros says he had been targeted by an administration "stoking anti-Muslim sentiment and employing anti-Semitic tropes reminiscent of the 1930s."
In July, Prime Minister Viktor Orban launched a nationwide television and billboard advertising campaign accusing Soros of devising Europe's refugee influx.
The Hungarian premier has often vilified Soros, whose ideals are squarely at odds with Orban's view that European culture is under an existential threat from migration and multiculturalism.
How about that, Soros and I have the same problem, for opposite reasons..
Le Pen decries 'fatwa' on National Front bank accounts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42079916
Marine Le Pen has claimed her National Front party is the victim of a "banking fatwa" after banks closed its accounts as well as her own personal account.
The leader of the far-right party told a news conference she would be lodging complaints against Société Générale and HSBC.
Word at the scuttlebutt is that the BBC has been sniffing around the OU energy research community, conducting informal interviews and buying up claimed 'OU device' plans.. You all know what this means.. a 'conspiracy theory' narrative is being researched.
The last time the BBC had a major impact on me was summer 2016, during the Euro football championships, when the English football team were playing in the group stages. I don't follow football much anymore, the conflation of my racial identity makes it difficult to understand what I am cheering for. However, I do sometime's enjoy the chatter of the commentators in the boring bits. One particular occasion, just over 30 minutes into the first half caught my attention.. "We de-decry goals like that".. a stutter ? what the hell ?? An unfamiliar word you see, he stuttered while taking a second to confirm.. the guy wasn't primed and just being fed his lines on a teleprompter, Clooney obviously wasn't enough to normalise. Aww bollocks! The only bit I actually still enjoyed was scripted ? What a crock of shit. Hmm.. was it ITV ? I don't remember.. what's the difference ? On a positive note moving forward, in another decade or so we can look forward to the England vs France games. If we strip the preconditioned labelling from our minds we can be forgiven for mistaking this match for an African nations cup game, perhaps even play a modern version of 'Where's Wally'?.. we can call it 'Spot the White Man!' So I ask you Celts, "What are you cheering for ?" and by extension "What are you fighting for ?"
Remember always, Everyman decries immorality.
No more 'fighting ISIS?' US to stay in Syria to prevent 'win' for Assad and Iran – report
https://www.rt.com/news/410735-american-troops-stay-syria/
Published time: 23 Nov, 2017 11:57
The US plans to keep its troops in Syria long after the defeat of ISIS – the goal used to justify their illegal presence in the first place – because the Syrian government and its ally Iran would "win" if they were withdrawn, the Washington Post reported.
The Trump administration is "expanding its goals" in Syria to include a "potentially open-ended commitment" to support the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing several anonymous US officials. The change comes as the defeat of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist group in Syria seems imminent.
Washington has been justifying its deployment of ground troops in Syria, which violates the embattled nation's sovereignty, by citing the need to fight IS. US Defense Secretary James Mattis last week went so far as to erroneously claim that the US had been given a mandate to be in Syria, stating: "You know, the UN said that ... basically we can go after ISIS. And we're there to take them out."
While Washington has a history of skipping UN approval for its military interventions, be it in Syria or in other sovereign states, it appears that the semblance of legitimacy for keeping hundreds of troops in Syria is about to be dispelled. WaPo sources say that Washington actually sees its boots on the ground as a source of leverage in dealing with the government of President Bashar Assad and his allies.
"An abrupt US withdrawal could complete Assad's sweep of Syrian territory and help guarantee his political survival – an outcome that would constitute a win for Iran, his close ally. To avoid that outcome, US officials say they plan to maintain a US troop presence in northern Syria... and establish new local governance, apart from the Assad government, in those areas," the newspaper said.
If true, it means Washington will be actively promoting Kurdish separatism to spite Damascus and Tehran, while paying lip service to preserving Syria's territorial integrity.
"The conditions are there for the counter-ISIS campaign to morph into a counter-Iran campaign," Nicholas Heras of the Washington-based Center for a New American Security told WaPo. "By placing no timeline on the end of the US mission... the Pentagon is creating a framework for keeping the US engaged in Syria for years to come."
Anyone in the UK catch tonights episode of the reality TV show I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Celebrity...Get_Me_Out_of_Here!_(UK_TV_series)
Interesting episode! The show has taken on a political theme.. I won't spoil it for you but the interesting part was when the fax machine spewed out a script for the Jungle's Prime Minister to read.. The PM and his deputy had to pick three of the contestants to form a Holy Triumvirate. The emotional manipulation of the minions then proceeded as expected. Enjoy!
We were lied to! Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.
By Lara Deauville
PUBLISHED: 16:01, Fri, Nov 24, 2017
Almost all of the shocking predictions – from the loss of British sovereignty, to monetary union and the over-arching powers of European courts – have come true.
But damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.
The classified paper, dated April 1971, suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.
That last detail was the only thing the disgraceful paper – prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – got wrong.
The unknown author – a senior civil servant – correctly predicted the then European Economic Community (the EEC effectively became the EU in 1993) was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain's national sovereignty since 1066.
He went on to say "Community law" would take precedence over our own courts and that ever more power would pass away from Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels.
The author even accurately asserts that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a "popular feeling of alienation from Government".
But shockingly politicians were advised "not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures... to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community".
They were told to preserve the impression that the British Government was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians – and that the ruse would last "for this century at least" – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave.
Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers.
Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage said: "Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was.
"Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don't actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country.
"We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws."
The writer and journalist Christopher Booker, one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said: "Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.
"One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels.
"A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads."
The pro-Europe Sir Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975.
He died in 2005.
In 2015 he was named as part of Wiltshire Police's Operation Conifer investigation into historical child sex abuse.
Detectives said if alive – he would have been 101 – he would have been interviewed under caution over seven claims, including the alleged rape of an 11-year-old, but that no inference of guilt should be drawn from this.
Operation Conifer was closed earlier this year after officers found "no corroborating evidence" of any sexual abuse by Sir Edward and no evidence of a conspiracy.
Heath, a soft-right politician from a lower middle-class family, was born in Broadstairs, Kent.
He served though the Second World War in the Royal Artillery, rising to rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
Although he said he had never killed anyone he was part of the Normandy Landings in 1944 and wrote extensively of the damage his gunners inflicted on the German occupying forces.
In September 1945 he also commanded a firing squad that executed a Polish soldier convicted of rape and murder.
He was made a Knight of the Garter on 23 April 1992 and became Sir Edward Heath.
Book excerpt: How I became a Kremlin troll by The Sakerhttp://thesaker.is/book-excerpt-how-i-became-a-kremlin-troll-by-the-saker/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-27/saker-how-i-became-kremlin-troll
Dear friends,
Today, with the kind permission of Phil Butler, I am posting the full text of my contribution to his book "Putin's Praetorians: Confessions of the Top Kremlin Trolls". There are a couple of reasons for that. The main one is that I strongly believe that this book deserves a much bigger visibility than it has received (this is also why, exceptionally, I am placing this post in the top "analyses" category and not elsewhere). Please read my review here to see why I feel so strongly about this book. Frankly, I am rather shocked by the very little amount of reviews this book as generated. I don't even know if somebody besides Russia Insider has bothered writing a review of it or not, but even if somebody has, it is still a crying shame that this most interesting volume has been so far ignored by the alternative media including the one friendly to Russia. So by posting my own contribution here I want to bring back this book to the "front page", so to speak, of our community. Second, I want to ask for your help. Right now the Kindle version of the book has 15 reviews on Amazon and only 1 review for the printed paper version. This is not enough. I am therefore asking you to 1) buy the book (Amazon wants reviews by purchasers) and 2) write a review on Amazon. Guys – that is something most of you can do to help, so please do so! We need to show the world that there is what I call "another West" which, far from being russophobic is, in fact, capable of producing real friends and even defenders of Russia. So, please, do your part, help Phil in his heroic struggle, get the paper version of the book and review it on Amazon!
Thanks a lot for your help, hugs and cheers,
The Saker
——-
How I became a Kremlin troll by The SakerBy birth, experience, and training, I truly had everything needed to hate Putin. I was born in a family of "White Russians" whose anti-Communism was total and visceral.
My childhood was filled with (mostly true) stories about atrocities and massacres committed by the Bolsheviks during the revolution and subsequent civil war. Since my father had left me, I had an exiled Russian Orthodox Archbishop as a spiritual father, and through him, I learned of all the genocidal persecutions the Bolsheviks unleashed against the Orthodox Church.
At the age of 16, I had already read the three volumes of the "Gulag Archipelago" and carefully studied the history of WWII. By 18 I was involved in numerous anti-Soviet activities such as distributing anti-Soviet propaganda in the mailboxes of Soviet diplomats or organizing the illegal importation of banned books into the Soviet Union through the Soviet merchant marine and fishing fleet (mostly at their station in the Canary Islands). I was also working with an undercover group of Orthodox Christians sending help, mainly in the form of money, to the families of jailed dissidents. And since I was fluent in Russian, my military career took me from a basic training in electronic warfare, to a special unit of linguists for the General Staff of the Swiss military, to becoming a military analyst for the strategic intelligence service of Switzerland.
The Soviet authorities had long listed me, and my entire family, as dangerous anti-Soviet activists and I, therefore, could not travel to Russia until the fall of Communism in 1991 when I immediately caught the first available flight and got to Moscow while the barricades built against the GKChP coup were still standing. Truly, by this fateful month of August 1991, I was a perfect anti-Soviet activist and an anti-Communist hardliner. I even took a photo of myself standing next to the collapsed statue of Felix Derzhinsky (the founder of the ChK – the first Soviet Secret police) with my boot pressed on his iron throat. That day I felt that my victory was total. It was also short-lived.
Instead of bringing the long-suffering Russian people freedom, peace, and prosperity, the end of Communism in Russia only brought chaos, poverty, violence, and abject exploitation by the worst class of scum the defunct Soviet system had produced. I was horrified. Unlike so many other anti-Soviet activists who were also Russophobes, I never conflated my people and the regime which oppressed them. So, while I rejoiced at the end of one horror, I was also appalled to see that another one had taken its place. Even worse, it was undeniable that the West played an active role in every and all forms of anti-Russian activities, from the total protection of Russian mobsters, on to the support of the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnya, and ending with the financing of a propaganda machine which tried to turn the Russian people into mindless consumers to the presence of western "advisors" (yeah, right!) in all the key ministries. The oligarchs were plundering Russia and causing immeasurable suffering, and the entire West, the so-called "free world" not only did nothing to help but helped all the enemies of Russia with every resource it had. Soon the NATO forces attacked Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, in total violation of the most sacred principles of international law. East Germany was not only reunified but instantly incorporated into West Germany and NATO pushed as far East as possible. I could not pretend that all this could be explained by some fear of the Soviet military or by a reaction to the Communist theory of world revolution. In truth, it became clear to me that the western elites did not hate the Soviet system or ideology, but that they hated Russian people themselves and the culture and civilization which they had created.
By the time the war against the Serbian nation in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo broke out, I was in a unique situation: all day long I could read classified UNPROFOR and military reports about what was taking place in that region and, after work, I could read the counter-factual anti-Serbian propaganda the western corporate Ziomedia was spewing out every day. I was horrified to see that literally everything the media was saying was a total lie. Then came the false flags, first in Sarajevo, but later also in Kosovo. My illusions about "Free World" and the "West" were crumbling. Fast.
Fate brought me to Russia in 1993 when I saw the carnage of meted out by the "democratic" Eltsin regime against thousands of Russians in Moscow (many more than what the official press reported). I also saw the Red Flags and Stalin portraits around the parliament building. My disgust by then was total. And when the Eltsin regime decided to bring Dudaev's Chechnia to heel triggering yet another needless bloodbath, that disgust turned into despair. Then came the stolen elections of 1996 and the murder of General Lebed. At that point, I remember thinking "Russia is dead."
So, when the entourage of Eltsin suddenly appointed an unknown nobody to acting President of Russia, I was rather dubious, to put it mildly. The new guy was not a drunk or an arrogant oligarch, but he looked rather unimpressive. He was also ex-KGB which was interesting: on one hand, the KGB had been my lifelong enemy but on the other hand, I knew that the part of the KGB which dealt with foreign intelligence was staffed by the brightest of the brightest and that they had nothing to do with political repression, Gulags and all the rest of the ugly stuff another Directorate of the KGB (the 5th) was tasked with (that department had been abolished in 1989). Putin came from the First Main Directorate of the KGB, the "PGU KGB." Still, my sympathies were more with the (far less political) military intelligence service (GRU) than the very political PGU which, I was quite sure by then, had a thick dossier on my family and me.
Then, two crucial things happened in parallel: both the "Free world" and Putin showed their true faces: the "Free world" as an AngloZionist Empire hell-bent on aggression and oppression, and Vladimir Putin as a real patriot of Russia. In fact, Putin slowly began looking like a hero to me: very gradually, in small incremental steps first, Putin began to turn Russia around, especially in two crucial matters: he was trying to "re-sovereignize" the country (making it truly sovereign and independent again), and he dared the unthinkable: he openly told the Empire that it was not only wrong, it was illegitimate (just read the transcript of Putin's amazing 2007 "Munich Speech").
Putin inspired me to make a dramatic choice: will I stick to my lifelong prejudices or will I let reality prove my lifelong prejudices wrong. The first option was far more comfortable to me, and all my friends would approve. The second one was far trickier, and it would cost me the friendship of many people. But what was the better option for Russia? Could it be that it was the right thing for a "White Russian" to join forces with the ex-KGB officer?
I found the answer here in a photo of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Vladimir Putin:
If that old-generation anti-Communist hardliner who, unlike me, had spent time in the Gulag, could take Putin's hand, then so could I!
In fact, the answer was obvious all along: while the "White" and the "Red" principles and ideologies were incompatible and mutually exclusive, there is also no doubt that nowadays true patriots of Russia can be found both in the former "Red" and "White" camps. To put it differently, I don't think that "Whites" and "Reds" will ever agree on the past, but we can, and must, agree on the future. Besides, the Empire does not care whether we are "Red" or "White" – the Empire wants us all either enslaved or dead.
Putin, in the meantime, is still the only world leader with enough guts to openly tell the Empire how ugly, stupid and irresponsible it is (read his 2015 UN Speech). And when I listen to him I see that he is neither "White" nor "Red." He is simply Russian.
So, this is how I became a Kremlin troll and a Putin fanboy.
The Saker
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.11.28, 20:18:14
In fact, the answer was obvious all along: while the "White" and the "Red" principles and ideologies were incompatible and mutually exclusive, there is also no doubt that nowadays true patriots of Russia can be found both in the former "Red" and "White" camps. To put it differently, I don't think that "Whites" and "Reds" will ever agree on the past, but we can, and must, agree on the future. Besides, the Empire does not care whether we are "Red" or "White" – the Empire wants us all either enslaved or dead.
I don't consider myself a Kremlin troll, never have, never will.
I do admire the Russian spirit, the acknowledgement of the necessity of adhering to international law, and the individual and communal right of sovereignty and self determination.
My personal scientific work is focused on human survival on our own planet, and potentially venturing into space to survive and explore. This will require harnessing our potential to manipulate the laws of physics and understanding of the fundamental states of matter so all can benefit and thrive.
It is not important that I can do the things that I can do, it is important to me that you can do them also, to this end I gave you my life's work unconditionally.
British Army could be cut to just 50,000 over next four years, report warns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11449136/British-Army-could-be-cut-to-just-50000-over-next-four-years-report-warns.html
Defence budgets could be cut by up to another 10 per cent during the next parliament and leave Army at its smallest for 250 years
By Tom Whitehead, Rosa Prince and Ben Riley Smith
7:00AM GMT 09 Mar 2015
The British Army could be reduced to its smallest size in nearly 250 years, taking its overall troop level to just 50,000 soldiers, a former Government defence adviser has warned.
A report by the respected Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) suggests that defence budgets may be slashed by 10 per cent during the next parliament, shrinking personnel for the three Armed Forces by as many as 42,000.
Britain's military appears once again in line for massive culls after the next general election because of the continuing austerity drive and a lack of commitment by any of the major parties to protect defence spending, Rusi said.
Downing Street has been forced to deny that David Cameron and George Osborne, the Chancellor, are at "loggerheads" over whether to maintain the Nato target of committing two per cent of the nation's finances to defence.
But ministers' reluctance to commit to the target was made clear, as Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, refused seven times during a television interview to rule out further cuts.
Regular Army soldiers are already being reduced from 102,000 to 82,000 and a new defence review under the next government could see numbers cut again by around 40 per cent, Rusi warned.
It would mean the smallest Army since the 1770s, when Britain lost the American colonies.
The report comes ahead a crucial debate in the House of Commons on Thursday when Tory MPs are expected to push for a vote to force the Prime Minister Cameron into a commitment on defence spending.
Tensions over the £36 billion defence budget are high at a time relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia are strained and the threat from Isil in Iraq and Syria is growing.
US President Barack Obama and his military chiefs have already expressed concerns over further cuts in Britain's defence and warned it could damage the Army's ability to fight future campaigns.
Last week, the head of the America's Army, Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, told the Telegraph he was "concerned" about suggestions Britain may not maintain the Nato target.
Downing Street denied a report that Mr Cameron was angry at Mr Oborne's apparent refusal to sign up to maintaining the financial commitment for another parliament.
Refusing to discuss the pledge, Mr Hammond told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "We will have a strategic defence and security review at the beginning of the next parliament and we will set out our plans then.
"I can't tell you what will be in the Conservative manifesto, and I can't prejudge the outcome of the security and defence review that will take place after the next election. We will protect the integrity and the strength of our armed forces."
Mr Hammond indicated the Prime Minister would be reluctant to cut regular army numbers if reelected, saying Mr Cameron did not want to "preside over any further cuts in our Armed Forces".
Next week, as many as 30 Conservative MPs led by John Baron, the MP for Basildon and Billericay who himself served in the Army, are expected to rebel against the government in order to put pressure on the leadership over the proposed and future cuts.
The Rusi report was written by the organisation's director of UK defence policy, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, who is also a special adviser to the parliamentary joint committee on the national security strategy and was a Cabinet Office advisor for the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.
He predicts "optimistic" and "pessimistic" scenarios for the future of the military based on analysis of the three major political parties' overall spending plans.
He warns that while health, schools and foreign aid budgets are likely to be protected no party has committed to protect defence.
He said: "In either scenario, the result will be a remarkably sharp reduction in the footprint of defence in UK society over a decade."
Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, said the report made "sober reading" and warned Britain's "operational readiness" could be damaged.
"In a squeezed Defence budget, expenditure on equipment will always take priority over manpower numbers."
But he added: "I think pressure is beginning to mount on the Government to recognise that there might be some votes in Defence after all. People are quite right to be concerned about our overall security, given present world circumstances."
Andy Smith, chief executive officer of the UK National Defence Association, added:
"If the Government allows the British Army to shrink to a 250-year low, it would demonstrate a shameful lack of commitment to the Defence of the Realm.
We do not need a huge army but we certainly need an army that enables us to secure our homeland and our international interests.
Military strength guarantees political influence, and we certainly wouldn't have any influence at all with an army of just 50,000.
It would put the United Kingdom in a potentially perilous situation and would represent political failure by our leaders on a monumental scale."
Prof Chalmers said spending plans outlined in the last Autumn Statement suggest that spending on government departments could fall from 17.4 per cent of GDP to 12.6 per cent of GDP by 2019/2020 and unprotected departments would be hit hardest.
Because of commitments to some defence spending, personnel would once again bear the brunt, he warned.
Even on the optimistic outlook, where spending is protected on a par with health or schools, that could see total defence personnel fall from around 145,000 to 130,000 by the end of the decade.
In the pessimistic scenario, budgets would be cut by 10 per cent and numbers would fall to 115,000.
However, the Government is currently pledging that spending on defence equipment will increase by one per cent annually over the next parliament.
If that is maintained, Prof Chalmers said, then a worst case scenario could see troop numbers fall to 103,000 – a drop of 29 per cent.
He warns as in the last round of cuts, the Royal Navy will be protected because of the need for personnel for the planned new aircraft carriers, then the Army will take the lion's share and could be slashed to just 50,000.
In the 1640s, at the height of the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell's army stood at 40,000.
Professor Chalmers said: "The final budgetary settlement will be one of the most strongly contested elements of this year's Spending Review.
"In contrast to the health, schools and international development budgets, none of the major parties has committed to protect the defence budget.
"Yet the MoD could face a substantial funding gap even on its own planning assumptions of 1 per cent real annual growth in equipment spending and the protection of non-equipment spending at baseline levels."
He concluded: "In reality, the prospects for the defence budget remain closely tied to wider economic growth.
"The government is not yet convinced that strategic security risks are high enough to justify an exemption for defence from austerity."
Those that enjoy investigative history will find this article interesting:
Romanov murder twist: Investigators consider 'ritual killing' theory
https://www.rt.com/politics/411172-investigators-to-probe-sacrifice-theory/
Investigators plan to conduct "psychological and historical analysis" to verify a theory that the killing of last Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family in 1918 was a sacrifice made by the Bolsheviks in a bid for global domination.
"Investigators plan to undertake psychological and historical analysis to establish if the shooting of the Russian royal family was a ritual killing," a spokesperson for the Russian Investigative Committee – the agency dealing with especially important and resonant crimes – announced at a Moscow conference dedicated to the probe of the killing of the Romanovs.
Svetlana Molodtsova announced that the Investigative Committee plans to form a special panel of experts comprising representatives from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities and the Russian Orthodox Church. She added that the experts would start working after the completion of a major archive research project that was underway at the moment of the conference.
The secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church's commission for examination of the remains of the Royal Family, Bishop Tikhon, told RIA Novosti that Nicholas II remained a symbolic and sacred figure even after his abdication in 1917. Therefore the ritual theory of the killing made sense.
"The murder of the Tsar and his family was a very special act with a ritual and symbolic meaning as it put an end to the 300-year Romanov dynasty, which was loathed by the new authorities," Tikhon said. "Bolsheviks and their henchmen of all sorts were not alien to very unexpected and various ritual symbolism," he added, citing Vladimir Lenin's Mausoleum in Moscow as an example of a typical ritual building.
"Back in 2015 when the new probe just started it was announced that investigators would look into all theories without a single exception. It would be strange, to say the least, if today we exclude just one theory from the research done by professional historians and forensic experts," he said.
Chief spokesman of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, Rabbi Boruch Gorin told Interfax that he and his co-believers were shocked by the statements made by representatives of the Investigative Committee and the Russian Orthodox Church.
He noted that the representatives of the Committee and the Church have not connected the Romanov family's killing with Jews in their statements. However, any educated person who knows the history of these accusations would understand that they mean the theory that the killing was a Kabbalah ritual organized by Jewish members of the Bolshevik Party.
"We, as a Jewish community are shocked not only because of the absurdity of such assumptions. The myths about the existence of ritual killings relate to various cults and religions, but in Russia ... this has become a typical anti-Semitic myth, used by anti-Semitic propaganda for several decades," Gorin said. "In our view, the absurdity of this theory is evident, because it's obvious that the murder was committed by complete atheists – people who had rejected any faith in any powers apart from what can be done with their own hands."
The last Russian Emperor, his wife and five children were killed by a group of Bolsheviks in mid-1918 outside the city of Ekaterinburg, in the Ural Mountains. Their burial places were discovered in 1991 and 2007, and in 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Nicholas II and his family members as martyrs and saints.
Their remains were taken out of the unmarked graves and reburied in Romanov's family sepulcher in the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. However, the Russian Orthodox Church has refused to recognize the remains as authentic due to insufficient evidence. In 2015, the probe into the killings was resumed.
A Morally Rudderless America
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/morally-rudderless-america/
by Scott McPherson
November 30, 2017
A U.S. Navy pilot flying over far north Okanogan County, Washington, is in hot water for leaving contrails in the sky in the shape of a penis. According to a report from CBS News affiliate KREM, people on the ground saw the image and complained. One mother was "upset because she might have to explain the drawings to her kids." The reporter assured listeners that "we're deliberately not showing you those drawings because they're offensive."
For over half a century the U.S. government has sent our military (and plenty of military aid) to foreign countries, to kill and maim and torture, to overthrow democratic governments and shore up corporate dominance, to prop up brutal dictators, and ultimately to protect America's global hegemony.
Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform rightly observed, "There isn't a country on earth who is truly a threat to our peace and well being, but we spend a trillion dollars per year sowing discontent and chaos around the globe so we can keep our troops and navies occupied killing and bombing people as the profits flow to the military industrial complex." War, as Major General Smedley Butler wrote, is a racket.
Over these many years the bodies have piled up, as have the endless failures and the resulting chaos. Americans respond to this by closing their eyes and mindlessly chanting paeans to our Empire. Military recruiters roam the halls of high schools, filling impressionable minds with nonsense about "serving your country" and "protecting freedom." Military spending perpetually grows, as does the number of countries hosting American troops and bases. Meanwhile drones vaporize wedding parties and terrorize civilians in foreign lands.
When Madeleine Albright was asked about the deaths of half a million (!) Iraqi children at the hands of US sanctions, she said "the price is worth it." The silence was deafening. Barack Obama – the "peace president" – boasted that he was "really good at killing people." The nation yawned. But let's not put an American mother in the uncomfortable position of explaining the male penis!
Such absurdity reminds us of the angry rant from Colonel Kurtz at the end of the film Apocalypse Now, when he marveled over the shameless hypocrisy of military commanders who "train young men to drop fire on people" but bristle at the sight of expletives written on the sides of airplanes.
A Navy pilot draws adolescent images in the sky, and Americans are morally outraged. Wouldn't it be nice if more Americans — including the mainstream media — experienced moral outrage when U.S. pilots kill and maim people in overseas military adventures?"
20,000 join Tel Aviv 'March of Shame' to protest bill aimed at protecting Netanyahu (VIDEO)
https://www.rt.com/news/411764-netanyahu-protest-thousands-corruption/
Thousands of people, outraged at a new bill that would spare the Israeli PM from public outcry linked to two corruption probes, swarmed into downtown Tel Aviv on Saturday in a protest that became the largest since the launch of the investigation.
A large crowd descended on central Rothschild Boulevard and marched towards Habima Square, decrying Netanyahu as the "Crime Minister," according to placards carried by activists. The disgruntled protesters, armed with loudspeakers, chanted "Bibi is a disgrace" and called for him to "go home" or be jailed, and for the reinstatement of legal order.
Police did not provide any official count for the rally, but Israel's Channel 10 and Reuters reported the number of protesters at around 20,000 people, a turnout previously unseen at the weekly demonstrations that have been taking place every Saturday evening since the opening of the probe against Netanyahu in December 2016.
Des milliers d'Israéliens manifestent actuellement sur le boulevard Rotshild à #TelAviv contre la corruption et le gouvernement #Netanyahupic.twitter.com/v4525oKRBk
— Julien Bahloul (@julienbahloul) 2 декабря 2017 г.
"I'm here with a lot of people who are fed up with the government and especially with the prime minister, who is trying to destroy the democracy of our country," Michal, a participant of the rally, told RT's Ruptly video news agency, accusing the Netanyahu government of uprooting the efforts of several Jewish generations to establish a democracy in the country.
The increase in attendance is likely due to a controversial "Recommendations Law" that is heading for a second reading in parliament on Monday. The law, dubbed the "Netanyahu bill" by the opposition, would prevent police from publishing their recommendations to the Attorney General on whether to charge suspects in existing cases, and ban them altogether from advising the Attorney General in future cases.
If adopted by the parliament, the legislation would see police withholding conclusions in corruption probes into Netanyahu, sparing him from a potential public outcry.
The Israeli leader is mired into two separate corruption investigations. The first centers on him allegedly accepting gifts such as expensive wine and cigarettes worth some $100,000-$150,000 from billionaire Arnon Milchan.
While Netanyahu firmly denies any wrongdoing, he reportedly acknowledged doing Milchan's bidding to then-US Secretary of State John Kerry. The second probe revolves around his alleged intention to strike a deal with the influential Yediot Aharonot newspaper for better coverage.
While the investigation into Netanyahu has been dragging on for a year, the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, is expected to pass the law by the end of next week.
I was heading over to the Rivero's site 'What Really Happened ?' a few days ago and did my usual, typed in 'whatr' on DuckDuckGo, hit the down arrow followed by the enter key.. I ended up here:
http://ethnicelebs.com/meghan-markle
Part of the article links to an essay in ELLE Magazine:
Meghan Markle: I'm More Than An 'Other'
http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/news/a26855/more-than-an-other/
Suits star Meghan Markle on creating her identity and finding her voice as a mixed race woman. Originally written in July 2015 published in ELLE Magazine in 2015.
Seems that the Rivero's have been knocked off the top spot in the search engine, dropping to number two.. must be a hell of a lot of interest lately in "what race is meghan markle".
Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says minister
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/christians-should-pray-from-prince-george-to-be-gay-says-c-of-e-minister
Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the 'Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman'
Quite a lot going on lately with the media push attempting to normalise miscegenation and homosexuality..
Did Tony Blair really repeal the Death Penalty for Treason?
http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/did-tony-blair-really-repeal-the-death-penalty-for-treason
September 24, 2017 by Connor Wilkinson
The fact that the (un)establishment has been committing treason against the people and their constitutional rights since 1972 is finally coming to light for some.
http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/constitutional-crisis-and-the-solution
However, some may still suggest that Tony Blair "had done away with the treason laws" in 1998 by purportedly 'repealing' the 1795 Treason Act.
It has been recently suggested that Blair's moves was "perfectly legal" even though the Declaration of Rights and the Revolution Settlement in 1689 dictates that "suspending laws or the operation of laws" is illegal.
Contrary to popular belief the death penalty still exists in Britain for high treason as the 1795 Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act was NOT repealed in 1998 when Tony Blair introduced the Crime and Disorder Act.
In chapter 36 of this 1998 'Act' he attempted to repeal the 1795 Act and the death penalty for high treason but Blair had no lawful authority to do so, and he committed treason in his attempt. He would be in prison today if only the people would stand united under their constitution as the law demands.
Some say that treason is not a crime anymore because of his actions, however you would be wrong to think so. Indeed it is what he wants you to think, but with a little research, anyone can work out that Blair made no lawful changes to law, and he never could.
Blair actually committed three acts of Treason in all, and did not possess the authority to do so.
An example of such a treasonous act would be a year earlier at the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 which increased the European Union's powers for action at community level, and included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was a clear act of treason, and because of this, Tony Blair was in fact, actually never the Prime Minister at law. Much like any criminal in supposed "public office", Blair tried to get rid of the penalty of the crime he was guilty of.
Still, some believe that Treason is not a crime today, or at most (as the Police will tell you) a "political matter" which is a complete fabrication. Is institutionalized paedophilia a "political matter" too?
On 14 May 2012, an FOI Request was made to the Data Access & Compliance Unit within the Ministry of Justice in regards to the Crime of treason.
They handed the Request to the Criminal Law Policy Unit, to which they replied:
"...the UK does still have laws governing treason and that treason is still regarded as a crime in the UK...There is also a common law offence of misprision of treason which consists of failing to inform of any treasons committed or threatened by others, or of attempting to rescue any traitor from justice."
So there you have it. The crime of treason still exists and it is still a very serious crime. A fact that past and present administrations of government seem to have forgotten.
There is also the common law crime of treason. An offence of attempting to overthrow the government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.
"The king," says Bracton, who wrote under Henry III ( l. 1. c. 8.), "ought not to be subject to man, but to God, and to the law; for the law makes the king. Let the king therefore render to the law, what the law has invested in him with regard to others; dominion, and power: for he is not truly king, where will and pleasure rules, and not the law."
The Declaration of Rights which spawned the Revolution Settlement containing both the Claim and Bill of Right(s) in 1689 states that
"all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm . . . no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at anytime after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, forever."
The Act of Settlement 1700 also reinforces this sentiment by enacting that:
"no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him."
Were we really in the EU at law?
We we're never in the EU or the so called "common market" to begin with.
This is not only because constitutional law dictates that no foreign powers may have jurisdiction over the United Kingdom, but because the Heath administration lied by telling the country that the ECA would not affect the UK's sovereignty.
Even the Bill which took us into the EEC, said: "there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty...". This mantra, in one form or another, was repeated throughout the campaign and the debates in Parliament. So we see a Government White Paper which attempted to bury the truth.
The Kilmuir Letter, which was written in December, 1960, evidenced that there would indeed be "loss of sovereignty" and was hidden for thirty years leaving the public completely. This damning letter to Edward Heath by the then-Lord Chancellor attempted to remind the Prime Minister of the treacherous steps that he was about to take upon signing the Treaty of Rome.
Another document released from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after thirty years of secrecy titled case file 30/1048 also meticulously documents the Heath administrations Treason, Sedition and Fraud which were used to admit us to the "common market" which later flourished into the European "Union."
The solution never was Brexit. As it turns out, the so-called referendum on the 23rd of June, 2016 did nothing but confuse the people more. The (not so) Great Repeal Bill converts all existing EU law into British law which is illegal. The EU Military integration and absorption of the UK Armed Forces is still underway, with no debate in either purporting parliaments. Never since 1972 have the people been so betrayed.
The solution is very simple. In 2001 the Crown was deposed. It has been law for 16 years for the people of the UK to put an end to the institutionalized tyranny and reassert their laws and customs, however this fact has been covered up by impostors within the treasonous regime.
To find out more about what YOU can do (as the people) to stop the despotic (dis)establishment, CLICK HERE!
http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/will-you-join-the-legal-uprising
The Constitutional Crisis & The Solution!
http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/constitutional-crisis-and-the-solution
The European Communities Act received Royal Assent on the 17th of October 1972. This Act resulted in the United Kingdom joining the EEC (European Economic Community), which had been established by the Treaty of Rome, signed on the 25th of March 1957. Britain finally became a member of the EEC on the 1st of January 1973. This state of constitutional illegality was ultimately entrenched on the 19th of June, 2008 when Royal Assent was given to the Lisbon Treaty. This final "Treaty" of the now-political European Union was ratified by all Member States of the EU on the 13th of November 2009.
When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome in Brussels on the 22nd of January 1972, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath knowingly and willfully tricked, deceived And betrayed the British people into handing over National Sovereignty to a foreign authority under the guise of a trade deal, that trade deal being the ECTA (The common Market). Whereas Heaths true intention was to surrender our Sovereignty, he lied to the whole country as the people were unaware they were voting for Foreign Rule and under Constitutional law it stands as the most grievous high treason in British history.
The famous Lord 'Kilmuir Letter' (kept hidden for 30 years) made it painfully obvious that the British Government at this time were ready to commit very serious crimes against the people, and did. In this letter, Edward Heath is reminded of the treacherous steps that he was about to take by the then-Lord Chancellor:
'THE KILMUIR LETTER'
"My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war).
And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John's action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England's Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
Answer as above.
The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community;
The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on.
Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Treaty-making Powers
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council's approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state's treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of 'refer'- to accept that court's decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be. It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty's Courts of law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty's control."
The once-top secret documents titled "Shoe-horned into the EU" which was also obtained (under the title 'FCO 30/1048') from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit!
Gordon Brown: Bankers should have been jailed for role in financial crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/31/gordon-brown-bankers-should-have-been-jailed-for-role-in-financial-crisis
Ex-PM warns failure to take tougher stand has made it inevitable that rogue bankers will again gamble with public money
Gordon Brown has claimed bankers should have been jailed for their fraudulent and dishonest behaviour during the financial crisis that led to Britain's deepest post-war recession and his defeat in the 2010 general election.
The Labour former prime minister used the second extract from his memoirs to warn that the failure to take a tougher line with wrongdoing – as pursued by other countries – has made it inevitable that rogue bankers will again gamble with public money.
"If bankers who act fraudulently are not put in jail with their bonuses returned, assets confiscated and banned from future practice, we will only give a green light to similar risk-laden behaviour in new forms," Brown says.
Interesting timing Gordon..
Death penalty moratorium will never be lifted – Russian ombudsman
https://www.rt.com/politics/411571-death-penalty-moratorium-will-never/
The Russian plenipotentiary for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova, has said that the moratorium on death penalty in the country will be extended indefinitely. She added that in her opinion life in prison was an adequate replacement as a punishment.
"I cannot decide on this subject but my opinion is that the moratorium will be extended because the sixth protocol on abolition of death penalty, that has been ratified by our nation, cannot be left unfulfilled, otherwise it would cause consequences connected with our membership in the Council of Europe," Moskalkova said during her lecture in the Moscow Institute of International Relations that was a part of the nationwide "open lesson" event dedicated to the issue of human rights.
"Public opinion polls show that a significant part of our population support the death penalty as a punishment for those who commit a murder or a terrorist attack with human casualties. But life in prison can be an adequate alternative as it provides an adequate punishment for the evil and crimes committed by such persons," the ombudsman added.
The moratorium on capital punishment was introduced in 1996 in connection with Russia's entry into the Council of Europe. The last execution in the Russian Federation took place on September 2, 1996.
Many Russian politicians and officials have raised the issue of canceling the moratorium, especially after terrorist attacks or other brutal crimes that attract public attention. One of the more recent examples of such behavior is the proposal of the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov who said in a televised interview in late November that he personally favored death penalty as punishment for convicted terrorist recruiters.
However, the country's top authorities have so far refused to introduce any changes to the situation, claiming that the question was too complex.
A public opinion poll conducted by the independent sociological agency Levada in February this year showed that 44 percent of Russians wanted the death penalty returned and 41 percent said they opposed this measure. 15 percent of respondents said they did not have any opinion on the issue. In 2015, the share of those who supported it was 41 percent with 44 percent against.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.12.03, 20:29:44
However, the country's top authorities have so far refused to introduce any changes to the situation, claiming that the question was too complex.
It is a complex question, especially in current times for the "British":
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.12.03, 20:07:19
The once-top secret documents titled "Shoe-horned into the EU" which was also obtained (under the title 'FCO 30/1048') from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit!
Have we not all in our lifetimes witnessed enough death ? Or is it as Gordon say's, lack of a viable deterrent encourages further egregious behaviour ?:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.12.03, 20:12:37
"If bankers who act fraudulently are not put in jail with their bonuses returned, assets confiscated and banned from future practice, we will only give a green light to similar risk-laden behaviour in new forms," Brown says.
Progress report on the US-Russian war
http://thesaker.is/progress-report-on-the-us-russian-war/
I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse.
In my very first column for the Unz review entitled "A Tale of Two World Orders" I described the kind of multipolar international system regulated by the rule of law Russia, China and their allies and friends (whether overt or covert) worldwide are trying to build and how dramatically different it was from the single World Hegemony and AngloZionist attempted to establish worldwide (and almost successfully imposed upon our suffering planet!). In a way, the US imperial leaders are right, Russia does represent an existential threat, not for the United States as a country or for its people, but for the AngloZionist Empire, just as the latter represents an existential threat to Russia. Furthermore, Russia represents a fundamental civilizational challenge to what is normally called the "West" as she openly rejects its post-Christian (and, I would add, also viscerally anti-Islamic) values. This is why both sides are making an immense effort at prevailing in this struggle.
Last week the anti-imperial camp scored an major victory with the meeting between Presidents Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan in Sochi: they declared themselves the guarantors of a peace plan which will end the war against the Syrian people (the so-called "civil war", which this never was) and they did so without even inviting the USA to participate in the negotiations. Even worse, their final statement did not even mention the USA, not once. The "indispensable nation" was seen as so irrelevant as to not even be mentioned.
To fully measure how offensive all this is we need to stress a number of points:
First, lead by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria.
Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries which failed to achieve anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar worth "gang that could not shoot straight" lead by CENTCOM and NATO and which only proved it most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time turned the course of the war (with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground).
Next, the Empire decreed that Russia was "isolated" and her economy "in tatters" – all of which the Ziomedia parroted with total fidelity. Iran was, of course, part of the famous "Axis of Evil" while Hezbollah was the "A-Team of terrorism". As for Erdogan, the AngloZionist tried to overthrow and kill him. And now it is Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey who defeated the terrorists and who will call the shots in Syria.
Finally, when the USA realized that putting Daesh in power in Damascus was not going to happen, they first tried to break up Syria (Plan B) and then tried to create a Kurdish statelet in Iraq and Syria (Plan C). All these plans failed, Assad is in Russia giving hugs to Putin while Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force Commander General Soleimani is taking a stroll through the last Syrian city to be liberated from Daesh.
Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed and beat the US leaders feel today? Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!
As for a strategy, the best they came up with was what I would call a "petty harassment of Russia": making RT sign up as a foreign agent, stealing ancient art from Russia, strip Russian athletes from medals en masse, trying to ban the Russian flag and anthem from the Olympics in Seoul or banning Russian military aircraft from the next Farnborough airshow. And all these efforts achieve is making Putin even more popular, the West even more hated, and the Olympics even more boring (ditto for Farnborough – the MAKS and the Dubai Air Shows are so much 'sexier' anyway). Oh, I almost forgot, the "new Europeans" will continue their mini-war against old Soviet statues to their liberators. It's just like the US mini-war on the Russian representations in the USA, a clear sign of weakness.
Speaking of weakness.
This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in a mass hysteria trying to figure out who of the Republicans or the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian military organizes any exercise, US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here.
Does that make sense to you?
The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified (at least officially) by a non-existing threat.
You know what else they are seeing?
That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated "coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies. Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in the Tatar/Mongol" (люблю молодца и в татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing courage in their enemies.
But US/NATO armies? They all act as if Conchita Wurst was their Commander in Chief!
Remember this:
None of these man were kind or "nice" in any way. But they mattered. They were relevant. And they wielded some very real power.
Today, real power looks like this:
And you know what is really offensive to the AngloZionist leaders?
That this photo shows one Orthodox Christian and two Muslims.
Now that's offensive. And very frightening, of course.
We are very, very far from the "birth of a new Middle-East" promised by Condi Rice (it is a new Middle-East alright, just not the one Rice and the Neocons had in mind!)
As for the "only democracy in the Middle-East" it is now in full panic mode, hence their now overt plan to work with the Saudis against Iran and their clearly staged leaks about bombing all Iranian assets up to 40km from the Israeli border. But that train has already left the station: the Syrian won and not amount of airstrikes will change that. So just to make sure they still look really fierce, the Israelis are now adding that in case of a war between Israel and Hezbollah, Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah would be a target. Wow! Who would have thought?!
Can you hear the giggles coming out of Beirut?
The scary thing is that the folks in DC, Riyadh and Jerusalem hear them loud and clear which means that sooner or later they will have to do something about it and that "something" will be the usual nonsensical bloodbath this "Axis of Kindness" has been made famous for: if you can't beat their military, make their civilians pay (think Kosovo 1999, Lebanon 2006, Yemen 2015). Either that or beat the shit out of a tiny, defenseless victim (Grenada 1983, Gaza 2008, Bahrain 2011). Nothing like a good massacre of defenseless civilians to make them feel manly, respected and powerful (and, for US Americans – "indispensable", of course).
Setting aside the case of the Middle-East, I think we can begin to see the outlines of what the USA and Russia will be doing in the next couple of years.
Russia: the Russian strategy towards the Empire is simple:
Try to avoid as much as possible and for as long as possible any direct military confrontation with the USA because Russia is still the weaker side (mostly in quantitative terms). That, and actively preparing for war under the ancient si vis pacem para bellum strategy.
Try to cope as best can be with all the "petty harassment": the USA still has infinitely more "soft power" than Russia and Russia simply does not have the means to strike back in kind. So she does the minimum to try to deter or weaken the effects of that kind of "petty harassment" but, in truth, there is not much she can do about it besides accepting it as a fact of life.
Rather than trying to disengage from the AngloZionist controlled Empire (economically, financially, politically), Russia will very deliberately contribute to the gradual emergence of an alternative realm. A good example of that is the Chinese-promoted New Silk Road which is being built without any meaningful role for the Empire.
USA: the US strategy is equally simple:
Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a purpose to the Empire, especially NATO.
Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against Russia on all levels.
Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries)
Both sides are using delaying tactics, but for diametrically opposite reasons: Russia because time is on her side and the USA because they have run out of options.
It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage: while the Russians want to build something, the US Americans only want to destroy it (examples include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the "concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that).
The biggest advantage for Russia is that the USA are internally falling apart economically, socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of pseudo-prosperity. This sad, really, a country which ought to be prosperous and happy is being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it.
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those it rules. In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn. In Russia it has never been stronger. This translates into a major fragility of the USA and, therefore, the Empire (the USA are by far the biggest host of the AngloZionist imperial parasite) and a major source of staying power for Russia.
All of the above applies only to political regimes, of course. The people of Russia and of the USA have exactly the same interests: bringing down the Empire with the least amount of violence and suffering as possible. Like all Empires, the US Empire mostly abused others in its formative and peak years, but as any decaying Empire it is now mostly abusing its own people. It is therefore vital to always repeat that an "Empire-free USA" would have no reason to see an enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the USA could be ideal partners, but the "imperial parasites" will not allow that to happen. Thus we are all stuck in an absurd and dangerous situation which could result in a war which would completely destroy most of our planet.
For whatever it's worth, and in spite of the constant hysterical russophobia in the US Ziomedia, I detect absolutely no sign whatsoever that this campaign is having any success with the people in the USA. At most, some of them naively buy into the "the Russians tried to interfere in our elections" fairytale, but even in this case this belief is mitigated by "no big deal, we also do that in other countries". I have yet to meet a US American who would seriously believe that Russia is any kind of danger. I don't even detect superficial reactions of hostility when, for example, I speak Russian with my family in a public place. Typically, we are asked what language we are speaking and when we reply "Russian" the reaction normally is "cool!". Quite often I even hear "what do you think of Putin? I really like him". This is in severe contrast with the federal government whom the vast majority of US Americans seem to hate with a passion.
To summarize it all, I would say that at this point in time of the US-Russian war, Russia is wining, the Empire is losing and the USA is suffering. As for the EU it is "enjoying" a much deserved irrelevance while being mostly busy absorbing wave after wave of society-destroying refugees proving, yet again, the truth of the saying that if your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air.
This war is far from over, I don't even think that we have reached it's peak yet and things are going to get worse before they get better again. But all in all, I am very optimistic that the Axis of Kindness will bite the dust in a relatively not too distant future.
The Saker
The Inevitable Collapse of Israeli-Saudi-American Alliance Against Iran and Resistance
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48342.htm
By Miko Peled
December 04, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - From the earliest years of the Zionist project, the leaders of the movement - which then morphed into the State of Israel - understood that regional coalitions were crucial to its success. But Israel is a settler colonial project and therefor it was and still is very much hated by people in the region. Israel and its leaders invested in creating and promoting corrupt unprincipled despots to lead in the countries around it, men who would control the Arab world by keeping its people poor, uneducated and without representation and would pose no threat to Israel and its policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing perpetuated against the people of Palestine. Israel has had some degree of success in this, especially with the reactionary monarchies. Countries who had leaders that resisted Israel ended up paying a heavy price. These were states like Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya which are now destroyed and so it can come as no surprise that the new Saudi Crown Prince is bending over backwards to please Israel by referring to Iran's supreme leader as "the new Hitler of the Middle East," and is even preparing to take his regime's relations with Israel to a new level, some say he even intends to establish diplomatic ties with Israel.
It is ironic that some of the greatest perpetrators and supporters of terrorism are those who talk of fighting terrorism. The latest unholy alliance between the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt is a source of unspeakable terror which without fail is inflicted on innocent civilians but guarantees Israeli interests will be safe. The new boss calling the shots from Riyadh, Mohammad Bin Salman is for now at the center of this unholy alliance which in the short term will satisfy his hunger for power and influence but is sure to fail and in the meantime, will surely produce more misery in Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon and God only knows where else. But state terrorism like that perpetuated by Israeli military against Palestinians and the Saudis in Yemen is heralded by the weapons suppliers in the US and the UK as heroic while the people who fight for their rights are inevitably forgotten and left to die.
Two issues that have been brought to the forefront by the unholy alliance are Iran and its fictional threat to world peace and stability and its mythical support for terrorism. Iran which has invaded no one and attacked no one but supports Hezbollah and Hamas in their resistance against Israel is the favorite enemy in Tel-Aviv, Washington, DC and Riyadh. The new Saudi boss wants to consolidate regional power and he thinks he can do so by aligning with Israel and the US in order to weaken Iran. What he may not realize is that Iran is not a threat and cannot be threatened. While the Saudi monarchy gets its legitimacy from oil and money and from Israel and the US who supply it with weapons, Iranian legitimacy stems from its people, its long history and extraordinary culture. As for weakening Iranian influence in the region by weakening Hezbollah and Syria, that has been a colossal failure. Hezbollah is strong and well respected and is seen as the guarantee for stability in Lebanon. Furthermore, having been struck by Hezbollah might twice, Israel will not dare challenge it. And in Syria regardless of what one may think of the regime, it has clearly maintained the upper hand as a result of the support of Iran and Hezbollah.
What Israel wants however is legitimacy. It wants to continue the genocide of the Palestinian people uninterrupted, it wants to demonstrate to the world that it won on all fronts and it wants the US embassy to move to Jerusalem once and for all. And while Israel is being allowed to destroy Palestine and kill its people, the Jerusalem issue is a more complicated one and can only happen if ambitious yet ignorant and careless people are in power. And so it happens that at this moment in time there is precisely such a combination in place. With the new Saudi Crown Prince, Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, let the games begin. But interrupting the status quo regarding Jerusalem is so dangerous and has such destructive potential that even King Abdullah of Jordan, who himself owes his power to Israel and the US is warning the US to avoid meddling with it. Jerusalem has been a Muslim city with a minority of other religions living in it. It was only the sheer brutality of the Israeli military and the ethnic cleansing campaign Israel has put in place that has somewhat changed the nature of the city. But no recognition was ever given to the Zionist conquest of Jerusalem and hard as they try, it will never be seen as legitimate. Although for seven decades Israel has maintained that Jerusalem is its capital, the rest of the world was not able to swallow this breach of international law and common sense. And even today after seven decades of destruction the city of Jerusalem still maintains its Muslim heritage and is considered to be an icon of Islam peppered with symbols of other religions which reside within it. If Mohamad Bin Salman, Trump and Netanyahu attempt to change this, it will surely hasten the collapse of their unholy alliance but it is also sure to bring a great deal of misery and violence.
In the meantime, the three musketeers have a plan for the Palestinians. They are to give up their dignity, forgo their rights and swallow an indignation designed especially for them. With their land stolen, rights taken away, water denied and existence ignored at best and mostly destroyed, the Palestinian people should accept a small fraction of Palestine designated as Area A of what used to be the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a Palestinian state. But what if they do not accept this indignation? The US is threatening to close down the PLO mission in Washington DC. The mission is not an embassy and in many ways its existence is in and of itself an indignation which the Palestinian Authority seems to be willing to swallow. Palestinians will be no worse off if it is closed and as was said by my friend Issa Amro, co-founder and leader of Youth Against Settlements in Hebron, recently, there are enough Palestinians in the US to represent the Palestinian voice proudly and truthfully until such time that a real ambassador of an actual Palestinian government presents credentials to the president of the United States.
Mohammad Bin Salman summoning the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and attempting to force him to discredit Hezbollah - a legitimate and stabilizing part of the Lebanese government - and the summoning of Mahmoud Abbas from Ramallah and ordering him to accept the new peace deal, is nothing more than a show of muscle by a new and inexperienced player. Even the praise Thomas Friedman heaped on him in the New York Times, where Friedman rather foolishly wrote that, "The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia," can't hide the fact that over reaching and that he is too young and inexperienced to understand the Middle East. Having failed miserably in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, Saudi Arabia lost massive ground to the Iranians and he hopes that Trump and Netanyahu will come to his aid. But he is relying on some very weak allies: The very legitimacy of Netanyahu and the entire Zionist project are now being brought to question and Trump will be fortunate if he is able to see the end of his first term as president without being forced to resign. One hopes that with the inevitable collapse of this alliance a new one will rise, one that will support a free Palestine and a peaceful Middle East.
Miko Peled is a writer and human rights activist. He is an international speaker and the author of "The General's Son, Journey of an Israeli in Palestine". https://mikopeled.com/
An ominous warning: 'Netanyahu needs a war with Iran. And he needs it soon'
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/ominous-warning-netanyahu/
James North on December 2, 2017
In a dangerous escalation, Israel last night attacked a military base near Syria's capital, Damascus, using both warplanes and surface-to-surface missiles. News sources in Syria said the target was an Iranian installation near Al-Kiswa, 7 miles south of the city.
This attack — Israeli officials declined comment — is just the latest ominous sign from Israel that the unholy alliance of Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, may be planning to greatly expand war in the Mideast, targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its ally and patron, Iran.
The veteran journalist Larry Derfner reports from Israel that "everybody here feels war is coming." He adds, "There's so much tough talk from Israel, and the Saudis would love Israel to fight a war for their interests, and the tension is very high — all this is in the news all the time." Derfner does not believe Hezbollah or Iran would start the conflict, "because they know they'd get crushed." He explains, "The only one I see starting it is Israel, because Israel is both strong and paranoid."
Bradley Burston, a respected columnist in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, also could not have been more clear the other day. His opinion piece was entitled, "Netanyahu Needs a War. He Needs It to Be With Iran. And He Needs It Soon." Burston argues that Netanyahu has several selfish reasons for wanting a conflict:
1) The Israeli political reality is turning against him. "He's desperate now because he's losing ground fast in the latest opinion polls."
2) He sees he may be out of power soon, and he's "obsessed by his place in history." Burston writes, "Netanyahu still has no legacy beyond the number of all those many years in power."
3) Netanyahu may also provoke war to distract from the ongoing probes into his corruption: "He's desperate because police detectives and investigative journalists are closing in on him."
Burston's allegations are astonishing, especially the last one. Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon to attack Hezbollah cost it 121 lives, and more than 1000 other people also died, most of them Lebanese civilians. Would the Israeli prime minister really put his people at risk just to selfishly cover up his own (alleged) financial criminality?
Earlier this year, Larry Derfner (who has published a compelling memoir about abandoning liberal Zionism) warned in a New York Times Op-Ed article that Israel, not its neighbors, provokes the regular armed clashes. "Counterintuitive though it may be to Israeli and most Western minds, Israel, not its militant Islamic or brutal Syrian enemies, is the aggressor in these border wars."
Anyone who only reads the U.S. mainstream press will be stunned to learn about this rising feeling in Israel that a wider war is coming. Meanwhile, Derfner reacted to last night's Israeli strike against the Iranian base in Syria: "I oppose this latest attack just like I oppose all the others. They're all part of Israel's 'neighborhood bully' policy, which has been going on for decades. Nothing new here. The coming war won't be anything new, either, except for all the new people who will get killed in it."
A brief history lesson of the British Empire's aggressive warfare foreign policy courtesy of RT:
https://www.rt.com/uk/412349-johnson-terrorism-foreign-spies/
UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attacked British foreign policy critics for playing "into a jihadi narrative." Politicians like Jeremy Corbyn, and at one time Johnson himself, have argued that current and past British foreign policy drives extremism.
On Thursday, in a speech titled "The struggle against Islamist terror: How global Britain is helping to win," Johnson was at pains to point out that countries which have no history of foreign intervention have also been victim of terrorist attacks.
"British foreign policy is not the problem; it is part of the solution," he said, insisting that unrest in Syria and the Middle East "have been exacerbated not so much by Western meddling as by our aloofness."
But the UK has over the last 100 years faced accusations of facilitating famine, conducting indiscriminate bombing, and undertaking unjust wars.
Iraq
Britain essentially created Iraq, and in 1920, installed a regime that was so unpopular it united even Shia and Sunni tribes. Thousands of Iraqis died in fighting overseen by Winston Churchill, then the Secretary of State for War and Air. In 1924, well before Dresden and Heilbronn, Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, then working in the newly formed Royal Air Force, was quoted saying he had taught Iraqis "that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or wounded."
Iraq formally obtained its independence in 1932. In 1979, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein took power, and the rest is history.
Not even mentioning Gulf War 1 and the patrolling of a no-fly zone for over a decade, in 2003, the British were back in force. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, on the coattails of the US, led the UK into the Second Iraq War to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that never actually existed.
It has been estimated that over one million people died in the war and violence that followed.
Iran
In the middle of the twentieth century, Britain turned its attention to Iran. Together with the US secret services, British agents orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in a 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
The crisis began when Mosaddegh had sought to audit the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), in an attempt to limit the company's control over Iran's petroleum reserves. The AIOC refused, instigating the nationalisation of Iran oils and the expelling of foreign corporate representatives from the country.
In response Britain organised an international boycott of Iranian oil, while seeking militarily to seize the British-built Abadan oil refinery. MI6 and the CIA then used agents and bribery of officials and military officers to undermine then eventually overthrow the government. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, was restored to the throne until the British backed monarch was toppled in the 1979 revolution.
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
In 1947, fading colonial master Britain divided India into three: Pakistan, India, and what is now Bangladesh. Partition and its effects would lead to one million dead, 13 million displaced, and ethnic and religious tensions that exist to this day.
Before the disastrous partition of India, which saw 14.5 million people displaced and sparked numerous wars between India and Pakistan, came the Bengal famine. In 1943, at least two million Bengalis starved to death, in part due to then-Prime Minister Winston Churchill's decision to divert food from the area to British soldiers fighting in Greece.
Renowned Indian author Dr. Shashi Tharoor condemned Churchill, stating "This is the man who the British insist on hailing as some apostle of freedom and democracy," adding that "he is really one of the more evil rulers of the 20th century only fit to stand in company of the likes of Hitler, Mao and Stalin."
Palestine and Israel
In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, a 67-word promise to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Although the declaration was not legally binding, the declaration led to consistent Jewish migration to the region to make it a reality.
As well as Iraq, Britain attained Mandatory Palestine in 1922, another spoil from the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Arab Palestinians revolted three times against British rule, the last being in 1936. The increasingly infamous 'Bomber' Harris was tasked with thwarting the uprising, during which the RAF commander endorsed the bombing of civilians, stating: "one 250lb. or 500lb. bomb in each village that speaks out of turn" would satisfactorily conclude the rebellion. 5,000 Arabs were killed in the three year revolt.
In 1922, Britain was handed control of Palestine, and that only ended in 1948 with the creation of Israel. Needless to say, the consequences are still being felt strongly today.
What is Boris Johnson going on about? More interventionist foreign policy? With what troops and what money? All Afghanistan achieved was a rusting turbine near the Kajaki dam and lost lives.
— Annabelle (@trixy022) December 7, 2017
An under-reported Pentagon study released in 2004 concluded that "American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature and support for radical Islamists." Johnson takes a different view. Ignoring the lessons from history, he wants to get involved again.
Why The Globalists Need A War, And Soon
http://alt-market.com/articles/3329-why-the-globalists-need-a-war-and-soon
Brandon Smith
It is difficult to gauge and understand geopolitical and economic events without first comprehending the fact that much of what happens in the world is engineered to happen and with a specific encompassing goal in mind. If you subscribe to the theory that all is random "chaos" and outcomes are circumstantial or coincidental, then you will be lost in the dark on most things. If you think a globalist "conspiracy" would require "too much control" or foresight, I would point out that organized conspiracy by people in power is a matter of history, not of theory. If such cabals were prevalent in the past, it is rather foolish to dismiss the reality that they are prevalent today.
In my articles "The Economic End Game Explained" and "The Economic End Game Continues," I outline considerable evidence supporting the following conclusion: International financiers and political puppets in Western AND Eastern countries share a deep rooted ideology called "globalism" or the "new world order." This ideology demands total centralization of economy and government resulting in a single global fiscal authority, a single global monetary system and a one world ruling structure. Obviously, such a pursuit would take extensive time and planning. It is a long term project, with moments of accelerated change.
The globalists refer to the process of their intended change as the "global economic reset." A reset of the world's economic processes is not so far fetched as skeptics like to argue. When an organized group of ideologues maintains control over the currency production and interest rates of most nations on the planet, it would hardly be difficult to manipulate politicians, manipulate legislation or even scientifically conjure financial bubbles and collapses. By extension, it would also be simple to trigger international conflicts if needed.
But why would war be a necessary ingredient to globalization?
War is the ultimate distraction, the ultimate divider and, perhaps ironically, the ultimate consolidator. In the past century, war always seems to follow or coincide with economic crisis events that are later exposed as products of the banking elites and their aggressive monetary policies. And, in the aftermath of these wars, supranational institutions are often founded (like the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund) as "solutions" to preventing mass tragedies from ever happening again. War is a social steroid promoting mutation, usually in an unhealthy way.
In recent years the concept of "world war" has given way to a more insidious trend of constant and sporadic regional wars. In most cases these regional wars have helped to contribute to the steady downfall of the U.S. through accumulating national debts as well as international distrust or hatred. In fact, one might conclude that if we were to look at the macro-picture of the vast array of regional wars being perpetrated by the globalists we would see that all of them combined are amounting to a kind of world war in a different form.
That said, the globalists will need a new and far larger catalyst for their reset, and soon. Why? Because a sizable distraction is essential to the next phase of the ongoing collapse. A pervasive scapegoat is needed; one that can be blamed for almost any negative scenario. This draws public attention away from the globalists themselves as the culprits behind fiscal crisis, maybe so much so that it will take decades before the mainstream ever questions what actually happened, if they ever question anything at all.
The fear generated through an uncertain war also acts as a form of psychological alchemy, transmuting the collective public mindset to accept centralization they never would have accepted otherwise.
Here is the issue at hand — central banks are seeking a monetary reset more than anything else. A monetary reset demands massive debt, followed by massive stimulus, followed by fiscal tightening, then massive inflation, followed by currency implosion that opens the door to a replacement structure (most likely in the form of blockchain technology and cyrptocurrency). The credit crisis of 2008 conveniently provided at least two of these elements so far, vast debt and stimulus measures. Today, we are beginning to witness the fiscal tightening phase of this process.
As I have been warning since before the Fed taper of QE, the central bank trend will lead to a removal of stimulus support, facilitating a crushing blow to bonds and equities markets. Now, interestingly enough, the Bank for International Settlements is warning of the same thing as 2017 comes to a close. It should be noted that this is not the first time the BIS warned of an impending crash; they also predicted with keen timing the derivatives and credit crash back in 2007. This was, of course, too little too late for the masses to react in any positive way, though.
Their latest warning arrives on the heels of the December Federal Reserve meeting at which it is widely expected that the central bank will raise interest rates yet again while taking the next step towards reducing their balance sheet. Many mainstream and alternative economists doubted the taper of QE and doubted the hiking of interest rates. They were wrong. Just as the doubts over the Fed balance sheet reductions are wrong. The pullback in these measures will invariably strike bonds and equities in a negative way. Time is running out.
But, the banking elites have taken steps. For example, they have in place a perfect distraction in the form of the Trump Administration. With Trump loudly and proudly taking credit for the stock market bull run over the course of the past year, who do you think the public will blame when those same markets go south as the central bank pulls the rug out? Probably not the Fed or the establishment banks.
Trump has also in an odd way created the perfect rationale for the Fed as they increase interest rates and end the cheap money that has been feeding stocks for so long. With the passage of Trump's tax "reform" plan, the fed can now argue that interest rates MUST be raised in order to create incentives for treasury investment and to pay for Trump's intended public works programs and military expansion goals. Meaning, the fed can claim it is not culpable for any negative effects from removing cheap capital from the table because Trump's actions demanded it.
I would also point out that in most cases in history the Fed has lowered interest rates immediately following tax cuts and reforms. They did this after Reagan's tax reforms in 1981 and in 1986, as well as after George W. Bush's tax reforms in 2001. Juxtapose that with 2018, as the Fed intends to continue RAISING interest rates in the wake of Trump's tax reforms. Meaning, they are taking the opposite action from what they have often done in the past. Something to think about...
Trump's tax plan itself is primarily a distraction from the real problem. First, when comparing tax brackets from this past year to the intended tax brackets for next year under the Trump reforms, there is almost no change whatsoever for the average American. The only major reductions in taxes are, no surprise, in the form of corporate tax cuts; reducing the corporate tax ceiling from 35 percent to 20 percent. This is trickle-down economics at best, and not a solution to a single problem facing the public and the country in terms of the flailing economy.
Second, why are we talking about income tax "reform" when we should be talking about abolishing the income tax and the Federal Reserve altogether? Whatever happened to that dialogue? It has disappeared down the memory hole.
Trump's tax plan will do nothing to slow or undo the current economic crisis because the crisis stems directly from central banking monetary policies and interest rate manipulations. Tax reform is far too little far too late, and stands as nothing more than meager bone thrown to conservatives to keep them quiet for a while. This is what Trump's tax reform does do very well, though — it rallies conservatives around Trump, regardless of whether it actually helps them or not. Much like Obama's universal health care bill, which has proven to be a continued disaster in practice, but was rather successful at the time of its passage in rallying the liberal base. Trump is certainly going to need a base of public support if he is going to initiate a major war campaign.
North Korea continues to be the most likely powder keg for the next distraction event. Two months of quiet led people with short attention spans to dismiss the notion, and perhaps some of them will double down and continue their denials, but it is growing more difficult to ignore by the day. I would argue that North Korea is the most viable option simply because almost no one expects a war with the isolated nation to happen. The level of complacency despite all the signals to the contrary is palpable.
The U.S. has staged three aircraft carrier groups in the region for the first time in a decade. Major combat exercises are underway, designated Vigilant Ace 18, specifically designed to simulate an invasion of North Korea with over 230 aircraft and 12,000 American troops participating. North Korea has warned of "nuclear war" as a consequence.
North Korea may have the ability to follow through, at least on a limited scale, as they have recently test launched what appears to be a huge leap in missile technology — an ICBM capable of carrying multiple warheads and striking the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. How the North Koreans came to possess this technology so quickly is a question everyone should be asking.
In response, the war rhetoric has been amplified. White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has stated that North Korea is the greatest immediate threat to the U.S., saying that the potential for war "is increasing every day." Warmonger and enemy of the Constitution, Lindsay Graham, has stated that the families of U.S. military personnel should be moved out of South Korea for their own safety, and that "We're getting close to military conflict."
So how close is close? I maintain that war with North Korea is likely by the second quarter of 2018. I also maintain the globalists will continue the strategy of multiple regional conflicts and global economic warfare rather than a one-off global nuclear mess that would wipe out trillions of dollars and decades of effort put into infrastructure and surveillance grids.
This would be advantageous to the globalists if they plan to continue interest rate hikes and stimulus removal by central banks around the world. It would help hide the effects of balance sheet reductions on stocks and it could expedite the fall of the dollar as the world reserve as Eastern and European nations apply alternatives like the IMF's SDR basket system in response to the massive debt brought on by a military quagmire for the U.S. In other words, catastrophic fiscal developments that were already going to happen anyway due to central bank sabotage will be entirely blamed on geopolitical crisis rather than the true culprits.
Finally, will the East step in militarily to prevent a conflict in North Korea? No. China has already stated that if North Korea attacks first, then they will not obstruct regime change by the U.S.
This flies in the face of those that believe in the false east/west paradigm. China has left the door wide open to potential conflict. If the globalists want a war in North Korea, they will create a war in North Korea, and the Chinese have publicly admitted they will step out of the way to let it happen. A false flag is probable. More provocations leading to a violent response by North Korea would also be rather easy to produce. So far, North Korea remains the best existing shock and awe event to hide a globally disintegrating economic situation. Would the globalists pass up an opportunity like this? There is no reason for them to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWYy97-KsQ
Special Note: Moriarty's speech on the "inevitability of war" is a rather accurate portrayal in my opinion of the globalist mindset - rationalizing the artificial engineering of conflicts because "human nature" dictates that such events will "happen anyway", so why shouldn't they benefit? Of course, if human nature was a reliable ally of the power brokers, then they would not need to engineer these crises in the first place. Such is the insane circular logic of organized psychopaths.
From the comments of Brandon Smith's article:
Something else too...
written by Anon55 , December 06, 2017
"So far, North Korea remains the best existing shock and awe event to hide a globally disintegrating economic situation."
I agree with that, but I don't think it's the only shock that will happen.
FEMA in 2015 predicted food prices to rise by 400% during the 2020's. What was thought to be the cause? well, it wasn't an economic crisis, although that will definitely have much effect on it as well. Rather, it was crop failures caused by climate change. Now before you say that global warming is a hoax, I know it is, but there's another type of climate change that actually has scientific data behind it and it's called a "Solar Minimum". Even NASA, who is backing global warming, has admitted that a solar minimum is on the way and they expect it to arrive during 2019-2020 but what they do not believe is that it would actually cause any change in climate which is foolish since there is plenty of scientific data backing the claim that solar minimum's are followed by unprecedented cold weather causing crop losses and natural disasters. The last time this solar minimum occurred was in the 1800's and coincidentally, we had the worst food shortage in the whole human history during this period in China.
So while a global economic crisis does also very much affect food prices, the fact that it will be partnered with a solar minimum that makes it much harder to even grow food is likely to bring much more chaos and destruction than any previous crisis that has so far happened in human history.
Source:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/10/a-swelling-volume-of-scientific-papers-now-forecasting-global-cooling-in-the-coming-decades/#sthash.c1vHx2Ed.dpbs
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53dya5/fema-contractor-predicts-social-unrest-caused-by-395-food-price-spikes
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming
Pesticide toxicity to bees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_toxicity_to_bees
Pesticides vary in their effects on bees. Contact pesticides are usually sprayed on plants and can kill bees when they crawl over sprayed surfaces of plants or other areas around it. Systemic pesticides, on the other hand, are usually incorporated into the soil or onto seeds and move up into the stem, leaves, nectar, and pollen of plants.[1]
Of contact pesticides, dust and wettable powder pesticides tend to be more hazardous to bees than solutions or emulsifiable concentrates. When a bee comes in contact with pesticides while foraging, the bee may die immediately without returning to the hive. In this case, the queen bee, brood, and nurse bees are not contaminated and the colony survives. Alternatively, the bee may come into contact with an insecticide and transport it back to the colony in contaminated pollen or nectar or on its body, potentially causing widespread colony death.[2]
Actual damage to bee populations is a function of toxicity and exposure of the compound, in combination with the mode of application. A systemic pesticide, which is incorporated into the soil or coated on seeds, may kill soil-dwelling insects, such as grubs or mole crickets as well as other insects, including bees, that are exposed to the leaves, fruits, pollen, and nectar of the treated plants.[3][4]
Pesticides are linked to Colony Collapse Disorder and are now considered a main cause, and the toxic effects of Neonicotinoids on bees are confirmed.[5] Currently, many studies are being conducted to further understand the toxic effects of pesticides on bees. Agencies such as the EPA[6] and EFSA[7] are making action plans to protect bee health in response to calls from scientists and the public to ban or limit the use of the pesticides with confirmed toxicity.
Colony collapse disorder
Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a syndrome that is characterized by the sudden loss of adult bees from the hive. Many possible explanations for CCD have been proposed, but no one primary cause has been found. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has indicated in a report to Congress that a combination of factors may be causing CCD, including pesticides, pathogens, and parasites, all of which have been found at high levels in affected bee hives.[12]
The development of a bee from egg to adult takes about three weeks.The queens daily laying rate will decline if contaminated materials are brought back to the hive such as pesticides.31.6% of exposed honey bees will fail to return to their colony every day while the rest will bring back contaminated pollen which in turn will not only affect the worker bees but also the queen.As a consequence there will be an upset in colony dynamics.[13]
Colony Collapse Disorder has more implication than the extinction of one bee species; the disappearance of honeybees can cause catastrophic health and financial impacts. Honeybee pollination has an estimated value of more than $14 billion annually to the United States agriculture. Honeybees are required for pollinating many crops, which range from nuts to vegetables and fruits, that are necessary for human and animal diet.[14]
The EPA updated their guidance for assessing pesticide risks to honeybees in 2014. For the EPA, when certain pesticide use patterns or triggers are met, current test requirements include the honey bee acute contact toxicity test, the honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage test, and field testing for pollinators. EPA guidelines have not been developed for chronic or acute oral toxicity to adult or larval honey bees. On the other hand, the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) requires both acute oral and contact honey bee adult toxicity studies when there is potential for exposure for insect pollinators. Primary measurement endpoint derived from the acute oral and acute contact toxicity studies is the median lethal dose for 50% of the organisms tested (i.e., LD50), and if any biological effects and abnormal responses appear, including sub-lethal effects, other than the mortality, it should be reported.
The EPA's testing requirements do not account for sub-lethal effects to bees or effects on brood or larvae. Their testing requirements are also not designed to determine effects in bees from exposure to systemic pesticides. With colony collapse disorder, whole hive tests in the field are needed in order to determine the effects of a pesticide on bee colonies. To date, there are very few scientifically valid whole hive studies that can be used to determine the effects of pesticides on bee colonies because the interpretation of such whole-colony effects studies is very complex and relies on comprehensive considerations of whether adverse effects are likely to occur at the colony level.[15]
A March 2012 study[16] conducted in Europe, in which minuscule electronic localization devices were fixed on bees, has shown that, even with very low levels of pesticide in the bee's diet, a high proportion of bees (more than one third) suffers from orientation disorder and is unable to come back to the hive. The pesticide concentration was order of magnitudes smaller than the lethal dose used in the pesticide's current use. The pesticide under study, brand-named "Cruiser" in Europe (thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid insecticide), although allowed in France by annually renewed exceptional authorization, could be banned in the coming years by the European Commission.
Based on a risks to bee health as identified by EFSA, in April 2013 the EU decided to restrict thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid. The UK voted against the ban saying it would harm food production.[17] Agrochemical companies Syngenta and Bayer CropScience both began legal proceedings to object to the ban. It is their position that there is no science that implicates their pesticide products.[18]
Starvation and Propaganda as Weapons of War, 1917
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anecdotes-from-the-archive/starvation-and-propaganda-as-weapons-of-war-1917/
By Dan Schlenoff on January 27, 2017
Wartime food shortages in Germany in the winter of 1916–1917 were terrible. The civilian population called it the "turnip winter," a bitter nickname, given the indignity of having to eat turnips, normally considered to be food fit only for cattle. Alexander Watson in his book Ring of Steel noted that "Germany teetered on the brink of starvation during the second half of the war." The blockade on imports and exports imposed by the British (and enforced by the Royal Navy) at the start of the war in 1914 is mostly to blame. Some scholars argue that food was scarce but not critically so, but there's an interesting statistic in a 2003 article by William Van der Kloot that shows the lack of food for people and cattle alike: the average weight of cattle at slaughter dropped from a prewar high of about 550 pounds to a low in 1918 of about 300 pounds.
Against that background, there's the hopelessly optimistic article from Scientific American written by American citizen, Albert K. Dawson, in Germany (while the U.S. was still neutral) and published 100 years ago today: "Economic Conditions in Germany (part II): A Great National Bread Trust." There is a charming vignette to begin the tale:
"'Your bread card please,' says the waiter and at the same time deftly withdraws the plate of bread for which I am reaching. 'All right,' I say, 'In a minute; let's have one of those rolls.' 'Card first,' says he and moves the plate still farther back. Then follows a search which usually ends in my finding that I have left my bread card at home or in my other coat. This I explain at length, but to no avail. The waiters cannot be coaxed, frightened or bribed. Like the Chinaman who says, 'No tickie, no washee,' they stand firm on the rule, 'No ticket, no bread.' When relations with the determined waiter reach the point where the average American feels like taking the matter up with our Ambassador, it usually follows that the portly German across the table interrupts with 'Pardon, mein Herr, but I see you are an American and do not understand our system. May I put my card at your disposal?' And with a courtly gesture, like one offering another a cigarette, he hands his card across the table. I have gone through this performance not once, but dozens of times, and I have found that, if I argue long enough and loud enough, someone will always come around and offer me his bread card. From this the waiter detaches one of the 25-gram checks for which he then gives me one roll or one slice of bread.
"Such are the workings of the German food system; there is enough for everyone and to insure each one's getting his share the card system is used. The price is fixed by law and the amount any one person can buy at one time is limited to his immediate need, thus making speculation out of the question."
More descriptions and photographs by the author follow, of warehouses overflowing with food, and he "reveals" a government policy that sounds very thoughtful—except that nobody thought of it:
"At the beginning of the war, as a measure of precaution, the German government required every city of more than five thousand to put away in storage meat in some form to the value of eleven marks per head of population. This means that there is a reserve supply of meat stored away amounting to about thirteen pounds for every person in Germany. (About eighty-five per cent of the population lives in cities of over 5,000 and at the time these supplies were laid in 11 marks would buy fifteen or sixteen pounds of meat). This fact is not generally known. even to the mass of the Germans. I have never seen it published in any of their newspapers.
"The government has probably passed out word to the censor to keep it quiet so as not to cause public discontent. The above figures were given me by one of the men who is in the Central Department, which did most of the buying for the cities. Furthermore, this tremendous reserve was all bought outside of Germany so as not to disturb the home market. In order to convince me of these facts, he gave me letters which allowed me to visit the great warehouses and cold storage plants of the principal cities, where I could see for myself. I did not have time to visit them all; but the amount of meat I saw in storage was beyond belief. It comes in every form: Salted, smoked, dried, canned, pickled and frozen. One single cold storage plant just outside of Berlin contained 6,000,000 pounds of frozen meat which had been in storage since October, 1914.
"These warehouses are guarded night and day like the national treasury, and it was only with much formality and showing of passes that I was allowed to go in at all. Usually photographs were not permitted; but I was fortunate in finding an old friend in charge of this department in Hamburg, so there I was allowed to make photographs.
"This particular municipality has not confined itself to the 11 marks per head prescribed by law; but, with the foresight of a great commercial city, she has laid away several million marks worth of other provisions. According to the guide books, Hamburg has 62 miles of warehouse docks. I did not look into every one, but I saw enough to convince me that Hamburg would be the last city to suffer from hunger."
Perhaps Hamburg was the last city to suffer from hunger, but the meat ration in 1916 was a third of what it was prewar, and Erik Sass of Mental Floss noted that in August 1916 "the major port city of Hamburg was rocked as hungry workers rioted" and Dr. Helen Boak notes, "In August 1916 a group of soldiers' wives wrote to the Hamburg Senate demanding its support for a peace settlement: 'we want to have our husbands and sons back from the war and we don't want to starve any more.'" Six million pounds of meat would have fed the German army for two days on the reduced rations of 1916. It is a ridiculous fantasy to suggest that the government had the foresight to buy up foreign meat stocks to prepare for a long war when those in charge of the government were convinced the war would be short and sharp and wouldn't last long enough for hunger and starvation to become the problem that it was. My view from 2017 is that the article is attempting to use a gullible journalist to suggest that the British blockade was ineffective, and therefore not worth enforcing, when in reality, the effects on the civilian population of Germany—especially the poor—were severe enough to cause at least 400,000 deaths from starvation.
External Sources:
Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Alexander Watson. Basic Books, 2014.
"Ernest Starling's Analysis of the Energy Balance of the German People During the Blockade, 1914–19." William Van Der Kloot In Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, Vol. 57, No. 2, May 22, 2003. http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/57/2/185
"WWI Centennial: Starvation Stalks Europe." Erik Sass in the online magazine Mental Floss, August 24, 2016.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/85224/wwi-centennial-starvation-stalks-europe
[Sass, by the way, writes an exceptionally well researched weekly post about events in World War One exactly 100 years earlier]
"Food and the First World War in Germany." Dr. Helen Boak on the website Everyday Lives in War from the University of Hertfordshire, April 29, 2015. Quoted from "Der Krieg der Frauen 1914-1918: Zur Innenansicht des Ersten Weltkriegs in Deutschland" by Ute Daniel, in Keiner fühlt sich hier mehr als Mensch...'. Erlebnis und Wirkung des Ersten Weltkriegs" edited by Gerhard Hirschfeld et al. (Essen: 1993), p. 131.
https://everydaylivesinwar.herts.ac.uk/?p=435
-
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 on economic aspects of the First World War. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/
Starvation as a weapon of war in Syria
https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/jill-coster-van-voorhout/starvation-as-weapon-of-war-in-syria
Jill Coster van Voorhout 1 September 2014
Since 1993, there have been calls for the legal and political recognition of starvation as a weapon of war. In Syria, it has regained distressing urgency.
After more than three years of civil war in Syria, allegations abound of starvation being used as a weapon of war.
In October 2013 the media were the first to report on a so-called "Starvation until Submission Campaign". In April 2014 Foreign Policy confirmed this claim in its exclusive entitled "New UN documents expose Assad's starvation campaign in Syria". Despite modest improvements in the delivery of food to areas controlled by non-state actors, internal United Nations (UN) reports found a "mass exodus" to government-controlled regions "... in part because" Syrians believe President Al-Assad to be "... the only reliable source of life-sustaining food".
A confidential report by a team of lawyers and forensic scientists who took evidence from an anonymous witness called "Caesar", contains photographs of starved bodies, concluding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute for war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Amnesty International investigated Yarmouk, the Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus with the largest death toll due to starvation.
This brief commentary on deliberate starvation of civilians in Syria draws two parallels. First, a comparison with rape and sexual violence is germane because, despite the references to war crimes above, starvation cannot be prosecuted as a crime in its own right. Second, it is worth recounting the response by the international community to Somalia's tragedy in 1993.
The recognition of rape and sexual violence as weapons of war started as a response to the events in the former Yugoslavia by UN Ambassador and former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Subsequently, the crimes were adopted in the statutes of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda in the 1990s.
Already In 1993, Theodor Meron, who later became the president of the ICTY, called for legal and political response to both rape and starvation. However, the crime of starvation had another fate than rape.
The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), lists starvation as a war crime in international conflicts, but not in intrastate conflicts. Without an explanation why starvation constitutes a crime "only" when two or more states are involved in an armed conflict, the drafters defied the authoritative consensus submitted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
A pragmatic response to this dilemma for Syria is the prosecution of starvation under other headings. Examples are the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against civilians and, if the sieges and deprivation of food are intended to force civilians to move out of or into certain areas, ordering their displacement (Articles 8(2)(e)((i) and (viii), Rome Statute). Also, starvation can amount to a crime against humanity and genocide, or torture depending on the trying national jurisdiction (e.g. the Netherlands' international crimes division prosecutes torture).
However, this pragmatic response to starvation in Syria does not acknowledge the crime in its own right, and thereby does not agree with principles of legal certainty and equality. Like rape, starvation can be–and is–deployed as a method of warfare, also in non-international conflicts.
For the ICC to correct this anomaly, an amendment to the Rome Statute would be required. For an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to try the crime, the drafters could adopt it in its statute. The latter scenario is more likely, because the ICC will most probably lack temporal jurisdiction for the Syrian case anyway, while an amendment process is cumbersome and lengthy.
It is therefore suggested that drafters of a statute for a hybrid tribunal in Syria adopt the crime, arguing that it follows the ICRC's interpretation of international customary law and contributes to the development of international law, while advancing appropriate accountability and justice to the generations of victims of starvation. The Transitional Justice Roadmap suggests a hybrid tribunal, which combines both national and international law, rather than prosecutions before the ICC because of the added benefits of trials near the crime scene with independent intentional oversight. Its authors conclude "Syrians will need the international community, which failed them before, to rebuild their country and construct their future institutions in all conditions, and confidence building in it, which is a very important issue. But they should also realize that there are limits to the help that can be provided by the international community and that they must ultimately rely on themselves alone to build their democracy".
The second parallel relevant for starvation in Syria is the authorization, in 1993, by the Security Council which permitted the international community to intervene under the UN Charter in an essentially intrastate conflict when starvation plagued Somalians (Resolution 733, 1992). This resolution brought about a revolutionary change, as Meron puts it, in our thinking about an interference with state sovereignty, which comes not only with rights but also duties to protect civilians from international crimes at least.
Since Somalia, the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) doctrine has developed to allow the full 'ladder' of interventions, including diplomatic efforts, sanctions, embargoes and, as a last resort, a strategy of military intervention authorized by the Security Council. The World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 explicitly identifies four crimes that require one or more of these interventions when a state fails to protect its populations, or even is the perpetrator thereof: "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".
The example of Somalia serves as a precedent for an R2P intervention in the intrastate conflict in Syria, and is arguably a stronger case than Somalia´s famine which was caused by an interplay of natural factors and human behavior. After all, the evidence in Syria suggests a man-made disaster imposed by one group of persons on another, with resulting harm to civilians.
Therefore, it is proposed that a coalition of states seeks the backing of the Security Council to intervene under R2P in the Syrian situation, arguing the precedent of the earlier intervention in Somalia in 1993. Certainly, it will be difficult to achieve this aim for any group of countries, considering that at least three Resolutions on Syria have been vetoed. Nonetheless, an R2P intervention is recommended in order to achieve protection of civilians suffering from starvation, death and related harm in Syria.
To conclude, this commentary recommends two courses of action to address the crime of starvation purportedly occurring in Syria. The first recommendation is to ensure the prosecution of this international crime–either under its own heading, if adopted as a war crime in its own right or, pragmatically, under the other available headings of a crime against humanity or torture, for example. The second recommendation is an R2P intervention because the crime of starvation provides the very foundation to invoke the doctrine intended to protect civilians from the harm suffered. Alongside the general and specific deterrence that the aforementioned post-conflict justice measures can offer, an R2P intervention can ensure the more immediate protection of civilians which is so urgently required.
This commentary is the third in a series by The Hague Institute for Global Justice on deliberate starvation in Syria. It is preceded by Deliberate Starvation: Impact on Peace and Reconstruction in Syria by David Connolly and Agnese Macaluso, and Finding Cracks in Syria's Deadly Politics to Deliver Aid by Eamon Aloyo and Mark Bailey.
Saudi-led naval blockade leaves 20m Yemenis facing humanitarian disaster
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/saudi-led-naval-blockade-worsens-yemen-humanitarian-disaster
Julian Borger Diplomatic editor
Friday 5 June 2015 09.56 BST
Aid agencies say embargo imposed by US and UK-backed Arab coalition has had dramatic effect, with almost 80% of population in urgent need of food, water and medical supplies
Twenty million Yemenis, nearly 80% of the population, are in urgent need of food, water and medical aid, in a humanitarian disaster that aid agencies say has been dramatically worsened by a naval blockade imposed by an Arab coalition with US and British backing.
Washington and London have quietly tried to persuade the Saudis, who are leading the coalition, to moderate its tactics, and in particular to ease the naval embargo, but to little effect. A small number of aid ships is being allowed to unload but the bulk of commercial shipping, on which the desperately poor country depends, are being blocked.
Despite western and UN entreaties, Riyadh has also failed to disburse any of the $274m it promised in funding for humanitarian relief. According to UN estimates due to be released next week 78% of the population is in need of emergency aid, an increase of 4 million over the past three months.
The desperate shortage of food, water and medical supplies raises urgent questions over US and UK support for the Arab coalition's intervention in the Yemeni civil war since March. Washington provides logistical and intelligence supportthrough a joint planning cell established with the Saudi military, who are leading the campaign. London has offered to help the Saudi military effort in "every practical way short of engaging in combat".
On western urging, Riyadh had promised to move towards "intelligence-led interdiction", stopping and searching individual ships on which there was good reason to believe arms were being smuggled, and away from a blanket policy of blocking the majority of vessels approaching Yemeni ports. But aid agencies and shipping sources say there is little sign of any such change. UN sources say that only 15% of the pre-crisis volume of imports is getting through, and that the country depends on imports for nine-tenths of its food.
Hospitals are shutting down ... people are dying of simple diseases. It is becoming almost impossible to survive
Nuha Abdul Jabber, Oxfam
"There are less and less of the basic necessities. People are queueing all day long," said Nuha Abdul Jabber, Oxfam's humanitarian programme manager in the Yemeni capital, Sana'a. "The blockade means it's impossible to bring anything into the country. There are lots of ships, with basic things like flour, that are not allowed to approach. The situation is deteriorating, hospitals are now shutting down, without diesel. People are dying of simple diseases. It is becoming almost impossible to survive."
In April, Saudi Arabia pledged it would completely fund a $274m UN emergency humanitarian fund for Yemen, but so far none of the money has been transferred to the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Riyadh is nonetheless insisting upon the right to decide which aid workers can enter Yemen.
At Al Hudaydah on Yemen's west coast, the only major port still functioning, a trickle of humanitarian food supplies is arriving on a handful of aid ships allowed through the naval blockade each week, but many more ships are being turned away or made to wait many days to be searched for weapons.
A State Department official said Washington was pressing for basic goods to be allowed through the blockade. "We continue to urge all sides, including the Saudis, to exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary violence," the official said in an emailed statement. "We also urge all parties to allow the entry and delivery of urgently needed food, medicine, fuel and other necessary assistance through UN and international humanitarian organisation channels to address the urgent needs of civilians impacted by the crisis."
Britain's Royal Navy has liaison officers working with their Saudi counterparts, and they have been trying to urge a more targeted, intelligence-driven, approach to stopping a much smaller number of ships, so far with limited effect. In London, where a pro-Saudi line has been driven principally by Downing Street, there is growing unease over the impact of the blockade.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK "urges the coalition to quickly move to targeted naval interdictions of incoming commercial ships".
"The UK remains in close contact with the government of Yemen and other international partners regarding the situation in Yemen, including the maritime blockade. The foreign secretary discussed Yemen with the Saudi foreign minister while in Paris this week," the spokesman said.
"We are not participating directly in military operations, but are providing support to the Saudi Arabian armed forces through pre-existing arrangements. A small number of UK personnel are coordinating planning support with Saudi and coalition partners. All UK military personnel have extensive training on International Humanitarian Law."
The Saudi government did not respond to requests for comment.
The blockade – which is also being enforced in the air and on land – has choked a fragile economy already staggering under the impact of a six-month civil conflict pitting Yemeni forces loyal to the President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, now exiled in Riyadh, against Houthi rebels allied to his predecessor and rival, Ali Abdullah Saleh.
A coalition led by Saudi Arabia and including Egypt, Jordan, Sudan and Bahrain intervened in March in support of Hadi, viewing the Houthis as an Iranian proxy force. Iran denies accusations of supplying arms to the insurgents, but British officials believe there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard advisers with the Houthi rebel leadership.
Over 2,000 Yemeni civilians are known to have been killed in the fighting so far, and, according to new UN figures, a million have been forced from their homes. The humanitarian crisis meanwhile, affects the overwhelming majority of the population. Tankers carrying petrol, diesel and fuel oil are also being stopped routinely by the naval blockade, crippling the country's electricity supply and forcing the mass closure of hospitals and schools. Most urgently, it has stopped water pumps working. Oxfam reckons the fighting and embargo have led to 3 million Yemenis being cut off from a clean water supply since March, bringing to 16 million the total without access to drinking water or sanitation – nearly two-thirds of the population – with dire implications for the spread of disease.
Cooking gas is almost impossible to find. Queues to refill gas cylinders in Sana'a now last for than a week, with people camping out by their cylinders or chaining them down to keep their place in the queue. There are also long lines of abandoned cars waiting for elusive supplies of petrol.
The UN estimate that nearly 20 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian assistance – 78% of the entire population – represents an increase of 4 million since the escalation of the conflict with the Saudi intervention in March. Twelve million Yemenis are "food insecure", having to struggle to find their next meal, up 1.4 million since March. Five million are described as "severely food insecure", meaning they often go for days without a meal.
In the cities worst hit by street fighting, such as Aden, civilians are either cowering at home to avoid sniper fire and bombardment or have joined the more than half million Yemenis forced out of their houses and now looking for food and shelter. But the blockade has spread the impact of the humanitarian crisis around the country.
According to Save the Children, hospitals in at least 18 of the country's 22 governorates have been closed or severely affected by the fighting or the lack of fuel. In particular, 153 health centres that supplied nutrition to over 450,000 at-risk children have shut down, as well as 158 outpatient clinics, responsible for providing basic healthcare to nearly half a million children under five. At the same time, due to lack of clean water and sanitation, cholera and other diseases are on the rise. A dengue fever outbreak has been reported in Aden.
"Children are dying preventable deaths in Yemen because the rate of infectious diseases is rising ," said Priya Jacob, Save the Children's director of programmes in Yemen. "The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is a protracted and rapidly deteriorating situation that leaves four out of five Yemeni people in need of aid. The ongoing naval and air blockade means very little aid is getting through, exacerbating the needs of the Yemeni people."
"The lack of fuel is a real issue – both for our teams and for local people, making it difficult to transport patients and medical supplies," said Ahmad Bilal, medical coordinator for Médecins sans Frontières based in Yemen's third city, Taiz. "For ordinary people it means that it is hard to move around the city and it's an ongoing struggle to access clean water and food. Many people living in frontline areas are unable to travel to clinics or hospitals for medical care both because of the fighting and the lack of fuel. Even those who are able to make it to health facilities find that they are not functioning. At least 12 hospitals in Taiz had to close their doors and stop receiving patients, for these reasons."
Yemen on brink of humanitarian crisis amid rising food shortages, says Unicef
Read more
A shipping source in Al Hudaydah said the flow of ships into Yemen was down 75% compared with before the March intervention.
"Some ships have been docked in the past week or so, but many others have been stopped and it's hard to see any pattern. Sometimes the coalition conducts a search and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it depends which navy is involved. In the past few days the Saudis have been more flexible, but the Egyptians have been rigid, not letting anything through," the shipping source said.
The uncertainty has made some ship owners nervous about having their vessels impounded. Over the past few days, two tankers carrying 70,000 tonnes of diesel, steered away from the Yemen coast and have begun offloading the fuel into small ships offshore. But as of this week, less than a tenth of the country's monthly fuel requirement of 5m tonnes is getting through the blockade.
"We have heard a lot about international commitments to help Yemen with big sums but we haven't seen anything here," Oxfam's Nuha Abdul Jabber added. "This is the moment for the world to understand the severity of the situation."
Here's What The Next Big Middle East War Will Look Like
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-07/heres-what-next-big-middle-east-war-will-look
https://southfront.org/anyone-profit-new-war-middle-east/
On Wednesday Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed during the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference that Israel has to "act now against Iran" in order to stop the Iranians from "establishing themselves in Syria," according to the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post.
During the conference, the Israeli prime minister argued that world leaders should join Israel and the US in pressuring Iran to accept renegotiating the 2015 nuclear deal. Netanyahu even warned that Iran will have nuclear weapons "in a decade" once the nuclear deal is over. Netanyahu also accused Iran of supporting "terrorist organizations" as usual, and said that Lebanese Hezbollah, and Palestinian Hamas would "not last a day without Iran," according to Jerusalem Post.
Netanyahu's statements are clearly aimed at justifying the recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria. Israeli media claimed that the airstrikes destroyed an Iranian military base, and a missile shipment; however, these claims were not backed by any evidence. The statements also serve the current policy of Israel, which is aimed at holding Iran responsible for all crises in the Middle East - a policy which is coordinated with some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, according to many experts.
Due to these rising tensions and the past months of escalating events in various corners of the Middle East, it increasingly looks as if the world is on the brink of witnessing a new conflict over Lebanon. While the chances for escalation are high, the essential pre-conditions for a new, large-scale war in the region are still in the works.
To review, on November 22, Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri temporarily suspended his resignation following a request by the country's president Michel Aoun to reconsider the decision. Hariri originally announced his resignation in a televised speech from the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on November 4 - an event which sparked a new round of tensions between Saudi Arabia on one end and Lebanon with Hezbollah on the other.
Saudi Arabia accused Lebanon of "declaring war" on Riyadh by allowing Hezbollah "aggression" against the kingdom. Meanwhile, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accused Tehran of delivering missiles to Yemen's Houthi forces for use against the kingdom, an act he described as "direct military aggression".
And on November 19, an emergency meeting of the Arab League was held between Saudi Arabia and other Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, calling for a united front, to counter Iran and Hezbollah. In a declaration issued after the meeting, the Arab League accused Hezbollah of "supporting terrorism and extremist groups in Arab countries, with advanced weapons and ballistic missiles." In turn, the Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah said that Hariri was held captive in Saudi Arabia because he had not returned to Lebanon as he promised. On November 22, Hariri arrived at the Lebanese capital, Beirut, and suspended his resignation. This marked a new phase of the political standoff between the sides.
Hariri is a compromise figure in the Lebanese politics. His appointment as the Lebanese prime minister was de-facto supported by Saudi Arabia, the United States and some influential groups in Lebanon. This move was aimed to serve the "interethnic dialogue" in Lebanon.
However, the recent developments in the Middle East, including the nearing end of the conflict in Syria and the growing influence and military capabilities of Hezbollah, have changed the political situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah units de-facto fulfill functions of the presidential guard. Lebanese special services and the special services of Hezbollah are deeply integrated. Hezbollah's victories in Syria and humanitarian activities in Lebanon increased the movement's popularity among people.
All these events have taken place amid the developing crisis in Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has launched a large-scale purge among the top officials, influential businesspersons and princes under the pretext of combating corruption. According to some experts, the move is aimed at consolidating the power of the crown prince and his father, King Salman. Theoretically, the kingdom is seeking to shift its vector of development and to become a more secular state. In 5-10 years, it could even abandon Wahhabism as the official ideology should rumors of reform efforts be true. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is involved in an unsuccessful conflict in Yemen and a diplomatic crisis with Qatar. This situation fuels tensions and a competition for resources among the Saudi clans. As a result, the Saudi regime and the Saudi state in general, are now, in a weak position.
Let's look at the interests of all parties.
On the one hand, the appearance of a new active foreign enemy could consolidate the Saudi population and its elites. The war with Hezbollah would allow the kingdom to gain additional assurances from the United States. Furthermore, with Israel entering the conflict, the kingdom would significantly reduce the risks of losses in any direct military confrontation with Lebanon and Hezbollah.
On the other hand, Riyadh has a wide range of foreign and internal problems. Considering the current weakness of Riyadh, any push may lead to utter disaster and the further instability of the royal family.
In the case of the conflict in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will be involved in a military and diplomatic standoff on 3 fronts:
North – Hezbollah and Iran;
South – Yemen; and
East – Qatar.
The conflict will also force a dramatic growth of oil prices. According to various experts, $150 per barrel can be expected by the end of the first month of any potential future conflict, if it is to occur. Some may suppose that this scenario is beneficial for Saudi Arabia or clans that control Saudi Aramco, the largest oil exporter around the world. However, the expected guerrilla war, which will likely erupt in the Shia-populated, oil-rich part of the country, will level out the pros of this scenario. Additionally, there is always a chance, that the main combat actions will be moved to the Saudi territory.
Israel and the West, in general, are not interested in high oil prices. In turn, Russia and Iran, who will not be involved in the initial stages of the conflict, will receive an increase in revenue from this scenario. The problem is that Tehran and Moscow are not interested in this "big new war" as well. Such a conflict in the Middle East will pose a direct threat to their national security
Israel's attitude is another issue. Tel Aviv believes that the growing influence of Hezbollah and Iran in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, is a critical challenge to its national security. The key issue is that Israeli military analysts understand that Hezbollah is now much more powerful than it was in 2006. Now, Hezbollah is a strong, experienced, military organization, tens of thousands troops strong, which has the needed forces and facilities to oppose a possible Israeli ground invasion in Lebanon.
Iran has also strengthened its positions in the region over the last ten years. It has reinforced its air defense with the Russian-made S-300 systems, strengthened its armed forces and got combat experience in Syria and other local conflicts. Tehran also strengthened its ideological positions among the Shia and even Sunni population which lives in the region.
Thus, Israel will decide to participate in a large-scale conflict in Lebanon only in the case of some extraordinary event. It is possible to assume that in the coming months, a large-scale war in Lebanon will not be initiated. Nonetheless, Israel will continue local acts of aggression conducting artillery and air strike on positions and infrastructure of Hezbollah in Syria and maybe in Lebanon. Israeli special forces will conduct operations aimed at eliminating top Hezbollah members and destroying the movement's infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria. Saudi Arabia will likely support these Israeli actions. It is widely known that Riyadh would rather use a proxy and engage in clandestine warfare. This means that stability in the region will not come anytime soon.
In turn, Hezbollah still needs about one-and-a-half years to further strengthen its positions in Syria and to free additional forces, which could be used in other potential flash points. The movement will likely put an end to the separation of power in Lebanon. This would mean that Hezbollah and Lebanon would become synonymous. Hezbollah also needs time to expand its network in the Shia-populated part of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, as Hezbollah's involvement in the Yemeni conflict deepens, the balance of power in the region may begin to shift, creating further setbacks of the Saudi-led coalition.
According to some estimates, Hezbollah will be ready for a new round of the "big game" in the Middle East in the spring of 2019. But let's hope that such a massive regional war does not come.
Alt-history? Trump claims US won two World Wars & defeated communism
https://www.rt.com/usa/412570-trump-us-won-world-wars/
Donald Trump has delivered his own reading of history that is likely to raise eyebrows in Russia, China, Europe, and beyond. The tycoon-turned-president claimed the US has single-handedly won two world wars and "brought communism to its knees."
Trump appeared at a rally in Pensacola, Florida to voice his support for the Republican nominee Roy Moore, who is running for the Senate in Alabama. At first, he reprised the themes popular with his supporters, including illegal immigration, criminal gangs, and mainstream media.
The President was about 70 minutes into his appearance at the rally when he made the following remark: "We are the nation that dug out the Panama Canal, won two world wars, put a man on the moon and brought communism to its knees," Trump proclaimed to a cheering crowd in front of 'Merry Christmas' signs.
We believe that every American should stand for the National Anthem, and we proudly pledge allegiance to one NATION UNDER GOD! pic.twitter.com/r2ITtWwfVs
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2017
The crowd seemed unfazed by the mix of historic events with outrageous claims, cheering loudly when Trump added: "As long as we have the courage of our convictions, and the strength to see them through, then there is no goal beyond our reach."
Unluckily for Trump, who regularly lambasts media for publishing fake news, his own take on world history does not quite agree with what really happened. The US entered World War I in 1917, just one year before it ended. Washington began sending fresh troops to Europe, claiming some significant victories over the Germans, but mainly because they were unable to replace their losses or provide enough arms, munitions and food supplies for their troops.
For over three years, it was mostly Britain, France and the Russian Empire who bore the brunt of war. The allies engaged in several crucial battles against the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, including the Battle of Verdun and the Battle of the Somme. Fierce fighting and heavy losses took their toll on the allies; the Russian Empire collapsed, while France and Britain had to deal with ruined economies, galloping inflation and social unrest.
In World War II, the US focused on fighting the Japanese Empire, its most dangerous enemy in the Pacific. Although the US declared war on Nazi Germany in 1941, in practice it sent military support to the British and the Soviets, delaying direct involvement in hostilities until 1944. By the time of the D-Day landings, the Red Army had already driven the Nazis out of Russia and the east of Europe, bringing the frontline closer to Berlin. Soviet troops captured the Third Reich's capital in May 1945, forcing Hitler's generals to surrender.
READ MORE: The sacrifice of the Russian people in World War II must never be forgotten
In a speech to the House of Commons in August 1944, Winston Churchill famously observed: "It is the Russian armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army."
Meanwhile, Trump's remark on defeating communism may not sit well with several Asian nations, which are coincidentally trade partners of the US in the region, notably China and Vietnam. The Communist Party of China, ruling over world's most populous nation, may have a question or two about the alleged "defeat."
READ MORE: German trains troll Trump over #alternativefacts gaffe
God is on the Side of Us Americans. "He May Guide Us to Use It [Nuclear Weapons] In His Ways and for His Purposes": Truman
https://www.globalresearch.ca/god-is-on-the-side-of-us-americans-he-may-guide-us-to-use-it-nuclear-weapons-in-his-ways-and-for-his-purposes/5602892
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 27, 2017
First published by Global Research on Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2017
On August 9, 1945 on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regards to the use of nuclear weapons and that "He May guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and His purposes". A somewhat contradictory discourse which seems embedded in US nuclear doctrine.
According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
[We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes
Harry Truman, August 9, 1945
Truman's statement is diabolical. It intimates that nuclear weapons are a "Gift of God" to Us Americans.
According to the Vatican Council of Bishops: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population [Hiroshma and Nagasaki] is a crime against God and man himself." (Gaudium et Spes, "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," Second Vatican Council).
We must understand that: "Crime against God and man himself" is now part of a Pentagon military agenda which consists in using nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis (self defense) against alleged enemies of America. In Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, "one hundred thousand people were killed or doomed within 9 seconds", on the orders of President Truman. And the Americans were told that Hiroshima was a "military base".
"His Ways and His Purposes"
Theologians can ponder on the implications of Truman's words which are embedded in the mindset of US foreign policy makers from George Kennan who formulated the "Truman doctrine" to the Neocons.
A word of hope from Bob Dylan:
"If God's on our side, He'll stop the next war".
***
I have a dream, we have a dream: criminalize war, abolish nuclear weapons, unseat the war criminals in high office, restore "sanity" in US foreign policy...
Rise up against the dangers of nuclear war.
Spread the word far and wide.
Michel Chossudovsky, Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2017
Bob Dylan, With God on Our Side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4EkQfXtheg
Giving up on moral & ethical values 'more dangerous than nuclear bomb' – Putin
https://www.rt.com/news/407414-moral-ethical-values-putin-sochi/
Humanity is entering a new stage in its development when abandoning moral and ethical values may cause a larger catastrophe than a nuclear war, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the guests of the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi.
The moral and ethical component is an "important circumstance" for any type of activity in modern society, Putin told the young scientists at the festival.
"In the nearest future, humanity may enter and will, most likely, enter a very difficult and important period in its development and existence," he said, referring to recent scientific breakthroughs.
"What I've said now may be more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. Therefore, no matter what we're doing, we must never forget about the moral and ethical basis of our business," the president reiterated.
"Everything that we'll be doing must benefit the people and empower humanity, not destroy it," he said.
Putin used genetic engineering as an example to illustrate his words, saying that this discipline can bring both positive and negative results.
"It's great" that it can provide the possibility to change the genetic code of people suffering from serious diseases, he said.
"But there's another component to this process. Humanity also receives an opportunity to meddle with the genetic code, which was created either by nature or, as people with religious views say, God," the president added.
The possibility of "creating a human with predesigned characteristics" is already around the corner, he said.
READ MORE: 'United by the power of a dream': World Youth Festival opens in Sochi, Russia
"It may be a genius mathematician or musician, but also a soldier, who will fight without fear, compassion and regret, without pain," Putin warned.
The head of state expressed hope that the young scientists who were presenting their projects in Sochi would take his words to heart in their future work.
The 19th World Festival of Youth and Students runs until Sunday at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi.
Earlier, President Putin said that the 2017 event was expected to bring 30,000 people together, becoming the most representative in history.
READ MORE: #WeAreFuture: World Festival of Youth & Students parade kicks off in Moscow
The festival, organized by the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) along with the International Union of Students since 1947, is being held in Russia for the third time after being staged in Moscow in 1957 and 1985.
Bibi's Bible stories: How Netanyahu invokes holy scripture to justify Israel's interests
https://www.rt.com/news/412791-netanyahu-bible-israel-jerusalem/
Israel's prime minister is a big fan of the Bible – especially when the 2,700-year-old holy book can be used to demystify Israeli policy. Benjamin Netanyahu's Bible citation while defending Trump's Jerusalem move is the most recent example of this phenomenon.
During their meeting in Sochi in August, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented Netanyahu with a copy of the first-ever Bible printed with commentary by Rashi, a renowned medieval French rabbi and scholar. It was a fitting gift, considering that the Israeli prime minister is known for his fondness of citing the Bible as if it were a UN Security Council resolution.
Following Donald Trump's controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, Netanyahu lectured EU leaders about following suit. His argument? The Bible supports Trump's move. "You can read it in a very fine book – it's called the Bible," Netanyahu told French President Emmanuel Macron Sunday.
But Bibi's love for Bible-thumping goes back to the time of the pharaohs.
Netanyahu uses Bible to prove Jewish ties to Hebron
In July, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee voted to recognize Hebron's Old City and the Tomb of the Patriarchs as Palestinian heritage sites. In response, Netanyahu read from Genesis 23:16-19 during his weekly Cabinet meeting, insisting that the passage definitively shows "the connection between the Jewish people and Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs is one of purchase and of history which may be without parallel in the history of peoples."
In his address to the UN General Assembly in September, Netanyahu remarked, "Is there no limit to the UN's absurdities when it comes to Israel? Well, apparently not. Because in July, UNESCO declared the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron a Palestinian World Heritage Site. That's worse than fake news; that's fake history. Mind you, it's true that Abraham, the father of both Ishmael and Isaac, is buried there, but so, too, are Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca – Sarah's a Jewish name, by the way – Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, who just happened to be patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people. Well, you won't read about that in the latest UNESCO report, but if you want to, you can read about it in a somewhat weightier publication. It's called 'the Bible.' I highly recommend it. I hear it even got four and a half out of five stars on Amazon. And it's a great read. I read it every week."
Putin not impressed by Bibi's ancient Bible stories
In a visit to Moscow in March, Netanyahu cited ancient history in an attempt to persuade Putin that Iran is an ancient Persian menace. Putin began their meeting by wishing Netanyahu a happy Purim, which is a traditional Jewish holiday that marks the saving of the Jewish people from Haman, a vizier in the ancient Persian Empire.
In response, Netanyahu said Persia made "an attempt to destroy the Jewish people that did not succeed" nearly 2,500 years ago, stressing that "today there is an attempt by Persia's heir, Iran, to destroy the state of the Jews."
But Putin appeared unmoved by Bibi's Bible stories, responding that the events in question had taken place "in the fifth century BC," and that "we now live in a different world."
Netanyahu disappointed that UNESCO doesn't read the Bible
In a separate UNESCO-related outburst, Netanyahu chided UNESCO for not consulting with the Bible before ruling on historical landmarks.
Criticizing a UNESCO decision in 2016 regarding the status of holy sites in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said, "even if they do not read the Bible, I would suggest that UNESCO members visit the Arch of Titus in Rome. The Arch shows what the Romans brought back to Rome after they destroyed and looted the Second Temple on the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago. There, engraved on the Arch of Titus, is the seven-branched menorah that is the symbol of the Jewish People, and today is the symbol of the State of Israel."
Time for Netanyahu to go back to Sunday School?
But not everyone is in awe of Netanyahu's knowledge and interpretation of the holy book. In a 2015 interview with NBC, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called out Netanyahu's constant Bible references – especially when used to "prove" that Iran seeks the destruction of the Jewish state.
"He even distorts his own scripture," said Zarif of Netanyahu. "If you read the book of Esther, you will see that it was the Iranian king who saved the Jews."
Zarif then did some historical recounting of his own, noting that "it is truly, truly regrettable that bigotry gets to the point of making allegations against an entire nation which has saved Jews three times in its history: Once during that time of a prime minister who was trying to kill the Jews, and the king saved the Jews; again during the time of Cyrus the Great, where he saved the Jews from Babylon, and during the Second World War, where Iran saved the Jews."
Russia's Syria success highlights US mission mess
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/412763-russia-putin-syria-troops/
Finian Cunningham
Published time: 11 Dec, 2017 17:37
Russian President Vladimir Putin's order to withdraw his county's forces from Syria makes sense militarily, politically, and strategically. The war has been won. Job done. Now it's time to win the peace.
Making a clear-cut end to military operations in Syria in this way only emphasizes what everyone knows, or should know. The Syrian state has been saved from being over-run by a US-backed covert war for regime change, largely because of Russia's decisive military intervention.
Claims by the US and France it was their coalition forces defeating terror groups in Syria rightly deserve derision. It is obvious to the rest of the world that Russian military intervention, beginning in October 2015, was decisive in turning the war in favor of the Syrian government forces. Allies Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah, as well as Iraqi militia, were also crucial in defeating the foreign-backed insurgents.
Putin arrival in Syria's Latakia province Monday morning to address troops at the Khmeimim airbase conveyed an appropriate air of mission success. Greeted by Syrian President Bashar Assad and accompanied by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Putin thanked the Russian servicemen and women for their valor and said it was now time for the Russian forces to return home.
Russia will still, of course, retain an airbase at Khmeimim and its naval port at Tartus. Putin said his forces would be ready to return immediately if "terrorists ever raised their heads again."
Winding down military operations serves to underscore Russia's achievement in securing the Syrian state. It accentuates the coherent mission undertaken by Russian forces, as Moscow has consistently stated for the past two years. That is, deployed at the request of the Syrian government in a legal and principled manner.
Militarily, the objective conditions show the war is over. Apart from diminishing pockets of insurgents, there is no territory, city, town or village under the control of anti-government militants. When Syrian troops liberated Deir ez-Zor weeks ago that breakthrough marked final victory.
With the Syrian Arab Army in control and with Iranian forces vowing to remain in the country, as legally mandated, there is no military need for Russian troops to stay. The country's security from Daesh and other Al-Qaeda-linked terror groups is largely checked.
As Putin noted, it's time now to win the peace. A UN-sponsored peace process can be enabled by non-violent conditions on the ground for a political settlement to the nearly seven-year war. As the Russian leader also remarked, Syrian refugees are returning in droves to liberated areas which were once besieged by terrorists.
With Putin also announcing last week he is running for another term as president in elections next year, the success of Russian forces returning from Syria is another important political boon.
But moreover, the strategic, geopolitical import of Russian withdrawal is that it throws into sharp focus the malevolent forces behind this brutal war in which up to 400,000 people died, and millions were displaced from homes, a human tragedy that has dramatically impinged on Europe's refugee crisis.
Just as Russia withdraws its troops, the Pentagon announces its forces are to remain, and at a level four times what it previously declared. The American-led Operation Inherent Resolve also involves other NATO members, Britain and France.
The presence of US-led forces in Syria has never been convincing. Purportedly they are there to "defeat ISIS (Daesh)" and other terror groups. Such claims are contradicted by evidence of the American CIA and other Western and Arab states giving covert support to the same terror groups. Even Western media cannot avoid reporting the glaring reality of evidence the US-led coalition has been caught providing safe passage to terror groups out of Raqqa.
Washington and Paris have lately tried, somewhat laughably, to belittle Russia's contribution to defeating the terror groups and winning the war. They have claimed the threat of ISIS and other terror groups remain, and therefore the US-led coalition must remain in Syria.
Russia's military withdrawal, leaving the country in the able hands of the Syrian army and its Iranian ally, emphasizes the bogus nature of the Western governments' claims. It also focuses attention on the illegal nature of American, British and French presence in Syria. Those powers have no legal mandate to fly their warplanes over the country or infiltrate their special forces.
If the war is over – and it is – then what are these NATO forces doing in Syria? They are evidently imposters, violating Syrian sovereignty and liable for prosecution as aggressors.
Last week, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Qassem Soleiman issued a stark warning to US forces in Syria. "No American soldiers in Syria will be tolerated. I advise you to leave by your own will or you will be forced out," said the commander.
Putin's order for Russian forces to redeploy from Syria is a prudent de-escalation of military traffic. Recently, there have been reports from the American and Russian sides of increasing risk from warplanes colliding.
It doesn't make sense for Russian operations to continue in Syria when the task of defeating the terror group is substantially complete. Continuing Russian air operations is just a waste of fuel. It also gives the American a cynical opportunity to create a confrontation – under a phony pretext of "protecting" its ground forces among residual Kurdish and Arab fighters.
It's better therefore for Russia to call a clear withdrawal from Syria. That lets the world see who the real victors in the Syrian War are. It also exposes – more than ever – the deeply pernicious role played by the US and its NATO allies.
The US mission in Syria is an impossible mess, just as it has been in other countries, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Yemen. It's impossible because it is riven with lies and false objectives. There has been no credible fight against terrorism. It has instead been an American and NATO fight with terrorism for a criminal objective of regime change.
Leaving the American forces to stew alone in Syria for no inherent good purpose, only for fraudulent objectives, will highlight another US-made criminal mess.
Russia can rightly claim a military, political and moral victory in Syria. The victory is clear-cut, along with the valiant efforts of Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
There's no need to linger when the mission is a success. Not only is it fitting that Russian forces bow out with dignity and pride. It is also fitting that US forces are left behind to illustrate their culpability in trying to destroy yet another Middle East country – and failing.
Granted, there is a danger the US military could still try to destabilize Syria. Washington's machinations might try to rekindle an insurgency from the dregs of routed proxies. That's possible, as is the regrouping of the terror networks to infest some other unfortunate Mideast country targeted for US-led regime change.
Though it's improbable as a future threat to Syria, given the scale of defeat to the US-led proxy war forged by Russia.
Origin Theories of the Rare Rh-Negative Blood Factor
http://rhnegativeregistry.com/Rh_Negative_Factor_Blood_Origin_Theories_Migration.html
The Collective Theories of Rh Negative Blood Origin...
Welcome to the Origin Theory page of the Rh-Negative Registry. There are a lot of theories and stories that pertain to the origin of the Rh-Negative Factor; mostly because it has not yet be found or explained completely by science, history or medicine. Below you will find a broad collection of Origin Theories related to the Rh-Negative Factor. These theories have been widely shared online on many other websites, blogs and forums.
PLEASE NOTE: These are not OUR stories! We do not endorse any particular theory as true or correct, these stories are the intellectual property of the actual authors. We have simply and only, made them available to you in a central location on this website, so that you may review and compare them with easy. As new theories, ideas or proof becomes available, that information will be added here as well. If you have any questions about these theories, we will try to answer them based only on the related information and research we have available.
If you are interested in learning more about how our health and wellness may be affected by our blood type and factor, please click here and become a Member of the new Rh-Factor Autoimmune Condition Community!
Give your opinion in the Origin Theory Poll >
There's NO known origin, so these are all theories... Which story do you believe is most accurate or related to the cause & origin of the Rh- Factor? (Only 10 Fit in the Poll!)
Jewish/Israelites (Abraham or Founding Mothers)
The Blood of the Gods
Hyperborea or Atlantis
Ancient Aliens/Anunaki
The Basque People
The Black Sun/Vril Society
The Original Europeans & Ireland
Jesus (Yashua's) Nazarene
Adam's Alien Genes
Reptilian or Nephlim
Wheelchair-bound man killed by IDF in Gaza during Jerusalem protest
http://thegazapost.net/2017/12/16/wheelchair-bound-man-no-legs-killed-idf-gaza-jerusalem-protest/
A disabled Palestinian man missing both legs is among those killed by Israeli security forces that opened fire on demonstrators in the West Bank and along the border with Gaza, Gaza's health ministry said.
Abu Thurayeh, 29, was shot dead east of Gaza City, according to Gaza's health ministry as cited by the Times of Israel. He is one of four Palestinians who were killed during a protest over the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Abu had lost his legs in an Israeli attack on Al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza. "He was injured in 2008 by an Israeli helicopter that targeted him after he brought down the Israeli flag and raised the Palestinian flag along the border," his brother Samir said. "It did not stop him from demonstrating for Jerusalem. He went alone every day to the border."
Social media have been flooded with videos and photos of Abu Thurayeh a few hours before his death, sitting in his wheelchair and waving a Palestinian flag. "This land is our land, we will not give up. America has to withdraw its decision,"Abu Thurayeh reportedly said in a video seen by AFP.
In the meantime, the Israeli military said in a statement that Palestinian rioters had hurled stones and firebombs at their soldiers, who were forced to respond. Protests continue in Palestine, often turning violent and resulting in injuries, after US President Donald Trump officially declared the US embassy to Israel will be moved to Jerusalem. Trump's declaration has been met with condemnation and protests around the globe.
Conspiracy Theorists Were Right: Corporate Media Finally Forced to Admit America Armed ISIS
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Conspiracy_Theorists_Were_Right%3A_
Corporate_Media_Finally_Forced_to_Admit_America_Armed_ISIS/62197/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Source: Rachel Blevins
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/conspiracy-theorists-right-msm-admit-cia-armed-isis/
While the mainstream media opted to protect the United States government by treating anyone who dared to question the government's role in the rise of ISIS as crazy conspiracy theorists, a new report is forcing the MSM to admit that those "conspiracies" were true all along.
Now, mainstream media outlets such as Reuters and USA Today are suddenly reporting that the United States and its close ally, Saudi Arabia, were instrumental in supplying weapons and ammunition to ISIS. Both reports cite an investigation conducted by Conflict Armament Research (CAR), which looked at 40,000 items recovered from Islamic State militants between July 2014 and November 2017.
A final report from CAR titled "Weapons of the Islamic State," concluded that the vast majority of the weapons used by ISIS were supplied in the thousands, given their origin and the fact that they were found "in numbers far beyond those that would have been available to the group through battlefield capture alone."
More than 97 percent of the weapons and 87 percent of the ammunition used by ISIS were "Warsaw Pact calibers—originating primarily in China, Russia, and Eastern European producer states," according to the report. However, the weapons were not distributed to the militants by China or Russia.
The weapons and ammunition were originally purchased by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and then distributed to rebel groups opposing the administration of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. While the U.S. claimed to be fighting ISIS, the fact is that ISIS was one of the Syrian rebel groups opposing Assad, and as the report noted, nearly all of their weapons came from those purchased by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
"Unauthorized retransfer—the violation of agreements by which a supplier government prohibits the re-export of materiel by a recipient government without its prior consent—is a significant source of IS weapons and ammunition. The United States and Saudi Arabia supplied most of this materiel without authorization, apparently to Syrian opposition forces. This diverted materiel, recovered from IS forces, comprises exclusively Warsaw Pact caliber weapons and ammunition, purchased by the United States and Saudi Arabia from European Union (EU) Member States in Eastern Europe."
While the report claims that many of the weapons were intended for other Syrian rebel groups before they ended up in the hands of ISIS militants, it also notes how quickly the transition between groups happened, after the weapons were originally supplied.
In one case, an advanced anti-tank guided weapon was "manufactured in the EU, sold to the United States, supplied to a party in the Syrian conflict, transferred to IS forces in Iraq, and documented by a CAR field investigation team following its recovery from IS forces." The report noted that "the full chain of transactions occurred within two months of the weapon's dispatch from the factory."
The serial numbers on the weapons are also crucial in determining how the militants acquired them. According to the report, almost half of the weapons that were investigated featured "serial numbers that are close in sequence to those of other, identical weapons in the sample." As a result, they found at least "240 sets of weapons that were manufactured in the same production runs and probably exported in the same, or successive, batches." This suggests that in some cases, the weapons were delivered to the militants by the thousands.
The report noted that in many cases, the "supplies of materiel into the Syrian conflict" from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia allowed ISIS "to obtain substantial quantities of anti-armor ammunition. These weapons include ATGWs and several varieties of rocket with tandem warheads, which are designed to defeat modern reactive armor."
As the investigation by Conflict Armament Research concluded, although the United States and Saudi Arabia both claimed to support coalitions that were formed for the purpose of defeating the Islamic State, the thousands of weapons they were supplying rebel groups did the opposite.
"These findings are a stark reminder of the contradictions inherent in supplying weapons into armed conflicts in which multiple competing and overlapping non-state armed groups operate. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to exert effective control over which groups ultimately gain custody of weapons. As this report demonstrates, Iraq and Syria have seen IS forces use large numbers of weapons, supplied by states such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, against the various international anti-IS coalitions that the two states support."
While the mainstream media has failed to ask questions about some of the most obvious red flags in the United States' foreign policy, The Free Thought Project has provided in-depth coverage of both the United States' hypocrisy in the Syrian conflict, and Saudi Arabia's assistance in helping to strengthen the same group of militants that the two countries claimed to be working to defeat.
Political Immorality and Personal Immorality
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/december/25/political-immorality-and-personal-immorality/
written by Ron Paul
Many Americans have been shocked by recent revelations of the extent of sexual harassment in Congress. However, no one should be too surprised that those who spend their lives defending and expanding the welfare-warfare state engage in immoral personal conduct. It is only natural that an immoral system, like the welfare-warfare state, tends to attract individuals likely to practice personal immorality.
The welfare-warfare state is built on a foundation of taxation and fiat currency controlled by a secretive central bank. While some type of taxation may be necessary to fund the few legitimate functions of government, taking people's money to fund a redistributive welfare state at home and a global empire abroad is nothing more than theft. The Federal Reserve's erosion of purchasing power is also a form of theft.
The welfare-warfare state relies on violence. Every law preventing us from living our lives as we choose — whether forbidding us from working for below minimum wage, preventing us from smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk, telling private business owners who can and cannot use what restroom, or requiring us to purchase government-approved health insurance — rests on the threat of force being used against those who refuse to obey.
The warfare side of the welfare-warfare state is obviously rooted in violence. War inevitably leads to deaths, including the deaths of innocents. A permanent warfare state is also the quickest way to lose our liberties. This is why the Founding Fathers counseled against standing armies and foreign entanglements.
The neocons and "humanitarian interventionists" who control our foreign policy have disregarded the wisdom of the Founders. They actually promote endless wars not to protect our security but to promote "democracy" and "universal human rights." They are impervious to evidence of the failure of military interventions to achieve these goals and indifferent to the human and fiscal costs of endless war. They dismiss the loss of innocent lives — including the deaths of children — as unavoidable "collateral damage," while using their influence in the media to spread pro-war propaganda. They also smear their opponents as aiding America's enemies and sympathizing with terrorists.
No one holding political power wants to admit the system he supports is immoral and a failure. Therefore, defenders of the welfare-warfare state rely on lies and deceptions. They ignore all evidence of the failure of big government to accomplish its ends, instead pretending they can fix the system with a few reforms. They also work with allies in the media to promulgate the lie that without the welfare state the masses would remain poor and uneducated, and without the warfare state we would be overwhelmed by those who hate us for our freedoms. They never mention that many foreigners hate America because of the suffering caused by our hyper-interventionist foreign policy.
The welfare-warfare state is built on violence and deceit. It is thus inevitable that many of those participating in this immoral system will combine their immoral politics with immoral personal conduct. Hopefully the revelations of sexual misconduct among the welfare-warfare state's Capitol Hill and media defenders will lead more Americans to question the morality and the wisdom of allowing the federal government to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2017.12.27, 16:42:02
Political Immorality and Personal Immorality
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/december/25/political-immorality-and-personal-immorality/
written by Ron Paul
snip
About what one expect from a Jesuit, hogwash
http://vaticanassassins.org/2014/02/10/gesu-ron-paul-masonic-jesuit-temporal-coadjutor-and-servant-of-the-man-of-sin-in-rome/
The protocols of the Elders of Zion is a far better fit for the evils of the world today
"We shall 1)
Seduce and demoralize the youth with false doctrines. 2) Destroy the family life. 3) Dominate humanity by Preying upon their lower instincts and vices. 4) Debase and vulgarize Art, and introduce filth in Literature. 5) Destroy respect for religions; undermine the reputation of the clergy through scandalous stories and back up the so called "Higher Criticism" so that the old fundamental faith is shattered and quarrels and controversies become permanent in the churches. 6) Introduce the habit for luxuries, crazy fashions and spend thrift ideas so that the ality for enjoying clean and plain pleasures is lost. 7)Divert the attention of the people by public amusements, sports, games, prize contests, etc., so that there is no time for thinking. 8) Confuse and bewilder the minds of the people by false theories and shatter the nerves and health by continuously introducing new poisons. 9) Instigate class hatred and class war among the different classes of people. 10) Dispossess the old Aristocracy, which still keeps up high traditions by excessive taxes and replace it with the "Knights of the Golden Calf." 11) Poison the relations between the employees and employers through strikes and lockouts so as to ruin the possibility of productive co-operation. 12) Demoralize by all means the higher classes of society and by adverse publicity raise the hate of the people toward them. 13) Use industry to ruin agriculture and then in its turn destroy industry by wild speculation. 14) Spread all possible utopian theories so as to bring the people into a labyrinth of impractical ideas. 15) Raise the rate of wages, which however will not bring any advantage to the workers for at the same time we shall produce a rise in the price of the first necessities of life. 16) Cause diplomatic friction and misunderstanding between States which will increase international suspicions and hate thereby greatly augmenting armaments. 17)Introduce in all states, general suffrage so that the destiny of nations depend upon ignorant people.18) Overthrow all monarchies and substitute republics for them; in so far as possible fill important state offices with persons who are involved in some unlawful affair and who will, from fear of being exposed, remain our obedient servants. 19) Gradually amend all constitutions so as to prepare the soil for absolute despotism and Bolshevism. 20) Establish huge monopolies upon which even the great fortunes of the Gentiles will depend to such an extent that they will be swallowed up at the "hour" when the industrial crisis will start. 21) Destroy all financial stability; increase economic depressions to the extent of bringing a general world bankruptcy; stop the wheels of industry; make bonds, stocks and paper money worthless; accumulate all the gold of the world in the hands of a certain few people thus withdrawing tremendous capital from circulation; at a given hour close all the exchanges, withdraw all credits and cause general panic. 22) Prepare the death struggle of the nations; wear out humanity through suffering, fear and shortage of food – hunger creates slaves!" ("The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion")
http://www.ericdubay.com/?p=2543
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2017.12.28, 00:32:34
About what one expect from a Jesuit, hogwash
Seems like a classic case of shooting the messenger to me, your opinion of the messenger has blinded you as to the content of the message.
I could quite easily have written a piece like that. I am not a Jesuit or affiliated with any illusory construct, would you have designated the message as 'hogwash' under those circumstances ?
Are Whites Being Setup For Genocide?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/06/whites-setup-genocide/
Paul Craig Roberts
Identity Politics has responded with outrage against People Magazine's choice of white male country singer Blake Shelton as "sexiest man in the world." According to adherents of Identity Politics, the choice indicates that People Magazine is itself racist and part of the white supremacy movement to elevate white people above people of color. The choice is doubly outrageous because, according to a writer in Salon, it reinforces and celebrates toxic white male sexuality and elevates a white man to a position of popular acclaim.
Every white person needs to read this article — http://www.unz.com/article/the-end-of-white-celebrity/ — to understand how they are being demonized and marginalized to the point of oblivion. By focusing primarily on white heterosexual males, Identity Politics tries to split white women off from white men by the use of the pejorative "misogynist", but, as the article reports, white women, such as Taylor Swift, are also publicly demonized for their whiteness.
Reading this article in The Unz Review reminded me of an article I read last November in a Texas university newspaper that declared white DNA to be an abomination. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/texas-student-newspaper-blasted-over-anti-white-your-dna-is-abomination-column.html
Think about this for a minute. Suppose the writer had said "homosexual DNA is an abomination," or "black DNA is an abomination," or, heaven forbid, "Jewish DNA is an abomination." Anyone who declared homosexuals, blacks, or Jews to be an abomination would be instantly fired, sued, charged with hate crimes and driven so deep into the ground that they would never reemerge.
The article in the student newspaper was a bit too much for Texas and produced a furor of its own. Lost in the furor was the realization that the writer was correctly interpreting the Identity Politics that today defines the liberal/progressive/left. Hillary Clinton herself expressed Identity Politics when she declared Americans who rejected her as president to be "deplorables." CounterPunch printed an essay by its radio host that concluded Trump's election was not legitimate because he was elected by racist, sexist, homophobic white male Trump deplorables.
In other words, Identity Politics cannot be dismissed as some sort of idiocy on the part of a few kooks. It is institutionalized in American politics and culture and is becoming a habitual way of thinking. The growing demonization of white people parallels the demonization of the Jews and can result in marginalization and physical destruction.
The immigration policies of white countries have created a diversity basis for ganging up on whites. If we put together a diverse population with the anti-white ideology of Identity Politics, we have a political and cultural trap for white people.
It seems paradoxical that Identity Politics is led by white/liberal/progressive/leftists advocating their own marginalization. However, as it is a correct conclusion from Identity Politics that white DNA is an abomination, white adherents of the ideology can logically see their demise as a benefit to humanity. But why should they be allowed to condemn whites who do not see themselves as an abomination?
What we are seeing unfold with Identity Politics was foretold by Jean Raspail in his futuristic novel The Camp of the Saints. Perhaps white people should read it as an indication of their possible fate.
Putin signs law establishing register of officials sacked over corruption
https://www.rt.com/politics/414522-putin-signs-law-ordering-unified/
The Russian president has signed into law a bill requiring all officials fired from their posts over involvement in corruption to be placed in a nationwide internet register to prevent them from re-entering public service.
The law was published on the Russian internet portal for official documents on Friday and will come into force on January 1, 2018.
The bill on the unified register of corrupt ex-officials was prepared and drafted by the Russian Labor Ministry in early 2015, but it was not approved by parliament until June of this year. It orders Russian state agencies to create and maintain a nationwide list of officials convicted of crimes involving corruption or fired over "loss of trust" resulting from corruption scandals.
The new rules apply to civil servants at the federal and municipal levels, military personnel, law enforcement agents, state corporations, and other state organizations, such as the Central Bank.
According to the authors of the bill, the main purpose is to make it more difficult for such people to receive new jobs in state agencies or state-owned corporations. They noted that officials fired "because of loss of trust" might fail to disclose the real reason for their dismissal when seeking future employment.
Russian companies still use paper documents called 'labor books' with records on every citizen's employment history. Employees are expected to keep these books themselves, and there are not any simple ways to verify the authenticity of the records.
The nationwide register will allow government agencies and corporations to reject candidates who were involved in corruption should they attempt to re-enter public service. The information will be kept in the register for five years.
An explanatory note attached to the bill stated that between 2012 and 2015, about 1,200 people were dismissed from their jobs in Russia for violating corruption rules or restrictions. In early December, Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika said in a newspaper interview that his agency estimated the overall economic cost of corruption at more than $2.5 billion in the past two years.
Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour's rule
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648008/Tony-Blair-Labour-immigration-asylum-seekers-UK-Brexit-EU-referendum
TONY Blair betrayed Britain for his own political ends by overseeing a massive conspiracy to flood the country with millions of migrants, an explosive book has claimed.
By Nick Gutteridge
PUBLISHED: 11:03, Sat, Feb 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 16:15, Sat, Feb 27, 2016
The controversial Prime Minister cynically dismantled UK border controls so that two million migrants could settle in the country - and vote for him in future elections.
He then gagged Labour officials and his most senior ministers, telling them not to discuss immigration in public under any circumstances for fear of a backlash, it is alleged.
The Labour leader knew the British people would ferociously oppose his conspiracy if they realised what was happening.
So he banned politicians from discussing even the positive aspects of immigration in case doing so brought the public's attention to the huge numbers of people entering the country from abroad, the book claims.
The disturbing conspiracy claims have been put forward by award winning investigative journalist Tom Bower, who interviewed 200 MPs, ministers and civil servants from the Blair years to build up a picture of his Government.
Shocking interviews claim to show how the former prime minister betrayed the electorate for political and ideological reasons, with one saying he "shudders" at the thought that such a man was ever trusted with running the country.
They also accuse Blair of hushed up members of his own party as he carried out a great multiculturalism experiment without the permission or backing of the British people.
Blair and Labour had barely mentioned immigration in their campaigning ahead of the 1997 election, and did not actively portray themselves as pro-immigration.
But as soon as he had the keys to Downing Street the book reveals the new Prime Minister ordered border chiefs to open the floodgates, even telling them to reclassify unskilled asylum seekers as people moving to Britain for work so that he could drum up the economic benefits of mass migration.
He also appointed a fervently pro-immigration minister to the border control brief, who astonishingly ruled against deporting failed asylum seekers because it would be too "emotional" for them, it is claimed.
As a result Britain's population was swelled with more than two million foreigners during the Blair years, the vast majority of whom would back the Labour party who let them in and lavished them with benefits at future elections.
According to the claims the aim of the project was to make the country "see the benefit of a multicultural society". Government insiders have also said that Blair did not see it as his job to "control immigration" to Britain.
But the controversial leader knew his conspiracy was against the British people's wishes from the very start, telling ministers and officials: "Don't mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won't even want that."
Instead he quietly relaxed rules on allowing foreign spouses and students in and effectively opened up an asylum seeker free-for-all in which nobody was ever deported, even if their application to stay in the UK failed.
The book says 350,000 asylum seekers benefited this way. In 2002 alone, Blair gave the go-ahead for 150,000 work permits with most of the recipients, including the unskilled, going on to become UK citizens.
Some of the most shocking revelations centre around the role of former immigration minister Barbara Roche, who was handpicked for the role by Blair and served from 1999 to 2001.
During this period she quietly adopted policies – with her leader's approval – that dramatically changed the face of the UK forever.
Upon her appointment, it is said she told a senior immigration official: "Asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it's emotional."
She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers.
Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office's immigration directorate, said: "It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn't see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a 'holistic way' she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society."
Former Labour speech writer Andrew Neather allegedly told the author of the book that the aim was to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date".
According to the book an extraordinary row between then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, and Blair illustrated the divisions within the Government.
Mr Straw reportedly asked the then-prime minister: "Isn't immigration the sort of issue which can blow up in our face?"
But Blair simply replied: "Immigration won't be an issue. Immigration is good for Britain."
The revelations come as Britain prepares for a referendum on its membership of the EU, to take place on June 23.
Immigration is expected to form a key part of the debate, with Europe undergoing an unprecedented migration crisis which has brought the Schengen zone to the brink of collapse.
The Blair government oversaw mass migration from eastern European countries who gained membership of the 28-nation bloc and there are concerns that Turkish citizens could gain the right to move to Britain when they are granted visa-free travel within the EU from October.
Express.co.uk has contacted Tony Blair's office for comment.
The book Broken Vows: Tony Blair - The Tragedy of Power will be out on March 3.
One of the comments to this publication notes:
ErikKengaard 682 days ago
"Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders' hearth."
Winston Churchill, History of the English Speaking Peoples (Abridged)
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.01.10, 23:48:28
One of the comments to this publication notes:
ErikKengaard 682 days ago
"Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders' hearth."
Winston Churchill, History of the English Speaking Peoples (Abridged)
Don't kill them is my position, it is not the way to win the only war. They must stand trial with full facts of the betrayal disseminated to the population.
The goyim know.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.01.10, 23:57:03
Don't kill them is my position, it is not the way to win the only war. They must stand trial with full facts of the betrayal disseminated to the population.
I have been monitoring the mood of the people in the UK via social media comments for years and I am very concerned that serious levels of violence will begin to happen with more frequency. With hard proof of the governments betrayal regarding EU membership having surfaced, what was once deemed a conspiracy theory has become fact. The attempted fait accompli has failed and all members of the establishment have been shown to be complicit in this treason. Should more Jo Cox style vigilantes decide to take the matter into their own hands things could rapidly spiral out of control and we will end up in a civil war very quickly. Failure to leave the EU by the end of March this year could well be the trigger that sets things off. I do not believe that violence will solve the problem and will become counter productive. It is education of the true situation that is needed but with a controlled MSM pumping out constant lies and propaganda and the effort to silence social media on the internet that may become more difficult, or even impossible.
How you proceed now as individuals and as a collective will determine the moral standing of the people that come out of the other side of this hellish mess that has been deliberately created. Choose wisely and accurately define who you are and what you are fighting for.
The Fiction of the Jewish History in Palestine
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-fiction-of-the-jewish-history-in-palestine/
By Hasan Afif El-Hasan
April 7, 2011
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NNC Pierce Morgan on March 18, 2011 that he might agree to a Palestinian state through negotiations. And he added, "We will make territorial concessions although it is very painful to do that in our ancestral land." Netanyahu was not talking about Poland where his ancestors lived. He was talking about Palestine where generations of its indigenous population ancestors lived, cultivated the land and are buried.
By the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism created a new Jewish identity of blood and soil. To mobilize their followers and supporters and appeal to their emotions, the Zionists created myths. Zionism started as a tribal religion without god, but in order to fulfill its function as a unifying force, Zionism required external religious and race symbols, not inner content. Its leaders regarded metaphysical religious belief and purity of race as having value in itself. They created a divine paradisiacal state of merger with the gods. Despite his non-religious ideology, Herzl writings were replete with religious references. The Jews should settle in Palestine because, in his words, "the Temple will be visible from long distance, for it is only our ancient faith that has kept us together".
The Zionists and their supporters have invested tremendous financial and scholarly resources to work within the Hebrew Bible historical narratives to affirm the links between the intrusive Zionist population and the ancient Israelite past, and by doing so assert the right of that population to the land. The political end-game shaped the investigation and the outcome. Tracing the roots of Israel's ethnic state in biblical antiquity is effectively to silence the indigenous Palestinians claim to the past and therefore to the land. The Biblical scholarship employs a bewildering array of terms for the region: "the Holy Land", "the Land of the Bible", "Eretz Israel", "the Land of Israel", or "Judah and Samaria." To the casual reader these names appear interchangeable, but they all imply connection to ancient Israel.
Biblical narratives or poems that cannot be supported by archeology and common sense are treated by the Zionists and their supporters as historical language. Historians have to differentiate between biblical myths and the history of real people living in real places and real time. They should have the intellectual courage to challenge any source including the "revealed truth" of higher order as presented in Biblical text if it is used to justify injustice and cruelty by one people against another. Gamla, an ethnic cleansing advocacy group founded by former Israeli military officers, Knesset members and settler activists publishes detailed plans for how to carry out the "complete elimination of the Arab demographic threat to Israel" by forcibly expelling all Palestinians and demolishing their towns and villages. This, the plan argued is "the only possible solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and it is "substantiated by the Torah." Biblical studies have focused on inventing "Ancient Israel" while ignoring the reality of Palestinian history over thousands of years. Many historic experiences related to the ancient Israelite conquest and settlement of Palestine were described in terms of divine acts with religious zeal.
Many scholars, mostly moderate Jewish, who give primacy to archaeology, relegate the biblical text to a secondary place as a historical source. On 2001 Passover, Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles told his congregation: "The truth is that virtually every archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus [from Egypt], with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all." He based his conclusions on the fact that no archeological findings have produced evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai Desert for forty years, and the excavations in Palestine show settlement patterns different from the Biblical account of a sudden influx of Jews from Egypt.
Nadva Na'aman of Tel Aviv University wrote, "The comprehensive conquest saga in the book of Jashua is a fictive literary composition aimed at presenting the occupation of the entire Land of Israel, initiated and guided by the Lord and carried out by the twelve tribes under Jashua." Jashua, the man, was according to the Bible the right-hand man of Moses. After Moses death and the ancient Israelites camping near Jericho, Jashua commenced the military campaigns that, according to the biblical account, culminate in the conquest of the heartland of Palestine where he carried out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan that amounts to genocide.
The historian Giovanni Garbini argues that "we should not even try to write a modern critical history of Israel largely on the basis of a single amalgamated, culturally self-serving, and essentially private version of history [the Bible]?"
Professor William Dever of the University of Arizona writes about the Hebrew Bible that "Many of the biblical stories are legend-like and abound with miraculous and fantastic elements that strain the credulity of almost any modern reader of any religious persuasion. All these factors have contributed to the rise of doubts about the Bible's trustworthiness."
In July of 2000, the New York Times ran a lead story under the title, "The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests." Questioning the biblical stories of the Exodus and Conquest that recounts in lavish and dramatic detail of the ancient Israelites exodus from Egypt and establishing themselves in Palestine, calls into question the Zionists' rationale for Jewish claims to Palestine.
The American archaeologist and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor, Joseph Callaways wrote in 1985 when he discovered that the city of Ai that is described in the Bible did not exist: "For many years, the primary source for the understanding of the settlement of the first Israelites was the Hebrew Bible, but every reconstruction based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archeological remains."
The Bible and the claim of the Jews as a distinct race have been used as a tool to cement the inner unity of the Zionist movement and an indispensible weapon in the struggle for claiming the land of Palestine. The religio-historical element as a focus of national identity had greater importance in Zionism than in other national movements. It was religion in the broadest sense, with all its national and historical connotations, that provided the justification for the conquest of Palestine and legitimization of Jews' return.
Although Semitic originally referred to certain languages and peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean that included not only Jews but also Palestinians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Phoenicians, claim of hostility only toward Jews is generally known as anti-Semitism.
Jews are a religious body, not a separate biological human group. The history of the Jews reveals that they have always interbred with non-Jews and many non-Jews have become Jews. The only valid criterion for determining membership in the group is confessional.
By insisting that a cultural trait, Jewishness, is inherited, the self-proclaimed Jews have contributed to the idea that they belong to an exclusive family, a distinct race, and a chosen people. Under Israel's "Law of Return" of Jews to Israel, Ethiopian Jews (Falashas) were verified as descendents of an ancient Israelite tribe by testing samples of their males DNA Y-Chromosome. The claim of identifying the Jewish DNA is the pinnacle of charlatan science, an ideology driven hoax!
There was no written history prior to 3,200 B.C. (Before Christ) on Palestine, but archeological excavations suggest the existence of people living in Palestine as early as 8000 B.C. As far as the period of pre-pottery stone-age between 8000 and 5000 B.C, Palestine and Syria were inhabited by farmers and hunters. Their progression from simpler to more complex culture was evidenced in the development of farming technique, the domestication of animals and the establishment of towns.
Ancient Canaanites ruled all Palestine and Jordan until around 1200 B.C, when the Philistines conquered the southern coastal area. Archaeologists found evidence that Canaan migrant tribes settled Palestine and Jordan in the later period of the fourth millennium B.C. Pottery containing offerings in graves suggest the Canaanites believed in after-life. The Canaanite known history coincided with the Early Bronze Age that began around 3200B.C, but some of their settlements have been dated as old as 7000 B.C.
The indigenous Palestinians, the legitimate owners of the land, are the descendents of Ancient Canaanites, Philisti nians, ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Christian crusaders and Turks. The groups that lived in Palestine fought, interacted and collaborated, but no group was obliterated.
Modern historians, writers and statesmen should liberate themselves from the biblical myths when reviewing history even if they believe in a revealed truth in their private lives. The challenge for them is to sort out fact from fiction. Palestine belongs to its indigenous population not the hordes of foreign settlers.
Quote from: ronee on 2017.12.28, 00:32:34
The protocols of the Elders of Zion is a far better fit for the evils of the world today
"We shall 1)
Seduce and demoralize the youth with false doctrines. 2) Destroy the family life. 3) Dominate humanity by Preying upon their lower instincts and vices. 4) Debase and vulgarize Art, and introduce filth in Literature. 5) Destroy respect for religions; undermine the reputation of the clergy through scandalous stories and back up the so called "Higher Criticism" so that the old fundamental faith is shattered and quarrels and controversies become permanent in the churches. 6) Introduce the habit for luxuries, crazy fashions and spend thrift ideas so that the ality for enjoying clean and plain pleasures is lost. 7)Divert the attention of the people by public amusements, sports, games, prize contests, etc., so that there is no time for thinking. 8) Confuse and bewilder the minds of the people by false theories and shatter the nerves and health by continuously introducing new poisons. 9) Instigate class hatred and class war among the different classes of people. 10) Dispossess the old Aristocracy, which still keeps up high traditions by excessive taxes and replace it with the "Knights of the Golden Calf." 11) Poison the relations between the employees and employers through strikes and lockouts so as to ruin the possibility of productive co-operation. 12) Demoralize by all means the higher classes of society and by adverse publicity raise the hate of the people toward them. 13) Use industry to ruin agriculture and then in its turn destroy industry by wild speculation. 14) Spread all possible utopian theories so as to bring the people into a labyrinth of impractical ideas. 15) Raise the rate of wages, which however will not bring any advantage to the workers for at the same time we shall produce a rise in the price of the first necessities of life. 16) Cause diplomatic friction and misunderstanding between States which will increase international suspicions and hate thereby greatly augmenting armaments. 17)Introduce in all states, general suffrage so that the destiny of nations depend upon ignorant people.18) Overthrow all monarchies and substitute republics for them; in so far as possible fill important state offices with persons who are involved in some unlawful affair and who will, from fear of being exposed, remain our obedient servants. 19) Gradually amend all constitutions so as to prepare the soil for absolute despotism and Bolshevism. 20) Establish huge monopolies upon which even the great fortunes of the Gentiles will depend to such an extent that they will be swallowed up at the "hour" when the industrial crisis will start. 21) Destroy all financial stability; increase economic depressions to the extent of bringing a general world bankruptcy; stop the wheels of industry; make bonds, stocks and paper money worthless; accumulate all the gold of the world in the hands of a certain few people thus withdrawing tremendous capital from circulation; at a given hour close all the exchanges, withdraw all credits and cause general panic. 22) Prepare the death struggle of the nations; wear out humanity through suffering, fear and shortage of food – hunger creates slaves!" ("The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion")
http://www.ericdubay.com/?p=2543
Ron
I didn't comment on this at the time Ron so you might believe I was ignoring you and your point, but I was not, I agree. We have the same situation with the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan:
The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan – The genocide of the Peoples of Europehttp://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/
It can be observed that the events described have come to pass.
Ron Paul (who you have indicated you don't trust) made two very valid points:
The first is that immoral people and structures seek to surround themselves with equally immoral friends and acquantances. Anyone who has worked for an immoral company will know this as those people seek to marginalise or outright remove morality from the workplace, criminals stick together. They may even try to make you complicit in their crimes to have control over you, you either go along to get along, or leave and look for another job.
The second point is the warfare - welfare state. A good example is the conflict in Yemen, an illegal war of aggression, that can only continue due to western supplied weapon systems. In a moral west there would be wall to wall coverage (like there was for the Iraq wars) and the horrors occurring there would be disseminated through the news into the minds of the CEO's and workers making and supplying the weapons. This does not happen, the majority just enjoy the money and status their job's bring them and give barely a thought to the immorality of their actions. They are shielded from the truth and having to make a moral judgement by lack of information. The welfare state creates dependents that are under educated, lazy, and love free stuff, they will never move towards personal responsibility and a good work ethic.. it is not in their interest, and this is by design. They survive and breed like rabbits paid for by the taxes of the hard working family man.
Taxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a mandatory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or other legal entity) by a governmental organization in order to fund various public expenditures.[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is punishable by law. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent. Most countries have a tax system in place to pay for public/common/agreed national needs and government functions: some levy a flat percentage rate of taxation on personal annual income, some on a scale based on annual income amounts, and some countries impose almost no taxation at all, or a very low tax rate for a certain area of taxation. Some countries charge a tax both on corporate income and dividends; this is often referred to as double taxation as the individual shareholder(s) receiving this payment from the company will also be levied some tax on that personal income.
The Responsibility to Protect the World ... from the United States
one of the most ingenious propaganda weapons ever developed is that the powerful nations of the West—led by the United States—have a moral responsibility to use military force to protect the rights of people being repressed by their governments. This "responsibility to protect" (R2P) always had a dubious legal standing, but its moral justification also required a psychological and historical disengagement from the bloody reality of the 500-hundred-year history of U.S. and European colonialism, slavery, genocide and torture that created the "West."
This violent, lawless Pan-European colonial/capitalist project continues today under the hegemony of the U.S. empire. This then begs the questions of who really needs the protection and who protects the peoples of the world from the United States and its allies? The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan "white identity politics."
Neocons like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl were the driving forces in pushing for the war in Iraq. They understood if they wanted to sell war, "Americans" needed to believe the conflict was about values, not interests. The neocons dusted off and put a new face on that old rationalization for colonialism—the white man's burden. Interventions were to bring democracy and freedom to those people who were struggling to be just like their more advanced models in the white West. Liberal interventionists further developed those ideas into "humanitarian interventionism" and the "responsibility to protect."
The fact that the United States and Europe can wrap themselves in the flag of morality, practice savior politics and get away with it is a testament to the enduring psychopathology of white supremacist ideology.
The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration's so-called War on Terror. With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.
The result? International Gallup and Pew research polls have consistently shown the peoples of the world consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace on the planet.
National Security Strategy Under Trump: More of the Same
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, Liberal pundits suggested it was a significantly different than any previous U.S. strategy. But beyond some specific references to putting "America" and its citizens first in relationship to the economy, and the reactionary stances of tightening border security and enforcing strict immigration policies, Trump's strategy did not stray much from the post-Cold War strategy of the preceding years.
The difference that did exist was more in style than substance. The Trump administration completely dispensed with all pretexts used by previous administrations. Even domestic law, like the War Powers Act that was ignored by the Obama administration continues to be of no concern for the new Trump administration. Now it is Trump's "America first" with no concern for international law or accepted standards of behavior.
Unchecked by the countervailing power of the Soviet Union, the bi-partisan National Security Strategy produced in the 1990s that committed the U.S. state to pursue policies that would ensure continued U.S. economic, political and military hegemony through the 21st century—the "new American century"—is still the overall strategic objective of this administration.
Even explicitly naming China and Russia as "competition" that threatens to harm the country's security was not that much of a departure since the centerpiece of U.S policy has been checking any state that challenged U.S. power in any region. The Trump administration named threats to U.S. interests—North Korea in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West Asia, with jihadist groups included in case the United States needed a War on Terror (WOT) justification for U.S. interventions anywhere in the world.
While Neocons and liberal interventionists in previous administrations sugarcoated U.S. geo-strategic objectives to mask hegemony, the Trump rhetoric is crude, direct and unambiguously aggressive. Protecting U.S. interests in the 21st century means relying on military aggression, war and subversion.
Building the U.S. anti-war movement as the responsibility to protect from Empire
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated the obvious: he United States was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He also said the public allowing this violence would lead to a kind of national spiritual death that would continue to make the U.S. state a danger to the world.
That spiritual death has not quite happened completely. Yet accepting the "inevitability" of violence and the necessity for waging war is now more deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of individuals in the United States than it was 50 years ago when King warned of the deep malady of U.S. society. For most of the 21st century, the United States has been at war. Culturally, mass shootings, the wars on drugs and terror, violence and war as entertainment, livestreamed videos of horrendous police-executed murders as well as of a head of state being sodomized with a knife have resulted in what Henry Giroux refers to as a "culture of cruelty.
But the very fact that the authorities need to lie to the people with fairy tales of the responsibility to protect in order to give moral coverage for the waging of war is an acknowledgement that they understand that there is enough humanity left with the public that it would reject U.S. warmongering if it was only seen as advancing narrow national interests.
It is this remaining moral core—and the objective interests of the clear majority of the people to be in opposition to war—that provides the foundation for reviving the modern anti-war movement.
Baltimore was the site of the rebellion in response to Freddie Gray's murder by the domestic military we refer to as "the police." There, a couple of hundred activists will convene January 12 to kick off a new campaign to close all U.S. foreign bases. This gathering is the result of a new coalition of forces—both old and new—to revive the U.S. anti-war movement. This conference comes on the heels of another meeting that took place just a few months ago in Washington, D.C., where some of the same forces came together to kick-off a campaign to "divest from the war machine."
Strategically these efforts are designed to be the first steps toward building the confidence, institutional strength and programmatic focus of a new, reinvigorated, broad-based, anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States We are opposing the warmongering both corporate political parties have normalized.
The difficulties and challenges of this endeavor are not lost on the various organizations, networks and coalitions that are part of these efforts. We all recognize that there are no shortcuts to the delicate reconstructing of our existing forces and the challenge of expanding those forces by bringing in new formations. The ideological and political differences that have surfaced among left and progressive forces around issues of war and imperialism make it more challenging.
But the imperative of expressing solidarity with the victims of U.S. warmongering must take precedence over our differences and should serve as a basis for building political unity.
Continued at:
The Responsibility to Protect the World ... from the United States
one of the most ingenious propaganda weapons ever developed is that the powerful nations of the West—led by the United States—have a moral responsibility to use military force to protect the rights of people being repressed by their governments. This "responsibility to protect" (R2P) always had a dubious legal standing, but its moral justification also required a psychological and historical disengagement from the bloody reality of the 500-hundred-year history of U.S. and European colonialism, slavery, genocide and torture that created the "West."
This violent, lawless Pan-European colonial/capitalist project continues today under the hegemony of the U.S. empire. This then begs the questions of who really needs the protection and who protects the peoples of the world from the United States and its allies? The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan "white identity politics."
Neocons like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl were the driving forces in pushing for the war in Iraq. They understood if they wanted to sell war, "Americans" needed to believe the conflict was about values, not interests. The neocons dusted off and put a new face on that old rationalization for colonialism—the white man's burden. Interventions were to bring democracy and freedom to those people who were struggling to be just like their more advanced models in the white West. Liberal interventionists further developed those ideas into "humanitarian interventionism" and the "responsibility to protect."
The fact that the United States and Europe can wrap themselves in the flag of morality, practice savior politics and get away with it is a testament to the enduring psychopathology of white supremacist ideology.
The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration's so-called War on Terror. With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.
The result? International Gallup and Pew research polls have consistently shown the peoples of the world consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace on the planet.
National Security Strategy Under Trump: More of the Same
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, Liberal pundits suggested it was a significantly different than any previous U.S. strategy. But beyond some specific references to putting "America" and its citizens first in relationship to the economy, and the reactionary stances of tightening border security and enforcing strict immigration policies, Trump's strategy did not stray much from the post-Cold War strategy of the preceding years.
The difference that did exist was more in style than substance. The Trump administration completely dispensed with all pretexts used by previous administrations. Even domestic law, like the War Powers Act that was ignored by the Obama administration continues to be of no concern for the new Trump administration. Now it is Trump's "America first" with no concern for international law or accepted standards of behavior.
Unchecked by the countervailing power of the Soviet Union, the bi-partisan National Security Strategy produced in the 1990s that committed the U.S. state to pursue policies that would ensure continued U.S. economic, political and military hegemony through the 21st century—the "new American century"—is still the overall strategic objective of this administration.
Even explicitly naming China and Russia as "competition" that threatens to harm the country's security was not that much of a departure since the centerpiece of U.S policy has been checking any state that challenged U.S. power in any region. The Trump administration named threats to U.S. interests—North Korea in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West Asia, with jihadist groups included in case the United States needed a War on Terror (WOT) justification for U.S. interventions anywhere in the world.
While Neocons and liberal interventionists in previous administrations sugarcoated U.S. geo-strategic objectives to mask hegemony, the Trump rhetoric is crude, direct and unambiguously aggressive. Protecting U.S. interests in the 21st century means relying on military aggression, war and subversion.
Building the U.S. anti-war movement as the responsibility to protect from Empire
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated the obvious: he United States was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He also said the public allowing this violence would lead to a kind of national spiritual death that would continue to make the U.S. state a danger to the world.
That spiritual death has not quite happened completely. Yet accepting the "inevitability" of violence and the necessity for waging war is now more deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of individuals in the United States than it was 50 years ago when King warned of the deep malady of U.S. society. For most of the 21st century, the United States has been at war. Culturally, mass shootings, the wars on drugs and terror, violence and war as entertainment, livestreamed videos of horrendous police-executed murders as well as of a head of state being sodomized with a knife have resulted in what Henry Giroux refers to as a "culture of cruelty.
But the very fact that the authorities need to lie to the people with fairy tales of the responsibility to protect in order to give moral coverage for the waging of war is an acknowledgement that they understand that there is enough humanity left with the public that it would reject U.S. warmongering if it was only seen as advancing narrow national interests.
It is this remaining moral core—and the objective interests of the clear majority of the people to be in opposition to war—that provides the foundation for reviving the modern anti-war movement.
Baltimore was the site of the rebellion in response to Freddie Gray's murder by the domestic military we refer to as "the police." There, a couple of hundred activists will convene January 12 to kick off a new campaign to close all U.S. foreign bases. This gathering is the result of a new coalition of forces—both old and new—to revive the U.S. anti-war movement. This conference comes on the heels of another meeting that took place just a few months ago in Washington, D.C., where some of the same forces came together to kick-off a campaign to "divest from the war machine."
Strategically these efforts are designed to be the first steps toward building the confidence, institutional strength and programmatic focus of a new, reinvigorated, broad-based, anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States We are opposing the warmongering both corporate political parties have normalized.
The difficulties and challenges of this endeavor are not lost on the various organizations, networks and coalitions that are part of these efforts. We all recognize that there are no shortcuts to the delicate reconstructing of our existing forces and the challenge of expanding those forces by bringing in new formations. The ideological and political differences that have surfaced among left and progressive forces around issues of war and imperialism make it more challenging.
But the imperative of expressing solidarity with the victims of U.S. warmongering must take precedence over our differences and should serve as a basis for building political unity.
Continued at:
[url]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-responsibility-to-protect-the-world-from-the-united-states/5626128]The Responsibility to Protect the World ... from the United States
one of the most ingenious propaganda weapons ever developed is that the powerful nations of the West—led by the United States—have a moral responsibility to use military force to protect the rights of people being repressed by their governments. This "responsibility to protect" (R2P) always had a dubious legal standing, but its moral justification also required a psychological and historical disengagement from the bloody reality of the 500-hundred-year history of U.S. and European colonialism, slavery, genocide and torture that created the "West."
This violent, lawless Pan-European colonial/capitalist project continues today under the hegemony of the U.S. empire. This then begs the questions of who really needs the protection and who protects the peoples of the world from the United States and its allies? The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan "white identity politics."
Neocons like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl were the driving forces in pushing for the war in Iraq. They understood if they wanted to sell war, "Americans" needed to believe the conflict was about values, not interests. The neocons dusted off and put a new face on that old rationalization for colonialism—the white man's burden. Interventions were to bring democracy and freedom to those people who were struggling to be just like their more advanced models in the white West. Liberal interventionists further developed those ideas into "humanitarian interventionism" and the "responsibility to protect."
The fact that the United States and Europe can wrap themselves in the flag of morality, practice savior politics and get away with it is a testament to the enduring psychopathology of white supremacist ideology.
The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration's so-called War on Terror. With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.
The result? International Gallup and Pew research polls have consistently shown the peoples of the world consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace on the planet.
National Security Strategy Under Trump: More of the Same
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, Liberal pundits suggested it was a significantly different than any previous U.S. strategy. But beyond some specific references to putting "America" and its citizens first in relationship to the economy, and the reactionary stances of tightening border security and enforcing strict immigration policies, Trump's strategy did not stray much from the post-Cold War strategy of the preceding years.
The difference that did exist was more in style than substance. The Trump administration completely dispensed with all pretexts used by previous administrations. Even domestic law, like the War Powers Act that was ignored by the Obama administration continues to be of no concern for the new Trump administration. Now it is Trump's "America first" with no concern for international law or accepted standards of behavior.
Unchecked by the countervailing power of the Soviet Union, the bi-partisan National Security Strategy produced in the 1990s that committed the U.S. state to pursue policies that would ensure continued U.S. economic, political and military hegemony through the 21st century—the "new American century"—is still the overall strategic objective of this administration.
Even explicitly naming China and Russia as "competition" that threatens to harm the country's security was not that much of a departure since the centerpiece of U.S policy has been checking any state that challenged U.S. power in any region. The Trump administration named threats to U.S. interests—North Korea in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West Asia, with jihadist groups included in case the United States needed a War on Terror (WOT) justification for U.S. interventions anywhere in the world.
While Neocons and liberal interventionists in previous administrations sugarcoated U.S. geo-strategic objectives to mask hegemony, the Trump rhetoric is crude, direct and unambiguously aggressive. Protecting U.S. interests in the 21st century means relying on military aggression, war and subversion.
Building the U.S. anti-war movement as the responsibility to protect from Empire
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated the obvious: he United States was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He also said the public allowing this violence would lead to a kind of national spiritual death that would continue to make the U.S. state a danger to the world.
That spiritual death has not quite happened completely. Yet accepting the "inevitability" of violence and the necessity for waging war is now more deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of individuals in the United States than it was 50 years ago when King warned of the deep malady of U.S. society. For most of the 21st century, the United States has been at war. Culturally, mass shootings, the wars on drugs and terror, violence and war as entertainment, livestreamed videos of horrendous police-executed murders as well as of a head of state being sodomized with a knife have resulted in what Henry Giroux refers to as a "culture of cruelty.
But the very fact that the authorities need to lie to the people with fairy tales of the responsibility to protect in order to give moral coverage for the waging of war is an acknowledgement that they understand that there is enough humanity left with the public that it would reject U.S. warmongering if it was only seen as advancing narrow national interests.
It is this remaining moral core—and the objective interests of the clear majority of the people to be in opposition to war—that provides the foundation for reviving the modern anti-war movement.
Baltimore was the site of the rebellion in response to Freddie Gray's murder by the domestic military we refer to as "the police." There, a couple of hundred activists will convene January 12 to kick off a new campaign to close all U.S. foreign bases. This gathering is the result of a new coalition of forces—both old and new—to revive the U.S. anti-war movement. This conference comes on the heels of another meeting that took place just a few months ago in Washington, D.C., where some of the same forces came together to kick-off a campaign to "divest from the war machine."
Strategically these efforts are designed to be the first steps toward building the confidence, institutional strength and programmatic focus of a new, reinvigorated, broad-based, anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States We are opposing the warmongering both corporate political parties have normalized.
The difficulties and challenges of this endeavor are not lost on the various organizations, networks and coalitions that are part of these efforts. We all recognize that there are no shortcuts to the delicate reconstructing of our existing forces and the challenge of expanding those forces by bringing in new formations. The ideological and political differences that have surfaced among left and progressive forces around issues of war and imperialism make it more challenging.
But the imperative of expressing solidarity with the victims of U.S. warmongering must take precedence over our differences and should serve as a basis for building political unity.
Continued at:
[url]The Responsibility to Protect the World ... from the United States
one of the most ingenious propaganda weapons ever developed is that the powerful nations of the West—led by the United States—have a moral responsibility to use military force to protect the rights of people being repressed by their governments. This "responsibility to protect" (R2P) always had a dubious legal standing, but its moral justification also required a psychological and historical disengagement from the bloody reality of the 500-hundred-year history of U.S. and European colonialism, slavery, genocide and torture that created the "West."
This violent, lawless Pan-European colonial/capitalist project continues today under the hegemony of the U.S. empire. This then begs the questions of who really needs the protection and who protects the peoples of the world from the United States and its allies? The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan "white identity politics."
Neocons like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl were the driving forces in pushing for the war in Iraq. They understood if they wanted to sell war, "Americans" needed to believe the conflict was about values, not interests. The neocons dusted off and put a new face on that old rationalization for colonialism—the white man's burden. Interventions were to bring democracy and freedom to those people who were struggling to be just like their more advanced models in the white West. Liberal interventionists further developed those ideas into "humanitarian interventionism" and the "responsibility to protect."
The fact that the United States and Europe can wrap themselves in the flag of morality, practice savior politics and get away with it is a testament to the enduring psychopathology of white supremacist ideology.
The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration's so-called War on Terror. With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.
The result? International Gallup and Pew research polls have consistently shown the peoples of the world consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace on the planet.
National Security Strategy Under Trump: More of the Same
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, Liberal pundits suggested it was a significantly different than any previous U.S. strategy. But beyond some specific references to putting "America" and its citizens first in relationship to the economy, and the reactionary stances of tightening border security and enforcing strict immigration policies, Trump's strategy did not stray much from the post-Cold War strategy of the preceding years.
The difference that did exist was more in style than substance. The Trump administration completely dispensed with all pretexts used by previous administrations. Even domestic law, like the War Powers Act that was ignored by the Obama administration continues to be of no concern for the new Trump administration. Now it is Trump's "America first" with no concern for international law or accepted standards of behavior.
Unchecked by the countervailing power of the Soviet Union, the bi-partisan National Security Strategy produced in the 1990s that committed the U.S. state to pursue policies that would ensure continued U.S. economic, political and military hegemony through the 21st century—the "new American century"—is still the overall strategic objective of this administration.
Even explicitly naming China and Russia as "competition" that threatens to harm the country's security was not that much of a departure since the centerpiece of U.S policy has been checking any state that challenged U.S. power in any region. The Trump administration named threats to U.S. interests—North Korea in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West Asia, with jihadist groups included in case the United States needed a War on Terror (WOT) justification for U.S. interventions anywhere in the world.
While Neocons and liberal interventionists in previous administrations sugarcoated U.S. geo-strategic objectives to mask hegemony, the Trump rhetoric is crude, direct and unambiguously aggressive. Protecting U.S. interests in the 21st century means relying on military aggression, war and subversion.
Building the U.S. anti-war movement as the responsibility to protect from Empire
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated the obvious: he United States was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He also said the public allowing this violence would lead to a kind of national spiritual death that would continue to make the U.S. state a danger to the world.
That spiritual death has not quite happened completely. Yet accepting the "inevitability" of violence and the necessity for waging war is now more deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of individuals in the United States than it was 50 years ago when King warned of the deep malady of U.S. society. For most of the 21st century, the United States has been at war. Culturally, mass shootings, the wars on drugs and terror, violence and war as entertainment, livestreamed videos of horrendous police-executed murders as well as of a head of state being sodomized with a knife have resulted in what Henry Giroux refers to as a "culture of cruelty.
But the very fact that the authorities need to lie to the people with fairy tales of the responsibility to protect in order to give moral coverage for the waging of war is an acknowledgement that they understand that there is enough humanity left with the public that it would reject U.S. warmongering if it was only seen as advancing narrow national interests.
It is this remaining moral core—and the objective interests of the clear majority of the people to be in opposition to war—that provides the foundation for reviving the modern anti-war movement.
Baltimore was the site of the rebellion in response to Freddie Gray's murder by the domestic military we refer to as "the police." There, a couple of hundred activists will convene January 12 to kick off a new campaign to close all U.S. foreign bases. This gathering is the result of a new coalition of forces—both old and new—to revive the U.S. anti-war movement. This conference comes on the heels of another meeting that took place just a few months ago in Washington, D.C., where some of the same forces came together to kick-off a campaign to "divest from the war machine."
Strategically these efforts are designed to be the first steps toward building the confidence, institutional strength and programmatic focus of a new, reinvigorated, broad-based, anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States We are opposing the warmongering both corporate political parties have normalized.
The difficulties and challenges of this endeavor are not lost on the various organizations, networks and coalitions that are part of these efforts. We all recognize that there are no shortcuts to the delicate reconstructing of our existing forces and the challenge of expanding those forces by bringing in new formations. The ideological and political differences that have surfaced among left and progressive forces around issues of war and imperialism make it more challenging.
But the imperative of expressing solidarity with the victims of U.S. warmongering must take precedence over our differences and should serve as a basis for building political unity.
Continued at:
[url]https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-responsibility-to-protect-the-world-from-the-united-states/5626128 (//http:///%3E%3Cbr%20/%3Eone%20of%20the%20most%20ingenious%20propaganda%20weapons%20ever%20developed%20is%20that%20the%20powerful%20nations%20of%20the%20West%E2%80%94led%20by%20the%20United%20States%E2%80%94have%20a%20moral%20responsibility%20to%20use%20military%20force%20to%20protect%20the%20rights%20of%20people%20being%20repressed%20by%20their%20governments.%20This%20%22responsibility%20to%20protect%22%20(R2P)%20always%20had%20a%20dubious%20legal%20standing,%20but%20its%20moral%20justification%20also%20required%20a%20psychological%20and%20historical%20disengagement%20from%20the%20bloody%20reality%20of%20the%20500-hundred-year%20history%20of%20U.S.%20and%20European%20colonialism,%20slavery,%20genocide%20and%20torture%20that%20created%20the%20%22West.%22%3Cbr%20/%3EThis%20violent,%20lawless%20Pan-European%20colonial/capitalist%20project%20continues%20today%20under%20the%20hegemony%20of%20the%20U.S.%20empire.%20This%20then%20begs%20the%20questions%20of%20who%20really%20needs%20the%20protection%20and%20who%20protects%20the%20peoples%20of%20the%20world%20from%20the%20United%20States%20and%20its%20allies?%20The%20only%20logical,%20principled%20and%20strategic%20response%20to%20this%20question%20is%20citizens%20of%20the%20empire%20must%20reject%20their%20imperial%20privileges%20and%20join%20in%20opposing%20ruling%20elites%20exploiting%20labor%20and%20plundering%20the%20Earth.%20To%20do%20that,%20however,%20requires%20breaking%20with%20the%20intoxicating%20allure%20of%20cross-class,%20bi-partisan%20%22white%20identity%20politics.%22%3Cbr%20/%3ENeocons%20like William%20Kristol,%20Paul%20Wolfowitz and Richard%20Pearl were%20the%20driving%20forces%20in%20pushing%20for%20the%20war%20in%20Iraq.%20They%20understood%20if%20they%20wanted%20to%20sell%20war,%20%22Americans%22%20needed%20to%20believe%20the%20conflict%20was%20about%20values,%20not%20interests.%20The%20neocons%20dusted%20off%20and%20put%20a%20new%20face%20on%20that%20old%20rationalization%20for%20colonialism%E2%80%94the%20white%20man's%20burden.%20Interventions%20were%20to%20bring%20democracy%20and%20freedom%20to%20those%20people%20who%20were%20struggling%20to%20be%20just%20like%20their%20more%20advanced%20models%20in%20the%20white%20West.%20Liberal%20interventionists%20further%20developed%20those%20ideas%20into%20%22humanitarian%20interventionism%22%20and%20the%20%22responsibility%20to%20protect.%22%3Cbr%20/%3EThe%20fact%20that%20the%20United%20States%20and%20Europe%20can%20wrap%20themselves%20in%20the%20flag%20of%20morality,%20practice%20savior%20politics%20and%20get%20away%20with%20it%20is%20a%20testament%20to%20the%20enduring%20psychopathology%20of%20white%20supremacist%20ideology.%3Cbr%20/%3EThe%20most%20extreme%20expressions%20of%20this%20cognitive%20dissonance%20occurred%20during%20the%20Obama%20administration,%20when%20the%20notion%20of%20U.S.%20exceptionalism%20was%20used%20to%20justify%20continuing%20the%20barbarism%20of%20the%20Bush%20administration's%20so-called%20War%20on%20Terror.%20With%20this%20justification%20and%20the%20outrageous%20assertion%20that%20it%20was%20defending%20democracy,%20the%20U.S./EU/NATO%20axis%20of%20domination%20committed%20crimes%20against%20humanity%20and%20war%20crimes%20that%20resulted%20in%20the%20deaths%20of%20millions,%20while%20millions%20more%20were%20displaced%20and%20ancient%20cities,%20nations%20and%20peoples%20were%20destroyed.%3Cbr%20/%3EThe%20result?%20International%20Gallup%20and%20Pew%20research%20polls%20have%20consistently%20shown%20the%20peoples%20of%20the%20world%20consider%20the%20United%20States%20the%20greatest%20threat%20to%20world%20peace%20on%20the%20planet.%3Cbr%20/%3ENational%20Security%20Strategy%20Under%20Trump:%20More%20of%20the%20Same%3Cbr%20/%3EWhen%20the%20Trump%20administration%20released%20its%20National%20Security%20Strategy,%20Liberal%20pundits%20suggested%20it%20was%20a%20significantly%20different%20than%20any%20previous%20U.S.%20strategy.%20But%20beyond%20some%20specific%20references%20to%20putting%20%22America%22%20and%20its%20citizens%20first%20in%20relationship%20to%20the%20economy,%20and%20the%20reactionary%20stances%20of%20tightening%20border%20security%20and%20enforcing%20strict%20immigration%20policies,%20Trump's%20strategy%20did%20not%20stray%20much%20from%20the%20post-Cold%20War%20strategy%20of%20the%20preceding%20years.%3Cbr%20/%3EThe%20difference%20that%20did%20exist%20was%20more%20in%20style%20than%20substance.%20The%20Trump%20administration%20completely%20dispensed%20with%20all%20pretexts%20used%20by%20previous%20administrations.%20Even%20domestic%20law,%20like%20the%20War%20Powers%20Act%20that%20was%20ignored%20by%20the%20Obama%20administration%20continues%20to%20be%20of%20no%20concern%20for%20the%20new%20Trump%20administration.%20 Now%20it%20is%20Trump's%20%22America%20first%22%20with%20no%20concern%20for%20international%20law%20or%20accepted%20standards%20of%20behavior.%3Cbr%20/%3EUnchecked%20by%20the%20countervailing%20power%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union,%20the%20bi-partisan%20National%20Security%20Strategy%20produced%20in%20the%201990s%20that%20committed%20the%20U.S.%20state%20to%20pursue%20policies%20that%20would%20ensure%20continued%20U.S.%20economic,%20political%20and%20military%20hegemony%20through%20the%2021st century%E2%80%94the%20%22new%20American%20century%22%E2%80%94is%20still%20the%20overall%20strategic%20objective%20of%20this%20administration.%3Cbr%20/%3EEven%20explicitly%20naming%20China%20and%20Russia%20as%20%22competition%22%20that%20threatens%20to%20harm%20the%20country's%20security%20was%20not%20that%20much%20of%20a%20departure%20since%20the%20centerpiece%20of%20U.S%20policy%20has%20been%20checking%20any%20state%20that%20challenged%20U.S.%20power%20in%20any%20region.%20The%20Trump%20administration%20named%20threats%20to%20U.S.%20interests%E2%80%94North%20Korea%20in%20Asia,%20Russia%20in%20Eurasia,%20Iran%20in%20West%20Asia,%20with%20jihadist%20groups%20included%20in%20case%20the%20United%20States%20needed%20a%20War%20on%20Terror%20(WOT)%20justification%20for%20U.S.%20interventions%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world.%3Cbr%20/%3EWhile%20Neocons%20and%20liberal%20interventionists%20in%20previous%20administrations%20sugarcoated%20U.S.%20geo-strategic%20objectives%20to%20mask%20hegemony,%20the%20Trump%20rhetoric%20is%20crude,%20direct%20and%20unambiguously%20aggressive.%20Protecting%20U.S.%20interests%20in%20the%2021st century%20means%20relying%20on%20military%20aggression,%20war%20and%20subversion.%3Cbr%20/%3EBuilding%20the%20U.S.%20anti-war%20movement%20as%20the%20responsibility%20to%20protect%20from%20Empire%3Cbr%20/%3EFifty%20years%20ago, Dr.%20Martin%20Luther%20King%20Jr. stated%20the%20obvious:%20he%20United%20States%20was%20the%20greatest%20purveyor%20of%20violence%20in%20the%20world.%20He%20also%20said%20the%20public%20allowing%20this%20violence%20would%20lead%20to%20a%20kind%20of%20national%20spiritual%20death%20that%20would%20continue%20to%20make%20the%20U.S.%20state%20a%20danger%20to%20the%20world.%3Cbr%20/%3EThat%20spiritual%20death%20has%20not%20quite%20happened%20completely.%20Yet%20accepting%20the%20%22inevitability%22%20of%20violence%20and%20the%20necessity%20for%20waging%20war%20is%20now%20more%20deeply%20ingrained%20in%20the%20collective%20consciousness%20of%20individuals%20in%20the%20United%20States%20than%20it%20was%2050%20years%20ago%20when%20King%20warned%20of%20the%20deep%20malady%20of%20U.S.%20society.%20For%20most%20of%20the%2021st century,%20the%20United%20States%20has%20been%20at%20war.%20Culturally,%20mass%20shootings,%20the%20wars%20on%20drugs%20and%20terror,%20violence%20and%20war%20as%20entertainment,%20livestreamed%20videos%20of%20horrendous%20police-executed%20murders%20as%20well%20as%20of%20a%20head%20of%20state%20being%20sodomized%20with%20a%20knife%20have%20resulted%20in%20what%20Henry%20Giroux%20refers%20to%20as%20a%20%22culture%20of%20cruelty.%3Cbr%20/%3EBut%20the%20very%20fact%20that%20the%20authorities%20need%20to%20lie%20to%20the%20people%20with%20fairy%20tales%20of%20the%20responsibility%20to%20protect%20in%20order%20to%20give%20moral%20coverage%20for%20the%20waging%20of%20war%20is%20an%20acknowledgement%20that%20they%20understand%20that%20there%20is%20enough%20humanity%20left%20with%20the%20public%20that%20it%20would%20reject%20U.S.%20warmongering%20if%20it%20was%20only%20seen%20as%20advancing%20narrow%20national%20interests.%3Cbr%20/%3EIt%20is%20this%20remaining%20moral%20core%E2%80%94and%20the%20objective%20interests%20of%20the%20clear%20majority%20of%20the%20people%20to%20be%20in%20opposition%20to%20war%E2%80%94that%20provides%20the%20foundation%20for%20reviving%20the%20modern%20anti-war%20movement.%3Cbr%20/%3EBaltimore%20was%20the%20site%20of%20the%20rebellion%20in%20response%20to%20Freddie%20Gray's%20murder%20by%20the%20domestic%20military%20we%20refer%20to%20as%20%22the%20police.%22%20There,%20a%20couple%20of%20hundred%20activists%20will%20convene%20January%2012%20to%20kick%20off%20a%20new%20campaign%20to%20close%20all%20U.S.%20foreign%20bases.%20This%20gathering%20is%20the%20result%20of%20a%20new%20coalition%20of%20forces%E2%80%94both%20old%20and%20new%E2%80%94to%20revive%20the%20U.S.%20anti-war%20movement.%20This%20conference%20comes%20on%20the%20heels%20of%20another%20meeting%20that%20took%20place%20just%20a%20few%20months%20ago%20in%20Washington,%20D.C.,%20where%20some%20of%20the%20same%20forces%20came%20together%20to%20kick-off%20a%20campaign%20to%20%22divest%20from%20the%20war%20machine.%22%3Cbr%20/%3EStrategically%20these%20efforts%20are%20designed%20to%20be%20the%20first%20steps%20toward%20building%20the%20confidence,%20institutional%20strength%20and%20programmatic%20focus%20of%20a%20new,%20reinvigorated,%20broad-based,%20anti-war,%20pro-peace%20and%20anti-imperialist%20movement%20in%20the%20United%20States%20We%20are%20opposing%20the%20warmongering%20both%20corporate%20political%20parties%20have%20normalized.%3Cbr%20/%3EThe%20difficulties%20and%20challenges%20of%20this%20endeavor%20are%20not%20lost%20on%20the%20various%20organizations,%20networks%20and%20coalitions%20that%20are%20part%20of%20these%20efforts.%20We%20all%20recognize%20that%20there%20are%20no%20shortcuts%20to%20the%20delicate%20reconstructing%20of%20our%20existing%20forces%20and%20the%20challenge%20of%20expanding%20those%20forces%20by%20bringing%20in%20new%20formations.%20The%20ideological%20and%20political%20differences%20that%20have%20surfaced%20among%20left%20and%20progressive%20forces%20around%20issues%20of%20war%20and%20imperialism%20make%20it%20more%20challenging.%3Cbr%20/%3EBut%20the%20imperative%20of%20expressing%20solidarity%20with%20the%20victims%20of%20U.S.%20warmongering%20must%20take%20precedence%20over%20our%20differences%20and%20should%20serve%20as%20a%20basis%20for%20building%20political%20unity.%3Cbr%20/%3EContinued%20at:%3Cbr%20/%3E%5Burl)
Putin: Communist ideology similar to Christianity, Lenin's body like saintly relics
https://www.rt.com/news/415883-putin-communist-ideology-christianity/
Russian President Vladimir Putin has likened communism to Christianity and Vladimir Lenin's mausoleum in Moscow's Red Square to the veneration of the relics of saints.
"Maybe I'll say something that someone might dislike, but that's the way I see it," Putin said in an interview for the documentary Valaam, an excerpt of which was broadcast on Russia 1. "First of all, faith has always accompanied us, becoming stronger every time our country, our people, have been through hard times.
"There were those years of militant atheism when priests were eradicated, churches destroyed, but at the same time a new religion was being created. Communist ideology is very similar to Christianity, in fact: freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice – everything is laid out in the Holy Scripture, it's all there. And the code of the builder of communism? This is sublimation, it's just such a primitive excerpt from the Bible, nothing new was invented."
Putin went further by comparing the Communists' attitude to the Bolshevik leader Lenin to the veneration of saints in Christianity. "Look, Lenin was put in a mausoleum. How is this different from the relics of saints for Orthodox Christians and just for Christians? When they say that there's no such tradition in Christianity, well, how come, go to Athos and take a look, there are relics of the saints there, and we have holy relics here," Putin concluded.
After Lenin died in 1924, his body was embalmed and put on display in a mausoleum in Red Square, Moscow. The cult of Lenin was part of Soviet ideology. The public debate about the possibility of giving Lenin's remains a proper burial began during the early days of Perestroika in the 1980s.
Putin's words were music to the ears of Communist Party members. "I think these words of the president very effectively and reasonably smooth out the acute angles around the theme of the mausoleum," Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Ivan Melnikov said on Sunday, as cited by Interfax.
He said however, that "communists and all the leftist patriotic forces [in Russia] understand that communism is close to Christianity as much as the form of capitalism that exists in our country and our economy today is far from Christianity."
Earlier this year, Gennadiy Zyuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party, said Putin had promised him that as long as he remains president, Lenin's body would remain in the mausoleum in Red Square.
"As long as I sit here, there will be no barbarism in Red Square," the Communist chief quoted Putin as saying at a conference with Russian party leaders.
According to Zyuganov, Putin also dismissed allegations that Lenin was not buried in accordance with Christian traditions. "As far as the form of the burial is concerned, they used the one that is also used in Orthodox Christianity – he lies a meter and a half below the ground level. Sepultures and cave burials have been known for a long time," Putin said, according to Zyuganov.
Why is Putin "allowing" Israel to bomb Syria?
[This article has been written for the Unz Review]
https://thesaker.is/why-is-putin-allowing-israel-to-bomb-syria/
Informationclearinghouse recently posted an article by Darius Shahtahmasebi entitled "Israel Keeps Bombing Syria and Nobody Is Doing Anything About It". Following this publication I received an email from a reader asking me the following question: "Putin permitting Israel to bomb Syria – why? I am confused by Putins actions – does Putin support the Zionist entity, on the quiet like. I would appreciate your feedback on this matter. Also – I have heard, but not been able to confirm, that the Russian Jewish immigrants to Occupied Palestines are the most ardent tormenters of the Palestinians – it takes quite some doing to get ahead of the likes of Netanyahu. Please comment". While in his article Darius Shahtahmasebi wonders why the world is not doing anything to stop the Israelis ("Why haven't Iran, Syria, and/or Hezbollah in Lebanon responded directly?"), my reader is more specific and wonders why Putin (or Russia) specifically is not only "permitting" Israel to bomb Syria but even possibly "supporting" the Zionist Entity.
I often see that question in emails and in comments, so I wanted to address this issue today.
First, we need to look at some critical assumption implied by this question. These assumptions are:
That Russia can do something to stop the Israelis
That Russia should (or even is morally obliged) to do something.
Let me begin by saying that I categorically disagree with both of these assumptions, especially the 2nd one. Let's take them one by one.
Assumption #1: Russia can stop the Israeli attacks on Syria
How? I think that the list of options is fairly obvious here. Russian options range from diplomatic action (such as private or public protests and condemnations, attempts to get a UNSC Resolution passed) to direct military action (shooting down Israeli aircraft, "painting" them with an engagement radar to try to scare them away or, at least, try to intercept Israeli missiles).
Trying to reason with the Israelis or get the to listen to the UN has been tried by many countries for decades and if there is one thing which is beyond doubt is that the Israelis don't give a damn about what anybody has to say. So talking to them is just a waste of oxygen. What about threatening them? Actually, I think that this could work, but at what risk and price?
First of all, while I always said that the IDF's ground forces are pretty bad, this is not the case of their air forces. In fact, their record is pretty good. Now if you look at where the Russian air defenses are, you will see that they are all concentrated around Khmeimim and Tartus. Yes, an S-400 has a very long range, but that range is dependent on many things including the size of the target, its radar-cross section, its electronic warfare capabilities, the presence of specialized EW aircraft, altitude, etc. The Israelis are skilled pilots who are very risk averse so they are very careful about what they do. Finally, the Israelis are very much aware of where the Russians are themselves and where there missiles are. I think that it would be pretty safe to say that the Israelis make sure to keep a minimal safe distance between themselves and the Russians, if only to avoid any misunderstanding. But let's say that the Russians did have a chance to shoot down an Israeli aircraft – what would be the likely Israeli reaction to such a shooting? In this article Darius Shahtahmasebi writes: "Is it because Israel reportedly has well over 200 nukes all "pointed at Iran," and there is little Iran and its allies can do to take on such a threat?" I don't see the Israelis using nukes on Russian forces, however, that does in no way mean that the Russians when dealing with Israel should not consider the fact that Israel is a nuclear armed power ruled by racist megalomaniacs. In practical terms this means this: "should Russia (or any other country) risk a military clash with Israel over a few destroyed trucks or a weapons and ammunition dump"? I think that the obvious answer is clearly 'no'.
While this is the kind of calculations the USA simply ignores (at least officially – hence all the saber-rattling against the DPRK), Russia is ruled by a sane and responsible man who cannot make it a habit of simply waltzing into a conflict hence the Russian decision not to retaliate in kind against the shooting down of the Russian SU-24 by the Turks. If the Russians did not retaliate against the Turks shooting down one of their own aircraft, they sure ain't gonna attack the Israelis when they attack a non-Russian target!
There are also simply factual issues to consider: even if some Russian air-defense systems are very advanced and could shoot down an X number of Israeli aircraft, they are nowhere near numerous enough to prevent the entire Israeli air force from saturating them. In fact, both Israel and CENTCOM simply have such a numbers advantage over the relatively small Russian contingent that they both could over-run the Russian defenses, even if they would take losses in the process.
So yes, the Russian probably could stop one or a few Israeli attacks, but if the Israelis decided to engage in a sustained air campaign against targets in Syria there is nothing the Russians could do short of going to war with Israel. So here again a very basic strategic principle fully applies: you never want to start an escalatory process you neither control nor can win. Put simply this means: if the Russians shoot back – they lose and the Israelis win. It's really that simple and both sides know it (armchair strategist apparently don't).
And this begs a critical look at the second assumption:
Assumption #2: Russia has some moral duty to stop the Israeli attacks on Syria
This is the one which most baffles me. Why in the world would anybody think that Russia owes anybody anywhere on the planet any type of protection?! For starters, when is the last time somebody came to the help of Russia? I don't recall anybody in the Middle-East offering their support to Russia in Chechnia, Georgia or, for that matter, the Ukraine! How many countries in the Middle-East have recognized South Ossetia or Abkhazia (and compare that with the Kosovo case!)? Where was the Muslim or Arab "help" or "friendship" towards Russia when sanctions were imposed and the price of oil dropped? Remind me – how exactly did Russia's "friends" express their support for Russia over, say, the Donbass or Crimea?
Can somebody please explain to me why Russia has some moral obligation towards Syria or Iran or Hezbollah when not a single Muslim or Arab country has done anything to help the Syrian government fight against the Takfiris? Where is the Arab League!? Where is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?!
Is it not a fact that Russia has done more in Syria than all the countries of the Arab League and the OIC combined?!
Where do the Arab and Muslims of the Middle-East get this sense of entitlement which tells them that a faraway country which struggles with plenty of political, economic and military problems of its own has to do more than the immediate neighbors of Syria do?!
Putin is the President of Russia and he is first and foremost accountable to the Russian people to whom he has to explain every Russian casualty and even every risk he takes. It seems to me that he is absolutely right when he acts first and foremost in defense of the people who elected him and not anybody else.
By the way – Putin was very clear about why he was ordering a (very limited) Russian military intervention in Syria: to protect Russian national interests by, for example, killing crazy Takfiris in Syria so as not to have to fight then in the Caucasus and the rest of Russia. At no time and in no way did any Russian official refer to any kind of obligation of Russia towards Syria or any other country in the region. True, Russia did stand by President Assad, but that was not because of any obligation towards him or his country, but because the Russians always insisted that he was the legitimate President of Syria and that only the Syrian people had the right to replace (or keep) him. And, of course, it is in the Russian national interest to show that, unlike the USA, Russia stands by her allies. But none of that means that Russia is now responsible for the protection of the sovereignty of the Syrian airspace or territory.
As far as I am concerned, the only country which has done even more than Russia for Syria is Iran and, in lieu of gratitude the Arab countries "thank" the Iranians by conspiring against them with the USA and Israel. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely spot on when the calls all these countries traitors and collaborators of the AngloZionist Empire.
There is something deeply immoral and hypocritical in this constant whining that Russia should do more when in reality Russia and Iran are the only two countries doing something meaningful (and Hezbollah, of course!).
Now let me address a few typical questions:
Question #1: but aren't Syria, Iran and Hezbollah Russian allies?
Yes and no. Objectively – yes. Formally – no. What this means is that while these three entities do have some common objectives, they are also independent and they all have some objectives not shared by others. Furthermore, they have no mutual defense treaty and this is why neither Syria, nor Iran nor Hezbollah retaliated against Turkey when the Turks shot down the Russian SU-24. While some might disagree, I would argue that this absence of a formal mutual defense treaty is a very good thing if only because it prevents Russian or Iranian forces in Syria from becoming "tripwire" forces which, if attacked, would require an immediate response. In a highly dangerous and explosive situation like the Middle-East the kind of flexibility provided by the absence any formal alliances is a big advantage for all parties involved.
Question #2 : does that mean that Russia is doing nothing or even supporting Israel?
Of course not! In fact, Netanyahu even traveled to Moscow to make all sorts of threats and he returned home with nothing (Russian sources even report that the Israelis ended up shouting at their Russian counterparts). Let's restate here something which ought to be obvious to everybody: the Russian intervention in Syria was an absolute, total and unmitigated disaster for Israel (I explain that in detail in this article). If the Russians had any kind of concern for Israelis interests they would never have intervened in Syria in the first place! However, that refusal to let Israel dictate Russian policies in the Middle-East (or elsewhere) does not at all mean that Russia can simply ignore the very real power of the Israelis, not only because of their nukes, but also because of their de-facto control of the US government.
Question #3: so what is really going on between Russia and Israel?
As I have explained elsewhere, the relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex and multi-layered one and nothing between those two countries is really black or white. For one thing, there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Russia at which Putin has been chipping away over the years, but only in very small and incremental steps. The key for Putin is to do what needs to be done to advance Russian interests but without triggering an internal or external political crisis. This is why the Russians are doing certain things, but rather quietly.
First, they are re-vamping the aging Syrian air defenses not only with software updates, but also with newer hardware. They are also, of course, training Syrian crews. This does not mean that the Syrians could close their skies to Israeli aircraft, but that gradually the risks of striking Syria would go up and up with each passing month. First, we would not notice this, but I am confident that a careful analysis of the types of targets the Israelis will strike will go down and further down in value meaning the Syrians will become more and more capable of defending their most important assets.
Second, it is pretty obvious that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are working synergistically. For example, the Russians and the Syrians have integrated their air defenses which means that now the Syrians can "see" much further than their own radars would allow them to. Furthermore, consider the number of US cruise missiles which never made it to the Syrian air base Trump wanted to bomb: it is more or less admitted by now that this was the result of Russian EW countermeasures.
Finally, the Russians are clearly "covering" for Hezbollah and Iran politically by refusing to consider them as pariahs which is what Israel and the USA have been demanding all along. This is why Iran is treated as a key-player by the Russian sponsored peace process while the USA and Israel are not even invited.
So the truth of the matter is simple: the Russians will not directly oppose the Israelis, but what they will do is quietly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah, which is not only much safer but also much more effective.
Conclusion
We live in a screwed-up and dysfunctional society which following decades of US domination conflates war and aggression with strength, which implicitly accepts the notion that a "great country" is one which goes on some kind of violent rampage on a regular basis and which always resorts to military force to retaliate against any attack. I submit that the Russian and Iranian leaders are much more sophisticated then that. The same goes for the Hezbollah leadership, by the way. Remember when the Israelis (with the obvious complicity of some members of the Syrian regime, by the way) murdered Imad Mughniyeh? Hezbollah promised to retaliate, but so far, almost a decade later, they have not (or, at least, not officially). Some will say that Hezbollah's threats were empty words – I totally disagree. When Hassan Nasrallah promises something you can take it to the bank. But Hezbollah leaders are sophisticated enough to retaliate when the time is right and on their own terms. And think about the Iranians who since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 have been in the crosshairs of both the USA and Israel and who never gave either one of them the pretext to strike.
When you are much more powerful than your opponent you can be stupid and reply on brute, dumb force. At least for the short to middle term. Eventually, as we see with the USA today, this kind of aggressive stupidity backfires and ends up being counterproductive. But when you are smaller, weaker or even just still in the process of recovering your potential strength you have to act with much more caution and sophistication. This is why all the opponents of the AngloZionist Empire (including Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela) do their utmost to avoid using force against the AngloZionists even when it would be richly deserved. The one exception to this rule is Kim Jong-un who has chosen a policy of hyperinflated threats which, while possibly effective (he seems to have outwitted Trump, at least so far) is also very dangerous and one which none of the Resistance countries want to have any part in.
The Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are all "grown adults" (in political terms), and Assad is learning very fast, and they all understand that they are dealing with a "monkey with a hand grenade" (this fully applies to both Israeli and US leaders) which combines a nasty personality, a volatile temper, a primitive brain and a hand grenade big enough to kill everybody in the room. Their task is to incapacitate that monkey without having it pull the pin. In the case of the Israeli strikes on Syria, the primary responsibility to respond in some manner would fall either on the target of the strikes (usually Hezbollah) or on the nation whose sovereignty was violated (Syria). And both could, in theory, retaliate (by using tactical missiles for example). Yet they chose not to, and that is the wise and correct approach. As for the Russians, this is simply and plainly not their business.
Addendum 1:
One more thing. Make no mistake – the Israeli (and US!) propensity to use force as a substitute for diplomacy is a sign of weakness, not of strength. More, accurately, their use of force, or the threat of force, is the result of their diplomatic incompetence. While to the unsophisticated mind the systematic use of force might appear as an expression of power, history shows that brute force can be defeated when challenged not directly, but by other means. This is, by necessity, a slow process, much slower than a (mostly entirely theoretical) "quick victory", but an ineluctable one nonetheless. In purely theoretical terms, the use of force can roughly have any one of the following outcomes: defeat, stalemate, costly victory and a relatively painless victory. That last one is exceedingly rare and the use of force mostly results in one of the other outcomes. Sometimes the use of force is truly the only solution, but I submit that the wise political leader will only resort to it when all other options have failed and when vital interests are at stake. In all other situation a "bad peace is preferable to a good war".
Addendum 2:
Contrary to the hallucinations of the Neocons, Russia is absolutely not a "resurgent USSR" and Putin has no desire whatsoever to rebuild the Soviet Union. Furthermore, there is no meaningful constituency in Russia for any such "imperial" plans (well, there are always some lunatics everywhere, but in Russia they are, thank God, a tiny powerless minority). Furthermore, the new Russia is most definitely not an "anti-USA" in the sense of trying to counter every US imperial or hegemonic move. This might be obvious to many, but I get so many questions about why Russia is not doing more to counter the USA in Africa, Latin America or Asia that I feel that it is, alas, still important to remind everybody of a basic principle of international law and common sense: problems in country X are for country X to deal with. Russia has no more business than the USA in "solving" country X's problems. Furthermore, country X's problems are usually best dealt with by country X's immediate neighbors, not by megalomaniacal messianic superpowers who feel that they ought to "power project" because they are somehow "indispensable" or because "manifest destiny" has placed upon them the "responsibility" to "lead" the world. All this terminology is just the expression of a pathological and delusional imperial mindset which has cost Russia and the Soviet Union an absolutely horrendous price in money, energy, resources and blood (for example, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was justified in terms of the "internationalist duty" of the Soviet Union and people to help a "brotherly nation"). While this kind of nonsense is still 100% mainstream in the poor old USA, it is absolutely rejected in modern Russia. For all the personal credibility of Putin with the Russian people, even he could not get away with trying to militarily intervene, nevemind police the whole planet, unless truly vital Russian interests were threatened (Crimea was such a very rare case). Some will deplore this, I personally very much welcome it, but the truth is that "the Russians are *not* coming".
The Saker
A National Defense Strategy of Sowing Global Chaos
https://original.antiwar.com/nicolas_davies/2018/01/23/national-defense-strategy-sowing-global-chaos/
by Nicolas J. S. Davies Posted on January 24, 2018
Presenting the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States on Friday at the Johns Hopkins University, Secretary of Defense James Mattis painted a picture of a dangerous world in which U.S. power – and all of the supposed "good" that it does around the world – is on the decline.
"Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace," he said. "And it is continually eroding."
What he could have said instead is that the United States military is overextended in every domain, and that much of the chaos seen around the world is the direct result of past and current military adventurism. Further, he could have acknowledged, perhaps, that the erosion of US influence has been the result of a series of self-inflicted blows to American credibility through foreign policy disasters such as 2003 invasion of Iraq.
There were also two important words hidden between the lines, but never mentioned by name, in the new US National Defense Strategy: "empire" and "imperialism."
It has long been taboo for US officials and corporate media to speak of US foreign policy as "imperialism," or of the US's global military occupations and network of hundreds of military bases as an "empire." These words are on a long-standing blacklist of "banned topics" that US official statements and mainstream US media reports must never mention.
The streams of Orwellian euphemisms with which US officials and media instead discuss US foreign policy do more to obscure the reality of the US role in the world than to describe or explain it, "hiding imperial interests behind ever more elaborate fig leaves," as British historian A.J.P. Taylor described European imperialists doing the same a century ago.
As topics like empire, imperialism, and even war and peace, are censored and excised from political debate, US officials, subservient media and the rest of the US political class conjure up an illusion of peace for domestic consumption by simply not mentioning our country's 291,000 occupation troops in 183 other countries or the 39,000 bombs and missiles dropped on our neighbors in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan since Trump took office.
The 100,000 bombs and missiles dropped on these and other countries by Obama and the 70,000 dropped on them by Bush II have likewise been swept down a kind of real time "memory hole," leaving America's collective conscience untroubled by what the public was never told in the first place.
But in reality, it's been a long time since US leaders of either party resisted the temptation to threaten anyone anywhere, or to follow through on their threats with "fire and fury" bombing campaigns, coups and invasions. This is how empires maintain a "credible threat" to undergird their power and discourage other countries from challenging them.
But far from establishing the "Pax Americana" promised by policymakers and military strategists in the 1990s, from Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney to Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton, the results have been consistently catastrophic, producing what the new National Defense Strategy calls, "increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing, rules-based international order."
Of course the drafters of this US strategy document dare not admit that US policy is almost single-handedly responsible for this global chaos, after successive US administrations have worked to marginalize the institutions and rules of international law and to establish illegal US threats and uses of force that international law defines as crimes of aggression as the ultimate arbiter of international affairs.
Nor do they dare acknowledge that the CIA's politicized intelligence and covert operations, which generate a steady stream of political pretexts for US military intervention, are designed to create and exacerbate international crises, not to solve them. For US officials to admit such hard truths would shake the very foundations of US imperialism.
Opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran – the so-called nuclear deal – from Republicans and Democratic hawks alike seems to stem from the fear that it might validate the use of diplomacy over sanctions, coups and war, and set a dangerous precedent for resolving other crises – from Afghanistan and Korea to future crises in Africa and Latin America. Iran's success at bringing the US to the negotiating table, instead of falling victim to the endless violence and chaos of U.S.-backed regime change, may already be encouraging North Korea and other targets of US aggression to try to pull off the same trick.
But how will the US justify its global military occupation, illegal threats and uses of force, and trillion-dollar war budget once serious diplomacy is seen to be more effective at resolving international crises than the endless violence and chaos of US sanctions, coups, wars and occupations?
From Bhurtpoor to Baghdad
Major Danny Sjursen, who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and taught history at West Point, is a rare voice of sanity from within the US military. In a poignant article in Truthdig, Major Sjursen eloquently described the horrors he has witnessed and the sadness he expects to live with for the rest of his life. "The truth is," he wrote, "I fought for next to nothing, for a country that, in recent conflicts, has made the world a deadlier, more chaotic place."
Danny Sjursen's life as a soldier of the US Empire reminds me of another soldier of Empire, my great-great-great grandfather, Samuel Goddard. Samuel was born in Norfolk in England in 1793, and joined the 14th Regiment of Foot as a teenager. He was a Sergeant at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. During 14 years in India, his battalion led the assault on the fortress of Bhurtpoor in 1826, which ended the last resistance of the Maratha dynasty to British rule. He spent 3 years in the Caribbean, 6 years in Canada, and retired as Commandant of Dublin Castle in 1853 after a lifetime of service to Empire.
Danny's and Samuel's lives have much in common. They would probably have a lot to talk about if they could ever meet. But there are critical differences. At Bhurtpoor, the two British regiments who led the attack were followed through the breech in the walls by 15 regiments of Indian "Native Infantry." After Bhurtpoor, Britain ruled India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) for 120 years, with only a thousand British officials in the Indian Civil Service and a few thousand British officers in command of up to 2.5 million Indian troops.
The British brutally put down the Indian Mutiny in 1857-8 with massacres in Delhi, Allahabad, Kanpur and Lucknow. Then, as up to 30 million Indians died in famines in 1876-9 and 1896-1902, the British government of India explicitly prohibited relief efforts or actions that might reduce exports from India to the U.K. or interfere with the operation of the "free market."
As Mike Davis wrote in his 2001 book, Late Victorian Holocausts, "What seemed from a metropolitan perspective the nineteenth century's final blaze of imperial glory was, from an Asian or African viewpoint, only the hideous light of a giant funeral pyre."
And yet Britain kept control of India by commanding such loyalty and subservience from millions of Indians that, in every crisis, Indian troops obeyed orders from British officers to massacre their own people.
Danny Sjursen and US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and other post-Cold War US war zones are having a very different experience. In Afghanistan, as the Taliban and its allies have taken control of more of the country than at any time since the US invasion, the U.S.-backed Afghan National Army has 25,000 fewer troops under its command than it did five years ago, while ten years of training by US special operations forces has produced only 21,000 trained Afghan Commandos, the elite troops who do 70-80% of the killing and dying for the corrupt U.S.-backed Afghan government.
But the US has not completely failed to win the loyalty of its imperial subjects. The first US soldier killed in action in Afghanistan in 2018 was Sergeant 1st Class Mihail Golin, originally from Latvia. Mihail arrived in the US in November 2004, enlisted in the US Army three months later and has now given his life for the US Empire and for whatever his service to it meant to him. At least 127 other Eastern Europeans have died in occupied Afghanistan, along with 455 British troops, 158 Canadians and 396 soldiers from 17 other countries. But 2,402 – or 68%, over two-thirds – of the occupation troops who have died in Afghanistan since 2001, were Americans.
In Iraq, an American war that always had even less international support or legitimacy, 93% of the occupation troops who have died were Americans, 4,530 out of a total of 4,852 "coalition" deaths.
When Ben Griffin, who later founded the UK branch of Veterans for Peace, told his superiors in the UK's elite SAS (Special Air Service) that he could no longer take part in murderous house raids in Baghdad with US special operations forces, he was surprised to find that his entire chain of command understood and accepted his decision. The only officer who tried to change his mind was the chaplain.
The Future of Empire
The US Joint Chiefs of Staff have explicitly told Congress that war with North Korea would require a ground invasion, and the same would likely be true of a US war on Iran. South Korea wants to avoid war at all costs, but may be unavoidably drawn into a U.S.-led Second Korean War.
But besides South Korea, the level of support the US could expect from its allies in a Second Korean War or other wars of aggression in the future would probably be more like Iraq than Afghanistan, with significant international opposition, even from traditional US allies. US troops would therefore make up nearly all of the invasion and occupation forces – and take nearly all of the casualties.
Compared to past empires, the cost in blood and treasure of policing the US Empire and the blame for its catastrophic failures fall disproportionately – and rightly – on Americans. Even Donald Trump recognizes this problem, but his demands for allied countries to spend more on their militaries and buy more US weapons will not change their people's unwillingness to die in America's wars.
This reality has created political pressure on US leaders to wage war in ways that cost fewer American lives but inevitably kill many more people in countries being punished for resistance to US imperialism, using air strikes and locally recruited death squads instead of US"boots on the ground" wherever possible.
The US conducts a sophisticated propaganda campaign to pretend that US air-launched weapons are so accurate that they can be used safely without killing large numbers of civilians. Actual miss rates and blast radii are on the "banned topics" blacklist, along with realistic estimates of civilian deaths.
When former Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari told Patrick Cockburn of the UK's Independent newspaper that he had seen Iraqi Kurdish intelligence reports which estimated that the US and Iraqi-led destruction of Mosul had killed 40,000 civilians, the only remotely realistic estimate so far from an official source, no other mainstream Western media followed up on the story.
But America's wars are killing millions of innocent people: people defending themselves, their families, their communities and countries against US imperialism and aggression; and many more who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time under the onslaught of over 210,000 American bombs and missiles dropped on at least 7 countries since 2001.
According to a growing body of research (for example, see the UN Development Program study, Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping-Point for Recruitment), most people who join armed resistance or "terrorist" groups do so mainly to protect themselves and their families from the dangers of wars that others have inflicted on them. The UNDP survey found that the final "tipping point" that pushes over 70% of them to take the fateful step of joining an armed group is the killing or detention of a close friend or family member by foreign or local security forces.
So the reliance on airstrikes and locally recruited death squads, the very strategies that make US imperialism palatable to the American public, are in fact the main "drivers" spreading armed resistance and terrorism to country after country, placing the US Empire on a collision course with itself.
The US effort to delegate war in the Middle East to Saudi Arabia is turning it into a target of global condemnation as it tries to mimic the US model of warfare by bombing and starving millions of innocent people in Yemen while blaming the victims for their plight. The slaughter by poorly trained and undisciplined Saudi and Emirati pilots is even more indiscriminate than US bombing campaigns, and the Saudis lack the full protection of the Western propaganda system to minimize international outrage at tens of thousands of civilian casualties and an ever-worsening humanitarian crisis.
The need to win the loyalty of imperial subjects by some combination of fear and respect is a basic requirement of Empire. But it appears to be unattainable in the 21st century, certainly by the kind of murderous policies the US has embraced since the end of the Cold War. As Richard Barnet already observed 45 years ago, at the end of the American War in Vietnam, "At the very moment the number one nation has perfected the science of killing, it has become an impractical instrument of political domination."
Obama's sugarcoated charm offensive won US imperialism a reprieve from global public opinion and provided political cover for allied leaders to actively rejoin U.S.-led alliances. But it was dishonest. Under cover of Obama's iconic image, the US spread the violence and chaos of its wars and regime changes and the armed resistance and terrorism they provoke farther and wider, affecting tens of millions more people from Syria and Libya to Nigeria and Ukraine.
Now Trump has taken the mask off and the world is once again confronting the unvarnished, brutal reality of US imperialism and aggression.
China's approach to the world based on trade and infrastructure development has been more successful than US imperialism. The US share of the global economy has declined from 40% to 22% since the 1960s, while China is expected to overtake the US as the world's largest economy in the next decade or two – by some measures, it already has.
While China has become the manufacturing and trading hub of the global economy, the US economy has been financialized and hollowed out, hardly a solid basis for future growth. The neoliberal model of politics and economics that the US adopted a generation ago has created even greater wealth for people who already owned disproportionate shares of everything, but it has left working people in the US and across the US Empire worse off than before.
Like the "next to nothing" that Danny Sjursen came to realize he was fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospects for the US economy seem ephemeral and highly vulnerable to the changing tides of economic history.
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
In his 1987 book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, historian Paul Kennedy examined the relationship between economic and military power in the histories of the Western empires who colonized the world in the past 500 years. He described how rising powers enjoy significant competitive advantages over established ones, and how every once-dominant power sooner or later has to adjust to the tides of economic history and find a new place in a world it can no longer dominate.
Kennedy explained that military power is only a secondary form of power that wealthy nations develop to protect and support their expanding economic interests. An economically dominant power can quickly convert some of its resources into military power, as the US did during the Second World War or as China is doing today. But once formerly dominant powers have lost ground to new, rising powers, using military power more aggressively has never been a successful way to restore their economic dominance. On the contrary, it has typically been a way to squander the critical years and scarce resources they could otherwise have used to manage a peaceful transition to a prosperous future.
As the UK found in the 1950s, using military force to try to hold on to its empire proved counterproductive, as Kennedy described, and peaceful transitions to independence proved to be a more profitable basis for future relations with its former colonies. The drawdown of its global military commitments was an essential part of its transition to a viable post-imperial future.
The transition from hegemony to coexistence has never been easy for any great power, and there is nothing exceptional about the temptation to use military force to try to preserve and prolong the old order. This has often led to catastrophic wars and it has always failed.
It is difficult for any political or military leader to preside over a diminution of his or her country's power in the world. Military leaders are rewarded for military strategies that win wars and expand their country's power, not for dismantling it. Mid-level staff officers who tell their superiors that their weapons and armies cannot solve their country's problems do not win promotion to decision-making positions.
As Gabriel Kolko noted in Century of War in 1994, this marginalization of critical voices leads to an "inherent, even unavoidable institutional myopia," under which, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles."
After two world wars and the independence of India, the Suez crisis of 1956 was the final nail in the coffin of the British Empire, and the Eisenhower administration burnished its own anti-colonial credentials by refusing to support the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt. British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was forced to resign, and he was replaced by Harold Macmillan, who had been a close aide to Eisenhower during the Second World War.
Macmillan dismantled the remains of the British Empire behind the backs of his Conservative Party's supporters, winning reelection in 1959 on the slogan, "You've never had it so good," while the US supported a relatively peaceful transition that preserved Western international business interests and military power.
As the US faces a similar transition from empire to a post-imperial future, its leaders have been seduced by the chimera of the post-Cold War "power dividend" to try to use military force to preserve and expand the US Empire, even as the relative economic position of the US declines.
In 1987, Paul Kennedy ended The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers with a prescient analysis of the US position in the world. He concluded,
"In all of the discussions about the erosion of American leadership, it needs to be repeated again and again that the decline referred to is relative not absolute, and is therefore perfectly natural; and that the only serious threat to the real interests of the United States can come from a failure to adjust sensibly to the newer world order."
But after Kennedy wrote that in 1987, instead of accepting the future of peace and disarmament that the whole world hoped for at the end of the Cold War, a generation of American leaders made a fateful bid for "superpower." Their delusions were exactly the kind of failure to adjust to a changing world that Kennedy warned against.
The results have been catastrophic for millions of victims of US wars, but they have also been corrosive and debilitating for American society, as the perverted priorities of militarism and Empire squander our country's resources and leave working Americans poorer, sicker, less educated and more isolated from the rest of the world.
When I began writing Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq in 2008, I hoped that the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq might bring US leaders to their senses, as the Suez crisis did to British leaders in 1956.
Instead, eight more years of carefully disguised savagery under Obama have squandered more precious time and good will and spread the violence and chaos of US war-making even farther and wider. The new National Defense Strategy's implicit threats against Russia and China reveal that 20 years of disastrous imperial wars have done nothing to disabuse US leaders of their delusions of "superpower status" or to restore any kind of sanity to US foreign policy.
Trump is not even pretending to respect diplomacy or international law, as he escalates Bush's and Obama's wars and threatens new ones of his own. But maybe Trump's nakedly aggressive policies will force the world to finally confront the dangers of US imperialism. A coming together of the international community to stop further US aggression may be the only way to prevent an even greater catastrophe than the ones that have already befallen the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.
Or will it actually take a new and even more catastrophic war in Korea, Iran or somewhere else to finally force the United States to "adjust sensibly to the new world order," as Paul Kennedy put it in 1987? The world has already paid a terrible price for our leaders' failure to take his sound advice a generation ago. But what will be the final cost if they keep ignoring it even now?
Syncretism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm/) is the combining of different beliefs, while blending practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Syncretism also occurs commonly in expressions of arts and culture (known as eclecticism) as well as politics (syncretic politics).
Nomenclature
The English word is first attested in the early 17th century,[1] from Modern Latin syncretismus, drawing on Greek συγκρητισμός (synkretismos), supposedly meaning "Cretan federation", but this is a spurious etymology from the naive idea in Plutarch's 1st-century AD essay on "Fraternal Love (Peri Philadelphias)" in his collection Moralia (2.490b). He cites the example of the Cretans, who compromised and reconciled their differences and came together in alliance when faced with external dangers. "And that is their so-called Syncretism [Union of Cretans]". More likely as an etymology is sun- ("with") plus kerannumi ("mix") and its related noun, "krasis," "mixture."
Erasmus probably coined the modern usage of the Latin word in his Adagia ("Adages"), published in the winter of 1517–1518, to designate the coherence of dissenters in spite of their differences in theological opinions. In a letter to Melanchthon of April 22, 1519, Erasmus specifically adduced the Cretans of Plutarch as an example of his adage "Concord is a mighty rampart".
Social and political roles
Overt syncretism in folk belief may show cultural acceptance of an alien or previous tradition, but the "other" cult may survive or infiltrate without authorized syncresis nevertheless. For example, some Conversos developed a sort of cult for martyr-victims of the Spanish Inquisition, thus incorporating elements of Catholicism while resisting it.
Some religious movements have embraced overt syncretism, such as the case of melding Shintō beliefs into Buddhism or the amalgamation of Germanic and Celtic pagan views into Christianity during its spread into Gaul, the British Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia. Indian influences are seen in the practice of Shi'i Islam in Trinidad. Others have strongly rejected it as devaluing and compromising precious and genuine distinctions; examples of this include post-Exile Second Temple Judaism, Islam, and most of Protestant Christianity.[further explanation needed][citation needed]
Syncretism tends to facilitate coexistence and unity between otherwise different cultures and worldviews (intercultural competence), a factor that has recommended it to rulers of multi-ethnic realms. Conversely, the rejection of syncretism, usually in the name of "piety" and "orthodoxy", may help to generate, bolster or authenticate a sense of uncompromised cultural unity in a well-defined minority or majority.
Religious syncretism
Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.
Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. Such adherents sometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word "syncretism" as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own. Others state that the term syncretism is an elusive one,[2] and can be applied to refer to substitution or modification of the central elements of a dominant religion by beliefs or practices introduced from somewhere else. The consequence under this definition, according to Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion's integrity.
In modern secular society, religious innovators sometimes create new religions syncretically as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions, however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience.
Cultures and societies
According to some authors, "Syncretism is often used to describe the product of the large-scale imposition of one alien culture, religion, or body of practices over another that is already present."[3] Others such as Jerry Bentley, however, have argued that syncretism has also helped to create cultural compromise. It provides an opportunity to bring beliefs, values, and customs from one cultural tradition into contact with, and to engage different cultural traditions. Such a migration of ideas is generally successful only when there is a resonance between both traditions. While, as Bentley has argued, there are numerous cases where expansive traditions have won popular support in foreign lands, this is not always so.[4]
During the Enlightenment
The modern, rational non-pejorative connotations of syncretism date from Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie articles: Eclecticisme and Syncrétistes, Hénotiques, ou Conciliateurs. Diderot portrayed syncretism as the concordance of eclectic sources.
Why I am Angry
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/why-i-am-angry/
by Uri Avnery
I am angry with the Mizrahi elite. Very angry indeed.
Mizrah is the Hebrew word for East. Eastern Jews are those who lived for many centuries in the Islamic world. Western Jews are those who lived in Christian Europe.
The words are, of course, misnomers. Russian Jews are "Westerners", Moroccan Jews are "Easterners". A look at the map shows that Russia is far to the East of Morocco. It would be more accurate to call them "Northerners" and "Southerners". Too late, now.
Westerners are generally called "Ashkenazim", from the old Hebrew term for Germany. Easterners were usually called "Sephardim", from the old Hebrew term for Spain. But only a small part of the Easterners are actually descended from the flourishing Jewish community in medieval Spain.
In today's Israel, the antagonism between Mizrahim and Ashkenazim is growing stronger from year to year, with vast political and social repercussions. It is no exaggeration to see this as the determining phenomenon of current Israeli society.
Before I continue, allow me to state (once again, I am afraid) my personal part in this.
My last few years in Germany, before we fled, were spent in the shadow of the ascent of the Swastika, the last half year already under Nazi rule. I came to hate Germany and everything German. So when our ship reached the port of Jaffa, I was enthusiastic. I was just ten years old, and the Jaffa of 1933 was in every respect the exact opposite of Germany – noisy, full of exotic smells, human. I loved it.
As I learned later, most of the early Zionist "pioneers" who arrived in Arab Jaffa hated it on sight, because they identified themselves as Europeans. Among them was the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl himself, who did not want to go to Palestine in the first place. On his only visit here, he hated its Oriental character. He vastly preferred Patagonia (in the Argentine).
Fifteen years later, during Israel's war of independence, I was promoted to the lofty rank of squad-leader and had the choice between new immigrant recruits from Poland or Morocco. I chose the Moroccans and was rewarded by them with my life: when I was lying wounded under fire, four of "my Moroccans" risked their lives to get me out.
It was then that I got a foretaste of things to come. Once, when we got a few precious hours of leave, some of my soldiers refused to go. "The girls in Tel Aviv don't go out with us," they complained, "for them we are blacks." Their skin was just a little bit darker than ours.
I became very sensitive to this problem, when everybody else still denied its very existence. In 1954, when I was already the editor-in-chief of a news-magazine, I published a series of articles that caused a huge stir: "They (expletive) the Blacks". Those Ashkenazim who did not hate me before, started to hate me then.
Then came the riots of "Wadi Salib", a neighborhood in Haifa, where a policeman shot a Mizrahi. My paper was the only one in the country to defend the protesters.
A few years later the small group of Mizrahim started an unruly protest movement, expropriating the American term "Black Panthers". I helped them. Golda Meir famously exclaimed: "They are not nice people".
Now, many years later, a new generation has taken over. The Internal conflict dominates many aspects of our life. The Mizrahim make up about half the Jewish population of Israel, the Ashkenazim form the other half. The division has many manifestations, but people don't like to talk about them openly.
For example, the great majority of Likud voters are Mizrahim, though the party leadership is predominantly Ashkenazi. The opposition Labor Party is almost completely Ashkenazi, though they just elected a Mizrahi leader, in the vain hope that this will help them to overcome the profound alienation of the Mizrahim.
My opposition to the treatment of the Mizrahim was primarily a moral one. It sprang from the desire for justice. It also sprang from my dream that all of us, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, would eventually be submerged in a common Hebrew nation. But I must confess that there was another motive, too.
I have always believed – as I believe now – that there is no future for Israel as a foreign island in the Oriental sea. My hopes go much further than just peace. I hope for Israel's becoming an integral part of the "Semitic region" (an expression I invented long ago).
How? I have always entertained a monumental hope: that the second or third generation of Mizrahim will remember its heritage, the times when Jews were an integral part of the Muslim world. Thus they would become the bridge between the new Hebrew nation in Israel and its Palestinian neighbors, and indeed the entire Muslim world.
Being despised by the Ashkenazim as "Asiatic" and inferior, would it not have been natural for the Mizrahim to reclaim their glorious heritage, when the Jews in Iraq, Spain, Egypt and many other Muslim countries were fully integrated partners in a flourishing civilization, at a time when Europeans were mainly barbarians?
Jewish philosophers, mathematicians, poets and medical doctors were partners of that civilization, side by side with their Muslim counterparts. When the persecution and expulsion of Jews and the inquisition were facts of life in Europe, Jews (and Christians) enjoyed full rights in the Muslim world. They were accorded the status of "Peoples of the Book" (the Hebrew Bible) and fully equal, except for being exempted from army service and paying a tax instead. Anti-Jewish incidents were rare.
When all the Jews were expelled from Christian Spain, only a small minority immigrated to Amsterdam, London and Hamburg. The vast majority went to Muslim countries, from Morocco to Istanbul. Curiously enough, only a handful settled in Palestine.
However, when masses of Oriental Jews arrived in Israel, my hopes were dashed. Instead of becoming the bridge between Israel and the Arab world, they became the most ardent Arab-haters. The centuries of Muslim-Jewish culture were erased, as if they had never existed.
Why? Being despised by the "superior" Ashkenazim, the Mizrahim started to despise their own culture. They tried to become Europeans, more anti-Arab, more super-patriot, more right-wing.
(Though one Mizrahi friend once told me: We don't want to be a bridge. A bridge is something people trample on.)
Yet no one can escape from himself. Most Mizrahim in Israel speak with an Arab accent. They love Arab music (presented as "Mediterranean" music), and have no love for Mozart and Beethoven. Their features are different from European ones. All the more reason to hate the Arabs.
The erasing of the Eastern-Jewish culture is all-encompassing. Israeli children of Eastern descent have no idea of the great writers and philosophers of their heritage. They don't know that the Christian Crusaders who conquered the Holy Land butchered Muslims and Jews alike, and that Jews defended Jerusalem and Haifa shoulder to shoulder with their Muslim neighbors.
Rabbi Moses Maimonides – the great Rambam – is well known, but only as an important rabbi, not as the friend and personal physician of Saladin, the greatest of Muslim heroes. The many other medieval Sephardic intellectuals are hardly known at all. None of them appears on our paper money.
Yet I am an optimist, in this respect also.
I believe that a new Mizrahi intelligentsia will search for its roots. That with the rise of its social status, social complexes will give way to a normal patriotism. That a fourth or fifth generation will come forward and struggle not only for equality, but also for peace and integration in the region.
As our Arab friends would say: Inshallah.
Blood Groups and the History of Peoples
http://www.dadamo.com/txt/index.pl?1010
in The Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia by Peter D'Adamo
There is a vast span of human existence of which little is known. Archeological ruins from the beginnings of civilization have been unearthed, and there have been occasional discoveries of a more prehistoric nature, but not much else. The impermanency of our physical existence is responsible for this void; our flesh and body fluids rapidly decompose after death. Unless preserved by extraordinary means, even skeletal remains eventually crumble and disappear. Early peoples did not practice ceremonial burial. Left to the elements, bodies soon completely decomposed: "Dust to dust" was not a mere poetic metaphor. It was a recorded observation of our transient natures.
Only in the last century have scientists and anthropologists begun using biological markers such as the blood groups in the search for humanity's imprint on our distant past. These studies have allowed a greater understanding of the movements and groupings of early peoples as they adapted to changing climates, mutating germs, and uncertain food supplies. Recent analyses, using sophisticated genetic measures, have produced the most accurate picture to date of human evolution.
The variations, strengths and weaknesses of each blood group can be seen as part of humanity's continual process of acclimating to different environmental challenges. Most of these challenges have involved the digestive and immune systems. It is no surprise, then, that many of the distinctions between the blood groups involve basic functions of our digestive and immune systems.Evolution is usually considered in the context of millions of years, which is the time frame needed to explain the many differences between animals or other species. Yet humanity's own life span provides ample time for the myriad number of small day-to-day refinements, representing the constant struggle between inherited traits and environmental challenges.
And, although evidence points to the fact that the individual genetic mutations that produced the ABO genes are quite ancient (1) this is trivial importance with regard to the actual demographics of the individual ABO blood groups in ancient populations. In genetics it is not the actual age of the gene that matters, it is its frequency or drift. This is computed by geneticists using a formula called the Hardy-Weinberg equation. Hardy-Weinberg posits that if the only evolutionary force acting on the population is random mating, the gene frequencies remain unchanged constant. In essence if you start off with a small number of a particular gene in a larger gene pool (such as the gene for blood group B in the gene pool for ABO blood type) and nothing other than random mating occurred, at the end of a period of time, you would still have a small number of B genes in the ABO gene pool.
So something other than random mating is responsible for the present day differences in frequency between the ABO blood groups; why for example, are there such large populations of blood group O (40-45%) and A (35-40%) versus much lower rates of groups B (4-11%) and AB (0-2%)?
First, it can be said that perhaps the mutation that produced the B gene was just not as common an occurrence as the mutation that produced the A gene. Yet, if they occurred at the same time, why would this be? Also, if the mutations are of such paramount importance, why is the distribution of the B gene so geographically limited to an area of high concentration stretching as a belt of territory from the Himalayas to the Urals?
The answer lies not in the ancient nature of the mutations that produced the A and B genes, but rather in the discreet interactions that occurred between early man and his environment that were under the influence of his ABO blood group. These included the areas and climates he chose to inhabit, each with their unique populations of microbes and foods that he chose to catch or cultivate.
As humans migrated and were forced to adapt their diets to local conditions, the new diets provoked changes in their digestive tracts and immune systems, necessary for them to first survive and later thrive in their new habitats. Different foods metabolized in a unique manner by each ABO blood group probably resulted in that blood group achieving a certain level of susceptibility (good or bad) to the endemic bacteria, viruses and parasites of the area. This probably more than any other factor was what has influenced the modern day distribution of our blood group. It is fascinating to note that virtually all the major infectious diseases that ran so rampant throughout our pre-antibiotic history have ABO blood group preferences of one group or another.(2)
This results from the fact that many microbes possess ABO "blood types" of their own. It is perhaps useful to understand that the ABO blood group antigens are not unique to humans, although humans are the only species with all four variants. They are relatively simple sugars which arte abundantly found in nature. A bacteria which for example possessed an antigen on its surface that mimicked the blood group A antigen would have a much easier time infecting a person who was group A, since that bacteria would more likely be considered "self" to the immune system of a blood group A person. Also microbes may adhere to the tissues of one ABO group in preference to another, by possessing specialized adhesion molecules for that particular blood group.(3)
The horrors of the Black Plague, which ran unchecked throughout Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, is a perfect example. The Plague was a disease caused by bacterial infection and was almost certainly fatal to those who contracted it in the early years of its initial spread. By the fifteenth century, however, fatalities were rare, although many people continued to contract the infection. In just two generations, traits were developed in the survivors that protected them from fatal infections. Since these traits were necessary to survival, they were then passed on and retained as a form of genetic memory.
The Black Plague is especially interesting from a perspective of the ABO blood groups, since Yersinia is a bacteria with a preference for individuals of specific ABO group, in this case, group O. (4,5)
The effects of ABO blood group on survival against most forms of epidemic illness is so distinct that a modern day map of the ABO blood group distribution in Europe closely parallels the locations of major epidemics, with higher densities of blood group A and lower frequencies of blood group O in areas historically known to have had long histories of repeated pandemics.
On the other hand, in pre-urbanization days the survival advantage would have laid with blood group O as they are known to be more resistant to the flukes and worms that routinely parasitized these early humans, probably because they are the only blood group with antibodies against two other antigens, A and B.
These changes are reflected in the local success or failure of each of the blood groups, which appear to have each had a moment of pre-eminence at a critical juncture in our history. The ascent of humans to the top of the food chain (the early advantage of blood group O), the change from hunter-gathering to a highly concentrated, urban environment and agriculturally-based diet (the ascent of blood group A), and the mingling and migration of the races from the African homeland to Europe and Asia ( the opportunity for blood groups B and AB).
The Ancestral Foundation
From a purely scientific point of view, chemical analysis of the group O antigen reveals that from a structural perspective, it is the simplest blood group and it serves as the backbone for the synthesis of increasingly complex A, B and AB. These later blood groups evolved by adding other sugars onto the basic O sugar, much like a modern city might be built upon the foundations of an ancient one. Thus if the mutations that produced the A and B antigens are ancient, the gene for blood group O is infinitely older.
Another dimension testifying to the great antiquity of group O comes from the science of physical anthropology and suggests that a greater part of humanity's existence has been lived exclusively as group O.
New studies on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) support the theory that Homo sapiens emerged in Africa and only later infiltrated other regions. Unlike DNA, which is inherited from both parents and changes minutely with each generation, mtDNA is passed directly from mother to child. It is contained in eggs but not in sperm. Since only random mutations alter its sequence, it is a more accurate measure of the trajectory of human evolution. Extensive mtDNA studies demonstrate that humans evolved from a common ancestor. These studies also confirm the theory that the blood groups evolved as migratory mutations.
The extraordinarily high percentage of blood group O in "ancient" or otherwise isolated populations also testifies to its great age. (6) Even though the early migrations dispersed the gene for group O blood throughout the world, there are some extraordinary examples of "old" populations existing in our world today. Because of their geographic locations, these societies have remained isolated from interaction with other populations. If A, B and O had developed simultaneously, the isolated population groups would have had all of them. But these "old societies" are group O because genes for the later blood groups never had the opportunity to enter into their populations. They have remained unchanged.
The Basques are an ancient people whose origins are still a mystery. The Basque language, the only western European language not connected by Indo-European roots, appears to be related to several dialects found in small isolated populations in the valleys of the Caucasus Mountains. Although they look much like their French and Spanish neighbors, Basques possess the lowest frequency of blood group B---originally having no group B at all---and the highest frequencies of blood group O in Europe. Cattle, abundant on the European plains, and fresh water fish seem to have been the staples of their early existence, as evidenced by the extraordinary renderings of the famous cave paintings found in the Basque country.
More than fifty percent of the Basque population is Rh negative, as opposed to sixteen percent for the rest of Europe. Like the gene for group O, the genetic mechanism for the Rh negative blood type is simpler, hence undoubtedly older, than the gene for Rh positive.
Native Americans are another example of the "old peoples" existing in our world today. It has often been asserted that all full-blooded American Indians are group O, and recent studies on largely intermingled Amerindian populations show a very high (sixty-seven to eighty percent) predominance of O, indicating that their migration from Asia to Alaska was probably much earlier than previously believed.(7,8) Their high rate of blood group O suggests that the Amerindians and Eskimos are directly descended from Cro-Magnon ancestors, probably Mongolians, who migrated around 15,000 B.C. to the Americas. In contrast to the Basques, however, the Asian Amerindians must have mingled extensively with other Asian populations, picking up along the way the gene for Rh positive blood.
As with the Basques, few Native Americans are group B, so they must have migrated to the Americas late enough to pick up the Rh positive gene, but too early to pick up the gene for B. (9) This migration probably took place across the land bridge that at one time connected Siberia to Alaska. As the last Ice Age ebbed and the lands warmed and glaciers receded, the rising water levels eliminated the land bridge between Asia and American, bottling up the Native Americans and a high-O enclave and preventing for another 10,000 years any communication between the continents. Forensic studies support this theory: in Chile no B or AB have been noted either in pre-Columbian or Colonial mummies. (19)
Another theory for the extremely high incidence of blood group O in Native Americans is that O individuals seem relatively resistant to syphilis and smallpox, major killers of Native Americans that were introduced into the Old World by Columbus. (22)
Agricultural advances in the Americas were late in coming, because the new American homeland was abundantly populated with game and fish, which discouraged agriculture. Even corn, which was the staple grain, didn't appear to be domesticated until 4500 B.C., and common beans appear to be an even more recent addition, first being cultivated around 2200 B.C. So, like the Basques, meats and not grains were the primary staple of the Native American diet.
In England, Wales and Scotland there is a strong association between ABO blood group and geographical differences in the death rate (10) Studies of blood group distribution in the British Isles show a general increase of group O frequency from relatively low numbers in southern England to increasingly higher ones in northern England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. (11) This suggests that the Anglo-Saxons had relatively high A levels, and that O increased as the proportion of Celtic ancestry increased, although the origin of the high incidence of blood group O in the Irish may represent the remnants of Mesolithic peoples. (23) This is also the case with continental Europe, where the percentage of group O increases in northern Germans and Danes. It is also known that the Icelanders had high O frequencies, close to those frequencies found in the populations of Scotland and Ireland.
Among the Nomads of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Berbers of the Atlas Mountains, two old populations, the frequency of the blood group O gene is high. Africans, on average, have more O genes and less A genes than do Europeans. So it can be seen that the gene carried by people who are blood group O is ancient by evolutionary standards.
The Age of The Hunter-Gatherers
Our first human ancestors likely emerged in sub-Sahara Africa between 170,000 and 50,000 years ago. These ancestors probably ate a rather crude, omnivorous diet of plants, grubs, and the scavenged leftovers of other, more successful predatory animals. Since humans have neither the sharp teeth or claws of a true predator, one could speculate that these people were perhaps as much prey as predator. Yet within these early humans lay the greatest predatory tool yet devised: The human brain.
In a study reported in the journal Science, anthropologists said their tests of the carbon content of teeth of Australopithecus africanus indicate that these individuals ate large quantities of food rich in carbon 13 - like grasses and sedges - or animals that ate these plants, or both. The research indicated that the australopithecines, which walked upright but also climbed trees, were already venturing out of their usual forest habitat to forage in open grasslands. It also suggested that hominids were consuming high-protein animal foods before the development of stone tools for butchering. They noted that many theories of human origins invoke a switch to a meat-rich diet to explain the sudden expansion of brain size with the first Homo species. If they were eating meat, it probably came from small animals that could be caught without tools or the scavenged remains of meals left by large predators. (12)
Perhaps I am not alone in recognizing the paradoxical nature of a high meat diet being the driving factor behind the dramatic growth of the human brain, the result being the production of nutritionists who advise a vegetarian diet for virtually everyone.
Big game hunting by humans started in Africa about half a million years ago, although the full force of armed human bands may not have been felt much before 100,000 B.C Early human's relationship to their environment changed dramatically with the appearance of our first direct ancestor, Cro-Magnon, around 40,000 B.C. Named for a site in France where remains were first identified and studied, Cro-Magnons developed the beginnings of communication and tool working, and were also superb hunters. Using simple signals and gestures, they began to hunt in organized packs, wielding bone or simple stone weapons. This major advance catapulted what had been one of the less successful primates all the way to the top of the food chain. As skillful and formidable hunters, Cro-Magnons soon had little to fear from any animal rival.
Cro-Magnons possessed such modern human features as a higher, vertical forehead, a reduced brow ridge, a smaller face and teeth, and a chin. Their skeletons indicate great muscularity, suggesting they were employed in much more strenuous activities than are most modern peoples.
By the time of the Cro-Magnons, hunting and the consumption of a mostly carnivorous diet had become a way of life. It was in the midst of this carnivorous frenzy that the digestive attributes of Blood Group O reached its full expression, with the highly efficient acid and pepsin production of the stomach geared for the digestion of meat. With no natural predators (other than themselves), and an assured supply of game, the population of wily, physically agile Cro-Magnon hunters must have flourished.
Once early humans had gained ascendancy, it took a surprisingly short time for them to deplete the numbers of major game animals. By 50,000 B.C., most large game herds were already extinct in Africa. The scarcity of a primary food source led to widespread migration in search of new and fertile hunting grounds. The feast had come to an end. It had been a fairly routine task to feed a small hunting group on the kill of a single enormous animal carcass for a week or more. Now, having to hunt and kill a sufficient number of small game, most of whom proved fast and elusive, was much more difficult. Hunger began to take its toll on the previously successful tribes of hunters. The young, old, and weak fell by the wayside, succumbing to disease and starvation. Bands of hunters began warring with each other for the limited food supply.
This depletion of the large game in Africa, coupled with climatic changes and possibly population pressures encouraged early humans to begin moving out of Africa. The more barren northern areas, previously covered with ice, had started to warm, while a shift in the trade winds began to parch and desiccate what had once been fertile land in the African Sahara.
All of these factors joined together into what was quite possibly the greatest series of migrations in human history. These migrations seeded the planet with a base population of blood group O, helping to make it the widespread and ubiquitous blood group it continues to be to this day.
The Wanderings
By 30,000 B.C., bands of Cro-Magnons were migrating eastwards and northwards in search of new hunting lands. By 20,000 B.C., migration into Europe and Asia was so significant that large game herds began disappearing from those areas as well. Other food sources had to be discovered, and the search was a desperate one. Under these pressures, our ancestors may have become omnivorous again, feeding on a broader menu of new plant and animal species. In particular, the food resources of the shore and the sea were systematically exploited for the first time.
Cro-Magnons were getting smarter and more creative, developing more sophisticated housing and clothing. These alterations allowed bands of hunters to search for new game herds in northern grasslands and forests. By l0,000 B.C., human hunting groups occupied all the main land masses of the earth, except for Antarctica. Hunting bands found their way to Australia between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago. Some 5,000 to 15,000 years later, other bands managed to cross the Bering Strait from Asia and entered the Americas. In these later, relatively more sophisticated hunting societies, the extermination of large game accelerated. Cro-Magnon hunting methods were becoming increasingly efficient, as evidenced by the vast number of animal bones piled up at some of the recently unearthed archeological sites. At Solutre, France for example, the remains of more than 10,000 horses have been found. At Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic, a large number of bones from extinct mammoths litter the site. Some archeologists estimate that from the time human migration to the Americas began about 15,000 years ago, it took less than one thousand years to exterminate most of the large game in North and South America. The reason that the Aztec civilization was so easily toppled by the Spanish Conquistadors was the sheer terror that the horse-mounted warriors brought to the relatively primitive Aztec foot soldiers. Horses were previously unknown to the Aztecs---in earlier migrations from north to central America, their ancestors had exterminated the wild horses of the American plains, slaughtering them for food. They had no idea that horses could be utilized to far greater purposes than as a food source.
The expansion of Cro-Magnon hunting bands across the earth has been called "a period of unalloyed success for humankind". The effect of a carnivorous diet on human growth was profound. The movement of the early humans to more temperate climates stimulated genetic responses. They developed lighter skins, less massive bone structures, and straighter hair. The skeleton, especially in Caucasians, matures slowly, and their lighter skin is better protected than darker skin against frostbite. Lighter skin is also better able to metabolize vitamin D, vital to survival in a land of shorter days and longer nights.
The dominance of the Cro-Magnons eventually brought about their own downfall. They suffered greatly from their own success. Overpopulation soon led to the exhaustion of available hunting grounds. Before long, most of the large game herds in the populated regions were destroyed by overhunting. This led to increased competition for a limited food supply. Competition led to war, and war to further migration.
The Agricultural Dawning
The Neolithic Period, or "New Stone Age" followed the "Old Stone Age" or Paleolithic period of the Cro-Magnon hunters, beginning around 30,000 B.C. Agriculture and animal domestication are generally recognized as the hallmarks of its culture. The ability to cultivate grains and livestock allowed these early people to forgo the hand-to-mouth existence of their nomadic ancestors, and settle down in cities, allowing for substantial population concentrations. The British prehistorian V. Gordon Childe coined the term "Neolithic Revolution" to describe the change from a hunting and gathering society to one based on food production, and he considered it the greatest advance in human history after the marshaling of fire.
The Neolithic Period was also an important watershed in the distribution of the ABO blood groups. This new, relatively sedentary, agrarian lifestyle and the major change in diet resulted in a new mutation in the digestive tracts and immune systems of these early people. Many of them became carriers of group A blood. The blood group A variant allowed humans to tolerate and better assimilate grains and other agricultural products. Blood group A initially appeared in any significant numbers in the early Caucasian peoples, sometime between 25,000 and 15,000 B.C., somewhere in western Asia or the Middle East. The gene for group A was carried into western Europe and Asia during the movement of these Neolithic societies, especially a branch termed the Indo-Europeans, where it penetrated extensively into the pre-Neolithic Type O populations.
The Indo-Europeans appeared originally in South Central Russia, and between 3500 and 2000 B.C. spread southward into Southwestern Asia, especially to Iran and Afghanistan. At some point after this, they began to spread again, this time further westward, into Europe. Not only did their migration serve to transport the gene for group A to pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers, but it also served as a major catalyst in stimulating the adoption of Neolithic developments, such as agriculture. Almost all modern Europeans share a common ancestry with the Indo-European peoples.
The invasion of the Neolithic Indo-Europeans was scattershot and incomplete. In some areas, pre-Neolithic societies were obliterated through warfare and intermingling, while leaving others, such as the Basques of Spain, relatively alone and intact.
The Neolithic Revolution was the original "diet revolution," as it introduced new foods and lifestyle habits into the simpler immune systems and digestive tracts of the early hunter-gatherers, and produced the environmental stress necessary to spark the development of a new
blood group variation, A. As the digestive tract of this new blood group gradually lost its ability to digest the carnivorous diet of the hunter-gatherers, the simpler, pre-agricultural diet dependent largely on hunting and gathering disappeared.
The Emergence of The Collective
Settling into permanent communities presented new developmental challenges; the individualistic tendencies of the hunter-gatherer now gave way to a more structured society. Skill specialization can only evolve as part of a larger whole; the basket weaver is dependent on the farmer, the farmer on the toolmaker. One no longer thought of food only when hungry; fields needed to be sown and cultivated in anticipation of future reward.
The cultivation of wheat and barley, coupled with the domestication of food animals such as sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, and later cattle, first occurred between 9000 and 5000 B.C. in southwestern Asia, a fertile mixing ground in which all three major races co-mingled.
The new farming economies spread slowly from southeast Europe to the north and west. The permanent settlements that developed as a result of the new agrarian society gave rise to the early cities.
Neolithic sites in southeast Europe date from before 6000 B.C., and are located in areas with the most workable soils and temperate climate. Cattle, sheep, or pigs, in addition to wheat, barley, peas, beans, and flax, were raised. By 4000 B.C., a series of settlements were established on the lake shores of Switzerland, and agriculture was adapted to the Alpine environment, with emphasis on cattle, legumes, and fruit, in addition to wheat.
Cereal crops and cattle were introduced to western France by 4000 B.C., and were in use in southern Scandinavia, the British Isles, and in the northern European plains by about 3500 B.C., pushing the remaining hunter-gatherer peoples farther north into the wilderness, or influencing them to adopt the new, settled mode of life. 4000 B.C. marked the beginning of the Neolithic period in Britain and Ireland, and is denoted by an extensive clearing of the forests at that time for agriculture, burial rituals, and the building of "megalithic" structures, such as Stonehenge in England.
There is good evidence to support the link between the ascendancy of blood group A and the development of the urban society. As discussed, many areas of the world that have long histories of urbanization and frequent outbreaks of plague, cholera, and smallpox show a predominance of group A over group O. This statistic clearly proved that group A was more resistant to and able to survive the infections common to densely populated areas. One might well wonder how blood group O survived at all-much less how it has remained to this day the most ubiquitous blood group on the planet. One reason might be the sheer amount of group O in the gene pool; it is recessive in A and B and thus remains self-replicating.
Blood group A is found in the highest concentrations among western Europeans. Unlike blood groups B and O, there are many varieties of group A. The major grouping, A1, accounts for about ninety-five percent of all A blood. The largest subgroup, A2, is found principally in Northern Caucasians. A2 is found in very high concentration in Iceland and Scandinavia, particularly among the Lapps, ancient settlers of the area. They are almost unique in their high frequency of A, and have the highest frequency of A2, registering forty-two percent in one group. The A2 gene is almost entirely confined to Caucasian populations.
The European frequency of group A decreases as we head eastwards. Over much of Europe the frequency of the A gene is greater than twenty-five percent. It is also found in considerable numbers around the entire Mediterranean Sea, particularly in Corsica, Sardinia, Spain, Turkey, and the Balkans. It is clear that humankind most often laid down permanent settlements in those areas where conditions offered them the best chance of survival.
The Nomadic Mutation
The gene for blood group B first appeared in significant numbers somewhere around 10 to 15,000 B.C., the tail end of the Neolithic period, in the area of the Himalayan highlands now part of present day Pakistan and India. Like the environmental conditions which spawned the advent of group A, the development of blood group B was in large part a response to changes in the environment. But unlike A, which began to supplant group O as a response to new types of infections, then thrived as a result of the new dietary changes, group B appears to have been more of a response to climatic changes, followed by a different set of dietary adaptations. Life in the tropical flat savannahs of eastern Africa gave way to a harsher existence as the Cro-Magnon hunters migrated to the colder, drier, mountainous areas of the subcontinent and the barren endless plains of the central Asian steppes.
It is possible that blood group B may have been the only blood group with the capabilities to survive in such a harsh environment. There is some science behind this theory: For example, variability in the levels of the hormones testosterone, estradiol, and somatotropic hormones in mountaineers of the Pamirs and Kirghizes was examined in relation to their place of residence in terms of elevation above sea level. At high altitudes blood O group had had lower concentrations of estradiol and testosterone, blood group B the highest. (13)
Under times of famine, two biologic functions diminish: First is the ability to fend off infection. And the second is the ability to reproduce. Essentially omnivores, group B may have been the only blood group whose immune systems were capable of functioning with a diet described by one Roman historian as "soured milk and mare's blood." In addition to having the ability to survive pestilence, blood group B women may be more fertile than the A and O counterparts (14) and may begin to menstruate earlier. (15)
Higher concentrations of the group B gene exists in direct relationship with the demographics of the pre-existing caste system. Since the caste system was the direct result of consecutive layers of foreign conquest, it appears that the B gene may have been introduced into the Indian subcontinent via conquest. (16) In a study among fourteen Hindu caste groups, besides Christian and Muslim populations of West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, India All the Hindu castes except Brahmin, Kshatriya and Reddy exhibited relatively higher frequency of group B over group A (24) In a study of ABO distribution along the Silk Route of Northwestern China a distinct increase of blood group B was seen, especially when those subjects of Mongolian extraction were compared to Caucasian. (25)
An almost continuous belt of mountainous terrain extends from the Urals in Russia to the Caucasus in Asia, and then onto the Pyrenees of southern France. This barrier split the
migrations of the blood groups into two basic routes; a northern stream and a southern one. The invaders taking the southern approach became the ancestors of the Mediterranean people and western Europeans, and carried with them the gene for blood group A. The Ural Mountains prevented a large migration westwards from Asia, although small numbers of Caucasians entered eastern Europe, carrying with them the gene for blood group B that they picked up by intermingling with the Asian Mongolians. This barrier served to divide blood groups into a western group, A; and an eastern group, B.
Blood group B Mongolians continued to travel northward, toward present day Siberia. They developed a different culture, dependent on herding, and emphasizing the use of cultured dairy products. These nomadic people were expert horsemen, and wandered extensively over the Siberian flat lands, the great Steppes. These nomads must have been compact, tightly knit, and genetically homogenous. A recent study using sophisticated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology determined the ABO groupings of on the dried remains of nine human mummies which had been discovered at Taklamakan desert in 1912. Of the nine, eight were group B. (17) At various times they penetrated large swaths of Eastern Europe, at one time reaching as far as the gates of Vienna, Austria. The Mongolians were certainly responsible for introducing the gene for blood group B into the eastern European populations.
Two basic blood group B population patterns emerged out of the Neolithic revolution in Asia: an agrarian, relatively sedentary population located in the south and east, and the wandering nomadic societies of the north and west. This schism stands as an important cultural remnant in Southern Asian cuisine -the use of dairy products remains practically nonexistent. To the Asian culture, dairy products are considered the food of the barbarian.
In the Middle-East it appears that tribes of Semitic group B nomads may have infiltrated into pre-existing Neolithic cultures, both passively and aggressively. Semitic peoples called the Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period. Exactly who those foreign rulers were is not known, but it is assumed they were Asiatics. The Egyptian term for Hyksos merely means "rulers of foreign lands." It was once thought that foreign rule in Egypt would have necessarily entailed a violent overthrow, but instead there is the appearance of a peaceful takeover. More likely, the numbers of these foreigners slowly increased in the Delta region until they became a powerful political force. Under the rule of the Hyksos, the continuity of Egyptian culture and ritual was preserved, indicating that these foreign kings had become fully Egyptianized. Persian suzerainty may have also added large amount of B gene to the upper-class Egyptian gene pool, since a third century BC Egyptian mummy, 'Iset Iri Hetes' was recently typed and found to be group B. (18) Interestingly, Africa in general (independent of any racial categorization) has a higher incidence of group B than Europe or the Middle East. Whether this is the result of intermingling or the original B gene pool is unknown, however it does imply that the links between ancient Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa are deeper and older than generally recognized.
The blood group characteristics of the various Jewish populations have long been of interest to anthropologists. As a general rule, regardless of their nationality or race, there is a trend towards higher than average rates of blood group B. The Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe and the Sephardim of the Middle East and Africa, the two major sects, share high rates of group B blood and bear no discernible differences. Babylonian Jews differ considerably from the present-day Arab population of Iraq, in that they have a high frequency overall of group A, and an even higher frequency of group B blood.
The Jews of the Tafilalet Oasis in Morocco, an ancient community, now dispersed, also had a high frequency of the gene for blood group B, around twenty nine percent of the total society.
The Karaites, who have an extraordinarily high rate of blood group B, are members of a Jewish sect founded in Babylonia in the eighth century A.D. A singular community of Karaites continues to exist in Lithuania, and they were known to have migrated as a body from the Crimea. The Karaites consider themselves Jews by religion only, not by race. This claim of racial separation was accepted by the Nazi authorities, who controlled Lithuania during the Second World War. Because of this, the Karaites were spared the horrors of the Holocaust. (6)
To modern day anthropologists, blood group B continues to this day to be an "Eastern" blood group. It is found in high numbers among Asians such as the Chinese, Indians, and Siberians. In Europe, blood group B is more frequently found in Hungarians, Russians, Poles, and other eastern Europeans. It is not found in large numbers among western Europeans. Among pre-Neolithic people, such as the Basques and Amerindians, group B is practically nonexistent.
Of all the ABO blood groups, B shows the most clearly defined geographic distribution. Stretching as a great belt across the Eurasian plains and down to the Indian subcontinent, blood group B is found in increased numbers from Japan, Mongolia, China and India, up to the Ural Mountains. From there westward, the percentages fall until a low is reached at the extreme western end of Europe.
Blood group B is a distinctly non-Indo-European blood type. In Europe, only two areas with a high rate of blood group B appear: one among the group of non-Indo-European peoples known as the Finno-Ugrics (such as the Hungarians and the Finns), the other among the central Slavic peoples (Czechs, Southern Poles, and Northern Serbs). The Viking invaders may have also had a relatively high percentage of B gene, since many of the towns of Britain and western Europe that are linked to the coast by internal lines of communication such as large rivers, have a disproportional amount of blood group B when compared to the surrounding territory.
The small numbers of blood group B in old and Western Europeans represents western migration by Asian nomadic peoples. This is most clearly seen in the easternmost Western Europeans, the Germans and Austrians, who have an unexpectedly high incidence of blood group B blood compared to their western neighbors. The highest frequency of blood group B in Germans occurs in the area around the upper and middle Elbe River, an important natural boundary between "civilization" and "barbarism" in ancient and medieval times.
Modern subcontinental Indians, a Caucasian people, have some of the highest frequencies of blood group B in the world. Interestingly, among the Asiatics, they and the Japanese are the only areas that show high frequencies of blood group A as well. The northern Chinese and Koreans have high rates of blood group B, and lower rates of blood group A.
Nowadays, blood group B accounts for about ten percent of the world's population.
The Intermingling
Blood group AB is found in less than five percent of the population. It is certainly the most recent blood group. Unlike the other Abo blood groups, group AB resulted from the intermingling of group A Caucasian people and group B Mongolian people. Some of this may have been peaceful, some must have been part of the violent turmoil that marked the great "Migration of Peoples" at the end of the Ancient Period (300AD-800AD)
This time period was characterized by the collapse of the ancient civilizations, brought on by the influx of various wandering hordes of predominantly Eastern origin. The incidence of blood group B was probably very high in these Steppe dwellers, so the appearance of group AB in Europe is probably the result of the intermingling of these Eastern invaders with their European hosts. In Europe, the distribution of this blood group parallels group B, with a low incidence in Western Europeans. There is a very high incidence of AB blood in subcontinental Indians, again probably the result of migration, conquest, caste distinctions and intermingling .
Little evidence for the occurrence of group AB extends beyond 900 to 1,000 years ago, when a large western migration of Eastern peoples took place. Blood group AB is rarely found in European graves prior to 900 A.D. Studies of prehistoric grave exhumations in Hungary indicate a distinct lack of this blood group into the Langobard age (fifth to seventh century A.D.). This would seem to indicate that, up until that point in time, European populations of blood groups A and B did not come into common contact. If they did, they neither mingled nor intermarried.
Blood group AB may be a purely human invention. This blood group takes the concept of tolerance to the extreme, as it sees all things A-like or B-like as self, and manufactures no opposing blood group antibodies. As early as the 1940s it was noticed that blood group AB had a higher incidence of cancer than the other blood groups. On the plus side, group AB's tolerance perhaps minimizes the chances of allergies and other autoimmune diseases, such as arthritis and inflammation.
There may be a similar survival benefit with regard to possession of a B antigen that is shared between groups B and AB. For example, it has been noted that group B individuals are on average a bit taller than their A and O counterparts, (20) and that women who are AB are in general a bit heavier than the other ABO groups.(21)
Something about AB "works" in a modern sense, because these people inherit the tolerance of both A and B. Perhaps this serves to enhance the AB immune system's abilities to manufacture more specific antibodies to microbial invaders, as it possess neither anti-A or anti-B antibodies.
Blood Group Distribution Today
Our blood groups are not a hit or miss act of random genetics without any real purpose. Rather, the ABO blood groups are a set of differing solutions to a host of environmental variables, such as diet and infection, which insured the survival of the human race. The blood group adaptations were a change in "human antigenicity"---a biological desire to identify with the prevailing currents of the environment.
By looking at the distribution of blood groups today, we can see the threads of our evolutionary history. In the United States, O is the most prevalent blood group, A is second, followed by B, and finally AB. The breakdown in Great Britain is very similar to the U.S. percentages. In Germany there are slightly more A than O; B and AB remain almost the same as U.S. percentages. In Japan and China As, Os and Bs are fairly evenly split, and the AB percentage increases over that found in European populations.
Until the end of the Second World War, physical anthropology usually meant the comparison of various physical characteristics of the body between different human populations and individuals. This usually included measurements of the body and its parts, especially the skull. However probably as a result of the intensive use of blood transfusions during the war the blood groups have come to provide an alternative to the often highly subjective methods of body measurement. Here was a definitive biological marker, that could be used to map migrations and classify human groupings. Physical anthropology had its first scientific tool.
"History is bunk," wrote the industrialist Henry Ford. It is a quote with the ring of truth in it. We are destined to interpret past events through the eyes of who left the record (usually the winner) and our own modern day thoughts and rationales. Losers rarely write history and it is just about impossible for the average person to put himself or herself in the mindset of a person living in a world without light, heat, supermarkets and the internet.
Yet of all my writings on the blood groups, it has been their anthropologic significance that readers have time and again told me is their favorite section. There is something very intellectually and emotionally riveting about understanding the ebb and flow of our human experience. Not only is it fascinating from an intellectual standpoint, but we also can see, feel and touch the modern day physical ramifications of these long ago events.
In that sense, we are all survivors.
We're nearly all Celts under the skin
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/we-re-nearly-all-celts-under-the-skin-1-1141420
Thursday 21 September 2006
A MAJOR genetic study of the population of Britain appears to have put an end to the idea of the "Celtic fringe" of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
Instead, a research team at Oxford University has found the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 7,000 years ago.
Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to one.
The proportion of Celts is only slightly higher in Scotland, at 73 per cent. Wales is the most Celtic part of mainland Britain, with 83 per cent.
Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in Spain provides a scientific basis for part of the ancient Scots' origin myth.
The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes".
Professor Bryan Sykes, a human geneticist at Oxford, said the myth may have been a "residue" in people's memories of the real journey, but added that the majority of people in England were the descendants of the same people who sailed across the Bay of Biscay.
Prof Sykes divided the population into several groups or clans: Oisin for the Celts; Wodan for Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings; Sigurd for Norse Vikings; Eshu for people who share genetic links with people such as the Berbers of North Africa; and Re for a farming people who spread to Europe from the Middle East.
The study linked the male Y-chromosome to the birthplace of paternal grandfathers to try to establish a historic distribution pattern. Prof Sykes, a member of the Oisin clan, said the Celts had remained predominant in Britain despite waves of further migration.
"The overlay of Vikings, Saxons and so on is 20 per cent at most. That's even in those parts of England that are nearest to the Continent," he said.
"The only exception is Orkney and Shetland, where roughly 40 per cent are of Viking ancestry."
In Scotland, the majority of people are not actually Scots, but Picts. Even in Argyll, the stronghold of the Irish Scots, two-thirds of members of the Oisin clan are Pictish Celts.
However, according to the study, the Picts, like the Scots, originally came from Spain.
"If one thinks that the English are genetically different from the Scots, Irish and Welsh, that's entirely wrong," he said.
"In the 19th century, the idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority was very widespread. At the moment, there is a resurgence of Celtic identity, which had been trampled on. It's very vibrant and obvious at the moment.
"Basically the cornerstone of Celtic identity is that they are not English. However, to try to base that, as some do, on an idea that is not far beneath the surface that Celtic countries are somehow descended from a race of Celts, which the English are not, is not right. We are all descended from the same people.
"It should dispel any idea of trying to base what is a cultural identity on a genetic difference, because there really isn't one."
Celtic vs. Rangers: Catholicism vs. Protestantism
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Celtics%20vs%20Rangers,%20Catholics%20vs%20Protestants.htm
Roger Levesque
December 6, 2002
EDGE Paper
Most European cities can boast of a professional football (soccer) club and a competitive rivalry with a neighboring team. However, Glasgow, Scotland is the home of one of the oldest and most heated rivalries in the world. Two of the most prestigious football clubs in Europe, Celtic and Rangers, both call Glasgow their home. The cross-town rivals first met on the pitch on February 28, 1888. At that point, "none of the 2,000 spectators at the game could have guessed that they were present at a historic occasion, for that evening marked the first of what was to become the most famous, long-lasting – and bitter – sporting rivalry in the history of football" (Murray 4). Almost a hundred years after the inaugural match, the conflict between fans came to fruition when Celtic and Rangers met in the 1980 Scottish Cup Final. Immediately following an entertaining and relatively problem free match, built up tension exploded into violent riots before anyone had even le! ft the stadium. Celtic supporters, excited after the victory, rushed the field to celebrate with their beloved players. Angered by the loss and the expression of joy shown by their nemesis, Rangers fans also rushed the field. However,
...There was no question of celebration in the minds of the fans who invaded from the West end of the ground. They had violence in mind and no sooner was it offered than it was returned with enthusiasm. The brutal and disgusting scenes which followed as bottles flew and drunken supporters charged and counter-charged from one end of the field to that other, brought disgrace upon the two clubs concerned, upon Scottish football generally, and were an affront to Scotland as a nation (Murray 196).
The riots after the 1980 Scottish Cup Final acted as a springboard for the conflict between Celtic and Rangers. Before that game, the extent of the tension between the two groups had gone unrealized. However, the truth behind the violence on the field that day continues to plague the rivalry today.
Despite the age-old on field rivalry, the tension between Celtic and Ranger supporters runs much deeper than what takes place on the soccer field. The conflict between the fans has erupted into violence on many occasions, with games between the two clubs ending in some of the worst riots and greatest tragedies in sporting history. Despite the tension created through competition, the origin of hatred between clubs and fans is not just the result of bad tackles and endless taunting. Soccer in Glasgow has become a public stage for sectarianism, the religious bigotry that has plagued Scotland for hundreds of years (Murray xi). The very foundations of the two Glasgow football clubs are built on the religious division between Catholicism and Protestantism. Traditionally, Rangers supporters are Protestant while Celtic fans support the Catholic Church. Sectarianism in Scotland emerged after 16th century reformations of the Church of Scotland (Sanders, Origins ! of Sectarianism). At the beginning of the 16th century, Scotland was a piously Catholic nation. Despite strong devotion to the Catholic Church, educated Scots began to look beyond Rome and its doctrines, seeking more personal forms of a spiritual experience. The emergence of the influential John Knox and the circulation of Lutheran books expressing the Protestant ideas of Martin Luther gave those searching for more something to embrace. When the Reformation initially split the Church into Catholic and Protestant factions, Scotland took its first step in the transition from a once Catholic country to a country having a Protestant majority (Renaissance and Reformation). Even though Protestant support had almost completely wiped out Catholicism by the beginning of the 19th century, support for the Catholic Church would soon retake its place in Scottish society. It did this with sheer numbers as Irish Catholics were forced to move to Scotland because! of the great potato famine in Ireland. Not only did the potato famin e increase the number of Irish Catholics in Scotland, but it also increased the bitter feelings on the part of a threatened Scottish Protestant population (Sanders, Origins). This tension would only grow with time .
Problems continued in Glasgow as more and more Irish Catholics looked for refuge in Scotland. Since families left Ireland because of famine, they arrived in Scotland with almost nothing, just the clothes on their backs and the hope to make a new life. With more people in the same space, fierce competition erupted between the two groups. Protestants found themselves competing directly with Catholics for jobs, often losing out, as Irish Catholics were willing to work harder for longer periods of time at lower wages (Sanders, Origins). The Glasgow shipyards epitomized this struggle as Catholics tried to get work in an industry that had traditionally been controlled by the Protestant population. While some industries hired Catholics in order to obtain cheaper labor, some remained loyal to Protestant only policies. Rangers football club adopted the Protestant only policy early on in the team's development. A major proponent of the Protestant only policy, Rangers maint! ained it for 116 years and was eventually one of the last to see the policy go. Because of the unfortunate circumstances that brought them to Scotland in the first place, the Catholic community also found itself failing to meet the respectability standards laid down by the Scottish Protestant community. Protestants frowned upon the Catholics blue-collar way of life, as well as certain Catholic policies on divorce, contraception, mixed marriages and what they saw as the desecration of the Sabbath. Rangers actually refused to play soccer on Sundays (Sanders, Origins). It was small differences like these that pushed the two religious groups to hate one another.
Even though Scotland provided better conditions than a famine stricken Ireland, Irish Catholics found that 19th century Glasgow was not as pleasant as they had hoped. In addition to living in extremely poor conditions in a highly industrialized city, oppression and abuse plagued the Irish Catholic community as well. Struggling to settle into their new community, Catholics found that Protestants did everything they could to make life more difficult for the newcomers. Because of these obstacles, leaders in the Catholic community recognized the need for something to help their people settle into their new home. Their savior was soccer. Celtic Football Club was initially founded in November 1887, and then officially established in 1888 to raise money for a Catholic charity, the Poor Children's Dinner Table. Leaders of the Catholic community hoped that the team would also help maintain people's interest and devotion to the Catholic faith. This was so impo! rtant in a time where Protestantism and the possibility of a better way of life tempted even the most devout Catholic supporters (Sanders, Celtic FC). Despite its beginnings as a vehicle to promote Catholic support, over time the Celtic Football Club moved away from the religious foundations on which it was based. Although an 1895 resolution suggested that the team introduce a limit on the number of Protestants allowed into the team, this was rejected and the club has since remained open to all faiths. By not practicing any form of religious exclusion, Celtic quickly became one of the most successful football teams in the country.
Glasgow Rangers had a very different beginning than its counterpart Celtic. Formed in 1872, Rangers Football club's initial connection to Protestantism, like many other football clubs at the time, was not much more than that they were made up of Protestant players. In addition to this, Rangers immediately found support and created strong links with the world of shipbuilding, a predominately Protestant profession at the time. However, despite these connections, Rangers' association with Protestantism was pushed to the forefront until after the formation of Celtic. With Celtic's strong ties to Catholicism, Protestants in Glasgow wanted a team of their own. Conflict and competition between Catholics and Protestants in the shipbuilding industry naturally pushed Rangers to take that role. "Given the anti-Catholic feeling at the time, it is no surprise that Celtic's success was not well received. Scottish society demanded a Protestant team to redress the balance! and it was Rangers who emerged as suitable candidates" (Sanders, Glasgow Rangers). Unlike the movement of Celtic away from its Catholic roots, Rangers supporters seemed to embrace Protestantism and the conflict between the two Glasgow sides. It was not until the 1960's that sectarianism forced itself into the public spotlight. The combination of several events re-ignited the conflict at the foundation of which Celtic and Rangers are based. First, a former Rangers player publicly announced the club's Protestant only policy, a policy they had kept since the formation of the club. The discrimination angered Catholics, mostly because their club had no such policy. When questioned about the policy, vice Chairman of Rangers Football Club Matt Taylor stated that he felt the policy was "part of our tradition...we were formed in 1873 as a Protestant boys club. To change now would lose us considerable support" (Sanders, Glasgow Rangers). To keep the policy meant! to promote sectarianism. Shortly after this decision, Rangers suppor ters openly practiced this racial bigotry. In the opening moments of a football match in 1963, Rangers fans jeered during a minute silence taken for the assassinated Catholic U.S. President, John F. Kennedy. Supporters of Catholicism were furious with this blatant act of bigotry. Even local papers, indifferent of the tension created by sectarianism, were embarrassed by the Rangers indiscretion. Ian Archer of the Glasgow Herald was even quoted as saying, "as a Scottish football club, they [Rangers] are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This country would be a better place if Rangers did not exist" (Sanders, Glasgow Rangers). The Catholic community fully supported this statement.
In Glasgow, violence and abuse have gone well beyond football hooliganism. No longer can people view the conflict solely as football fans rioting after an exciting victory or a heartbreaking defeat. Cara Henderson realized this at age 15 when her boyfriend was murdered for supporting the wrong team. On October 7, 1995, Mark Scott was murdered by sectarianism.
On the day that he would die, Mark Scott's mother urged him not to wear his Celtic top in case it brought him trouble. Zipping his jacket to cover the green and white hoops, the 16-year-old schoolboy had laughed. "Don't worry, Mum," he said. "They don't do that kind of thing any more." But they did, and hours later Mark had his throat cut by a man who picked him at random from a group of Celtic supporters as they walked home from a match through a Protestant area of Glasgow. His jacket was still zipped (A Game of Two Halves).
The Mark Scott tragedy is one of many that have plagued the rivalry between Celtic and Rangers in the recent years. Like Scott, people were not aware of the level of seriousness that which sectarianism had reached. It took a personal tragedy and the love for a lost friend to prompt action. Cara Henderson was so motivated by the killing that she launched "Nil By Mouth", a campaign to put an end to sectarianism in Scotland. In 1999, four years after her friend's murder, Henderson took it into her own hands to increase awareness and stop the violence on the streets of Glasgow and throughout all of Scotland. Recognizing that the problem existed in the way that people thought, Henderson devised a program to improve education and increase awareness of sectarianism. Addressing the murder of her friend, Henderson thought that, "when that Rangers fan stepped out from the pub doorway and looked into the crowd of Celtic fans he didn't see Mark the schoolboy, Mark the brot! her, the son, the friend...he saw Mark the Fenian, Mark the tim..." (Sanders, Old Firm Supporters). With the help of others, Henderson launched her anti-sectarianism campaign with the following objectives:
To inform the general public about, and promote through education and awareness of, the problems of sectarianism and bigotry within Scottish society
To promote the integration within Scottish society and the celebration of cultural diversity
To encourage people to respect all cultures and to resist sectarianism, racism and bigotry in any shape or form
To encourage everyone to take responsibility for their own attitudes and language, recognizing that this will help to change our society
To raise awareness of the damage, violence and death in our society resulting from sectarian behavior (Sanders, Campaigns).
With increasing support from Rangers, Celtic, a series of schools, employers and political parties, Nil by Mouth has gained recognition and support in both the Catholic and Protestant communities. With the recruitment of public figures, Nil by Mouth hopes to become more influential as it appeals to wider audiences. Henderson herself has appeared in a series of debates broadcast on television and over the radio encouraging people to abandon sectarian behavior. Nil by Mouth's publicity campaign extends beyond the spoken word in a series of posters displaying anti-sectarianism sentiments through the harsh realities of its consequences. These posters, released in mass quantities in 2000, included a picture of a gravestone with the words "don't be a die hard" below and a face covered in stitches with the slogan "sectarian jokes can have you in stitches." Both were accompanied by the phrase "sectarian behavior can lead to violence and death" (Sanders, Campaigns). A strong ! start in the campaign supporting anti-sectarianism has given people like Cara Henderson hope for a peaceful future.
Great strides have been taken in order to improve education and increase awareness of the conflict in Glasgow. However, to the extent at which sectarianism has plagued the supporters of Celtic and Rangers, and the rest of the country for that matter, it is not something that is going to disappear overnight. Changing peoples' attitudes, especially those that have grown out of such strong belief systems like Catholicism and Protestantism, is not going to be easy. The competition between the two football clubs will make the movement away from sectarianism even more difficult. Even with today's increased awareness, supporters from both clubs still chant sectarian songs during matches. Even though most people may sing to support of their respective club, the roots of the songs represent discrimination and religious bigotry that began even before the establishment of the two clubs. Until people make a serious commitment to put an end to sectarianism, like Cara Henderson,! others may find themselves losing loved ones simply because of the color of a shirt.
Nuclear War and Christian Responsibility
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nuclear-war-and-christian-responsibility
From the Feb. 6, 1962 issue
By Thomas Merton
January 3, 2018
It is no exaggeration to say that our times are Apocalyptic, in the sense that we seem to have come to a point at which all the hidden, mysterious dynamism of the "history of salvation" revealed in the Bible has flowered into final and decisive crisis.
It has been said so often that it has become a cliché, but it must be said again at the beginning of this article: the world and society of man now face destruction. Possible destruction: it is relatively easy, at the present time, to wipe out the entire human race either by nuclear, bacterial or chemical agents, separately or together. Probable destruction: the possibility of destruction becomes a probability in proportion as the world's leaders commit themselves more and more irrevocably to policies built on the threat to use these agents of extermination. At the present moment, the United States and the Soviet bloc are committed to a policy of genocide. Not only are they committed to the use of nuclear weapons for self-defense, but even to their use in first-strike attack if it should be expedient. This means that the policies of the United States and Russia are now frankly built on the presumption that each one is able, willing and ready to completely destroy the other at a moment's notice by a "firststrike"; that the one destroyed is capable of "post mortem retaliation" that would annihilate not only the attacker but all his allies and satellites, even though the defender were already wiped out himself.
There is no need to insist that in a world where another Hitler is very possible the mere existence of nuclear weapons constitutes the most tragic and serious problem that the human race has ever had to contend with. Indeed, the atmosphere of hatred, suspicion and tension in which we all live is precisely what is needed to produce Hitlers.
It is no exaggeration to say that our times are Apocalyptic, in the sense that we seem to have come to a point at which all the hidden, mysterious dynamism of the "history of salvation" revealed in the Bible has flowered into final and decisive crisis. The term "end of the world" may or may not be one that we are capable of understanding. But at any rate we seem to be assisting at the unwrapping of the mysteriously vivid symbols of the last book of the New Testament. In their nakedness, they reveal to us our own selves as the men whose lot it is to live in the time of a possibly ultimate decision.
We know that Christ came into this world as the Prince of Peace. We know that Christ Himself is our peace (Eph. 2:14). We believe that God has chosen for Himself, in the Mystical Body of Christ, an elect people, regenerated by the Blood of the Savior, and committed by their baptismal promise to wage war with the great enemy of peace and salvation. As Pope John XXIII pointed out in his first encyclical letter, Ad Petri Cathedram, Christians are obliged to strive for peace "with all the means at their disposal" and yet, as he continues, this peace cannot compromise with error or make concessions to it. Therefore it is by no means a matter of passive acquiescence in injustice, since this does not produce peace. However, the Christian struggle for peace depends first of all upon a free response of man to "God's call to the service of His merciful designs." The lack of man's response to this call, says Pope John, is the "most terrible problem of human history" (Christmas message, 1958). Christ Our Lord did not come to bring peace to the world as a kind of spiritual tranquilizer. He brought to His disciples a vocation and a task, to struggle in the world of violence to establish His peace not only in their own hearts but in society itself.
The Christian is and must be by his very adoption as a son of God, in Christ, a peacemaker (Matt. 5:9). He is bound to imitate the Savior who, instead of de fending Himself with twelve legions of Angels (Matt. 26:55) allowed Himself to be nailed to the Cross and died praying for His executioners. The Christian is one whose life has sprung from a particular spiritual seed: the blood of the martyrs who, without offering forcible resistance, laid down their lives rather than submit to the unjust laws that demanded an official religious cult of the Emperor as God. That is to say, the Christian is bound, like the martyrs, to obey God rather than the state whenever the state tries to usurp powers that do not and cannot belong to it. We have repeatedly seen Christians in our time fulfilling this obligation in a heroic manner by their resistance to dictatorships that strove to interfere with the rights of their conscience and of their religion.
*
We are no longer living in a Christian world. The ages which we are pleased to call the "ages of Faith" were certainly not ages of earthly paradise. But at least our forefathers officially recognized and favored the Christian ethic of love. They fought some very bloody and un-Christian wars, and in doing so they also committed great crimes which remain in history as a permanent scandal. However, certain definite limits were recognized. Today a non-Christian world still retains a few vestiges of Christian morality, a few formulas and clichés, which serve on appropriate occasions to adorn indignant editorials and speeches. But otherwise we witness deliberate campaigns to eliminate all education in Christian truth and morality. The Christian ethic of love tends to be discredited as phony and sentimental. It is therefore a serious error to imagine that because the West was once largely Christian, the cause of the Western nations is now to be identified, without further qualification, with the cause of God. The incentive to wipe out Bolshevism may well be one of the apocalyptic temptations of twentieth-century Christendom. It may indeed be the most effective way of destroying Christendom, even though man may survive. For who imagines that the Asians and Africans will respect Christianity and embrace it after it has apparently triggered mass-murder and destruction of cosmic proportions? It is pure madness to think that Christianity can defend itself with nuclear weapons. The mere fact that we now seem to accept nuclear war as reasonable is a universal scandal.
True, Christianity is not only opposed to Communism, but is in a very real sense at war with it. This warfare, however, is spiritual and ideological. "Devoid of material weapons," says Pope John, "the Church is the trustee of the highest spiritual power." If the Church has no military weapons of her own, it means that her wars are fought without any weapons at all and not that she intends to call upon the weapons of nations that were once Christian.
*
We must remember that the Church does not belong to any political power bloc. Christianity exists on both sides of the Iron Curtain and we should feel ourselves united by very special bonds with those Christians who, living under Communism, often suffer heroically for their principles.
Is it a valid defense of Christianity for us to wipe out these heroic Christians along with their oppressors, for the sake of "religious freedom?" It is pure sophistry to claim that physical annihilation in nuclear war is a "lesser evil" than the difficult conditions under which these Christians continue to live, perhaps with true heroism and sanctity preserving their faith and witnessing very effectively to Christ in the midst of atheism. Persecution is certainly a physical evil and a spiritual danger, but Christ has said that those who suffer persecution in His Name are blessed. (Matt. 5:10- 12)
At the same time, one of the most disturbing things about the Western world of our time is that it is beginning to have much more in common with the Communist world than it has with the professedly Christian society of several centuries ago. On both sides of the Iron Curtain we find two profoundly disturbing varieties of the same moral sickness: both of them rooted in the same fundamentally materialist view of life. Both are basically opportunistic and pragmatic in their own way. And both have the following characteristics in common. On the level of morality they are blindly passive in their submission to a determinism which, in effect, leaves men completely irresponsible. Therefore moral obligations and decisions have become practically meaningless. At best they are only forms of words, rationalizations of pragmatic decisions that have already been dictated by the needs of the moment.
Naturally, since not everyone is an unprincipled materialist even in Russia, there is bound to be some moral sense at work, even if only as a guilt-feeling that produces uneasiness and hesitation, blocking the smooth efficiency of machine-like obedience to immoral commands. Yet the history of Nazi Germany shows us how appalling was the irresponsibility which would carry out even the most revolting of crimes under cover of "obedience" for the sake of a "good cause." This moral passivity is the most terrible danger of our time, as the American Bishops have already pointed out in their joint letters of 1960 and 1961.
On the level of political, economic and military activity, this moral passivity is balanced, or overbalanced, by a demonic activism, a frenzy of the most varied, versatile, complex and even utterly brilliant technological improvisations, following one upon the other with an ever more bewildering and uncontrollable proliferation. Politics pretends to use this force as its servant, to harness it for social purposes, for the "good of man." The intention is good. The technological development of power in our time is certainly a risk and challenge, but that does not make it intrinsically evil. On the contrary, it can and should be a very great good. In actual fact, however, the furious speed with which our technological world is plunging toward disaster is evidence that no one is any longer fully in control—and this includes the political leaders.
A simple study of the steps which led to the dropping of the first A-bomb on Hiroshima is devastating evidence of the way well-meaning men, the scientists and leaders of a victorious nation, were guided step by step, without realizing it, by the inscrutable yet simple logic of events" to fire the shot that was to make the cold war inevitable and prepare the way perhaps inexorably for World War III. This they did purely and simply because they thought in all sincerity that the bomb was the simplest and most merciful way of ending World War II and perhaps all wars, forever.
*
The tragedy of our time is then not so much the malice of the wicked as the helpless futility even of the best intentions of "the good." There are war-makers, war criminals, indeed. They are present and active on both sides. But all of us, in our very best efforts for peace, find ourselves maneuvered unconsciously into positions where we too can act as war criminals. For there can be no doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, though not fully deliberate crimes, nevertheless crimes. And who was responsible? No one. Or "history." We cannot go on playing with nuclear fire and shrugging off the results as "history." We are the ones concerned. We are the ones responsible. History does not make us, we make it—or end it.
In plain words, in order to save ourselves from destruction we have to try to regain control of a world that is speeding downhill without brakes, because of the combination of factors I have just mentioned: almost total passivity and irresponsibility on the moral level, plus demonic activism in social, military and political life. The remedy would seem to be to slow down our activity, especially all activity concerned with the production and testing of weapons of destruction, and in deed to back-track by making every effort to negotiate for multilateral disarmament.
This may be of great help, but still only a palliative, not a solution. Yet at least this is perhaps feasible, and should at all costs be attempted, even at the cost of great sacrifice and greater risk. It is not morally licit for us as a nation to refuse the risk merely because our whole economy now depends on this war-effort. On the contrary, our national reliance on this substantial source of income and profit hardly qualifies as Christian.
Equally important, and perhaps even more difficult than disarmament, is the restoration of some moral sense and the resumption of genuine responsibility. Without this it is illusory for us to speak of freedom and "control." Unfortunately, even where moral principles are still regarded with some degree of respect, morality has lost touch with the realities of our situation. Moralists tend to discuss the problems of atomic war as if men still fought with bows and arrows. Modem warfare is fought as much by machines as by men. Even a great deal of the planning depends on the work of mechanical computers. An entirely new dimension is opened up by the fantastic processes and techniques involved. An American President can speak of warfare in outer space and nobody bursts out laughing he is perfectly serious. Science-fiction and the comic strips have all suddenly come true. When a missile armed with an H-bomb warhead is fired by the pressing of a button and its target is a whole city, the number of its victims is estimated in "mega-corpses"—millions of dead human beings. A thousand or ten thousand more here and there are not even matter for comment. Under such conditions can there be serious meaning left in the fine decisions that were elaborated by scholastic theologians in the day of hand-to-hand combat? Can we assume that in atomic war the conditions which make double effect legitimate will be realized? Obviously not. And to make this perfectly clear, the explicit and formal declarations of governments leave no doubt that indiscriminate destruction is intended.
*
In atomic war, there is no longer question of simply permitting an evil, the destruction of a few civilian dwellings, in order to attain a legitimate end: the destruction of a military target. It is well understood on both sides that atomic war is purely and simply massive and indiscriminate destruction of targets chosen not for their military significance alone, but for their importance in a calculated project of terror and annihilation. Often the selection of the target is determined by some quite secondary and accidental circumstance that has not the remotest reference to morality. Hiroshima was selected for atomic attack, among other reasons, because it had never undergone any noticeable air bombing and was suitable, as an intact target, to give a good idea of the effectiveness of the bomb.
It must be frankly admitted that some of the military commanders of both sides in World War II simply disregarded all traditional standards that were still effective. The Germans threw those standards overboard with the bombs they unloaded on Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry and London. The allies replied in kind with the saturation bombing of Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and Berlin. Spokesmen were not wanting on either side, to justify these crimes against humanity. And today, while "experts" calmly discuss the possibility of the United States being able to survive a war if "only fifty millions" of the population are killed; when the Chinese speak of being able to "spare" three hundred million and "still get along," it is obvious that we are no longer in the realm where moral truth is conceivable. The only sane course that remains is to work frankly and without compromise for the total abolition of war. The pronouncements of the Holy See all point to this as the only ultimate solution. The first duty of the Christian is to help clarify thought on this point by taking the stand that all-out nuclear, bacterial or chemical warfare is unacceptable as a practical solution to international problems because it would mean the destruction of the world. There is simply no "good end" that renders such a risk permissible or even thinkable on the level of ordinary common sense.
At this point someone will say "The Church has not condemned nuclear war." First of all there is no need to condemn something that already quite obviously stands condemned by its very nature. Total war is murder. The fact that the Church tolerates limited war and even theoretically tolerates the limited use of "tactical" nuclear weapons for defensive purposes does not mean that she either advocates or tolerates indiscriminate killing of civilians and military. Pope Pius XII, in 1954, made this perfectly clear. He said: "Should the evil consequences of adopting this method of warfare ever become so extensive as to pass entirely beyond the control of man, then indeed its use must be rejected as immoral." Uncontrolled annihilation of human life is "not lawful under any title." There is much debate over the term "entirely beyond control." If a missile with a nuclear warhead can be aimed so as to destroy Lenin grad rather than Helsinki, is this sufficient to be termed control? One doubts this was the mind of Pius XII.
It might be possible to get people to admit this in theory, but it is going to be very difficult in practice. They will admit the theory because they will say that they "certainly do not want a war" in which nuclear agents will be used on an all-out scale. Obviously no one wants the destruction of the human race or of his own nation, although he will not admit it in practice because foreign policy entirely depends on wielding the threat of nuclear destruction. But in an issue of such desperate seriousness, we have to face the fact that the calculated use of nuclear weapons as a political threat is almost certain to lead eventually to a hot war. Every time another hydrogen bomb is exploded in a test, every time a political leader boasts his readiness to use the same bomb on the cities of his enemy, we get closer to the day when the missiles armed with nuclear warheads will start winging their way across the seas and the polar ice cap.
The danger must be faced. Whoever finds convenient excuses for this adventurous kind of policy, who rationalizes every decision dictated by political opportunism and justifies it, must stop to consider that he may be himself cooperating in the evil. On the contrary, our duty is to help emphasize with all the force at our disposal that the Church earnestly seeks the abolition of war; we must underscore declarations like those of Pope John XXIII pleading with world leaders to renounce force in the settlement of international disputes and confine themselves to negotiation.
Let us suppose that the political leaders of the world, supported by the mass media in their various countries, and carried onward by a tidal wave of ever greater and greater war preparations, see themselves swept inexorably into a war of disastrous proportions. Let us suppose that it becomes morally certain that these leaders are helpless to arrest the blind force of the process that has been irresponsibly set in motion. What then? Are the masses of the world, including you and me, to resign themselves to their fate and march on to global suicide without resistance, simply bowing their heads and obeying their leaders as showing them the "will of God"? I think it should be evident to everyone that this can no longer, in the present situation, be accepted unequivocally as Christian obedience and civic duty.
On the contrary, this brings us face to face with the greatest and most agonizing moral issue of our time. This issue is not merely nuclear war, not merely the possible destruction of the human race by a sudden explosion of violence. It is something more subtle and more demonic. If we continue to yield to theoretically irresponsible determinism and to vague "historic forces" without striving to resist and to control them, if we let these forces drive us to demonic activism in the realm of politics and technology, we face something more than the material evil of universal destruction. We face the moral responsibility of global suicide. Much more than that, we are going to find ourselves gradually moving into a situation in which we are practically compelled by the "logic of circumstances" deliberately to choose the course that leads to destruction.
We all know the logic of temptation. We all know the vague, hesitant irresponsibility which leads us into the situation where it is no longer possible to turn back and how, arrived in that situation, we have a moment of clear-sighted desperation in which we freely commit ourselves to the course that we recognize to be evil. That may well be what is happening now to the whole world. The actual destruction of the human race is an enormous evil, but it is still, in itself, only a physical evil. Yet the free choice of global suicide, made in desperation by the world's leaders and ratified by the consent and cooperation of all their citizens, would be a moral evil second only to the crucifixion. The fact that such a choice might be made with the highest motives and the most urgent purpose would do nothing whatever to mitigate it. The fact that it might be made as a gamble, in the hope that some might escape, would never excuse it. After all, the purposes of Caiphas were, in his own eyes, perfectly noble. He thought it was necessary to let "one man die for the people."
The most urgent necessity of our time is therefore not merely to prevent the destruction of the human race by nuclear war. Even if it should happen to be no longer possible to prevent the disaster (which God forbid), there is still a greater evil that can and must be prevented. It must be possible for every free man to refuse his consent and deny his cooperation to this greatest of crimes.
In what does this effective and manifest refusal of consent consist? How does one "resist" the sin of genocide? How are the conscientious objectors to mass suicide going to register their objection and their refusal to cooperate? Ideally speaking, in the imaginary case where all-out nuclear war seemed inevitable and the world's leaders seemed morally incapable of preventing it, it would become legitimate and even obligatory for all sane and conscientious men everywhere in the world to lay down their weapons and their tools and starve and be shot rather than cooperate in the war effort. If such a mass movement should spontaneously arise in all parts of the world, in Russia and America, in China and France, in Africa and Germany, the human race could be saved from extinction. This is indeed an engaging hypothesis- but it is no more than that. It would be folly to suppose that men hitherto passive, inert, morally indifferent and irresponsible might suddenly recover their sense of obligation and their awareness of their own power when the world was on the very brink of war. Indeed we have already reached that point. Who says "No!" except for a few isolated individuals regarded almost generally as crackpots by everybody else?
It is vitally necessary that we form our conscience in regard to our own participation in the effort that threatens to lead us to universal destruction. We have to be convinced that there are certain things already clearly forbidden to all men, such as the use of torture, the killing of hostages, genocide (or the mass extermination of racial, national or other groups for no reason than that they belong to an "undesirable" category). The destruction of civilian centers by nuclear annihilation bombing is genocide. We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present in the minds of uninformed and irresponsible people. We have to recognize the danger to the whole world in the fact that today the economic life of the more highly-developed nations is centered largely on the production of weapons, missiles and other engines of destruction. We have to consider that hate propaganda, and the consistent nagging and baiting of one government by another, has always inevitably led to violent conflict. We have to recognize the implications of voting for politicians who promote policies of hate.
These are activities which, in view of their possible consequences, are so dangerous and absurd as to be morally intolerable. If we cooperate in these activities we share in the guilt they incur before God. It is no longer reasonable or right to leave all decisions to a largely anonymous power elite that is driving us all, in our passivity, towards ruin. We have to make ourselves heard. Christians have a grave responsibility to protest clearly and forcibly against trends that lead inevitably to crimes which the Church deplores and condemns. Ambiguity, hesitation and compromise are no longer permissible. War must be abolished. A world government must be established. We have still time to do something about it, but the time is rapidly running out.
The One True Faith: Nuclear Weapons Are God's Gift to the United States of America, Alone
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-one-true-faith-nuclear-weapons-are-gods-gift-to-the-united-states-of-america-alone/5604508
By Dr. T. P. Wilkinson
Global Research, August 17, 2017
We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind. It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes. Harry Truman, August 9, 1945
* * *
Like obscene profits from great fraud or theft, "wonder weapons" of mass destruction, to which the atomic bomb certainly belongs, have their origins in the inability and unwillingness to accept the equality and dignity of one's opponents/ competitors (never mind whether one's cause/product is legitimate).
The ambivalence of the US position during WWII — the discrepancy which became apparent after 1945 between the stated and unstated policies — allowed and even promoted the mythic justification for US atomic bombing.
When I first moved to Germany more than thirty years ago, I was appalled at the insensitivity — to put it mildly — in US policy with the deployment of the Pershings. Placing new medium-ranged missiles in Germany at that time caused vocal opposition even among those whose anti-communist credentials (no virtue in my book, but for the "alliance" at least acceptable opposition) were undisputed. However, there was no evidence that anyone (in the US) was willing to grasp that the reply to Pershings would not be ICBMs but more probably Soviet medium-ranged delivery vehicles to Germany! The general US response was that Germany should appreciate the "protection" it was getting from the US. The fact that these missiles were a threat to Germany and the Soviet Union but not to the US was simply disregarded (as is the stationing of missiles on Russia's borders today.)
The US has the largest gratuitous war machine on the planet. Whatever its claims, as the only belligerent in the past century's two world wars not to suffer any destruction to its national territory (colonies aside), it can safely be said that it is the only country for whom war is exclusively business. As Smedley Butler said, war is a racket!
"Fire and Fury": Who should be feared more? Macduff or Macbeth?
The recent threats to Korea — addressed to the People's Democratic Republic of Korea — are ultimately "business" policies. That is why they are so difficult to challenge effectively. Mr Trump is not making statements which originate in any actual threat or the imperative of a response to such. He is driven by policy objectives that simply are not subject to open discussion let alone democratic process (like most business policy).
Bruce Cumings' detailed study, The Origins of the Korean War, upon which I have repeatedly drawn in previous attempts to explain US regime policy not only in Asia, shows just how difficult it is to ascertain the underlying policies and interests driving US regime behavior when the war against Korea began. One is forced to infer, interpolate, extract conclusions from information the coherence and relevance of which to public policy is never openly admitted. This leaves what little potential for public — democratic — intervention seriously inhibited.
It is of little help to arrive at the legitimate system level analysis and say that it is American capitalism — a particularly virulent strain of that ideology — which drives US belligerence. This does not tell anyone how to stop particular instances of egregious violence.
One point in all this is that the US policy of non-proliferation is so obviously one directed solely at those countries not utterly allied or subservient to it. (Here it is important that the US allies perceived as "white" are allowed to have atomic bombs and delivery vehicles.) But beyond that, the NPT was also an agreement to reduce and eliminate all atomic weapons — an objective with which the US regime has never materially complied — in fact, quite the opposite. Such threats against Korea — conventional bombing capacity notwithstanding — are clearly only possible because the policy of first strike and super atomic superiority (including the enormous profits this earns for those who run the industry) have never been seriously challenged, revised or abandoned.
There is no doubt, in fact, if not in rhetoric, that the US is led by some of the most spiteful people on the planet for whom gratuitous violence is not only foreign policy, but domestic and cultural obsession. "White rage" and its attendant "lynch justice" are firmly entrenched elements of American culture, not just among the elite. Here in Portugal almost every public venue has a television screen. A friend of mine has several cable channels running in his restaurant– mostly fueled with American product. Since I do not have a television and have not had one for almost thirty years I "miss a lot".
The TV/cable/cinema programming comprises entirely allusions to libertinism (music videos) or high tech mass violence (so-called crime drama and the endless supply of films and series with highly organised state violence, usually against people in the target countries of US policy). The worst we had when I was growing up was re-runs of WWII propaganda films, Aaron Spelling/Jack Webb Los Angeles police soaps and Hoover's FBI propaganda. Looking back that seems all incredibly harmless.
Who produces this stuff — with the enormous support from DOD et al?
As I just argued albeit tongue in cheek, the atomic power of the President is not as easy to measure as it seems. In fact, the President — whether Truman or Trump — executes policy but does not really make it. Today no serious scholar can deny that Truman's decision was prepared for his approval. In fact, everything was done to minimize the possibility that he would deny it. I believe we have to see Trump in the same capacity. Truman is formally responsible for the mass murder in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the law and Constitution assign that responsibility to him and because he lacked the moral fortitude to refuse mass murder, like many before him. But he did not create the weapon or order its creation nor did he start the war in which it was used.
Donald Trump has always had an inflammatory style — even when he was only a NY real estate mogul. That is nothing new. So now he is President his style is not going to change. There is something actually comical about Trump's appearances. Who remembers Reagan's off the cuff "joke" about bombing the Soviet Union?1 These are not accidents. They express the contempt which all Presidents ex officio have for the targets of their atomic bombs. Who now remembers anything George Bush said during their respective terms in office? Every US president has had his style of presenting the wantonly murderous capacity of the US war machine. This is also nothing new.
One has to ask two questions, one historical and the other contemporary.
Historically: It must be asked how and why under the Obama reign the largest increase in the US atomic arsenal since 1989 was performed? Mr Trump came into office with vastly more lethality because of actions taken over the previous eight years approved by his predecessor and the heiress apparent-pretender.
Contemporary: second question is really two. What and above all who is driving this policy? Who or what is their target?2
I believe that there are no countries besides the US and Israel (which are for all intents and purposes one country) that seriously contemplate first strikes with atomic weapons. I also believe that the few sane people in the policy-making venues of the US regime know this — just as George Kennan knew it when he wrote his mendacious "X" article and Dean Acheson knew it too. This leaves us with two simple non-exclusive explanations for the present situation.
Enhancing deniability and lethality
One — the atomic bomb system is a perpetual motion machine for those who own it like DuPont inter alia. There is simply too much money to be made to ever willingly stop producing these weapons that no sane person would ever employ at the strategic level. However, there has been, it would seem, enormous progress in miniaturisation of atomic weapons — including depleted uranium or enhanced radiation — opening the possibility to genuinely "micro-nuke" US competitors.
I am convinced this was already tested against China. The point is that deniable atomic attacks have been on the drawing board for at least twenty years. Hollywood not only propagates fantasy but illustrates the nascent agenda of the national security state. The US generally accuses others of doing what it is, in fact, doing (e.g. brainwashing and germ warfare). So we have been saturated with films and other stories about micronukes in various forms in the hands of criminals (the illegal half of the Business community). Everyone outside the US generally knows more about US policy than the American public and as Cumings indicated in his Korea research the PDRK knew and paid more careful attention to US policy before the US war against Korea started than any reputable people in the US itself. They were not surprised like the average American — who is hermetically isolated from unpleasant reality.
In short, Trump may simply be echoing what has been apparent in the boardrooms of the US regime for the past fifteen years:
We have approached the level of atomic weapons development where we can deliver atomic devastation in ways that only experts will be able to verify. We will be able to graduate the use of our most powerful weapons in such a way that no one will be able to justify retaliation and so this option will disappear.
This is, in fact, the continuation of the policy of limited war — which was so far successful because only those who actually fought, were wounded or died, have any testimony to the fact that the US has been at war without interruption since 1945. So there is first the huge business in atomic weapons which needs targets to justify its existence. Trump is just keeping the public aware of targets so that the business continues unabated.
On one hand there is the imperative to have atomic threats to justify atomic weapons. If the only threats to US "security" came from Serbia or Samoa, this would not be very convincing and it is part of the US system that virtual unanimity for policy must be manufactured. That is about the only way to maintain the appearance of a democracy — aside from annual introduction of a "new" formula of Coca Cola or more massive versions of the terminally mediocre Microsoft products.
On the other hand, the US business elite cannot afford all out war with anyone who has the capacity to defend themselves. (Aside from the fact that the US military is only capable of "winning" aggressive war against the defenseless, like Grenada or Panama.) Yet economic domination of the world has been the number one mission of US policy since 1945. Now China (where there are many US factories) and the alliance with Russia (which under Putin seems to have resisted the continuation of the Kissinger policy of playing China and Russia against each other) can actually challenge US dominion. So the strategic issue is again (!) how to control China but not lose the economic advantages of producing there at high profit to feed US consumers.
Two: Asymetric war — as the new jargon likes to call the GWOT — is not really about the US against little "rogue states" or "state aspirants". It is the US doctrine of "limited war" revised to include the new generation of micro-atomic weapons. The aim of asymetric war is to wage a tactically brutal assault against a US adversary/competitor which is apparently too small to allow a response that would a) threaten the US, in fact, or b) expose the US as the aggressor. Thus any response by the target would have to be (appear to the international public as) vastly disproportionate. Thus deterrence takes the old meaning from school days. The bully hits when no one is looking and knows that the counterblow comes just when the teacher is watching.
This is the kind of blackmail that all the films from Hollywood show — not because there are some "rogue criminal elements" waiting to act — but because this is the US policy for which the public has to be prepared. Just like they were prepared for the WTC destruction. Most people I know reacted the same as I did to the first images on TV — we thought this was a scene from one of those perennial Hollywood-NY disaster films.
(In fact, it was filmed by crews in place before the event so that all the work was done like Hollywood would have done it in the studio.) We have been watching US policy in preparation for the past twenty years. But for most people — including many from whom one would expect more sense — it was only decided in January of 2017.
Does this offer any options for ending the crisis? Not immediately. It does tell us, however, that Trump is not the crisis. Moreover his removal from office will not alter a policy he did not make. Even the obvious questions like "what about Mr Pence?" are not asked. If the crazies (i.e. those who believe that Trump must go at all costs) were actually to force the dismissal or resignation of Donald Trump, they would then have Mr Pence as President. The administration would not change at all. (Ronald Reagan actually covered the first Bush presidency. Although Alexander Haig may have thought he was president for a few hours– which says more about what actually happens in the White House than anything we read in the organs of the Business Party. The Bush dynasty began in 1980 and has more or less continued to this day.)
It's the Open Door that lets all the (F)lies in...
It should tell the sane, educated and those with some access to public opinion shaping institutions that the driving force of the atomic industry and those who finance it has grown enormously, not declined and that this industry, not the POTUS, is driving the war machine. So if there are any systemic interventions possible, they must be aimed at closing down the atomic bomb industry entirely. To do this it is necessary to honestly identify the people in that industry, its producing, financing, and beneficiary members natural and corporate. After 1945, certain corporations were dissolved in Germany on the premise that they were criminal conspiracies. Notwithstanding the deception and circumvention — this was public policy. That means there are precedents for dealing not only with natural criminals but with their corporate shells. In fact, the so-called RICO Act is US law. Imagine General Butler defined war as a "racket". Taking this literally all enterprises engaged in the war "industry" are "racketeers" in the meaning of the act...
It should also tell those same people that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way Asian policy is made and the policies themselves. Cumings' book Dominion from Sea to Sea comes very close to stating the problem in its historical essence and showing why it is almost impossible to counter US policy: namely, it enjoys a centuries old consensus among the elite and one manufactured for just about a century now for everyone else. There has been no change in the fundamentals driving it — of which most people are only subliminally aware. Nothing — even on the so-called Left — has been or is being done on a meaningful scale to revise the view of the United States of America as "god's gift to humanity". As long as the vast bulk of the US population (and certainly almost all "whites" who also think Jesus God is just like them — even if they do not believe in either) is convinced that they live in God's country, they can be forgiven for thinking like Harry Truman, that the atomic bomb was god's gift to them.
In all this lies one very serious core problem — the US is an empire and there are no empires which have voluntarily surrendered their claims to power and expansion.
If my assertion about the state of ordnance and doctrine is correct — and I have every reason to believe it is — then Korea is reacting to knowledge and awareness of this policy by extroverted means. China, on the other hand, is responding introvertedly. They see the difficulty of confronting this enhanced deniability. They also do not want to provide more fuel to inflame the US lynching party. And behind the scenes the instruments of covert power are supporting whatever business objectives may best be served by this enhanced bellicosity.
Of course, I write "it should tell the sane..." If by that one means those who publish the leading organs of official opinion and that which is "fit to print" if in support of same, then there is not much reason to expect a sane response. In these venues it is not the policy which is in dispute but the sociability among the factions. One cannot expect any efforts to reorganize and reorient leading opinion (the rest of opinion does not matter anyway).
So currently the only limitations on US policy and action will come from abroad in the form of challenges that the regime is unable to suppress or where they are unable to prevail. There are indications that China and Russia are, in fact, capable of sustaining such challenges. The US regime may be losing its international diplomacy campaign with Trump — which will probably be the only factor in a potential dismissal. He is obviously trying to counter that with obsequity toward the centres of bureaucratic power — the CIA and the Pentagon (and those who own these two bureaucracies).
It is apparent to anyone outside the US that the regime has no alternative to imperialism — it has cannibalised its entire economy to maintain its "open door" (if necessary by means of a solid kick with a "standard issue") empire. Even the US cannot live by marketing alone. It has been reduced more or less to its origins, a country ruled by traffickers in drugs, arms, contraband, bonded labour, and stolen goods — whose claim to trade is based on the imposition of the USD. Unfortunately this empire has simply more destructive power (and the nihilism to exercise it) than any previous empire of such longevity. So unless the US regime is disarmed by its population (now it seems pretty much the other way around), we will just have to watch the carnage continue. The Open Door will continue to let the flies in and there will be plenty of dead flesh upon which their larvae will feed.
Onward, Christian Soldiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward,_Christian_Soldiers
"Onward, Christian Soldiers" is a 19th-century English hymn. The words were written by Sabine Baring-Gould in 1865, and the music was composed by Arthur Sullivan in 1871. Sullivan named the tune "St. Gertrude," after the wife of his friend Ernest Clay Ker Seymer, at whose country home he composed the tune.[1][2] The Salvation Army adopted the hymn as its favoured processional.[3] The piece became Sullivan's most popular hymn.[1] The hymn's theme is taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."
Syncretism - What is Syncretism?
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-syncretism-p2-95858
A Common Thread Through All Religions
by Catherine Beyer
Updated March 08, 2017
Syncretism is the formation of new religious ideas from multiple distinct sources, often contradictory sources. All religions (as well as philosophies, systems of ethics, cultural norms, etc.) possess some level of syncretism because ideas do not exist in a vacuum. People who believe in these religions will also be influenced by other familiar ideas, including their previous religion or another religion with which they are familiar.
Common Examples of Syncretism
Islam, for example, was originally influenced by 7th-century Arab culture, but not by African culture, with which it has no initial contact. Christianity draws heavily from Jewish culture (since Jesus was a Jew), but also bears the influence of the Roman Empire, in which the religion developed for its first several hundred years.
Examples of Syncretic Religion – African Diaspora Religions
However, neither Christianity nor Islam is commonly labeled a syncretic religion. Syncretic religions are much more obviously influenced by contradictory sources. African Diaspora religions, for example, are common examples of syncretic religions. Not only do they draw upon multiple indigenous beliefs, they also draw upon Catholicism, which in its traditional form strongly contradicts these indigenous beliefs. Indeed, many Catholics see themselves as having very little in common with practitioners of Vodou, Santeria, etc.
Neopaganism
Some neopagan religions are also strongly syncretic. Wicca is the most well-known example, consciously drawing from a variety of different pagan religious sources as well as Western ceremonial magic and occult thought, which is traditionally very Judeo-Christian in context. However, neopagan reconstructionists such as Asatruar are not particularly syncretic, as they attempt to understand the recreate Norse beliefs and practices to the best of their ability.
Raelian Movement
The Raelian Movement might be seen as syncretic because it has two very strong sources of belief. The first is Judeo-Christianity, recognizing Jesus as a prophet (as well as the Buddha and others), the use of the term Elohim, interpretations of the Bible, and so forth. The second is UFO culture, envisioning our creators as extraterrestrials rather than non-corporeal spiritual beings.
Baha'i Faith
Some categorize the Baha'i as syncretic because they accept multiple religions contain aspects of truth. However, the specific teachings of the Baha'i Faith are primarily Judeo-Christian in nature. Just Christianity developed from Judaism and Islam developed from Judaism and Christianity, the Baha'i faith developed most strongly from Islam. While it recognizes Krishna and Zoroaster as prophets, it really doesn't teach much of Hinduism or Zoroastrianism as being Baha'i beliefs.
Rastafari Movement
The Rastafari Movement is also strongly Judeo-Christian in its theology. However, its black-empowerment component is a central and driving force within Rasta teaching, belief and practice. So, on one hand, the Rastas have a strong additional component. On the other hand, that component is not necessarily terribly contradictory to Judeo-Christian teaching (unlike the UFO component of the Raelian Movement, which depicts Judeo-Christian beliefs and mythology in a radically different context).
Conclusion
Labeling a religion as syncretic is frequently not easy. Some are very commonly identified as syncretic, such as the African Diaspora religions. However, even that is not universal. Miguel A. De La Torre objects to the label for Santeria because he feels Santeria uses Christian saints and iconography merely as a mask for Santeria beliefs, rather than actually embracing Christian belief, for example.
Some religions possess very little syncretism and thus are never labeled as a syncretic religion. Judaism is a good example of this.
Many religions exist somewhere in the middle, and deciding exactly where they should be placed in the syncretic spectrum can be a dicey and somewhat subjective process.
One thing that should be remembered, however, is that syncretism should in no way be seen as a legitimizing factor.
All religions possess some degree of syncretism. It's how humans work. Even if you believe God (or gods) delivered a particular idea, if that idea was completely alien to the listeners, they would not accept it. Moreover, once they receive said idea, that belief can be expressed in a variety of ways, and that expression will be colored by other prevailing cultural ideas of the time.
Syncretism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/meyers/controversial-wikipedia-corpus/english-html/main/main_0767.html
This page was last modified 12:48, 3 December 2006.
Syncretism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism
This page was last edited on 19 January 2018, at 11:45.
'We're not morons': Brexit divisions harden across Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/26/uk-brexit-voters-mansfield-bristol-torbay-leeds-post-referendum
Aww.. no comment section Guardian ? What are you afraid of ??
I could make a quip about angry remain students, like Zaki Kaf al-Ghazal.. but I won't.. I will simply offer some advice.. "EDUCATE YOURSELVES!"
This next bit left me chuckling, check this out:
Pushing his twin daughters along in a pram outside the shops, Stuart Kilshaw, 43, a docker, says his views have been brought into sharp focus since their birth five weeks ago. He voted remain, but is now more worried about what Brexit might bring. "I feel we have a lot less security now," he said. "We were better off as we were, and we should have stayed how we were, but we were scuppered by imbeciles who thought too much about immigration rather than what immigration brings."
wow.. this guy is calling me an imbecile! I wonder if he knows what it means ? Let's help him out:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/imbecile
im·be·cile (ĭm′bə-sĭl, -səl)
n.
1. A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
2. A person with moderate to severe intellectual disability having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I guess there is no hhop for me! ;D
Uncle Sam dumps the Kurds (yet again)
https://thesaker.is/uncle-sam-dumps-the-kurds-yet-again/
The drama which is unfolding in northern Syria is truly an almost ideal case to fully assess how weak and totally dysfunctional the AngloZionist Empire has really become. Let's begin with a quick reminder.
The US-Israeli goals in Syria were really very simple. As I have already mentioned in a past article, the initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:
1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services.
2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north.
3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon.
5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
6. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
10. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
With the joint Russian-Iranian military intervention, this plan completely collapsed. For a while, the USA tried to break up Syria under various scenarios, but the way the Russian Aerospace forces hammered all the "good terrorists" eventually convinced the AngloZionists that this would not work.
The single biggest problem for the Empire is that while it has plenty of firepower in the region (and worldwide), it cannot deploy any "boots on the ground". Being the Empire's boots on the ground was, in fact, the role the AngloZionists had assigned to the Takfiri crazies (aka Daesh/IS/ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc/), but that plan failed. The only US allies left in the region are Israel and Saudi Arabia. The problem with them is that, just like the USA themselves, these countries do not have ground forces capable of actually deploying inside Syria and taking on not only the Syrian military, but the much more capable Iranian and Hezbollah forces. Murdering civilians is really the only thing the Israelis and Saudis are expert in, at least on the ground (in the skies the Israeli Air Force is a very good one). Enter the Kurds.
The AngloZionist wanted to use the Kurds just like NATO had used the KLA in Kosovo: as a ground force which could be supported by US/NATO and maybe even Israeli airpower. Unlike the Israelis and Saudis, the Kurds are a relatively competent ground force (albeit not one able to take on, say, Turkey or Iran).
The folks at the Pentagon had already tried something similar last year when they attempted to create a sovereign Kurdistan in Iraq by means of a referendum. The Iraqis, with some likely help from Iran, immediately put an end to this nonsense and the entire exercise was a pathetic "flop".
Which immediately begs to obvious question: are the Americans even capable of learning from their mistakes? What in the world were they thinking when they announced the creation of 30'000 strong Syrian Border Security Force (BSF) (so called to give the illusion that protecting Syria's border was the plan, not the partition Syria)? The real goal was, as always, to put pressure on Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia while grabbing a lot of oil. As always with Uncle Shmuel, the entire plan had no UNSC authorization was thus totally illegal under international law (as is the presence of the USA in the Syria's airspace and territory, but nobody cares any more).
Did Trump and his generals really think that Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia would accept a US protectorate in Syria masquerading as an "independent Kurdistan" and do nothing about it? Yet again, and I know this sounds hard to believe, but I think that this is yet another strong indication that the Empire is run by stupid and ignorant people whose brain and education simply do not allow them to grasp even the basic dynamics in the region of our planet there are interfering with.
Whatever may be the case the Turks reacted exactly as everybody thought: the Turkish Chief of Staff jumped into an airplane, flew to Moscow, met with top Russian generals (including Minister of Defense Shoigu) and clearly got a "go ahead" from Moscow: not only were the Turkish airplanes flying over Syria's Afrin province not challenged by Russian air defense systems (which have ample coverage in this region), but the Russians also helpfully withdrew their military personnel from the region lest any Russian get hurt. Sergei Lavrov deplored it all, as he had to, but it was clear to all that Turkey had the Russian backing for this operation. I would add that I am pretty sure that the Iranians were also consulted (maybe at the same meeting in Moscow?) to avoid any misunderstandings as there is little love lost between Ankara and Tehran.
What about the Kurds? Well, how do I say that nicely? Let's just say that what they did was not very smart. That's putting it very, very mildly. The Russians gave them a golden deal: accept large autonomy in Syria, come to the National Dialog Congress to take place in Sochi, we will make your case before the (always reluctant) Syrians, Iranians and Turks and we will even give you money to help you develop your oil production. But no, the Kurds chose to believe in the hot air coming from Washington and when the Turks attacked that is all the Kurds got from Washington: hot air.
In fact, it is pretty clear that the US Americans have, yet again, betrayed an ally: Tillerson has now "greenlighted" a 30km safe zone in Syria (as if anybody was asking for his opinion, nevermind permission!). Take a look at this simple map of the Afrin region and look what 50 miles (about 80km) look like. You can immediately see that this 30km "safe zone" means: the end of any Kurdish aspirations to created a little independent Kurdistan in northern Syria.
To say that all these developments make the Russians really happy is not an exaggeration. It is especially sweet for the Russians to see that they did not even have to do much, that this ugly mess of a disaster for the USA was entirely self-inflicted. What can be sweeter than that?
Let' look at it all from the Russian point of view:
First, this situation further puts Turkey (a US ally and NATO member) on a collision course with the US/NATO/EU. And Turkey is not 'just' a NATO ally, like Denmark or Italy. Turkey is the key to the eastern Mediterranean and the entire Middle-East (well, one of them at least). Also, Turkey has a huge potential to be a painful thorn in the southern 'belly' of Russia so it is really crucial for Russia to keep Uncle Sam and the Israelis as far away from Turkey as possible. Having said that, nobody in Russia harbors *any *illusions about Turkey and/or Erdogan. Turkey will always be a problematic neighbor for Russia (the two countries already fought 12 wars!!!). But there is a big difference between "bad" and "worse". Considering that in a not too distant past Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft over Syria, financed, trained and supported "good terrorists" in Syria, was deeply involved in the Tatar separatist movement in Crimea, and was the main rear base for the Wahabi terrorists in Chechnia for well over a decade, "worse" in the case of Turkey can be much, much worse than "bad" is today.
Second, these developments have clearly brought Turkey into an even closer cooperative dynamic with Russia and Iran, something which Russia very much desires. Turkey by itself is much more of a potential problem than a Turkey which partners up with Russia and Iran (ideally with Syria too, but considering the animosity between the two countries and their leaders that is something for the distant future, at least for the time being). What is shaping up is an informal (but very real) Russian-Turkish-Iranian regional alliance against the Axis of Kindness: USA-Israel-KSA. If that is what happens then the latter does not stand a chance to prevail.
Third, even though the Kurds are outraged and are now whining about the Russian "betrayal" – they will come to realize that they did it to themselves and that their best chance for freedom and prosperity is to work with the Russians. That means that the Russians will be able to achieve with, and for, the Kurds what the USA could not. Yet another very nice side-benefit for Russia.
Fourth, Syria, Iran and Turkey now realize a simple thing: only Russia stands between the crazy US-Israeli plans for the region and them. Absent Russia, there is nothing stopping the AngloZionist from re-igniting the "good terrorists" and the Kurds and use them against every one of them.
Be it as it may, having the USA and Israel shoot themselves in the leg and watch them bleed is not enough. To really capitalize on this situation the Russians need to also achieve a number of goals:
First, they need to stop the Turks before this all turns into a major and protracted conflict. Since Tillerson "greenlighted" a 30km "safe zone", this is probably what Erdogan told Trump over the phone and that, in turn, is probably what the Russians and the Turks agreed upon. So, hopefully, this should not be too hard to achieve.
Second, the Russians need to talk to the Kurds and offer them the same deal again: large autonomy inside Syria in exchange for peace and prosperity. The Kurds are not exactly the easiest people to talk to, but since there is really no other option, my guess is that as soon as they stop hallucinating about the US going to war with Turkey on their behalf they will have to sit down and negotiate the deal. Likewise, the Russians will have to sell the very same deal to Damascus which, frankly, is in no position to reject it.
Third, Russia has neither the desire nor the means to constantly deal with violent flare-ups in the Middle-East. If the Empire desperately needs wars to survive, Russia desperately needs peace. In practical terms this means that the Russians must work with the Iranians, the Turks, the Syrians to secure a regional security framework which would be guaranteed and, if needed, enforced by all parties. And yes, the next logical step will be to approach Israel and the KSA and give them security guarantees in exchange for their assurances to stop creating chaos and wars on behalf of the USA. I know, I will get a lot of flak for saying this, but there *are* people in Israel and, possibly, Saudi Arabia who also understand the difference between "bad" and "worse". Heed my words: as soon as the Israelis and the Saudis realize that Uncle Sam can't do much for them either, they will suddenly become much more open to meaningful negotiations. Still, whether these rational minds will be sufficient to deal with the rabid ideologues I frankly don't know. But it is worth trying for sure.
Conclusion
The Trump Administration's "strategy" (I am being very kind here) is to stir up as many conflicts in as many places of our planet as possible. The Empire thrives only on chaos and violence. The Russian response is the exact opposite: to try as best can be to stop wars, defuse conflicts and create, if not peace, at least a situation of non-violence. Simply put: peace anywhere is the biggest danger to the AngloZionist Empire whose entire structure is predicated on eternal wars. The total and abject failure of all US plans for Syria (depending on how you count we are at "plan C" or even "plan D") is a strong indicator of how weak and totally dysfunctional the AngloZionist Empire has become. But 'weak' is a relative term while 'dysfunctional' does not imply 'harmless'. The current lack of brains at the top, while very good in some ways, is also potentially very dangerous. I am in particular worried about what appears to be a total absence of real military men (officers in touch with reality) around the President. Remember how Admiral Fallon once referred to General Petraeus as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit"? This also fully applies to the entire gang of generals around Trump – all of them are the kind of men real officers like Fallon would, in this words, "hate". As for State, I will just say this: I don't expect much from a man who could not even handle Nikki Haley, nevermind Erdogan.
Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the planned US attack on Syria? Well, the very same Ukraine has recently passed a law abolishing the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass and declaring the Donbass "occupied territory". Under Ukie law, Russia is now officially an "aggressor state". This means that the Ukronazis have now basically rejected the Minsk Agreements and are in a quasi-open state of war with Russia. The chances of a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass are now even higher then before, especially before or during the soccer World Cup in Moscow this summer (remember Saakashvili?). Having been ridiculed (again) with their Border Security Force in Syria, the US Americans will now seek a place to take revenge on the evil Russkies and this place will most likely be the Ukraine. And we can always count the Israelis to find a pretext to continue to murder Palestinians and bomb Syria. As for the Saudis, they appear to be temporarily busy fighting each other. So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand that. May God help them.
The Saker
World Reserve Currencies: What Happened During Previous Periods Of Transition?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-14/world-reserve-currencies-what-happened-during-previous-periods-transition
"Nearly one-fifth of China's trade is now settled in yuan, up from less than 1 percent in 2009"
By Chris Ferreira of Economic Reason
World Reserve Currencies: What Happened During Previous Periods of Transition?
The decline of the US dollar hegemony is ever so clear today and this article aims to provide the reader with what exactly happened during past periods of reserve currency transitions. Historically, when a reserve currency transitioned over to a new one, it marked a pivotal change for the world. The economic paradigm shifted and the rules of the game changed. This time will be no different when the US dollar loses its status as the reserve currency!
The transition process of the world reserve currency brings much uncertainty
Throughout history, a transition of the reserve currencies has always brought about turmoil and uncertainty in financial markets. One country's decline, and the subsequent rise of another, marks a radical transformation for the world, especially as market demand shifts. The country that dominates global commerce during any given period is usually marked with the status of having the reserve currency. Spain and Portugal dominated the 15th and 16th centuries, the Netherlands the 17th century, France and Britain the 18th and 19th centuries, and the US dominated the 20th century.
Throughout the Age of Exploration, Portugal created a dominant global empire. Traditional trade routes to Asia were no longer feasible due to the growth of the Ottoman Empire and their 1453 capture of Constantinople, and so the need for alternative trade routes emerged. Thanks to advances in navigational technology as well as other auspicious circumstances, the Portuguese, and soon the Spanish, were to reach Africa, Asia, and the New World. Consequently, the Portuguese and later the Spanish currencies became the primary currencies used in global trade at that time. The Portuguese, throughout their travels and discoveries, established military outposts along the coasts of Africa, India, Malaysia, Japan, and China (Macau), etc.; when they became over-extended, the empire eventually declined due to attacks and competition from other countries (mainly the Dutch, British and French). Portugal and Spain then merged together to create the Iberian union; however, it collapsed through wars and revolutions by the mid-17th century.
It was then the turn of the Dutch, whose rise to global power was largely aided by the creation of the first multinational corporation in the world, the Dutch East India Company (VOC). The Dutch defeated Portugal and Spain in global economic importance and positioned themselves to profit from European demand for spices. By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company that the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment to shareholders. Later, with the event of the Anglo-Dutch War, the spice trade was temporarily ceased and this caused a spike in prices for spices. At that point, other countries were enticed to start their own spice trading companies, namely the French and English (French East India Company and English East India Company). The saturation of the spice market and the costly Anglo-Dutch wars destroyed the Dutch East India Company and their currency (the "Guilder") as a global currency.
France achieved European political dominance under Louis XIV, and although the legacy of the 'Roi Soleil' was great. it is not to be forgotten that he left his heirs in a whirlwind of social strife and extreme debt caused principally by war and an unfair tax base. While the French debt was being allowed to reach staggering amounts, the British, meanwhile, were engaging in an Industrial Revolution that would set Britain apart, creating, in effect, an empire "where the sun never set." The 1789 French Revolution was essentially a response to a financial crisis that had become debilitating. After a decade of internecine bloodshed and civil war, the French found a new leader under the young general, Napoleon Bonaparte. The Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815 raged for over a decade, extending French influence over much of Europe (and inspiring a revolution in Haiti). At the height of Napoleon in 1812, the French Empire maintained an extensive military presence in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland. It was this Napoleonic empire, however short-lived. that was to rock Europe so profoundly that upon Napoleon's defeat, the powers of Europe came together to establish a peace at the 1815 Congress of Vienna that would re-balance power for the rest of the 19th century.
Following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, England enjoyed almost a century of global dominance in trade.
By 1922 the British Empire held power over circa 458 million people (one-fifth of the world's population) and about a quarter of the total land area at the time. By the Second World War, the British Empire was virtually bankrupt. The US provided funding to Britain at the time as they were now the largest creditor nation in the world. However, it was only after the Bretton Woods Conference 1945 that the US dollar officially became the world's reserve currency.
Each country that rose to ultimate global dominance of commerce declined due to an over-saturation point. Fast-forward to today, and there is a remarkably similar situation for the US. The US has 900 military bases in 130 countries and spent over $640 billion in 2013 on military alone. This figure dwarfs all other military spending combined BY ALL OTHER COUNTRIES. The US is no longer the largest creditor nation in the world, but rather the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. China is now the largest creditor nation. Will the 21th century belong to China and the Yuan?
Today the US dominates the land, sea and air with their overbearing military reach in 130 countries. However, the landscape for war is once again changing. Alternative versions of the traditional warfare are emerging, such as economic/cyber war. By enforcing trade sanctions on a country and manipulating market prices, powerful countries can exert force without even having to step into another country. In other words, the stock market and future's market have become a tool for the elite. They can drop the price of oil to bankrupt a particular country or sell their national debt on the market to wipe out their currency and create hyper inflation. These measures are much quicker/efficient for government and the elite to employ than the traditional methods of war we have seen in the last century. Although the US dominates the traditional sense of war, they do not have the same type of defense mechanisms in the financial market. As I pointed out in a previous, How the US Dollar Can Collapse, there are virtually an unlimited number of ways the US can be attacked today.
The Typical Duration of a World Reserve Currency
The reserve currency transition is a cycle that has typically lasted in history somewhere between 80 to 110 years. Officially, the US dollar has been the reserve currency for 68 years. However, the US dollar was used in trade much before, since the 1920?s in fact. That would put the US dollar closer to 90+ years as the reserve currency. These cycles of about 100 years (one century) is very common in history: the ancients called it a saeculum which represented four seasons (spring, summer, fall and winter). As with all cycles, there was a period of growth, saturation, peak, and decline which represented these seasons. An excellent book on economic cycles, with a focus on the current cycle in which we find ourselves, is The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It is a must-read. Here is a quote from Strauss's book:
"An appreciation for history is never more important than at times when a secular winter is forecast. In the fourth turning, we can expect to encounter personal and public choices akin to the hardest ever faced by an ancestral generation. We would do well to learn from their experiences, viewed through the prism of cyclical time. This will not come easily. It will require us to lend a new seasonal interpretation to our revered American Dream. And it will require us to admit that our faith in linear progress has often amounted to a Faustian bargain with our children. Faust always ups the ante, and every bet is double or nothing. Through much of the Third Turning, we have managed to postpone the reckoning. But history warns that we can't defer it beyond the next blend in time."
The table below shows the transition of each reserve currencies (every 100 years or so) and the events that were carried out during each transition. Every transition was a period of great suffering marked by economic hardships, revolutions, and wars.
The transition of one World Reserve Currency is a cycle that stems from social behavior
Esteemed British economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883), in his work Study of History, also identified an "alternating rhythm" of a cycle of war and peace that has occurred in Europe at roughly one-century intervals since the Renaissance. In addition to Europe, Toynbee also identified similar cycles in Chinese and Hellenistic history that averaged 95 years. He linked this to the gradual decay of the "living memory of a previous war," whereby the descendents of war veterans, for whom their only knowledge of war was through stories, history books, and hearsay, would eventually come into power and resume the belligerent behavior pattern of their forefathers.
The most recent global crisis period was marked by WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2; from the start (1914) to the finish (1945) we find a period that ranges from 100 (1914-2014) to 69 (1945-2014) years ago. This suggests that we may be entering into a new global crisis with the same cyclical thinking.
Global crises wreak havoc on all levels of existence, not to the mention the great cost to human lives. If we are to learn from history, however, it seems as though we might have to nevertheless brace ourselves for yet another one in the near future, as it marks the end of one saeculum and the start of a new economic paradigm aligned more positively with proper balances of trade, debt, and policies.
The US is trying to postpone the crisis by printing money, however this is creating currency wars with nearly all major central banks in the world. As history has shown us time and again, causing this delay through money printing will only aggravate the problem, not only not preventing the inevitable, but indeed making the transition more painful and costly.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secrets-of-israels-assassination-operations/5627439 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secrets-of-israels-assassination-operations/5627439)
Ronen Bergman, the intelligence correspondent for Yediot Aharonot newspaper, persuaded many agents of Mossad, Shin Bet and the military to tell their stories, some using their real names. The result is the first comprehensive look at Israel's use of state-sponsored killings.
Based on 1,000 interviews and thousands of documents, and running more than 600 pages, Rise and Kill First makes the case that Israel has used assassination in the place of war, killing half a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists, for instance, rather than launching a military attack. It also strongly suggests that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, an act its officials have consistently denied.
Bergman writes that Arafat's death in 2004 fits a pattern and had advocates. But he steps back from flatly asserting what happened, saying that Israeli military censorship prevents him from revealing what – or if – he knows.
The book's title, Rise and Kill First, comes from the ancient Jewish Talmud admonition, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." Bergman says a huge percentage of the people he interviewed cited that passage as justification for their work. So does an opinion by the military's lawyer declaring such operations to be legitimate acts of war.
Despite the many interviews, including with former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Bergman, the author of several books, says the Israeli secret services sought to interfere with his work, holding a meeting in 2010 on how to disrupt his research and warning former Mossad employees not to speak with him.
He says that while the U.S. has tighter constraints on its agents than does Israel, President George W. Bush adopted many Israeli techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and President Barack Obama launched several hundred targeted killings.
"The command-and-control systems, the war rooms, the methods of information gathering and the technology of the pilotless aircraft, or drones, that now serve the Americans and their allies were all in large part developed in Israel," Bergman writes.
The book gives a textured history of the personalities and tactics of the various secret services. In the 1970s, a new head of operations for Mossad opened hundreds of commercial companies overseas with the idea that they might be useful one day. For example, Mossad created a Middle Eastern shipping business that, years later, came in handy in providing cover for a team in the waters off Yemen.
There have been plenty of failures. After a Palestinian armed group killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel sent agents to kill the perpetrators – and shot more than one misidentified man. There were also successful operations that did more harm than good to Israel's policy goals, Bergman notes.
Bergman raises moral and legal concerns provoked by state-sponsored killing, including the existence of separate legal systems for secret agents and the rest of Israel. But he presents the operations, for the most part, as achieving their aims. While many credit the barrier Israel built along and inside the West Bank with stopping assaults on Israeli citizens in the early 2000s, he argues that what made the difference was "a massive number of targeted killings of [enemy] operatives."
One of Bergman's most important sources was Meir Dagan, a recent head of Mossad for eight years who died in early 2016. Toward the end of his career, Dagan fell out with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu partly over launching a military attack on Iran. Netanyahu said intelligence techniques such as selling the country faulty parts for its reactors – which Israel and the U.S. were doing – weren't enough.
Dagan argued that these techniques, especially assassinations, would do the job. As Bergman quotes him saying, "In a car, there are 25,000 parts on average. Imagine if 100 of them are missing. It would be very hard to make it go. On the other hand, sometimes it's most effective to kill the driver, and that's that."
Army Major Exposes The "ISIS Defeat" Myth That No One Is Talking About
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-27/army-major-exposes-isis-defeat-myth-no-one-talking-about
Authored by Major Danny Sjursen, op-ed via The Hill,
Under President Obama's watch, the Islamic State conquered a so-called caliphate the size of Ohio in Syria and Iraq. Luckily a new, "tough" president - Donald Trump - stepped in, loosed restrictions on his military, and, defeated the bad guys. At least that's the popular story and the party line.
Of course, the ground-level truth is much messier.
If ISIS is so decisively and irreversibly defeated, how then to explain last week's gruesome double-suicide bombing in Baghdad and expert warnings that up to 10,000 ISIS loyalists remain in Iraq and Syria?
The problem is that, even after 17 years of hard lessons to the contrary, most Americans - and administration spokespeople - insist on viewing ISIS as a linear, conventional threat. A quick look at color-coded Syria maps gives the obvious impression that ISIS as a conventional military force indeed has receded. Plentiful U.S. airstrikes, ample American advisory teams, and local Kurdish ground troops combined to devastate Islamic State's fighters - which is a positive development.
Unfortunately, that may have been the easy part. Conventional destruction does not equate to total, ideological defeat. ISIS is as much idea as army, and such groups have proved remarkably resilient and capable of morphing into new, menacing manifestations.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis hinted at this, fearing the growth of "ISIS 2.0." The thing is, we're already fighting the second manifestation of Islamic State, which used to be called al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and reconstituted itself in U.S. prisons in that country. The next threat is actually ISIS 3.0.
Odds are ISIS leaders, fighters and sympathizers will go underground for a while — in both Iraq and Syria. They'll keep up their slick media campaign, slowly reconstitute and continue to inspire terror attacks. But there's something else: America's regional military presence itself undoubtedly will fuel the Phoenix-like rise of ISIS 3.0.
The Islamic State's worldview and ideological playbook consist of more than just Sunni chauvinism and jihadi interpretations of the Koran. A third key ingredient has always been virulent opposition to any Western military presence. What Americans view as advising and assisting, jihadis — and an uncomfortable number of like-minded sympathizers — see as occupation.
Trump supporters, most political conservatives and many military officers point to Obama's supposedly hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 as the impetus for the rise of ISIS. That explanation was simplistic — and, in the case of candidate Trump claiming that Obama literally "founded ISIS," bordered on the absurd.
Nevertheless, in the court of public opinion (especially among Republicans), the charges stuck. Premature withdrawal indeed can be a serious mistake, but there's a flip side: Stay too long, and military assistance can resemble invasion or occupation. Notice how that's rarely discussed.
It's a tough balance to strike: applying sufficient U.S. military aid when necessary whilst not overstaying a (very brief) welcome. Sixteen full years of U.S. military occupations in the Greater Middle East and a 2003 Iraq regime change have simply tarnished the American brand regionally, perhaps beyond repair. So much so, in fact, that one could argue that any overt U.S. military action tends to be counterproductive. Maybe that's hard to swallow in hyper-interventionist Washington, but it's something sober strategists must seriously consider.
Each side of the border, in Iraq and Syria, presents its own challenges.
In Iraq, look for ISIS to dial up its bombing campaign in Baghdad, puncturing any hope for post-war normalcy in the capital. Then, unless Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's Shia-dominated regime shows restraint and embraces minorities, expect ISIS once again to exploit Sunni grievances. This would mean demobilizing Shia Popular Mobilization Forces, some Iranian-sponsored. That's a big if.
In Syria, the risks resemble those of Iraq, only on steroids. Here ISIS remnants will seek to inspire an anti-Kurdish and, by extension, anti-U.S. insurgency in the Euphrates River valley and the country's northeast. That likelihood increases the longer that thousands of U.S. soldiers and marines remain in Syria. And recent pronouncements from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary Mattis seem to indicate the United States will stay in Syria indefinitely.
Staying in north and east Syria means the U.S. military will own all that does or does not happen in the area — the good and the bad. An inadequate power grid: that's on us. Drought and disease: that's our problem too. I've played this game before in Baghdad back in 2007. It rarely ends well. No matter how benevolent Americans view their motivations, the longer its military acts as a de facto occupation force, the more likely it is to fuel an insurgency — especially among Syria's Sunni majority. ISIS will do all it can to exploit this vulnerability.
There's one more huge risk in Syria, highlighted by Turkey's recent ground invasion of Northern Syria. The Turks' — a NATO ally! — attack on U.S.-allied Kurdish militias might lead to a genuine ethno-sectarian regional war. In that case, the United States would really be caught in the middle — and remember: ISIS, and similar Islamist groups, thrive amid such chaos. No matter how far the Turkish incursion escalates, ISIS most certainly will attempt to revamp and reconstitute under cover of a regional conflagration, just as al-Qaeda has in Yemen.
There are no easy answers in either Mesopotamia or Greater Syria. Which is why one hopes that the administration's "adults in the room" are piloting the ship and asking the tough questions.
All signs point to what would be the worst possible outcome for U.S. troops and regional stability alike: hastily declaring victory but indefinitely maintaining U.S. troops on the ground. In that case, no amount of tough talk, courageous soldiering or skillful generalship will dodge the next regional insurgency. When Trump's first term comes to a close, then the U.S. military would find itself traveling back to the future and entering its third decade of war — right back where it started.
* * *
Maj. Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army officer, a former history instructor at West Point, and served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,"Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge." Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVet.
Why Does the Left Seek to Conflate Political Ideology with Race?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-does-the-left-seek-to-conflate-political-ideology-with-race/
by Mark Angelides
A mass of recent stories about white folk fearing the "browning" of the United States is doing rounds not only on social media, but in what passes for regular news networks. The accusations state that people voted for Trump because they are racist, because they don't want more people with darker skin coming to the US. Not only is this idea wrong, it is politically motivated.
If you really want to know what American's (and people in Europe) are afraid of, it's not the "browning" of the nation, it is the flawed and often dangerous ideology that comes with some elements of mass-migration.
Take the UK for example. British newspapers are filled with stories of Islamophobia and racism against migrants (even second and third generation). You would think that Britain is one of the least welcoming places if you have dark skin. But the reality is something quite different.
British Indians are a classic example of how integration should work. With a population of over 1.4 million, they are the third largest demographic in the nation, and on almost every scale and metric do just as well (and better in some cases) than those identifying as Native White British. They are just as likely to own their own home, just as likely to be employed, and do very well in terms of achieving higher education.
How much anti-Indian hate crime do you think is reported in the UK? Well it's virtually zero. You also don't see angry Tweets, nasty facebook posts, or any of the other associated nonsense you would expect from people who are described as "racist" and "xenophobic." Why is this?
Could it be that British Indians have basically the same politics and culture and values as that of the native Brit? Politically, it seems so.
Unlike many other demographics, British Indians (Brindians?) aren't targeted for votes the same way other minority groups are. There is no such thing as "The Block Indian Vote" in the UK. Indians, much like White Brits vote any way they please, based on economics, geographic location, and preference of policies.
Could this be one of the reasons that almost no one (except those on the very fringes of society) object to Indian migration?
The native White Brit does not fear the "browning" of the nation. They (quite rightly) fear the destruction of culture that can occur when people with radically different views arrive en-masse and have the right to vote to change the nation irrevocably.
It is not the color of people that is the issue, it is radical views.
When idiots in news rooms seek to make the argument against mass-migration form 3rd world nations about race, they do us all a disservice. They are dismissing a very real point of view, and in fact, putting all immigrants into one category of people, which they are not (oddly enough, to put all immigrants in one category like that smacks of racism).
We all welcome people who have similar views to ourselves. With them, we can rest easy about the future we are leaving to our children. Is it so wrong to want your children to experience the enjoyment and relative safety (and more importantly, the rights) that we have enjoyed? This is not, and never has been about the color of a person's skin...It is about the content of their character.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.01.30, 21:24:34
Major Danny Sjursen
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.01.30, 21:40:40
Mark Angelides
Congratulations you two, you have caught my attention.. see you tomorrow.. :P
As you can see.. it's not just Apple that's been at it.. slowing down phones via updates to force an upgrade.. only problem for Samsung is the Note 4 has a removable battery! Apples excuse just won't cut it.. moral corruption exposed in all it's glory..
US Launches Probe Into Apple Slowing Older iPhones
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/us-launches-probe-apple-slowing-older-iphones
One month after a firestorm swept across Apple community when a conspiracy theory that Apple had been throttling its older iPhone was confirmed, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the DOJ and the SEC have launched a probe whether Apple violated securities laws concerning its disclosures about a software update that slowed older iPhone models.
According to the report, the government has requested information from the company, although the inquiry is said to be in its early stages, and it's too soon to conclude any enforcement will follow.
The probe comes several weeks after Apple admitted to slowing down the performance of older iPhones models as a way to make their internal batteries last longer.
Note 4 rebooting, restarting, freezing, not restarting properly, Wake Lock
https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-Note-Phones/Note-4-rebooting-restarting-freezing-not-restarting-properly/td-p/121025/page/6
This is the first full day of running the Wakelock app on my Note 4. Since I have installed this app, I have not had one issue with the phone, not one. The difference from before and after installing Wakelock is like night and day. I went from not being able to use the Note 4 without experiencing a reboot or super slow operation for anything I used the smartphone for to NORMAL operation now. I will continue to update this thread.
Do I think this is a solution for the problems with my Note 4? Absolutely not! Samsung should be treating these issues with their phones as a top priority. Selling a product that is touted as a world class piece of technology to people and then not providing support for their customers is unconscionable. Samsung, please address these problems.
Richard Edmonds' Speech -- "Truth & Honour of the 'Holocaust'" Delivered to the South West Forum in Bristol
On Saturday, 27th January I gave a speech at the all-Nationalist South West Forum held in the Bristol area. Here is the summary of my talk which was filmed and may be viewed on the internet at the: London Forum-Youtube.
Truth and Honour or the "Holocaust", by Richard Edmonds
Speaking at a meeting of the South West Forum held in Bristol on the 27th. January 2018, Richard Edmonds said that in contemporary Britain it is only at meeting such as this that you are going to find Truth, Honour and Decency; there is little Truth, Honour or Decency to be found in the Establishment parties at Westminster, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal-Democrat, they are essentially all the same and with little to be proud of.
>
> I wish to speak here of those British soldiers and officials who were murdered by Jewish terrorists in the years during and after the Second World War in the bloody Zionist campaign to establish the State of Israel. You will remember that we met in Bristol last year to pay tribute to the two young British soldiers, Sergeant Mevyn Paice and Sergeant Clifford Martin who were kidnapped, tortured and strangled and their booby-trapped corpses left for their mates to find them. Sergeant Paice was a son of Bristol and a group of us visited the local church, St. Mary's of Stoke Bishop, where there is simple plaque to his memory, where we laid a wreathe.
>
> The Second World War had not even ended when Jewish-Zionist terrorists launched their murderous bombing campaign against Britain. This country had fought six long years to defeat Adolf Hitler and troops such as Sergeants Paice and Martin together with their comrades-in-arms had survived the war and were no doubt looking forward to the Peace. Then came the stab in the back.
>
> Earlier this month a number of us attended a hearing of the on-going trial taking place at Westminster Magistrates' Court of the very brave Alison Chabloz, where she has effectively been charged with "Holocaust"-revisionism in a prosecution that originally a private Jewish-Zionist organisation had been permitted to bring against her. I'm pleased to report that the public gallery was packed out with Alison's supporters and well-wishers; all the time that I was sitting there in that court I had in mind the cruel and dreadful fate that Zionist terrorists had inflicted on those two British Army sergeants.
>
> The Zionist terror campaign to establish the State of Israel did not wait for the War to end. In November 1944, Jewish terrorists murdered the British government's top representative in the Middle East, Lord Moyne based in Cairo. That was the start of the bloody and treacherous campaign to drive the British out of their Mandate and out of Palestine. Jewish terrorists murdered hundreds of British soldiers and officials including the victims, military and civilian, of dastardly bombing of the British Army' head-quarters at the King David Hotel, Jerusalem. The Jewish terror campaign was not limited to the Middle East, Zionist terrorists committed their murders and bomb-outrages here in the United Kingdom. Even Britain's Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin was not spared: a parcel bomb was mailed to him personally, but fortunately the explosive device was recognised and de-activated. No Briton was to be spared, from the top to brave soldiers known only to their mates and loved ones, none were to be spared. As the American-Jewish film producer, Ben Hecht said, "I have a holiday in my heart every time a British solders is killed." One can say here: Jewish pay-back for Britain's role in the defeat of Adolf Hitler.
>
> Under these circumstances and knowing all the facts of the Zionist terror campaign against our troops, no decent Briton would call themselves, Friends of Israel. However contrary to all decency, Israel has many friends in high places in contemporary Britain. For example, Mrs. Teresa May, our Prime Minister, recently celebrated the anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel in a speech, and I quote: "Today we celebrate the founding of the State of Israel and we pay our respects to those who fought so hard for it...we remember the sacrifice of those who fought to set up the State of Israel." She is lauding, praising the Jewish-Zionist terrorists who murdered our soldiers. Mrs May is amongst those who officially describe themselves as Friends of Israel. The modern Houses of Parliament are full of the Friends of Israel. Look them up on the inter-net. There is the Conservative party Friends of Israel: Mrs. May is a member so is the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, and many, many more. According to the journalist, Peter Obourne, some eighty percent of Tory MPs are members of the Friends of Israel. But it doesn't end there. Look up the Labour party Friends of Israel. They are all there: Friends of Israel, but not friends of Britain. Look up the Liberal-Democrat Friends of Israel: they are all there, just as you would expect. But one name that you will not find listed amongst the Friends of Israel is the name of the Leader of Her Majesty's official Opposition in the House of Commons: Jeremy Corbyn. When recently the Israeli Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited Britain Corbyn refused to meet him. Interesting times, eh ?
>
> British politicians have grovelled to the Zionist lobby for as hundred years now. In 1917, at the height of the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minster, the Tory politician Arthur Balfour signed his notorious Balfour Declaration that promised Lord Rothschild that British troops would fight and drive the Turks out of Palestine in order that Lord Rothschild's Zionist ambitions to set up a National Home for the Jewish people in the Holy Land, could be satisfied. I continue: a short twenty years later and Britain is at war with the Jews' opponent and antagonist, Adolf Hitler, and the only justification for that second mindless slaughter of Britain's and Europe's best, is the so-called "Holocaust", the allegation that the Germans murdered millions of Jews during the Second World War. This allegation was confirmed to be a propaganda-lie thirty years ago, when the then world-acknowledged expert authority on the "Holocaust", Professor Dr. Raul Hilberg of the University of Vermont, USA, stated under oath in his capacity as an expert witness at a trial in Canada in 1985, that there was no forensic, scientific or objective evidence to substantiate the allegation. Dr. Hilberg gave his expertise at the trial of the German-Canadian "Holocaust" revisionist, Ernst Zundel.
>
> The man who in the late 1930s observed the baleful influence of the Zionist lobby over British politicians was Arnold Leese. During the First War, Arnold Leese had served as an Army officer in the Middle East. Leese predicted the coming nightmare in the Middle East in his booklet, "Devilry in the Holy Land" published in 1938. Leese was incarcerated under regulation 18b for his opposition to the Second World War, which he denounced as a war fought only for Jewish interests.
>
> So where are we now ? ,in this not so happy Britain in the year of our Lord, 2018. Answer: the massed ranks of the politicians of the Friends of Israel at Westminster have decided that a memorial to the so-called "Holocaust" is to be erected in the very centre of our capital at the most sacred and secular, religious, historical and political site in our country. This memorial to the alleged six million murdered Jews is to consist of a set of massive concrete slabs to be erected in Victoria Tower Gardens, the tiny piece of public green space beside the Houses of Parliament and close to Westminster Abbey, adjacent the river Thames. A thousand years of English and British history has played out at this site which is now to be dominated by a monstrous collection of concrete blocs, dedicated to an event that the rational mind knows did not take place.
So where are we now ? We are under the baleful influence of the present political clique in charge of Britain's destiny, the Friends of Israel.
> F I N I S
Modern imperialism goes on trial, and is found guilty
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/417776-imperialism-ireland-event-liberal/
Imperialism – which today is usually referred to by the euphemism 'liberal interventionism' – went on Trial at the Waterside Theatre in Derry, Northern Ireland this week.
Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed around the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies.
The event could have been called 'War on Trial.' It might have been called 'Regime Change on Trial.' Or 'Economic Sanctions on Trial.' But it was – thanks to organizer Gregory Sharkey – called 'Imperialism on Trial' and, as the first speaker, the writer and broadcaster John Wight declared, that in itself was highly significant.
For the truth is the 'I' word is the elephant in the room in contemporary discourse. We're not supposed to acknowledge its existence. Imperialism, according to the dominant Establishment narrative, ended when the European empires gave their colonies independence in the 1950s and 60s. In fact, the 'old' imperialism was only replaced by a new variant which is even more destructive, and certainly more dishonest. At least the British Empire admitted it was an empire.
https://www.facebook.com/RTUKnews/videos/1891925084430699/
Today's US-led neoliberal empire, which has Britain as its junior partner, does no such thing. Entire countries have been destroyed, with millions killed, and it's been done under a 'progressive' banner trumpeting concern for 'human rights' and 'enhancing freedoms.'
In an electrifying address, Wight lambasted the pro-imperial propaganda to which we are relentlessly subjected to in the West. How absurd is it, he asked, that NATO troops are on Russia's borders, while Russian troops have been fighting in Syria the same ISIS/Al-Qaeda terrorist groups who have been killing British citizens back home? Citing Marx, Wight reminded the audience of how the ideas of the ruling class become the dominant ideas, and the demonization of Russia is a classic example of this. Ordinary Britons don't regard Putin as a 'threat' as they go about their daily business, but they do – rightly – regard the terrorist groups that Russia has been fighting as a danger to them. But the ruling class hate Russia because it has thwarted its imperial ambitions.
Wight said that opponents of imperialism should never go on the back foot when confronted by supporters of criminal wars of aggression, such as the Iraq War – which has led to the deaths of around 1 million people and the rise of ISIS. He mentioned that these people hate the fact that there are now alternative media channels such as RT which challenge the dominant neocon/neoliberal narrative.
"Alternative media and those who go on it are under attack because they have the temerity to ask the most subversive question in the English language which is: Why? Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why are there sanctions on Cuba? Why are we going after Iran but are close friends with the Saudis? This question is so powerful. We are attacked because we ask the question, why? I am reminded of the African proverb that until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. Now with the alternative media, the lions have their historians. We can put the case for the Syrian people; we can put the case for the Venezuelan people; we can put the case why Russia should not be our enemy."
Speaking next, Peter Ford, the former British Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain, drew on his firsthand experience of many years as a diplomat and UN official based in the Middle East, to explain the current geopolitical situation.
"People who are not regular readers of the Morning Star might be forgiven for thinking that imperialism ended when the colonies became free. Nothing could be further from the truth. We now have a new more insidious but more powerful form of imperialism – one which hides behinds words in order to extend its hegemony. Expressions like 'protecting our allies,' 'countering weapons of mass destruction' or 'defending human rights' – and this one applies as much to the left as the right."
"We on the left have to be particularly alert to 'liberal interventionism': this is actually the new version of 'carrying the white man's burden," Ford continued. "In each case we are intervening in less developed parts of the world which are generally not able to strike back. Consider the appalling war in Yemen – one of the poorest and weakest countries in the world. It used to be a British colony but independence has not made it free. When the Yemenis dared to get rid of their pro-Saudi government, the Saudis, with British and American backing, started bombing and blockading Yemen. Conditions under siege and bombardment have led to a terrible epidemic of cholera."
Any genuine humanitarians would be greatly concerned with the dire situation in Yemen, but guess what? The 'liberal interventionists' who egged on 'humanitarian interventions' elsewhere have been silent.
Looking at the global picture, Ford described how the US Empire operates.
"The Americans have nearly 800 bases around the world, spread over about 70 countries and territories. You show me a country with an American base and I'll show you a de facto colony or vassal state. It's almost mediaeval: You have to pay homage to the sovereign – America. That is our (the British) condition today. We are equivalent to a vassal state," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Jh3Q2kDE-Tk
In my address, I stressed how important it was to see the US-led attacks, interventions and destabilization campaigns against sovereign states of the past 20 years as part of the same war, one waged for total global domination. Independent, resource-rich countries usually with socialist/socialistic governments and economies which weren't controlled by global corporations, have been targeted, one-by-one. In each case, the leaders of the countries concerned were relentlessly demonized. They were called dictators, even though in the case of Hugo Chavez and Slobodan Milosevic they had won numerous democratic elections and operated in countries where opposition parties freely operated.
The 'target states' were subject to draconian sanctions which created economic hardship and a 'pressure cooker' environment, which usually resulted in street protests against the government, egged on by the US. The governments were then told 'the world is watching you' and ordered not to respond, even when violence was used by protestors. The same strategy was deployed in Yugoslavia in 2000, Ukraine in 2014, and Venezuela in 2017. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we had a full-scale invasion (based on the 'fake news' that Saddam possessed WMDs) and in Libya (and Yugoslavia) a NATO bombing campaign.
There has been endless war for the past twenty years and it won't end until we understand what's been going on and demand a new foreign policy in place of the current racist one which holds that the US and its closest allies have the right to say who should or shouldn't be in charge of other countries, but denies the same rights to the 'inferior' countries targeted.
Intrepid journalist Eva Bartlett, who had travelled all the way from Canada, came next and began by describing her experiences in the DPRK, another country that's under threat of attack from the US.
"Many people believe that what is happening in North Korea is about a madman with a bad haircut and an itchy finger on the nuclear button. But no, it's not about Trump," she said to laughter from the hall.
Bartlett told how we're encouraged to see North Korea as a threat but no context is usually given, nor is there mention of the utter devastation caused by US bombing back in the 1950s. Down the decades, there have been regular threats from leading US figures to obliterate North Korea.
"What the North Koreans are doing is defending themselves," Bartlett said.
Having seen what has happened to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and other countries targeted by the US in recent years, who can possibly blame them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR5hjJzyN1Y
In addition to visiting the DPRK in 2017, Bartlett has also been to Syria seven times since the conflict started there in 2011. She described her experiences in the country and explained how the situation on the ground was often very different from the dominant imperialist narrative which holds the Syrian government and President Assad responsible for every evil. She gave as an example the liberation of eastern Aleppo from terrorists in December 2016, which was portrayed as a terrible thing by much of the Western media and the political establishment.
"Corporate media described Aleppo as falling, while Syrians were celebrating the full liberation of the city and Christians were able to celebrate Christmas for the first time in years," she said.
The final speaker of the evening was the legendary George Galloway who dazzled us with his oratory, humor, and sheer bloody brilliance. Galloway quoted Dr. Samuel Johnson, saying that "the grimmest dictatorship of them all is the dictatorship of the prevailing orthodoxy. And that's the dictatorship under which we live. We can argue about the color of the paint on the walls of Westminster, but on the things that really matter the parameters are very narrow. Neoliberal economics and neoconservative imperialist politics abroad – that's the prevailing orthodoxy. So anyone who challenges it must by definition be portrayed as – and turned into – an outlaw. Isn't that the world in which we live?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xUhlPKlIg
Reminding people on the pivotal role the Soviet Red Army had played in the defeat of the Nazis, he declared "we live in an era where we're encouraged to hate and fear Russia. But I will never, ever hate Russia and remain silent while others generate hate against her."
At time of writing the video of Imperialism on Trial on the RTUK Facebook page
has had 35K views. The event was such a success that a 'Roadshow' is already being planned. The 'I word' needs to be openly discussed. Because if we don't speak out forcefully and fearlessly against modern imperialism, and call it out for what it is, we could well be heading for Armageddon.
Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66
https://twitter.com/NeilClark66?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Falsehoods And Lies: Inciting War Is A War Crime
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/falsehoods-and-lies-inciting-war-war-crime
Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The torrent of reckless false accusations against Russia made by the US and its NATO allies is hitting warp speed.
This week saw more baseless allegations of Russian cyber attacks on American elections and British industries.
There were also crass claims by US officials that Russia was behind so-called sonic attacks on American diplomats in Cuba.
Then a Dutch foreign minister was forced to resign after he finally admitted telling lies for the past two years over alleged Russian plans for regional aggression.
Elsewhere, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed this week during a tour of the Middle East that "the primary goal" of his nation's involvement in Syria is "to defeat" Islamic State (Daesh) terrorism.
This is patently false given that the US forces illegally occupying parts of Syria are launching lethal attacks on Syrian armed forces who are actually fighting Islamic State and their myriad terrorist affiliates.
Meanwhile, US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley accused Russia of blocking peace efforts in Syria – another audacious falsehood to add to her thick compendium of calumny.
Perhaps the most barefaced falsehood transpired this week when French President Emmanuel Macron candidly admitted that his government did not have any proof of chemical weapons being used in Syria.
"Today, our agencies, our armed forces have not established that chemical weapons, as set out in treaties, have been used against the civilian population," said Macron to media in Paris.
His admission follows that of US Defense Secretary James Mattis who also fessed up earlier this month to having no evidence of chemical weapons being deployed in Syria.
"We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used," said Mattis to reporters at the Pentagon. "We do not have evidence of it."
Yet, only a few weeks ago, the French and US government were condemning Syrian President Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces. France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also accused Russia of bearing responsibility because of its alliance with Damascus.
But now we are told that the French and US governments do not, in fact, have any evidence concerning chemical weapons in Syria.
This is in spite of US President Donald Trump unleashing over 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Arab country last April in purported reprisal for the "Syrian regime" dropping chemical munitions on the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 2o17.
Macron went on to make the absurd declaration this week that "if" chemical weapons were found to be used then he would order military strikes on Syria.
Both Syria and Russia have categorically and repeatedly rejected claims of using chemical weapons, pointing out that Syria's stockpile was eliminated back in 2014 under a UN-brokered deal.
When Mattis said "we have reports from the battlefield" he was referring to groups like the CIA covertly-sponsored terrorist outfit Al Nusra Front and their media outlet, the so-called White Helmets.
Western news media footage over the past two weeks seemingly depicting Syrian and Russian air strikes on civilian areas is sourced from the White Helmets. This group is embedded with Al Nusra.
The same warped narrative claiming Syrian and Russian violations during the liberation of Aleppo from the terrorists at the end of 2016 is being played out again in East Ghouta and Idlib. And again the Western news media are amplifying the dubious propaganda from the likes of the White Helmets as if it is independent, verified information.
This week in Paris Abdulrahman Almawwas, the so-called vice president of the White Helmets, which also go by the name of Syria Civil Defense, told the Reuters news agency that France and other NATO powers must intervene in Syria.
"It's time to take real action and not just talk about red lines," said Almawwas, who was clearly disappointed after hearing Macron's admission of no evidence for chemical weapons.
Tellingly, the White Helmets' envoy was hosted by senior French government officials while in Paris, including Macron's chief diplomatic advisor, according to Reuters.
He also went on to complain – unwittingly – that the White Helmets have received less funding from foreign governments this year compared with last year.
Reuters reported: "Almawwas said the group's financing for 2018 from foreign governments [sic] had dropped to $12 million from $18 million a year earlier."
According to the White Helmets' own website, the foreign governments whom they receive financing from include: the United States, Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Canada, among others.
In other words, this so-called humanitarian relief organization is a NATO-sponsored entity, which evidently operates freely in areas of Syria controlled by Al Nusra and other internationally proscribed terror groups.
And this is the same "source" which has been used by the NATO governments and Western news media to disseminate claims about Syrian state forces using chemical weapons against civilians – claims which senior US and French officials are now belatedly negating.
What we have here is demonstrable peddling of falsehoods and lies by Western governments and their news media.
Not just with regard to the war in Syria, but on a range of other international incendiary issues, as noted above.
Accusing Russia of aggression, nuclear threats, sabotaging elections, targeting civilian infrastructure which could "kill thousands and thousands" (British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson last month), or any number of other wild allegations, is symptomatic of sociopathic lying by Western governments.
The reckless falsehoods and lies espoused by the US and its European allies are made possible because of the reprehensible servility of Western media not holding to account the wild claims that they willfully disseminate.
This relentless propagation of lies is an appalling incitement to tensions, conflict and war.
Engaging in war fever is not only irresponsible. It is in fact a war crime, according to Nuremberg legal standards.
charade
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/charade
cha·rade (shə-rād′)
n.
1. Games
a. charades(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A game in which words or phrases are represented in pantomime, sometimes syllable by syllable, until they are guessed by the other players.
b. An episode in this game or a word or phrase so represented.
2. A readily perceived pretense; a travesty: went through the charade of a public apology.
How Biblical is Zionism?
http://thesaker.is/how-is-biblical-zionism/
by Laurent Guyénot for the Saker Blog
Laurent Guyénot is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land ... Clash of Civilizations, 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556).
The biblical mind of Israel's founding fathers
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is for the committed Jew as much a record of his ancient origins, the prism through which all Jewish history is interpreted (is not the "Holocaust" a biblical term?), and the unalterable pattern of Israel's promising future. That is why the Bible, once the "portable fatherland" of the Diaspora Jews as Heinrich Heine put it, remains at the core of the national narrative of the Jewish State, whose founding fathers did not give it any other Constitution.
It is true that the earliest prophets of political Zionism — Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem, 1862), Leon Pinsker (Auto-Emancipation, 1882) and Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State, 1896) — did not draw their inspiration from the Bible, but rather from the great nationalist spirit that swept through Europe at the end of the 19th century. Pinsker and Herzl actually cared little whether the Jews colonized Palestine or any other region of the globe; the first thought about some land in North America, while the second contemplated Argentina and later Uganda. More important still than nationalism, what drove these intellectual pioneers was the persistence of Judeophobia or anti-Semitism: Pinsker, who was from Odessa, converted during the pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II; Herzl, at the height of the Dreyfus affair.
Nevertheless, by naming his movement "Zionism," Herzl himself was plugging it into biblical mythology: Zion is a name used for Jerusalem by biblical prophets. And after Herzl, the founders of the Yishuv (Jewish communities settled in Palestine before 1947) and later of the Jewish State were steeped in the Bible. From their point of view, Zionism was the logical and necessary end of biblical Yahwism. "The Bible is our mandate," Chaim Weizmann declared at the Peace Conference in Versailles in 1920, and David Ben-Gurion has made clear that he only accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan as a temporary step toward the goal of biblical borders. In Ben-Gurion, Prophet of fire (1983), the biography of the man described as "the personification of the Zionist dream," Dan Kurzman entitles each chapter with a Bible quote. The preface begins like this:
"The life of David Ben-Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a Biblical prophecy, an eternal dream. [...] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a 'light unto the nations' that would help to redeem all mankind."
For Ben-Gurion, Kurzman writes, the rebirth of Israel in 1948 "paralleled the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the land by Joshua, the Maccabean revolt." Yet Ben-Gurion had never been to the synagogue, and ate pork for breakfast. According to the rabbi leading the Bible study group that he attended, Ben-Gurion "unconsciously believed he was blessed with a spark from Joshua's soul." "There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible," he used to say.[1] He wrote in his diary in 1948, ten days after declaring independence, "We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight — we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo," then he adds: "This will be in revenge for what they did to our forefathers during biblical times."[2] Three days after the Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956, he declared before the Knesset that what was at stake was "the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon."[3]
Ben-Gurion's attachment to the Bible was shared by almost every Zionist leader of his generation and the next. Moshe Dayan, the military hero of the 1967 Six Day War, wrote a book entitled Living with the Bible (1978) in which he justified the annexation of new territory by the Bible. More recently, Israeli Education minister Naftali Bennett, a proponent of full-scale annexation of the West Bank, did the same.[4]
Zionism is biblical by ideology, but also in practice. As Avigail Abarbanel wrote, the Zionist conquerors of Palestine "have been following quite closely the biblical dictate to Joshua to just walk in and take everything. [...] For a supposedly non-religious movement it's extraordinary how closely Zionism [...] has followed the Bible."[5] The paradox is only apparent, because for Zionists, the Bible is not a religious text, but a textbook of history. And so it should be obvious to anybody paying attention that Israel's behavior on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible's underlying ideology.
Prophecies and geopolitics
Only by taking account of the biblical roots of Zionism can one understand why Zionism has never been a nationalist movement like others. It could not be, as Gilad Atzmon remarked, from the moment it defined itself as a Jewish movement, aimed at creating a "Jewish state".[6] Jewish exceptionalism is a biblical concept that has no equivalent in any other ethnic or religious culture.
Neither can Zionism be correctly assessed as a form of colonialism, despite Jabotinsky's effort to do so. For colonialism seeks not to expel the natives, but to exploit them. If Zionism is colonialism, it can only be in the sense of the colonization of the world by Israel, according to the program laid out by Isaiah:
"The riches of the sea will flow to you, the wealth of the nations come to you" (60:5);
"You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings" (60:16);
"You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory" (61:5-6);
"For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly destroyed" (60:12)
Christians find hope in Isaiah that, some day, all peoples "will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles. Nations will not lift sword against nation, no longer will they learn how to make war" (Isaiah 2:4). But more important to Zionists are the previous verses, which describe these messianic times as a Pax Judaica, when "all the nations" will pay tribute "to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob," when "the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem," so that Yahweh will "judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples."
No wonder Isaiah is the biblical prophet most often quoted by Zionists. In a statement published in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted for the next 25 years:
"All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah."[7]
The launching of the Iraq War was a decisive step toward that goal of a new world order headquartered in Jerusalem. It was the context for a "Jerusalem Summit" held in October 2003 in the highly symbolic King David Hotel, to seal an alliance between Jewish and Christian Zionists. The "Jerusalem Declaration" signed by its participants declared Jerusalem "the key to the harmony of civilizations," replacing the United Nations that had become "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships":
"Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets."
Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.[8]
When Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the (Hebrew) Bible, we should take them seriously and study the Bible. It might help, for example, to know that according to Deuteronomy Yahweh plans to deliver to Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than [it]," adding: "you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them..." (7:1-2). As for the kings of these seven nations, "you shall make their name perish from under heaven" (7:24). The destruction of the "Seven Nations," also mentioned in Joshua 24:11, is considered a mitzvah in rabbinic Judaism, included by the great Maimonides in his Book of Commandments,[9] and it has remained a popular motif in Jewish culture, known to every Israeli school child.
It is also part of the Neocon agenda for World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz names the current global conflict in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, 2007). General Wesley Clark, former commandant of NATO in Europe, wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003), and repeated in numerous occasions, that one month after September 11, 2001, as he was paying a visit to Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon general showed him a memo "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran."[10] In his September 20, 2001 speech, President Bush also targeted seven "rogue states", but included Cuba and North Korea instead of Lebanon and Somalia. The likely explanation to that discrepancy is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, as an encrypted signature. Without question, the neocons who were writing Bush's war agenda were Zionists of the most fanatical and Machiavellian kind. But the neocon viper's nest is not the only place to look for crypto-Zionists infiltrated in the highest spheres of US foreign and military affairs. Consider, for example, that Wesley Clark is the son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and the proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis. It is hard to believe that he never heard about the Bible's "seven nations"? Is Clark himself, together with the Amy Goodmans who interviewed him, trying to write history in biblical terms, while blaming these wars on the Pentagon's warmongers? What's going on, here?
A lesson from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
To understand how the crypto-Zionists have hijacked the Empire's military power into proxy wars, a lesson can be learned from Book of Ezra and its sequel, the Book of Nehemiah. At the time of Ezra, the imperial power was Persia. After the Persians had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, some of the exiles and their descendants (42,360 people with their 7,337 servants and 200 male and female singers, according to Ezra 2:64-67) returned to Jerusalem under the protection of King Cyrus, with the project of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus begins the Book of Ezra:
"Yahweh roused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly displayed throughout his kingdom: 'Cyrus king of Persia says this, Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, in Judah.'" (Ezra 1:1-2).
For acting on behalf of Yahweh, Cyrus is bestowed the title of God's "Anointed" (Mashiah) in Isaiah 45:1.
"Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one, to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand, to make the nations bow before him and to disarm kings: [...] It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. [...] Though you do not know me, I have armed you." (Isaiah 45:1-5)
A succeeding Persian emperor, Darius, confirmed Cyrus' edict, authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple, and ordering gigantic burnt offerings financed by "the royal revenue." Anyone resisting the new theocratic power backed by Persia, "a beam is to be torn from his house, he is to be impaled on it and his house is to be reduced to a rubbish-heap for his offense" (Ezra 6:11). Then another Persian king, Artaxerxes, is supposed to have granted Ezra authority to lead "all members of the people of Israel in my kingdom, including their priests and Levites, who freely choose to go to Jerusalem," and to rule over "the whole people of Trans-Euphrates [district encompassing all territories West to the Euphrates]" (7:11-26). In 458 BCE, the priest Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem, accompanied by some 1,500 followers. Carrying with him the newly redacted Torah, Ezra called himself the "Secretary of the Law of the God of heaven" (7:21). He was soon joined by Nehemiah, a Persian court official of Judean origin.
The edicts of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes are fake. No historian believe them authentic. But the fact that Persian kings granted to a clan of wealthy Levites legal authority for establishing a theocratic semi-autonomous state in Palestine seems historical. What did these proto-Zionists give the Persian kings in return? The Bible does not say, but historians believe that the Judeans exiles in Babylon had won the favor of the Persians by conspiring to help them conquer the city.[11]
What is of interest in this biblical narrative is the blueprint for the Zionist strategy of influencing the Empire's foreign policy for its own advantage. In the late 19th century, the empire was British. Its foreign policy in the Middle East was largely shaped by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Born in a family of Marranos converted back to Judaism in Venice, Disraeli can be considered a forerunner of Zionism, since, well before Theodor Herzl, he tried to include the "restoration of Israel" in the Berlin Congress' agenda, and hoped to convince the Ottoman Sultan to concede to Palestine as an autonomous Jewish province. He failed, but succeeded in putting the Suez Canal under British control, through funding from his friend Lionel Rothschild (an operation which also consolidated the Rothschilds' control over the Bank of England). That was the first step in binding British interest and fate to the Middle-East[12]. In short, Disraeli was a modern-day Ezra or Nehemiah, capable of steering the Empire's policy according to the Jewish agenda of the conquest of Palestine, a dream he had cherished ever since his first trip to Palestine in 1830, at the age of 26, and which he had expressed through the hero of his first novel, The Wondrous Tale of Alroy:
"My wish is a national existence which we have not. My wish is the Land of Promise and Jerusalem and the Temple, all we forfeited, all we have yearned after, all for which we have fought, our beauteous country, our holy creed, our simple manners, and our ancient customs."
A quarter of a century after Disraeli, Theodor Herzl also failed to convince the Sultan. It therefore became necessary that the Ottoman Empire disappear and the cards be redistributed. Zionists then played the British against the Ottomans and, by means now well-documented, obtained from the former the Balfour Declaration (in fact a mere letter addressed by Secretary of State Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild). But when the British started to limit Jewish immigration in Palestine in the 1930s, the Zionists turned to the rising new Imperial power: the United States. Today, the stranglehold of Zionists on US imperial policy is such that a few Jewish neocons can pull the US into a series of wars against Israel's enemies with a single false flag attack.
The capacity of Israel to hijack the Empire's foreign and military policy requires that a substantial Jewish elite remain in the US. Even Israel's survival is entirely dependent on the influence of the Zionist power complex in the United States (euphemistically called the "pro-Israel lobby"). That is also a lesson learnt from Ezra and Nehemiah's time: Nehemiah himself retained his principal residence in Babylone and, for centuries after, the kingdom of Israel was virtually ruled by the Babylonian exiles. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Babylon remained the center of universal Judaism. The comparison was made by Jacob Neusner in A History of the Jews in Babylonia (1965), and by Max Dimont in Jews, God and History (1962). The American Jews who prefer to remain in the United States rather than emigrating to Israel are, Dimont argued, as essential to the community as the Babylonian Jews who declined the invitation to return to Palestine in the Persian era:
"Today, as once before, we have both an independent State of Israel and the Diaspora. But, as in the past, the State of Israel today is a citadel of Judaism, a haven of refuge, the center of Jewish nationalism where dwell only two million of the world's twelve million Jews. The Diaspora, although it has shifted its center through the ages with the rise and fall of civilizations, still remains the universal soul of Judaism."[13]
Conclusion
In the words of the Zionists themselves, including Herzl himself, Zionism was supposed to be the "final solution" to the Jewish question[14]. In 1947, the whole world hoped that it would be, except for Arab leaders who warned against it. But Israel's existence has only resulted in changing the "Jewish question" into the "Zionist question": the question about the true ambitions of Israel. Part of the answer is to be found in the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist question is the Biblical question. Zionists themselves tell us so. Their mouths are full of the Bible.
On March 3, 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatized in front of the American Congress his deep phobia of Iran by referring to the biblical Book of Esther (the only Bible story that makes no mention of God, incidently). It is worth quoting the heart of his rhetorical appeal to a US strike against Iran:
"We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us."[15]
Netanyahu managed to schedule his address to the Congress on the eve of Purim, which celebrates the happy end of the Book of Esther — the slaughter of 75,000 Persians, women and children included. This typical speech by the head of the State of Israel is clear indication that the behavior of that nation on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible's underlying ideology. Such is the main objective of my new book, From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land ... Clash of Civilizations, translated by Kevin Barrett.
May those who still want to believe that Zionism has nothing to do with the Bible think twice. Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option.[16] And let them read the Prophets:
"And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths." (Zechariah 14:12)
Notes:
1.Dan Kurzman, Ben-Gurion, Prophet of Fire, Touchstone, 1983, p. 17-18, 22, 26-28. ↑
2.Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2007, p. 144. ↑
3.Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, 1994, p. 10. ↑
4.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Png17wB_omA ↑
5.Avigail Abarbanel, "Why I left the Cult," October 8, 2016, on mondoweiss.net ↑
6.Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto, Skyscraper, 2017, pp. 66-67. ↑
7.David Ben-Gurion and Amram Duchovny, David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words, Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116 ↑
8.Official website: www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/declaration.php. ↑
9.http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961561/jewish/Positive-Commandment-187.htm ↑
10.Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, Public Affairs, 2003, p. 130. ↑
11.For example, Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), vol. 1, p. 343. ↑
12.On Disraeli's proto-Zionist policy, read my article : https://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/02/13/515416tracking-the-roots-of-zionism-and-imperial-russophobia/ ↑
13.Quoted in Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme, American Free Press, 2009, p. 27 ↑
14.The first Zionist association inspired by Herzl's program, the National-jüdische Vereinigung Köln, declared as its goal in 1897: "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question lies therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State" (quoted in Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897–1918, Transaction Publishers, 1998, p. 17). Herzl wrote: "I believe I have found the solution of the Jewish Question. Not a solution, but the solution, the only one," repeating further that Zionism was "the only possible, final, and successful solution of the Jewish Question" (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by Raphael Patai, Herzl Press & Thomas Yoseloff, 1960, vol. 1, p. 118). ↑
15."The Complete Transcript of Netanyahu's Address to Congress," on www.washingtonpost.com ↑
16.Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991. ↑
6 Infamous Political Conspiracies
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/6-infamous-political-conspiracies
By Evan Andrews // April 24, 2014
Secretive conspiracies to topple governments and murder politicians are nearly as old as civilization itself. These schemes often involved some of the most influential figures of their day, and while most failed or were foiled during the planning stage, a few managed to have far-reaching and often deadly consequences. From an ancient Roman coup d'état to the Lincoln assassination, get the facts on six of history's most notorious political plots.
The Catiline Conspiracy
One of ancient Rome's most scandalous conspiracies unfolded in 63 B.C., when the senator Catiline attempted to mount an uprising against the Republic. Frustrated by a stagnating political career—he had twice failed to be elected consul—Catiline formed Rome's malcontent aristocrats, downtrodden veterans and indebted poor into a rebel army. He planned to march on the city and murder its nobles, but his scheme hit a snag when Cicero—one of Catiline's chief political opponents—caught wind of the conspiracy and publically condemned him in a series of speeches on the Senate floor.
Under suspicion from his fellow politicians, Catiline fled Rome and rendezvoused with his forces in central Italy. The would-be rebellion was then publically exposed in December 63 B.C., when a Gallic tribe turned on the conspirators and revealed their plans to Cicero. Armed with hard evidence of a plot, Cicero and the Senate oversaw the execution of several of Catiline's cohorts and dispatched an army to intercept him in the field. In the ensuing battle, Catiline's army was routed and he and many of his fellow conspirators were killed.
The Gunpowder Plot
To this day, Britons still celebrate Guy Fawkes' Day, an informal holiday marking the anniversary of the doomed "Gunpowder Plot." The scheme first materialized in May 1604, when a small cell of disgruntled Catholics led by Robert Catesby hatched a plan to assassinate the anti-papist King James I and install his daughter as a puppet leader. In March 1605, the conspirators rented a cellar underneath the House of Lords and filled it with three-dozen barrels of gunpowder. Their plan was as simple as it was outrageous: when Parliament opened on November 5, they would blow King James and his entire government sky high.
Unfortunately for Catesby and company, their plot was exposed at the eleventh hour after one of their members sent a letter to the politician Lord Monteagle warning him not to attend Parliament. Monteagle turned the letter over to the authorities, and on the evening of November 4 a search team discovered Guy Fawkes—the conspirator tasked with lighting the fuse—standing watch over the gunpowder. Fawkes revealed the entire plot under torture at the Tower of London, and by January 1606, Catesby and the other schemers had all been rounded up or killed. The survivors were later found guilty of high treason and hanged, drawn and quartered.
The Pazzi Conspiracy
The illustrious Medici family ruled over Florence for some 300 years and helped fuel the Renaissance, but along the way they earned their fair share of enemies. Aggrieved by the family's opposition to papal rule, in 1478 a group of conspirators led by Pope Sixtus IV, his nephew Girolamo Riario, the Archbishop of Pisa and others concocted an audacious scheme to wrest Tuscany from Medici hands. With the help of the Pazzi family—a rival Florentine clan—the group plotted to assassinate Lorenzo de' Medici (also known as Lorenzo the Magnificent) and his brother Giuliano and then take charge of the city government.
The plan unfolded in grisly fashion on April 26, 1478. As the Medici brothers attended mass in the Duomo, they were set upon by two knife-wielding priests as well as a member of the Pazzi family and a hired assassin. Giuliano was stabbed some 20 times and killed, but Lorenzo managed to escape with only a shoulder wound. The larger coup failed to succeed after the botched assassination, and more than 200 conspirators were eventually captured and executed when an enraged citizenry rallied behind the Medici. When the dust finally settled, the Pazzi family had been stripped of their riches and permanently banished, leaving Lorenzo de' Medici with almost total dominion over Florence.
The July 20 Plot
Adolf Hitler dodged several assassination attempts during World War II, but the most famous—and the closest to succeeding—came in 1944 in the weeks after the D-Day invasion. Convinced "Der Führer" was leading Germany to its doom, Lieutenant Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, Colonel General Friedrich Olbricht, Colonel General Ludwig Beck, Major General Henning von Tresckow and others conspired to see him dead. As part of a plan dubbed "Operation Valkyrie," the men plotted to murder Hitler and then use Germany's reserve army to seize Berlin's supreme command headquarters and stage a coup against the Nazi high command.
On July 20, 1944, Von Stauffenberg attended a military conference in Hitler's "Wolf's Lair" in Prussia armed with a bomb disguised in a briefcase. After placing the case near Hitler, he excused himself to make a phone call. The bomb successfully detonated at 12:42 p.m., but another officer had shifted the case behind a chair leg only moments before the explosion. While four other people were killed, Hitler escaped with only minor injuries. Operation Valkyrie crumbled with the news of his survival. Von Stauffenberg and Olbricht were promptly captured and shot, and Beck and Von Tresckow committed suicide. In the investigation that followed, Hitler saw that some 5,000 conspirators and suspected subversives were executed, many of them hanged with piano wire as a gruesome warning against future assassination plots.
The Newburgh Conspiracy
The little-known Newburgh Conspiracy unfolded in March 1783 as General George Washington's battle-weary Continental Army wintered in a camp at Newburgh, New York. Despite having the upper hand in the Revolutionary War, Washington's troops had grown frustrated with the fledgling Confederation Congress' inability to compensate them with back pay and pensions. As the discontent spread, several high-ranking officers began circulating a letter written by an anonymous author calling himself "Brutus" (later revealed to be Major John Armstrong). The missive included a chilling suggestion: if Congress and the states would not pay up, the military might abandon the war effort and force their way into government coffers at gunpoint.
Though he was sympathetic to his soldiers' plight, Washington knew that any uprising could have potentially disastrous consequences for the revolution. When the rabble-rousing officers met in an unsanctioned meeting on March 15, 1783, he made a surprise appearance and asked to address the crowd. After condemning the letter as unpatriotic and foolhardy, Washington urged the men to remain patient with Congress. Straining to read a letter near the end of his talk, he produced a small pair of spectacles and apologized, saying, "I have not only grown gray but almost blind in service to my country..." The impassioned speech paid off. Struck by Washington's devotion to the war, the officers voted to put their "unshaken confidence" in Congress. Washington would go on to negotiate a ceasefire with the British only a month later.
The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy
John Wilkes Booth's April 14, 1865 assassination of President Abraham Lincoln was just one part of a much larger plot to strike a decisive blow against the Union high command. The conspiracy had originated months earlier, when Booth and several other Southern sympathizers schemed to kidnap Lincoln and hold him ransom in exchange for Confederate prisoners. The plan encountered repeated setbacks, and as the rebellion disintegrated in April 1865, Booth was forced to alter his strategy. After learning that Lincoln and Union General Ulysses S. Grant were set to attend the play "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C., he resolved to carry out a series of coordinated assassinations. Booth would personally murder Lincoln and Grant, while his co-conspirators George Atzerodt and Lewis Powell would kill Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward in their homes.
The conspirators hoped the killings would send the U.S. government into a tailspin, but their plan quickly fell apart. While Booth succeeded in mortally wounding Lincoln at Ford's Theater, he missed out on Grant, who had decided not to attend the play. At the same time, Powell attacked Seward as the Secretary lay in bed, but only succeeded in leaving him with severe knife wounds. Atzerodt, meanwhile, abandoned the plan entirely and made no attempt to assassinate Johnson. While Lincoln would die the following morning, his administration remained intact. Within weeks, Booth had been killed and Powell, Atzerodt and several other conspirators were arrested. All were later executed or condemned to prison.
Britain Blames Russia for Nerve Agent Attack on Former Spy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/world/europe/uk-russia-spy-poisoning.html
"It is now clear that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia," Mrs. May said in the House of Commons. "The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal."
She said that either the poisoning was a "direct act of the Russian state against our country" or that Moscow had lost control of its nerve agent and had allowed it to get into the hands of others. The prime minister said that the government had summoned the Russian ambassador to demand an explanation, and that Britain expected a response from Russia by the end of the day on Tuesday. Russia has denied any responsibility.
"Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, and I will come back to this House and set out the full range of measures we will take in response," Mrs. May said.
"We shall not tolerate such a brazen act to murder innocent civilians on our soil."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.12, 22:22:26
She said that either the poisoning was a "direct act of the Russian state against our country" or that Moscow had lost control of its nerve agent and had allowed it to get into the hands of others. The prime minister said that the government had summoned the Russian ambassador to demand an explanation, and that Britain expected a response from Russia by the end of the day on Tuesday. Russia has denied any responsibility.
Option 3: Russia is in the process of being framed for a crime they did not commit in order to swing public opinion. If untrue, explain the rush to judgement and punishment via the controlled narrative, before a thorough and public evidence based investigation can be concluded ? Define Russia's motive for this narratively alleged crime.
Frameuphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameup
In the US, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime.[1]
Sometimes, the person who is framing someone else is the actual perpetrator of the crime. In other cases it is an attempt by law enforcement to get around due process. Motives include getting rid of political dissidents or "correcting" what they see as the court's mistake. Some lawbreakers will try to claim they were framed as a defense strategy.
Frameups in labor disputes sometimes swing public opinion one way or the other. In Massachusetts, during the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike, police acting on a tip discovered dynamite and blamed it on the union. National media echoed an anti-union message. Later, the police revealed that the dynamite had been wrapped in a magazine addressed to the son of the former mayor. The man had received an unexplained payment from the largest of the employers. Exposed, the plot swung public sympathy to the union.[2]
Frameups are often part of conspiracy theories. For example, there were frameup accusations in the anthrax incident involving the United States Postal Service.[3]
A frameup where a police officer shoots an unarmed suspect and then places a weapon near the body is a form of police misconduct known as a "throw down" used to justify the shooting.[4]
Narrative paradigm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_paradigm
Narrative paradigm is a communication theory conceptualized by 20th-century communication scholar Walter Fisher. The paradigm claims that all meaningful communication occurs via storytelling or reporting of events. Humans participate as storytellers and observers of narratives. This theory further claims that stories are more persuasive than arguments.[1][2] Essentially the narrative paradigm helps us to explain how humans are able to understand complex information through narrative.
Background
The Narrative Paradigm is a theory that suggests that human beings are natural storytellers and that a good story is more convincing than a good argument. Walter Fisher developed this theory as a solution making cohesive arguments. Fisher conceptualized the paradigm as a way to combat issues in the public sphere.[3] The issue was that human beings were unable to make cohesive traditional arguments. At the time, rational world paradigm was the theory used to satisfy public controversies. He believed that stories have the power to include beginning, middle, and end of an argument and that the rational world paradigm fails to be effective in sensemaking.[4]
Fisher uses the term paradigm rather than theory, meaning a paradigm is broader than a theory. Fisher stated, "There is no genre, including technical communication, that is not an episode in the story of life."[5]
Fisher believed that humans are not rational and proposed that narrative is the basis of communication. According to this viewpoint, people communicate by telling/observing a persuasive story rather than by producing evidence or constructing a logical argument. The narrative paradigm is purportedly all-encompassing, allowing all communication to be looked at as a narrative even though it may not conform to the traditional literary requirements of a narrative. He states:
Humans see the world as a set of stories. Each individual accepts stories that match his or her values and beliefs, understood as common sense.[6]
Although people claim that their decisions are rational,[6] incorporating history, culture, and perceptions about the other people involved, all of these are subjective and incompletely understood.
Narrative rationality requires stories to be probable, coherent and to exhibit fidelity.[7]
Storytelling is one of the first language skills that children develop. It is universal across cultures and time.[8]
Rational world paradigm
Walter Fisher conceptualized the Narrative Paradigm in direct contrast to the Rational World Paradigm. "Fisher's interest in narrative developed out of his conclusion that the dominant model for explaining human communication—the rational-world paradigm—was inadequate."[4] Rational World Paradigm suggest that an argument is most persuasive when it is logical. This theory is based in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
Comparison
Narrative paradigm
1. Humans are storytellers.
2. Decision making and communication are based on "good reasons".
3. Good reasons are determined by matters of history, biography, culture and character.
4. Rationality is based in people's awareness of internal consistency and resemblance to lived experience.
5. We experience a world that is filled with stories, and we must choose among them.
Rational world paradigm
1. Humans are rational.
2. Decision making is based on arguments.
3. Arguments adhere to specific criteria for soundness and logic.
4. Rationality is based on the quality of evidence and formal reasoning processes.
5. The world can be understood as a series of logical relationships that are uncovered through reasoning.
According to Aristotle, some statements are superior to others by virtue of their relationship to true knowledge. This view claims that:
People are essentially thinking beings, basing their knowledge on evidence-based reasoning.
Rational argument reflects knowledge and understanding, and how the case is made. These qualities determine whether the argument is accepted, so long as the form matches the forum, which might be scientific, legal, philosophical, etc.
The world is a set of logical puzzles that can be solved through reason.[9]
Narrative rationality
Narrative rationality requires coherence and fidelity, which contribute to judgments about reasons.[10]
Coherence
Narrative coherence is the degree to which a story makes sense. Coherent stories are internally consistent, with sufficient detail, reliable characters, and free of major surprises. The ability to assess coherence is learned and improves with experience. Individuals determine assess a story's coherence by comparing it with similar stories. The ultimate test of narrative coherence is whether the characters act in a reliable way. If characters show continuity throughout their thoughts, motives and actions, acceptance increases. However, characters behaving uncharacteristically destroys acceptance.[11]
Fidelity
Narrative fidelity is the degree to which a story fits into the observer's prior understanding. Stories with fidelity may influence their beliefs and values.[12]
Fisher set five criteria that affect a story's narrative fidelity:
the values embedded in the story
the connection between the story, and the espoused values
the possible outcomes that would accrue to people adhering to the espoused values
the consistency of the narrative's values with the observer's values
the extent to which the story's values represent the highest values possible in human experience[13]
Evaluation of reasoning systems
Fisher's narrative paradigm offers an alternative to Aristotelian analysis, which dominates the field of rhetorical thinking. Narratives do not require training or expertise to evaluate. Common sense assesses narrative coherence and fidelity.[14] Busselle and Bilandzic distinguish narrative rationality from realism, writing "It is remarkable that the power of narrative is not diminished by readers' or viewers' knowledge that the story is invented. On the contrary, successful stories—those that engage us most—often are both fictional and unrealistic."[15]
Alternatively, Foucault claimed that communications systems are formed through the savoir and pouvoir (knowledge and power) of the hierarchies that control access to the discourses. Hence, criteria for assessing the reliability and completeness of evidence, and whether the pattern of reasoning is sound are not absolutes but defined over time by those in positions of authority. This is particularly significant when the process of reasoning includes values and policy in addition to empirical data.
The narrative paradigm instead asserts that any individual can judge a story's merits as a basis for belief and action.[3]
Narration affects every aspect of each individual's life in verbal and nonverbal bids for someone to believe or act in a certain way. Even when a message appears abstract—i.e., the language is literal and not figurative—it is narration. This is because it is embedded in the storyteller's ongoing story and it invites observers to assess its value for their own lives.
Narrative rationality and narrative emotion are complementary within a narrative theory. The former considers how effectively the story conveys its meaning, as well as its implications. The latter considers the emotional reactions of the story's observers.[16] Narrative emotion is an emotion felt for the sake of someone, or something, else.[16]
Applications
Narrative theory is an assessment framework within various fields of communication. Those who use narrative theory within their research refer to it as a general way of viewing communication. The narrative paradigm is generally considered an interpretative theory of communication.[17] It is an especially useful theory for teaching qualitative research methods.[18]
Fisher's theory has been considered for domains ranging from organizational communication to family interaction, to racism, and to advertising. McNamara proposed that the narrative paradigm can be used with military storytelling towards to enhance the perception of the United States armed services.[19] Stutts and Barker of Virginia Commonwealth University, proposed that the Narrative Paradigm can be used to evaluate if a company's brand will be well received by consumers, by determining if the created narrative has coherence and fidelity.[20] Other researchers proposed using the narrative paradigm to evaluate ethical standards in advertising.[21] Roberts used the narrative paradigm as a way to better understand the use of narrative in folklore.[22] Hobart proposed using narrative theory as a way to interpret urban legends and other kinds of hoaxes.[23]
Narrative paradigm is also applicable when assessing multinational working relationships. Global interactions between groups with different backgrounds have the tendency to hinder group progress and building relationships. Over the past two decades, scholars conceptualize diversity in the workplace using several different theories. As companies continue to diversify, business look for communication models to help manage the complex structure of human relationships. Narrative paradigm serves as a communication technique that shows companies how the application of a good story could provide benefits in the workforce. Storytelling is a cross-cultural solution that establishes credibility and trust in relationships between workers.[24]
Narrative and politics
One example of a study that used narrative theory more directly was conducted Smith in 1984. Smith looked at the fidelity and coherence of narratives presented as Republican and Democrat Party platforms in the United States and found that despite obvious differences, each party was able to maintain coherence and fidelity by remaining consistent in both structure and overarching party values.[25]
Narrative and health communication
A study claimed that narrative features can be strategically altered by health communicators to affect the reader's identification. It found that similarities between the reader and the narrative's protagonist, but not the narrator's point of view, has a direct impact on the narrative's persuasiveness.[26]
Narrative and branding
Narrative processing can create or enhance connections between a brand and an audience.[27] Companies and business use stories or brands that suggest a story, to produce brand loyalty. Businesses invest heavily in creating a good story through advertising and public relations.[28] In brand development, many marketers focus on defining a brand persona (typical user) before constructing a narrative for that brand. Character traits such as honesty, curiosity, flexibility and determination become embedded in the persona. Commitment to the associated behavioral implications can help the brand maintain consistency with its narrative.[29]
Criticism
Critics of the narrative paradigm mainly contend that it is not as universally applicable as Fisher suggests. For example, Rowland asserted that it should be applied strictly to communication that fits classic narrative patterns to avoid undermining its credibility.[30]
Other critiques include issues of conservative bias. Kirkwood stated that Fisher's logic of good reasons focuses only on prevailing issues,[31] but does not see all the ways that stories can promote social change.[32] In some ways, both Kirkwood and Fisher agree that this observation is more of an extension to the theory than a critique.
Stroud considered "multivalent" narratives that include seemingly contradictory values or positions that force a reader to reconstruct their meaning, thereby enabling positive judgments of narrative fidelity and the adoption of new values.[33]
Some forms of communication are not narrative in the way that Fisher maintains. Many science fiction and fantasy novels/movies challenge rather than conform to common values.[32]
The narrative approach does not provide a more democratic structure compared to the one imposed by the rational world paradigm. Nor does it offer a complete alternative to that paradigm.[34] The narrative paradigm gained attention from poststructuralist education theorists for appealing the notions of truth.[35]
Related theories
Rhetoric theory
The narrative paradigm incorporates both the pathos and logos form of rhetoric theory. Rhetoric theory was formulated by Aristotle.[36] He defines rhetoric as: the available means of persuasion.[32] It includes two assumptions.
Effective public speakers must consider their audience.
Effective public speakers supply proofs.
Aristotle divided public speaking into three parts: the speaker, the subject and the audience. He considered the audience the most important, determining the speech's end and object. Therefore, audience analysis, which is the process of evaluating an audience and its background is essential.
In the second assumption, Aristotle's proof refers to the means of persuasion. And these three proof types are Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
Ethos: The perceived character, intelligence and goodwill of a speaker as they become revealed through his or her speech.
Logos: The logic proof that speakers employ.
Pathos: The emotions that are drawn out of listeners.
Rhetoric theory can be applied in multiple areas, such as in the social/environmental report,[37] Facebook post, etc.
Situation models
When people experience a story, the comprehension phase is where they form a mental representation of the text.[38] Such a mental representation is called a situation model. Situation models are representations of the state of affairs described in a text rather than of the text itself. Much of the research suggests that observers behave as though they are in the story rather than outside of it. This supports Fisher's model that narrative components supported by good reasons are related to components in situation models.
Space
Situation models represent relevant aspects of the narrative's environment. Objects that are spatially close to observers are generally more relevant than more distant objects. The same holds for situation models. Observers are similarly slower to recognize words denoting objects distant from a protagonist than those close to the protagonist.[39] When observers have extensive knowledge of the spatial layout of the story setting (e.g., a building), they update their representations according to the location and goals of the protagonist. They have the fastest mental access to the room that the protagonist is close to. For example, they can more readily say whether two objects are in the same room if the room mentioned is close to the protagonist. The interpretation of the meaning of a verb denoting the movement of people or objects in space, such as to approach, depends on their situation models. The interpretation of observers also depends on the size of the landmark and the speed of the figure. Observers behave as if they are actually present in the situation.[40]
Goals and causation
In one study observers recognized goals yet to be accomplished by the protagonist more quickly than goals that had just been accomplished. When Keefe and McDaniel presented subjects with sentences such as "after standing through a 3-hour debate, the tired speaker walked over to his chair (and sat down)" and then with probe words (e.g., "sat").[41] Subjects took about the same amount of time to name sat when the clause about the speaker sitting down was omitted and when it was included. Moreover, naming times were significantly faster in both of these conditions than in a control condition, in which it was implied that the speaker remained standing.[42]
Jill Dando murder: Five unanswered theories as unsolved shooting of BBC star reaches 17th anniversary
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-murder-five-unanswered-7764700
ByRichard Wheatstone
06:00, 26 APR 2016
The 38-year-old presenter was shot dead on the doorstep of her home in Fulham, West London, in what remains one of the UK's most high-profile unsolved murders
Today marks the 17th anniversary of the murder of Jill Dando.
The 38-year-old BBC star was shot dead on the doorstep of her home in Fulham, West London in what remains one of the UK's most high-profile unsolved murders.
Barry George, a loner who lived a few minutes from Jill's house, was jailed for eight years for her murder but cleared after a retrial in 2008 following concerns raised over forensic evidence.
Last year, files obtained by investigative reporter Mark Williams-Thomas and the Sunday Mirror revealed a number of leads which appear to have been pushed to one side as Scotland Yard pursued its case against Barry George.
The investigation has never been officially closed but despite calls for a fresh probe it is understood little or no police time has been devoted to the case since December 2013.
In a short statement, Scotland Yard told the Mirror this week: "If any new information comes to our attention then this will be investigated."
We re-visit the theories which appear to still be unexplained as the mystery over Jill's killer goes on.
1) Jill was murdered by a hitman ordered by one of London's most prominent crime families
Jill Dando was shot with a single bullet to the head in broad daylight on a busy London street.
The killer then slipped away without leaving a trace of DNA at the scene or even a definitive sighting.
The shooting appeared to have all the hallmarks of a professional gangland hit.
An intelligence report named two men from one of London's most prominent crime families.
It suggested Jill was being targeted for investigating crime on television.
But the lead detective on the Dando case , DCI Hamish Campbell, ordered no further action on the report. Prime suspect Barry George had already been charged.
2) Serbian mafia carried out hit in revenge for Nato-led bombing of TV station
Detectives were told Serbian mobsters based in Britain plotted the assassination over drinks at a nightclub.
The tip-off accusing the Serb gangsters claimed they carried out the hit in revenge for a Nato-led bombing of a Serbian TV station.
A message filed to detectives said: "Dando was murdered by a Serb hitman in revenge for the attack that Nato mounted...
"The people who planned Dando's murder meet and drink in a club called Scandal in London's West End. One of those involved is a tall male with a swallow tattoo on his neck."
Files also reveal that a call to BBC Television Centre three days after Jill's murder contained a death threat against Watchdog stars Anne Robinson and Alice Beer.
A record of the call said: "From Serbia, going to kill Anne Robinson, Alice Beer and two others." Police traced it to Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, but found no way of tracking the culprit.
Jill had fronted a TV appeal for Kosovan-Albanian refugees just weeks before her death, which is believed to have enraged Serb paramilitaries.
Four Serbs are currently on trial over a killing with striking similarities - they are accused of assassinating Slavko Curuvija, a journalist and critic of the Serb regime who was shot in the head at point-blank range outside his home 15 days before Jill's death.
3) IRA revenge killing
Among 52,000 documents provided to Barry George's legal team, were files revealing a convicted killer penned a letter from prison claiming he was part of a four-man IRA hit squad that murdered Jill.
Wayne Aird claimed senior paramilitaries chose her as a target because of her links to police through her work presenting Crimewatch .
He wrote the letter from his cell at Wakefield prison where he was serving life for killing a man two months after Jill's death.
Aird said a member of the gang shot her with a 9mm bullet before they escaped in Land Rovers to a safe house in the capital.
He said he was confessing because he did not want George to be part of an Establishment cover-up.
Aird claimed that the IRA was being allowed to get away with Jill's killing to avoid harming the Northern Ireland peace process.
It is understood that police were made aware of Aird's letter but did not investigate further
4) Jill was murdered after trying to expose 'VIP paedophile ring'
In 2014, a former colleague claimed Jill tried to raise concerns to BBC bosses about allegations of paedophile ring and other incidents of sexual abuse at the Beeb months before her death.
The source said: "I don't recall the names of all the stars now and don't want to implicate anyone, but Jill said they were surprisingly big names.
"I think she was quite shocked when told about images of children and that information on how to join this horrible paedophile ring was freely available.
"Jill said others had complained to her about sexual matters and that some female workmates also claimed they had been groped or assaulted."
The colleague claimed BBC bosses "didn't want to know" when Jill reported the allegations.
A BBC spokesman said they would always investigate any allegations of this nature, but added: "We've not seen anything that substantiates these claims."
5) 'Joe' the Spanish barman
A report, from the now-defunct National Criminal Intelligence Service, said Jill's killing could be traced to a gunman called Joe in Spain.
He was linked to murderer Kenneth Noye, who is serving life for a 1996 road rage killing and was put away with the help of a Crimewatch appeal.
The report said: "Joe runs a bar in Tenerife, frequented by leading ex-pat criminals. He's described as a frustrated gangster reputed to owe money to Kenny Noye.
"There's been talk Joe has been keen to rehabilitate his reputation with gangster creditors."
Joe allegedly came to the UK specifically to carry out the crime.
It appears that Joe was never traced.
Jill Dando timeline
April 26, 1999, 11.30am Jill's shot dead with single bullet to the head outside her home in Fulham, South West London.
May 25, 2000 Police arrest Barry George, also known as Barry Bulsara, following surveillance on him.
July 2, 2001 A jury finds George guilty of murder on a 10-1 majority. He is later sentenced to life imprisonment.
July 29, 2002 George loses an appeal against his conviction at the Court of Appeal in London.
December 16 House of Lords refuses permission for George to mount a further challenge.
March 25, 2006 It is revealed lawyers for George have submitted new evidence which they believe undermines safety of his conviction.
June 20, 2007 Criminal Cases Review Commission refers the conviction to the Court of Appeal.
October 29 Foreman of the jury that convicted George in 2001 says he might have been found not guilty if crucial evidence linked to firearms residue found in his pocket was presented differently.
November 5 George begins second appeal.
November 15 George's appeal is upheld and a retrial ordered after scientists challenge firearms evidence.
June 9, 2008 Retrial begins at the Old Bailey with the judge ruling out the inclusion of the residue evidence.
August 1 George cleared of the Crimewatch presenter's murder. He loses bid for compensation in 2013.
February 2014 Serbian assassins linked to the murder.
Corbyn, the Kremlin stooge: Mutinous Labour MPs accuse him of appeasement for not condemning Putin over the Salisbury attack
Why the edit for the online version Daily Mail, is this another Cameron BlackBerry moment ? The paper version on all the news stands in the UK today went out like this:
https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/daily-mail/front-pages-today.cfm?frontpage=53401
France, Germany, US Demand Russia Explain UK Attack Despite Decrying May's "Fantasy Politics"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-15/macron-rejects-mays-fantasy-politics-says-he-wants-more-proof-russia-behind-skripal
Update: Just hours after Macron issued the statement below demanding "more proof" and decrying May's "fantasy politics," it appears a phone call with the UK has changed the attitude and Germany, US, and France have now issued a statement that says they agree with UK that "Russia must be responsible" for the UK attack.
The countries are "horrified" at the attack, according to the joint statement, and explain in full-Haley (Colin-Powell-esque) fearmongery, warn the attack "threatens the security of us all" and Russia must explain the UK attack.
As AP reports, the leaders of the United States, France, Germany and Britain say they are united in blaming Russia for a nerve agent attack on former spy Sergei Skripal.
In a rare joint statement, President Donald Trump, President Emmanual Macron, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Theresa May say "there is no plausible alternative explanation" to Russian responsibility in the March 4 attack in England.
They say Russia's failure to respond to Britain's "legitimate request" for an explanation "further underlines its responsibility."
First use of nerve agent in Europe since World War II "threatens all of our security"
The leaders say the use of a chemical weapon is "an assault on U.K. sovereignty" and "a breach of international law."
"We call on Russia to respond to all questions connected with the attack in Salisbury," particularly those relating to its Novichok program
Britain has expelled 23 Russian diplomats and suspended high-level contacts with Moscow over the incident. Russia is expected to take retaliatory measures soon.
* * *
As we detailed earlier, UK Prime Minister made many of her European allies uneasy (particularly those who, like Germany, rely on Russia for supplies of LNG) on Monday when she accused the Russian government of masterminding an attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal - an attack that left 18 bystanders and one law-enforcement officer hospitalized.
And with Russia threatening to retaliate, France's Emmanuel Macron - hardly a far-right authoritarian - is speaking up and undermining May's push to rally international support for another round of sanctions against Russia, according to RT.
Macron said he wants more proof linking Russia to the attack - which occurred at a shopping center in Salisbury earlier this month. So far, the UK government has essentially admitted that its strongest evidence was the presence at the scene of a nerve agent known to have been developed in Russia. May has threatened sanctions in response to the attack. And on Tuesday, she ordered 23 Russian diplomats to leave the country. The reaction resembled the UK's response to the death via radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.
Via a spokesman, Macron accused May of engaging in "fantasy politics."
On Wednesday, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and the suspension of bilateral talks. May claimed Russia was "culpable" for the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, which amounted to "unlawful use of force against the UK."
However, President Emmanuel Macron's spokesman suggested May was acting prematurely. "We don't do fantasy politics. Once the elements are proven then the time will come for decisions to be made, Benjamin Griveaux told a news conference in Paris.
Griveaux added that France was waiting for "definitive conclusions" and evidence that the "facts were completely true" before taking a position. He said that the Salisbury poisoning was a "serious act" against a strategic ally, but France would await evidence of Russian involvement before taking a position.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has asked the UK for a sample of the toxin that it's citing as evidence so that it might be examined by Russia.
Lavrov has also threatened to retaliate by expelling British diplomats. Russia has also refused to respond to the UK's demand that it furnish an explanation for how the nerve agent came to be found at the scene. Did Russia deliberately plan the attack? Or did it simply recklessly lose track of dangerous chemical weapons? The UK said it would give Russia a day to respond, infuriating the Kremlin.
In return, Russia has sternly rebuked the UK for its conduct, cautioning that "one does not give 24 hours notice to a nuclear power."
In addition to refusing to share the toxin, the UK is resisting settling the issue through the proper channels - ie the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia and the UK are both members.
Moscow's permanent representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, said Wednesday that "we demand that material proof be provided of the allegedly found Russian trace in this high-resonance event. Without this, stating that there is incontrovertible truth is not something that we can take into account."
Even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has also challenged May's evidence of Russian culpability. Corbyn believes there is not enough proof to conclude Russia was behind the incident.
"The government has access to information and intelligence on this matter which others don't. However, there is also a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly," said Corbys spokesman Seumas Milne. "I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons."
* * *
However, as one Twitter user pointed out, if Russian President Vladimir Putin really did personally authorize the "wet job" - FSB-speak for assassination - then for a reportedly 'smart guy', he picked a remarkably ill-time moment to carry out such an attack...
Tom Slaughter
@tgs31952
This Putin guy is really something: at the height of anti-Russian hysteria in the west, and right before both the Russian election and World Cup, he decides the time is right to execute a spy living openly in the UK since 2010 using a Russian nerve agent.
8:14 PM - Mar 12, 2018
[Read the comments at the source link!]
When dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal
http://thesaker.is/when-dealing-with-a-bear-hubris-is-suicidal/
[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]
Assuming mankind finds a way not to destroy itself in the near future and assuming that there will still be historians in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, I bet you that they will look at the AngloZionist Empire and see the four following characteristics as some of its core features: lies, willful ignorance, hypocrisy, and hysterics. To illustrate my point I will use the recent "Skripal nerve-gas assassination" story as it really encompasses all of these characteristics.
I won't even bother debunking the official nonsense here as others have done a very good job of pointing out the idiocy of the official narrative. If you are truly capable of believing that "Putin" (that is the current collective designator for the Evil Empire of Mordor currently threatening all of western civilization) would order the murder of a man whom a Russian military court sentenced to only 13 years in jail (as opposed to life or death) and who was subsequently released as part of a swap with the USA, you can stop reading right now and go back to watching TV. I personally have neither the energy nor the inclination to even discuss such a self-evidently absurd theory. No, what I do want to do is use this story as a perfect illustration of the kind of society we now all live in looked at from a moral point of view. I realize that we live in a largely value-free society where moral norms have been replaced by ideological orthodoxy, but that is just one more reason for me to write about what is taking place precisely focusing on the moral dimensions of current events.
Lies and the unapologetic denial of reality:
In a 2015 article entitled "A society of sexually frustrated Pinocchios" I wrote the following:
I see a direct cause and effect relationship between the denial of moral reality and the denial of physical reality. I can't prove that, of course, but here is my thesis: Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With "principles" such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all "for the greater glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real, objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have thereof. Fast forward another 10 centuries or so and we end up with the modern "Gayropa" (as Europe is now often referred to in Russia): not only has God been declared 'dead' and all notions of right and wrong dismissed as "cultural", but even objective reality has now been rendered contingent upon political expediency and ideological imperatives.
I went on to quote George Orwell by reminding how he defined "doublethink" in his book 1984:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it (...) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality"
and I concluded by saying that "The necessary corollary from this state of mind is that only appearances matter, not reality".
This is exactly what we are observing; not only in the silly Skripal nerve-gas assassination story but also in all the rest of the Russophobic nonsense produced by the AngloZionist propaganda machine including the "Litvinenko polonium murder" and the "Yushchenko dioxin poisoning". The fact that neither nerve-gas, nor polonium nor dioxin are in any way effective murder weapons does not matter in the least: a simple drive-by shooting, street-stabbing or, better, any "accident" is both easier to arrange and impossible to trace. Fancy assassination methods are used when access to the target is very hard or impossible (as was the case with Ibn al-Khattab, whose assassination the Russians were more than happy to take credit for; this might also have been the case with the death of Yasser Arafat). But the best way of murdering somebody is to simply make the body disappear, making any subsequent investigation almost impossible. Finally, you can always subcontract the assassination to somebody else like, for example, when the CIA tried and failed, to murder Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussain Fadlallah by subcontracting his bombing to its local "Christian" allies, killing over 80 innocent people in the process. There is plenty of common crime in the UK and to get somebody to rob and stab Skripal would have probably been the easiest version. That's assuming that the Russians had any reason to want him dead, which they self-evidently didn't.
But here is the important thing: every single criminal or intelligence specialist in the West understands all of the above. But that does not stop the Ziomedia from publishing articles like this one "A Brief History of Attempted Russian Assassinations by Poison" which also lists people poisoned by Russians:
Skripal by nerve gas
Litvinenko by polonium
Kara-Murza poisoned not once, but TWICE, by an unknown poison, he survived!
Markov poisoned by ricin and the Bulgarians with "speculated KGB assistance"
Khattab by sarin or a sarin-derivative
Yushchenko by dioxin
Perepilichny by "a rare, toxic flower, gelsemium" (I kid you not, check the article!)
Moskalenko by mercury
Politkovskaya who was shot, but who once felt "ill after drinking some tea that she believed contained poison"
The only possible conclusion from this list is this: there is some kind of secret lab in Russia where completely incompetent chemists try every poison known to man, not on rats or on mice, but on high profile AngloZionist-supported political activists, preferably before an important political event.
Right.
By the way, the gas allegedly used in the attack, "Novichok", was manufactured in Uzbekistan and the cleanup of the factory producing it was made by, you guessed it, a US company. Just saying...
In any halfway honest and halfway educated society, those kind of articles should result in the idiot writing it being summarily fired for gross incompetence and the paper/journal posting it being discredited forever. But in our world, the clown who wrote that nonsense (Elias Groll, a Harvard graduate and – listen to this – a specialist of "cyberspace and its conflicts and controversies" (sic)) is a staff writer of the award-winning Foreign Policy magazine.
So what does it tell us, and future historians, when this kind of crap is written by a staff writer of an "award winning" media outlet? Does it not show that our society has now reached a stage in its decay (I can't call that "development") where lies become the norm? Not only are even grotesque and prima facie absurd lies accepted, they are expected (if only because they reinforce the current ideological Zeitgeist. The result? Our society is now packed with first, zombified ideological drones who actually believe any type of officially proclaimed of nonsense and, second, by cowards who lack the basic courage to denounce even that which they themselves know to be false.
Lies, however ridiculous and self-evidently stupid, have become the main ingredient of the modern political discourse. Everybody knows this and nobody cares. When challenged on this, the typical defense used is always the same: "you are the only person saying this – I sure ever heard this before!".
Willful ignorance as a universal cop-out
We all know the type. You tell somebody that his/her theory makes absolutely no sense or is not supported by facts and the reply you get is some vaguely worded refusal to engage in an disputation. Initially, you might be tempted to believe that, indeed, your interlocutor is not too bright and not too well read, but eventually you realize that there is something very different happening: the modern man actually makes a very determined effort not to be capable of logical thought and not to be informed of the basic facts of the case. And what is true for specific individuals is even more true of our society as a whole. Let's take one simple example: Operation Gladio:
"Gladio" is really an open secret by now. Excellent books and videos have been written about this and even the BBC has made a two and a half hour long video about it. There is even an entire website dedicated to the story of this huge, continent-wide, terrorist organization specializing in false flag operations. That's right: a NATO-run terrorist network in western Europe involved in false flag massacres like the infamous Bologna train station bombing. No, not the Soviet KGB backing the Baader-Meinhof Red Army Faction or the Red Brigades in Italy. No, the USA and West European governments organizing, funding and operating a terrorist network directed at the people of Western, not Eastern, Europe. Yes, at their own people! In theory, everybody should know about this, the information is available everywhere, even on the hyper-politically correct Wikipedia. But, again, nobody cares.
The end of the Cold War was marked by a seemingly endless series of events which all provided a pretext for AngloZionist interventions (from the Markale massacres in Bosnia, to the Srebrenica "genocide", to the Racak massacre Kosovo, to the "best" and biggest one of them all, 9/11 of course). Yet almost nobody wondered if the same people or, at least, the same kind of people who committed all the Gladio crimes might be involved. Quite the opposite: each one of these events was accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign mindlessly endorsing and even promoting the official narrative, even when it self-evidently made no sense whatsoever (like 2 aircraft burning down 3 steel towers). As for Gladio, it was conveniently "forgotten".
There is a simple principle in psychology, including, and especially in criminal psychology which I would like to prominently restate here:
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior
Every criminalist knows that and this is why criminal investigators place so much importance on the "modus operandi", i.e. the particular way or method a suspect or a criminal chooses in the course of the execution of his/her crimes. That is also something which everybody knows. So let's summarize this in a simple thesis:
Western regimes have a long and well-established track record of regularly executing bloody false-flag operations in pursuit of political objectives, especially those providing them with a pretext to justify an illegal military aggression.
Frankly, I submit that the thesis above is really established not only by a preponderance of evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt. Right?
Maybe. But that is also completely irrelevant because nobody gives a damn! Not the reporters who lie for a living nor, even less so, the brainwashed zombies who read their nonsense and take it seriously. The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro over 600 times – who cares?! All we know is that the good folks at Langley would never, ever, kill a Russian in the UK, out of respect for international law, probably...
That willful ignorance easily defeats history, facts or logic.
Here is a simple question a journalist could ask: "would the type of people who had no problems blowing up an large train station, or bringing down three buildings in downtown New York, have any hesitation in using a goofy method to try kill a useless Russian ex-spy if that could justify further hostile actions against a country which they desperately need to demonize to justify and preserve the current AngloZionist world order?". The answer I think is self-evident. The question shall therefore not be asked. Instead, soy-boys from Foreign Policy mag will tell us about how the Russians use exotic flowers to kill high visibility opponents whose death would serve no conceivable political goal.
Hypocrisy as a core attribute of the modern man
Willful ignorance is important, of course, but it is not enough. For one thing, being ignorant, while useful to dismiss a fact-based and/or logical argument, is not something useful to establish your moral superiority or the legality of your actions. Empire requires much more than just obedience from its subject: what is also absolutely indispensable is a very strong sense of superiority which can be relied upon when committing a hostile action against the other guy. And nothing is as solid a foundation for a sense of superiority than the unapologetic reliance on brazen hypocrisy. Let's take a fresh example: the latest US threats to attack Syria (again).
Irrespective of the fact that the USA themselves have certified Syria free of chemical weapons and irrespective of the fact that US officials are still saying that they have no evidence that the Syrian government was involved in any chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun, the USA is now preparing to strike Syria again in "response" to future chemical attacks! Yes, you read that right. The AngloZionists are now announcing their false flags in advance! In fact, by the time this analysis is published the attack will probably already have occurred. The "best" part of this all is that Nikki Haley has now announced to the UN Security Council that the US will act without any UN Security Council approval. What the USA is declaring is this: "we reserve the right to violate international law at any time and for any reason we deem sufficient". In the very same statement, Nikki Haley also called the Syrian government an "outlaw regime". This is not a joke, check it out for yourself. The reaction in "democratic" Europe: declaring that *Russia* (not the US) is a rogue state. QED.
This entire circus is only made possible by the fact that the western elites have all turned into "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies" (to use the wonderful words of Boris Johnson) and that absolutely nobody has the courage, or decency, to call all this what it really is: an obscene display of total hypocrisy and wholesale violation of all norms of international law. The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern "journalists are either unemployed or prostitutes" (he spoke about the French media – un journaliste français c'est soit une pute soit un chômeur – but this fully applies to all the western media). Except that I would extend it to the entire Western Establishment.
I would further argue that foreign aggression and hypocrisy have become the two essential pillars for the survival of the AngloZionist empire: the first one being an economic and political imperative, the 2nd one being the prerequisite for the public justification of the first one. But sometimes even that is not enough, especially when the lies are self-evidently absurd. Then the final, quasi-miraculous element is always brought in: hysterics.
Hysteria as the highest form of (pseudo-)liberalism
I don't particularly care for the distinction usually made between liberals and conservatives, at least not unless the context and these terms is carefully and accurately defined. I certainly don't place myself on that continuum nor do find it analytically helpful.
The theoretical meaning of these concepts is, however, quite different from what is mostly understood under these labels, especially when people use them to identify themselves. That is to say that while I am not at all sure that those who think of themselves as, say, liberals are in any way truly liberal, I do think that people who would identify themselves as "liberals" often (mostly?) share a number of characteristics, the foremost of which is a very strong propensity to function at, and engage in, an hysterical mode of discourse and action.
The Google definition of hysteria is "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people (...) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior". Is that not a perfect description of US politicians, especially the (putatively) "liberal" ones? Just think of the way US Democrats have capitalized on such (non-)issues as "Russian interference" (externally) or "gun control" (internally) and you will see that the so-called "liberals" never get off a high-emotional pitch. The best example of all, really, is their reaction to the election of Donald Trump instead of their cult-leader Hillary: it has been over a year since Trump has been elected and yet the liberal ziomedia and its consumers are still in full-blown hysteria mode (with "pussyhats", "sky-screams" and all). In a conversation you can literally drown such a liberal with facts, statistics, expert testimonies, etc. and achieve absolutely no result whatsoever because the liberal lives in an ideological comfort zone which he/she is categorically unwilling and, in fact, unable, to abandon, even temporarily. This is what makes liberals such a *perfect* audience for false-flag operations: they simply won't process the narrative presented to them in a logical manner but will immediately react to it in a strongly emotional manner, usually with the urge to immediately "do something".
That "do something" is usually expressed in the application of violence (externally) and the imposition of bans/restrictions/regulations (internally). You can try to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Russians would ever want to do is to use a stupid method to try to kill a person who is of absolutely no interest to them, or to explain to that liberal that the very last thing the Syrian government would ever do in the course of its successful liberation of its national territory from "good terrorists" would be to use chemical weapons of any kind – but you would never achieve anything: Trump must be impeached, the Russians sanctioned and the Syrians bombed, end of argument.
I am quite aware that there are a lot of self-described "conservatives" who have fully joined this chorus of hysterical liberals in all their demands, but these "conservatives" are not only acting out of character, they are simply caving in to the social pressure of the day, being the "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies" mentioned above. Again, I am not discussing real liberals or real conservatives here (regardless of what these terms really mean), I am talking about those who, for whatever reason, chose to place that label upon themselves even if they personally have only a very vague idea of what this label is supposed to mean.
So there we have it: an Empire built (and maintained) on lies, accepted on the basis ignorance, justified by hypocrisy and energized by hysterics. This is what the "Western world" stands for nowadays. And while there is definitely a vocal minority of "resisters" (from the Left and the Right – also two categories I don't find analytically helpful – and from many other schools of political thought), the sad reality is that the vast majority of people around us accept this and see no reason to denounce it, nevermind doing something about it. That is why "they" got away with 9/11 and why "they" will continue to get away with future false-flags because the people lied to, realize, at least on some level, that they are being lied to and yet they simply don't care. Truly, the Orwellian slogans of 1984 "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" perfectly fit our world. However, when dealing with the proverbial Russian bear, there is one lesson of history which western leaders really should never forget and which they should also turn into a slogan: when dealing with a bear, hubris is suicidal.
The Saker
[Read the comments at the source link!]
British foreign secretary: Likely 'Putin's decision' to order use of nerve agent in UKhttps://www.rt.com/uk/421499-johnson-skripal-salisbury-putin/ (https://www.rt.com/uk/421499-johnson-skripal-salisbury-putin/)
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it is overwhelmingly likely it was Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to direct the nerve agent attack against Sergei Skripal and his daughter.
During a museum visit in west London alongside his Polish counterpart Jacek Czaputowicz, Johnson said:
"We have nothing against the Russians themselves. There is to be no Russophobia as a result of what is happening.""Our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision – and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision – to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK, on the streets of Europe for the first time since the Second World War."Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.16, 13:27:00
However, as one Twitter user pointed out, if Russian President Vladimir Putin really did personally authorize the "wet job" - FSB-speak for assassination - then for a reportedly 'smart guy', he picked a remarkably ill-time moment to carry out such an attack...
Tom Slaughter
@tgs31952
This Putin guy is really something: at the height of anti-Russian hysteria in the west, and right before both the Russian election and World Cup, he decides the time is right to execute a spy living openly in the UK since 2010 using a Russian nerve agent.
8:14 PM - Mar 12, 2018
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.16, 13:32:58
Assuming mankind finds a way not to destroy itself in the near future and assuming that there will still be historians in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, I bet you that they will look at the AngloZionist Empire and see the four following characteristics as some of its core features: lies, willful ignorance, hypocrisy, and hysterics. To illustrate my point I will use the recent "Skripal nerve-gas assassination" story as it really encompasses all of these characteristics.
I won't even bother debunking the official nonsense here as others have done a very good job of pointing out the idiocy of the official narrative. If you are truly capable of believing that "Putin" (that is the current collective designator for the Evil Empire of Mordor currently threatening all of western civilization) would order the murder of a man whom a Russian military court sentenced to only 13 years in jail (as opposed to life or death) and who was subsequently released as part of a swap with the USA, you can stop reading right now and go back to watching TV. I personally have neither the energy nor the inclination to even discuss such a self-evidently absurd theory. No, what I do want to do is use this story as a perfect illustration of the kind of society we now all live in looked at from a moral point of view. I realize that we live in a largely value-free society where moral norms have been replaced by ideological orthodoxy, but that is just one more reason for me to write about what is taking place precisely focusing on the moral dimensions of current events.
Lies and the unapologetic denial of reality:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.16, 13:51:08
"Our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin"
Look everyone, look! Boris told the truth!! He took Terl's advice and sweetened his lie with a tiny bit of truth.. but it's undeniably there, a little nugget, a grain of truth!
Could someone do me a favour and send this website address and documentation to all relevant departments of the UK Government, (Prime Minister, Foreign Office, BBC, Police Commissioner etc). It will help the UK on a path to non rogue state banana republic governance.. it's a lot to ask I know but hang in there and remain non violent, it's the only way to avoid a Pyrrhic victory!
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) (Section 23 (1)) Code of Practice
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/introduction/
Investigation
Introduction
The Code of Practice to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) defines a criminal investigation as:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447967/code-of-practice-approved.pdf
An investigation conducted by police officers with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence, or whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.
Investigations may be carried out in relation to:
crimes that have been committed
identifying whether a crime has actually been committed, with a view to commencing criminal proceedings
crimes that the police believe may be committed, for example, when premises or individuals are kept under observation for a period of time, with a view to the possible institution of criminal proceedings.
Investigations can be either reactive or proactive.
Ethics
The activities and processes of criminal investigation can attract considerable attention, partly due to media coverage of crime and criminal behaviour, but also because of the impact crime has on individuals and communities.
To build and maintain public confidence, the police have a responsibility to ensure that investigations are carried out professionally, ethically, and to an agreed standard. Under the remit of the national policing crime business area (CBA) portfolio, the professionalising investigation programme (PIP) was introduced to support this quality approach to investigations.
The success of an investigation relies on the goodwill and cooperation of victims, witnesses and the community. Investigators should be aware that:
investigations should be conducted with integrity, common sense and sound judgement
heavy-handed, discriminatory or disproportionate actions risk losing cooperation and any future criminal proceedings
effective investigators maintain a balance that recognises the concerns of all the parties involved
understanding the response to crime assists investigators to build this relationship
a professional approach to investigations benefits the victim, the public and the police.
'Not proxy': Lavrov says US, British, French special forces 'directly involved' in Syria war
https://www.rt.com/news/421582-lavrov-foreign-special-forces-syria/
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has condemned the illegal presence of US coalition troops in Syria, saying the Western forces deployed on the ground amount to "a direct involvement in the war."
"There are special forces on the ground in Syria from the US – they no longer deny it – the UK, France and a number of other countries," Lavrov said in an interview to the Kazakh state broadcaster published on the Russian Foreign Ministry's website on Saturday. "Thus, it's not so much of a 'proxy war,' but rather a direct involvement in the war," the diplomat stressed.
The US coalition is "illegitimate" from the standpoint of international law and the UN Charter, Lavrov said. "But we are realistic and understand that we wouldn't fight with them. So we coordinate actions at least to prevent unintended clashes. Our military always keeps in touch with the American commanders who lead the operation on Syrian territory."
Moscow is also in "a permanent dialogue" with the US General Staff officials "who actually lead the operation on the ground," the minister said.
Lavrov also stressed attacks on the Syrian and pro-Syrian forces in US-controlled areas deserve condemnation, given that Russia has been repeatedly and "solemnly" assured that the presence of the US military in Syria is aimed "exclusively" at fighting terrorists.
Lavrov also criticized the remarks by the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, about Washington's readiness to "bomb Damascus and even the presidential palace of Bashar Assad, regardless [of the] presence of the Russian representatives there.""It is an absolutely irresponsible statement," Lavrov said.
Well how about this! In an example of universal serendipitous timing I must have been channelling my inner MET, asking the question that any police officer with integrity would ask.. how can you solve a crime and name the perpetrator before you have collected the evidence and performed the investigation ? So which civil servant, if any, briefed the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and the Press ??
The last time I remember something this ridiculous happening a BBC reporter briefed the world LIVE that the Salomon Building (WTC 7) had just imploded, at free fall speed into it's own footprint, while the building could be clearly seen in the background behind her despite not being hit by a plane! the 47 storey building would not actually collapse for a full 20 minutes into the future! So who is getting fed the script of events to come, and who is doing the feeding ?? You are asking this question MET police, are you not ??
Renewed appeal for information from anyone who saw Salisbury victim's car
http://news.met.police.uk/news/renewed-appeal-for-information-from-anyone-who-saw-salisbury-victims-car-298912
Mar 17, 2018 10:49 GMT
Met Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said: "We are learning more about Sergei and Yulia's movements but we need to be clearer around their exact movements on the morning of the incident.
"We believe that at around 9.15am on Sunday, 4 March, Sergei's car may have been in the areas of London Road, Churchill Way North and Wilton Road. Then at around 1.30pm it was seen being driven down Devizes Road, towards the town centre.
"We need to establish Sergei and Yulia's movements during the morning, before they headed to the town centre. Did you see this car, or what you believe was this car, on the day of the incident? We are particularly keen to hear from you if you saw the car before 1.30pm. If you have information, please call the police on 101."
Anyone who has images or footage that may assist the investigation is asked to upload them at the secure website http://www.ukpoliceimageappeal.co.uk
AC Basu continued: "In any investigation, the information we receive from the public can be crucial to helping the police build a picture of events and in this case the public response has been immense. Around 400 witnesses have already given statements, with hundreds more to be taken in the coming days.
"This is an extremely challenging and complex investigation and we currently have around 250 exceptionally experienced and dedicated specialist officers from the counter terrorism network working around the clock on this case.
"They are being supported by hundreds more officers from across the police family, as well as the military and other emergency services.
"To date, detectives have recovered 762 exhibits and are trawling through around 4,000 hours of CCTV. They are making good progress in what is a painstaking investigation that is likely to be ongoing for weeks, if not months."
Russia Claims US Deploys Warships For Imminent Attack On Syria, Trains Militants For False Flag Attack
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-17/russia-claims-us-training-syrian-militants-false-flag-chemical-attack-justify
Last April, in one of the Trump administration's first "diplomatic" ventures, the US fired 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syria, in stated retaliation for the latest alleged chemical attack by the Assad regime, the same "false flag" excuse which was used by the US to officially enter the conflict back in 2013 when military tensions between the US and Russia nearly resulted in a regional war.
Well, it appears that Assad is a relentless glutton for punishment, because not even a year later, the WaPo reported two weeks ago that the US is considering a new military action against Syria for - what else - retaliation against Assad's latest chemical attack, which took place several weeks earlier.
How do we know Assad (and apparently, Russia) was behind the attack? We don't: in fact, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a moment of bizarre honesty, admitted that he really doesn't know much at all about "whoever conducted the attacks." But hey: just like it is "highly likely" that Russia poisoned the former Russian double agent in the UK - with no proof yet - so it is "highly likely" that a clearly irrational Assad was once again behind an attack which he knew would provoke violent and aggressive retaliation by the US, and once again destabilize his regime.
And so we now wait for that flashing, red headline saying that US ships in the Mediterranean have launched a missile attack on Syria, just like a year ago. Only this time Russia - which is allied with the Assad regime - is not planning to be on the defensive, and according to Russia's Defense Ministry, "US instructors" are currently training militants to stage false flag chemical attacks in south Syria, i.e., the catalyst that will be used to justify the US attack on Assad. The incidents, the ministry said, will be used a pretext for airstrikes on Syrian government troops and infrastructure.
"We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria," Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey Rudskoy said at a news briefing on Saturday.
According to the Russian, "early in March, the saboteur groups were deployed to the southern de-escalation zone to the city of Deraa, where the units of the so-called Free Syrian Army are stationed."
"They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to blame the government forces. The components to produce chemical munitions have been already delivered to the southern de-escalation zone under the guise of humanitarian convoys of a number of NGOs."
And, using the exact same worn out narrative as last April, and every prior "chemical attack by the Assad Regime", the "planned provocations will be widely covered in the Western media and will ultimately be used as a pretext by the US-led coalition to launch strikes on Syria", Rudskoy warned.
"The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria."
Confirming the WaPo's report from early March, it now appears that an attack is imminent.
"We're registering the signs of the preparations for the possible strikes. Strike groups of the cruise missile carriers have been formed in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf and Red Sea."
Rudskoy also warned that another false flag chemical attack is being prepared in the province of Idlib by the "Al-Nusra Front terrorist group, in coordination with the White Helmets." The militants have already received 20 containers of chlorine to stage the incident, he said.
Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly warned about upcoming chemical provocations, and have highlighted that banned warfare agents have been used by the militants. Of course, none of that matters to the Western press which has its marching orders to expose the bloodthirsty killer Assad as an irrational despot who will use the exact same military method month after month and year after year, knowing well the response he will get from the US.
Meanwhile, just a few days ago, Syrian government forces reportedly captured a well-equipped chemical laboratory in Eastern Ghouta. Footage from the facility has been published by the SANA news agency.
The installation contained modern industrial-grade hardware of foreign origins, large amounts of chemical substances as well as crude homemade munitions ad their parts. It was unclear if the chemical lab was capable of synthesizing the novachok nerve gas used in the attempted murder of the Russian agent in the UK that has resulted in the latest diplomatic scandal involving Russia and the west.
UK, Slovakia, Sweden, Czech Republic among most probable sources of 'Novichok' – Moscow
https://www.rt.com/news/421591-uk-produce-novichok-agent/
The substance used in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal may have originated from the countries studying the "Novichok" nerve agent, including the UK, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Sweden, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
"The most likely source of origin of the toxin are the countries which have been carrying out intense research on the substances from the 'Novichok' program, approximately since the end of the 1990s until the present time, and this project is not the creation of Russia or the Soviet Union," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Saturday. She listed the UK, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Sweden among the countries involved.
The US should also "be put under question," Zakharova said in an interview with the state broadcaster VGTRK.
"How did they come to the conclusion about a Russian 'footprint' if they didn't give us those samples? Logically they shouldn't have this substance. Which samples have they compared with to draw such a conclusion?" she went on. "Questions arise: then, they should have samples, which they conceal, or it is a lie from start to finish."
"If the UK prime minister and other British experts give the formula, then it will be clear which countries have been developing these agents," Zakharova said.
Zakharova's remarks echo those of Russia's representative at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Aleksandr Shulgin, who said the 'Novichok' research was taken out of the Soviet Union following its collapse. While Shulgin didn't name where the program was smuggled, he said the source of the substance used in Salisbury is "concealed in one of the countries where this research continued and achieved certain success."
Czech Foreign Minister Martin Stropnicky has firmly rejected Zakharova's assessment of the counties where the nerve gas agent could have originated.
"We reject such groundless statement on the origins of the Novichok," Stropnicky stated, adding that the allegations were "purely speculative."
Earlier, the OPCW said none of its member states has declared possession of the Novichok group of nerve agents.
The Russian-UK double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned on March 4. Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Russia of being responsible, with a major diplomatic row deepening.
Syria: It would all be over by now without the 'regime-changers'
It was seven years ago this week that the conflict in Syria began. How might it have developed without the negative role played by Western powers and their regional allies?
Beware the Ides of March, the old saying goes. The 15th of March down the ages has seen not only the assassination of Julius Caesar and the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia; it was also the day, in 2011, that the conflict in Syria began.
According to the standard narrative, it was the intransigence and brutality of the Assad government (always referred to as a 'regime') that plunged Syria into chaos. But while it's true that there was genuine discontent with the government for a number of valid reasons seven years ago, the divisions within Syria could have been overcome without much bloodshed, had certain countries not worked to sabotage any peaceful solutions to the crisis.
Faced with a direct threat to its rule, the Assad government showed it was willing to make compromises. As early as March 26, 2011, the BBC was reporting that the government had released more than 200 political prisoners. There were also amnesties announced in May and June.
Not only that but important political changes were introduced as Assad acknowledged in a televised address that demands for reform were legitimate.
In February 2012, a new constitution, which ended the Ba'ath Party's 40-year monopoly of power, was overwhelmingly endorsed in a national referendum. Article 8 of the new constitution stated: "The political system of the state shall be based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically through the ballot box."
But these democratizing measures, which went far further than any "reforms" made by the US/UK's authoritarian ally Saudi Arabia, and which have been praised, were loftily dismissed by the West.
It may have only been in the summer of 2011 when Western leaders were openly declaring "Assad must go," but the truth is that regime change had been on the agenda for a long time.
We know from WikiLeaks that as early as December 2006 US officials were discussing how to destabilize the Syrian government. A cable from US Ambassador to Syria William Roebuck discussed the "potential vulnerabilities" of the Assad administration and the "possible means to exploit them."
One of the "possible means" was to seek to divide the Shia and Sunni communities in Syria. In a section entitled PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE, the ambassador wrote:
"There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business."
The date of the cable is highly significant. 2006 was the year that Israel, the US's closest ally in the region, went to war in Lebanon but despite its clear military superiority, didn't succeed in defeating Hezbollah. If Israel was to succeed in the future, the Syrian-Hezbollah-Iran axis would have to be broken.
In a television interview, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas said that Britain had been preparing to send gunmen into Syria two years before the anti-government protests of 2011 and identified Syria's "anti-Israel stance" as being critical.
Of course the US and its allies had to pretend that what they were really after in Syria was 'democracy.' But had they genuinely wanted this, they would have supported and encouraged Assad's reforms and sided with opposition figures who wanted peaceful, democratic change and not an armed uprising. Instead they did all they could to escalate the crisis, flooding the country with arms and facilitating the influx of radical Islamist fighters from many other countries.
The Western intervention in Syria, in pursuance of violent regime change, has been massive.
In June 2015, the Washington Post reported: "At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA's overall budget... US officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program."
At the same time, attempts to solve the conflict diplomatically were repeatedly sabotaged by the insistence that 'Assad must go' and by stepping up support for anti-government forces. Take the Kofi Annan peace plan in 2012.
"Within days of Annan's peace plan gaining a positive response from both sides in late March, the imperial powers openly pledged, for the first time, millions of dollars for the Free Syrian Army; for military equipment, to provide salaries to its soldiers and to bribe government forces to defect. In other words, terrified that the civil war is starting to die down, they are setting about institutionalizing it," noted my fellow Op-ed contributor Dan Glazebrook in Al-Ahram Weekly.
The help given to 'rebels' looked to be tilting the conflict in the favor of the regime-changers. While Western leaders warned of the dangers of hardline Islamist terrorism at home, they welcomed the gains made by such groups in Syria. A declassified US intelligence report from August 2012 admitted that "The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (al-Qaeda Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The report said that "AQI supported the opposition from the beginning." It also predicted the establishment of a "Salafist principality in Eastern Syria" and said that this is "exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Russia's lawful intervention in September 2015, in defense of secular Syria, where people of all religions could once again live in peace, proved to be a game-changer and helped push back the advances made by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) and other radical terrorist groups. The war could have been brought to an end in 2016, had the US and its allies given up with their regime change obsession and allowed Syrian forces, aided by their allies, regain control of the whole country. But they didn't.
In September 2016, with the 'rebels' on the back-foot, another ceasefire was agreed between then US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.
Again it came to nothing. As I wrote here: "While the S.A.A. [Syria Arab Army] had to halt its advances 'rebels' carried on with their attacks. In one 24-hour period Russian General Vladimir Savchenko said there had been no fewer than 55 rebel attacks, leading to the deaths of 12 civilians."
And one week after the so-called ceasefire had started, US-led air raids 'accidentally' killed 62 Syrian soldiers at Deir ez-Zor. "From the very beginning there have been many of those, including in the US administration, seeking to break down these agreements," lamented Lavrov. The fact is that the US hadn't been serious about wanting an end to hostilities, and only wanted to use the 'ceasefire' as a cover for rearming/regaining ground.
As the Syrian government moved to liberate eastern Aleppo, the regime-changers became increasingly hysterical. In the UK, neocon Labour MP John Woodcock, a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, called the Morning Star newspaper "traitorous scum" for using the word "liberation."
But Aleppo was liberated and life slowly got back to normal. We've seen similar cries of "something must be done" by the regime-changers as Syrian forces move in to recapture rebel-held Eastern Ghouta. But interestingly the same people are, by and large, silent on the humanitarian catastrophe affecting Yemen. 'Human rights' only concern them when transgressions can be blamed on an 'Official Enemy' of the West.
Earlier this month, neocon writer Max Boot opined in the Washington Post: "The way to save lives, I've sadly concluded, is to let [Syrian President Bashar] Assad win as quickly as possible. Aleppo was a charnel house in 2016. But now that it has fallen to Assad's forces, pictures are circulating of civilians strolling through its rebuilt public park. It's terrible that they have to live under Assad, but at least they're alive. Tyranny is preferable to endless and useless war."
But other regime-changers still prefer "endless and useless war" to an Assad victory and further democratic reforms. Unless that changes, the bloodshed will only continue.
Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66
Russia's Long Road Toward Resurgence (MUST WATCH documentary)
http://thesaker.is/category/watch-list/
SouthFront produced another masterpiece: a documentary entitled "Russia's Long Road Toward Resurgence". You can think of it as a "crash course in modern Russian history". I would have a few comments/corrections/disagreements but they would be minor and would not affect the key theses of this documentary. In fact, this is truly an excellent summary so, please, do watch is and spread it on your social media and amongst your friends.
Of A Type Developed By Liars
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/of-a-type-developed-by-liars/
I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation "of a type developed by Russia" after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the "Novichok" programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a "novichok" in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China.
To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation "of a type developed by Russia" was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, "of a type developed by Russia" is the precise phrase used in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday:
This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.
When the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise. My FCO source, like me, remembers the extreme pressure put on FCO staff and other civil servants to sign off the dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD, some of which pressure I recount in my memoir Murder in Samarkand. She volunteered the comparison to what is happening now, particularly at Porton Down, with no prompting from me.
Separately I have written to the media office at OPCW to ask them to confirm that there has never been any physical evidence of the existence of Russian Novichoks, and the programme of inspection and destruction of Russian chemical weapons was completed last year.
Did you know these interesting facts?
OPCW inspectors have had full access to all known Russian chemical weapons facilities for over a decade – including those identified by the "Novichok" alleged whistleblower Mirzayanov – and last year OPCW inspectors completed the destruction of the last of 40,000 tonnes of Russian chemical weapons
By contrast the programme of destruction of US chemical weapons stocks still has five years to run
Israel has extensive stocks of chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any state to synthesise "Novichoks".
Until this week, the near universal belief among chemical weapons experts, and the official position of the OPCW, was that "Novichoks" were at most a theoretical research programme which the Russians had never succeeded in actually synthesising and manufacturing. That is why they are not on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons.
Porton Down is still not certain it is the Russians who have apparently synthesised a "Novichok". Hence "Of a type developed by Russia". Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured.
It is very carefully worded propaganda. Of a type developed by liars.
UPDATE
This post prompted another old colleague to get in touch. On the bright side, the FCO have persuaded Boris he has to let the OPCW investigate a sample. But not just yet. The expectation is the inquiry committee will be chaired by a Chinese delegate. The Boris plan is to get the OPCW also to sign up to the "as developed by Russia" formula, and diplomacy to this end is being undertaken in Beijing right now.
I don't suppose there is any sign of the BBC doing any actual journalism on this?
Erratum – I originally typed "nerve gas" and not "nerve agent" in the first line – purely my error.
I do find it very odd that the incident happened so close to Porton Down, and you can bet that USA, UK, Russia, China, Israel all have synthesized this same agent in their laboratories, no matter what the public facing story is.
False flag operation, to worsen relations between UK and Russia? But what is the motivation? I can understand Russia sending a message to potential traitors (the official story) but I can't figure out why some other state actor, especially the UK, would want to do this thing.
I don't think Porton Down had anything to do with it, the close proximity to Skripal's location is either a 'coincidence' or Skripal was chosen as a target partly because he was located close to that location. The Russians also do not have the death penalty, they prefer to prosecute and imprison as punishment for moral corruption and Skripal had already served his time, his assassination would not have been ordered a week before the Presidential election! If it was an uncontrolled release of nerve agent it would have been indiscriminate and moved with the wind direction from the release point. An example of a wind dispersed chemical attack would be Khan Sheikoun:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=syria+chemical+attack+khan+sheikhoun&t=hf&ia=about
I put the search words rather than a direct link to an article so you can see how heavily biased the narrative is, all of the articles say Russia and Syria did it! All of them! For a more balanced evidence based debate I had to go directly to a website that covered this event in real time:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=khan+sheikoun&x=0&y=0
About a year ago the media tried to pin a Sarin attack on Assad to justify NATO intervention in Syria because the 'rebels' (either paid or ideological mercenaries) needed air support. This attempt failed and Russia pointed out it destroyed all of it's chemical weapons under the supervision of the OPCW, and Assad did the same. Assad was winning at this time, it was a major turning point in the proxy war and it would have been insanity to do the one thing that would bring in NATO air support for the rebel infantry.. wouldn't it ?
Next, 'Novichok' is a brand name not a specific type of agent like VX and there has been lot's of information which shows that other countries extracted the knowledge and personnel after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most notably the US itself! Lot's of ex Soviet states as well as many powers in the west and others probably have varied 'Novichok programs', to claim that "Russia did it" is infantile and premature before an investigation has taken place. The OPCW were not initially consulted at all and the UK failed to follow procedure and commenced immediately with 'Trial by media'.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.03.18, 09:07:44
False flag operation, to worsen relations between UK and Russia? But what is the motivation? I can understand Russia sending a message to potential traitors (the official story) but I can't figure out why some other state actor, especially the UK, would want to do this thing.
Yes it's a blatantly obvious false flag and the motive is to create a narrative seed so that when a large chemical weapon attack happens in Syria shortly peoples minds will already be primed to accept that the Russians are capable of doing this by pointing to the recent Skripal incident and shouting "Look, they just did it in the UK and now they are doing it in Syria!" They are creating a pretext for a NATO attack on Syria to further the 'Greater Israel' plan.
The narrative has changed again today:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/russian-double-agent-reportedly-poisoned-through-bmw-air-vents-38-others-sickened
Have you ever sat in a traffic jam behind a diesel car ? How about travelled through a tunnel busy with cars ? The smell of engine exhaust stinks your car out in seconds if you forget to press the air recirculation button on the dashboard.. it's not difficult to get a gas into a car, after all a gas is what you breathe, the ventilation system is designed to do that!
Lastly, the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats under the pretext that they are undisclosed intelligence agents, is a bit of a joke.. remember this:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/israel-apology-plot-uk-politicians-170108040326289.html
This was an actual Mossad agent caught on tape from within the embassy planning to subvert the UK government (he was fired within days) and the response from the UK was "move along, nothing to see here". Until you realise that the countries that make up NATO and the EU + US are all vassal states it is easy to get fooled by the "show of solidarity", in reality it is one body representing diverse Sovereign independence.
This is the latest article on the Skripal situation from The Saker's site for your interest:
The British Spy Skripal hoaxhttp://thesaker.is/the-british-spy-skripal-hoax/
Shedding more "light" on the Salisbury Skripal Hoax:
Skripal Affair Motives (https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/03/skripal-syria-and-england-are-all-victims-of-the-globalist-war-on-trump-dugin/)
CIA-MI6 Poisoned Skripal (https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/03/cia-mi6-poisoned-skripal-says-former-intel-officer/)
Interesting links they are..
The first translation interview with Alexander Dugin raises some interesting issues for me. It comes down to definition and perception, for example define 'England'. I am a patriot who believes in negotiation not confrontation, this is why I am here and why I do this, no other reason. Some would argue I am a traitor to my country while others celebrate my life and support my moral standing. If you can conflate the issues you can control minds with the narrative, but this is an immoral practice and not my chosen path.
"Betray the Homeland, and be ready to pay for it."
This is a disturbing quote, not because it is inaccurate but because it relies on definition and subjective perception for it's accuracy. For example, would a mother that reports her child for committing or planning to commit a premeditated murder, have betrayed her child from your point of view ? how about as perceived from the point of view of the child ? how about from the point of view of the victim ? or the general public point of view ? does it depend on who the child was going to kill ? I see and hear a lot of people wishing this fate on war criminals etc, but I don't support that. Very complicated issues and judgement should not be rushed into, ever.
The second op-ed by Ronald Thomas West is thought provoking and runs through some of the possible scenarios, but not all of them..
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/09/sergei-skripal-poisoning-did-daughter-unwittingly-carry-nerve-agent-into-ex-russian-spys-home.html
http://www.startribune.com/key-moments-in-the-case-of-former-spy-sergei-skripal/477168053/
It appears the police officer injured was poisoned at the home which rules out the BMW air vents theory.
It has been suggested that the daughter was the possible carrier of the nerve agent which is a narrative that supports the transport of the agent from Russia, but I don't believe that is the most probable scenario. It is much more likely that both Skripal and the daughter were targets to send a message, a so far mostly overlooked theory. Ever seen the film Dredd ? That line from Mama "I will kill you and the next generation of your family" keeps me up at night, especially with what I have read in the papers lately.. one thing is for sure, the narrative they ran with from day one was a pre-packaged, pre-prepared lie.
'One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter'
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/one-mans-terrorist-is-another-mans-freedom-fighter.html
Often and thoughtlessly repeated, 'One man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter' is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.
Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.
Suppose a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.
Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.
So there are two reasons to avoid 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs.
In brief, terror is a means not an end, and there is an objective fact of the matter whether a combatant is a terrorist or not. But what is a terrorist? I suggest that the following are all essential marks of a terrorist. I claim they are all individually necessary conditions for a combatant's being a terrorist; whether they are jointly sufficient I leave undecided. 'Terrorist' is used by different people in different ways. That is not my concern. My concern is how we ought to use the term if we intend to think clearly about the phenomenon of terrorism and keep it distinct from other phenomena in the vicinity.
1. A terrorist aims at a political objective. Criminals may 'terrorize' as when a loanshark microwaves a delinquent's cat, but criminals who terrorize are not terrorists because their aim is personal, not political. And although terrorists commit crimes, they are best not classified as criminals for the same reason. Treating the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as criminal matters shows a lack of understanding of the nature of terrorism.
2. A terrorist does not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. All are fair game, which is not to say that in a particular situation a terrorist might not have a reason not to target some combatants or some noncombatants. This distinguishes a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah from the Israeli Defense Forces. As a matter of policy, the IDF does not target noncombatants, whereas as a matter of policy Hezbollah targets anyone on the enemy side. The deliberate targeting of civilians also distinguishes terrorists from guerilla fighters.
3. A terrorist is not an agent of a state but of a nonstate or substate entity. A terrorist is neither a criminal (see #1 above) nor a warrior; a terrorist act is neither a criminal act nor an act of war; a terrorist organization is neither a criminal gang nor a state. Strictly speaking, only states make war.
Of course, a state (e.g. Iran) can arm and support and make use of a terrorist outfit (e.g. Hezbollah) in pursuit of a political objective (e.g., the destruction of Israel). But that does not elide the distinction between states and terrorist organizations. It is also clear that states sometimes 'terrorize'; but this is not a good reason to think of states as terrorist organizations, or some or all of their combatants as terrorists or of any of their acts as terrorist acts. The Allied firebombing of Dresden in February of 1945 was a deliberate targeting of combatants and noncombatants alike in clear violation of 'just war' doctrine. But whatever one's moral judgment of the Dresden attack or the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, none of these acts count as terrorist for the simple reason that they were the acts of states, not terrorist organizations. Some will bristle at this, but if one wants to think clearly about terrorism one must not confuse it with other things.
4. A terrorist is not a saboteur. Sabotage is one thing, terrorism another. Analytical clariy demands a distinction. Infecting computer networks with malware or attacking the power grid are acts of sabotage, but they are not strictly speaking acts of terrorism. An act is not terrorist unless it involves the killing or maiming of human beings or the threat thereof.
I am indebted to the discussion in Louise Richardson, What Terrorists Want, Random House, 2006, Ch. 1
https://www.amazon.com/What-Terrorists-Want-Understanding-Containing/dp/1400064813
Syria's Eastern Ghouta militants prepare chemical attack provocation, Russian MoD tipped off
https://www.rt.com/news/421753-syria-ghouta-chemical-provocation/
Militants holed up in Eastern Ghouta are preparing to stage a "false flag" attack to accuse the Syrian government forces of using chemical weapons against civilians, Russia's Defense Ministry said, citing a tip from a local.
On Monday, the Russian Reconciliation Center received a phone call from one of the residents of the al-Wanar quarter of Eastern Ghouta, who warned of possible preparations for a "provocation" with the use of chemical agents. According to the tip-off, Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorists have placed "hermetically sealed containers," which could contain poisonous substances, next to a self-engineered turbine on one of the roofs in the Damascus suburb.
"The terrorists, according to [the caller], could use those preparations to spray chemical agents in residential areas, which will lead to a large number of casualties among civilians," Major-General Yuri Yevtushenko announced on Monday. "The mass poisoning of civilians will be used to accuse the government troops of the use of chemical weapons against peaceful citizens."
This is not the first time Moscow has raised concerns about possible provocations using chemical agents in Syria. Russia believes that such an attack will be widely covered in the Western media and may ultimately be used as a pretext by the US-led coalition to launch strikes against Syrian government forces.
Washington repeatedly warned that it would conduct more air strikes against Syrian forces if chemical weapons are used in the country. French President Emmanuel Macron also promised to "strike" Syria if any evidence emerges that chemical weapons were used against civilians.
In January, just before various factions of Syrian society gathered for the Syrian National Congress in Sochi, reports of a chlorine gas attack on the outskirts of the Syrian capital were used to attack the legitimacy of the reconciliation process. At the time, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took advantage of the alleged attack to blame Russia for all the chemical weaponry-related incidents in Syria, regardless of who actually conducted it.
Since last month, Syrian government forces have been carrying out operation Damascus Steel to clear east Ghouta of armed Islamist units that have been terrorizing the locals for years. After the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution proposing a 30-day humanitarian ceasefire in Syria, the Russian Reconciliation Center has been focused on evacuating civilians out of militant-controlled east Ghouta.
"Since the beginning of the humanitarian operation, 79,702 people have been evacuated from the East Ghouta with the help of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation. Most of them are children," the MoD noted Monday, adding that "their lives are out of danger now."
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.20, 06:33:45
On Monday, the Russian Reconciliation Center received a phone call from one of the residents of the al-Wanar quarter of Eastern Ghouta, who warned of possible preparations for a "provocation" with the use of chemical agents. According to the tip-off, Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) terrorists have placed "hermetically sealed containers," which could contain poisonous substances, next to a self-engineered turbine on one of the roofs in the Damascus suburb.
"The terrorists, according to [the caller], could use those preparations to spray chemical agents in residential areas, which will lead to a large number of casualties among civilians," Major-General Yuri Yevtushenko announced on Monday. "The mass poisoning of civilians will be used to accuse the government troops of the use of chemical weapons against peaceful citizens."
This is not the first time Moscow has raised concerns about possible provocations using chemical agents in Syria. Russia believes that such an attack will be widely covered in the Western media and may ultimately be used as a pretext by the US-led coalition to launch strikes against Syrian government forces.
Would be a good time to read the Saker's blog post if you have not read it:
The British Chemical Warfare against the Russianshttp://thesaker.is/the-british-spy-skripal-hoax/
Bear in mind that so far no evidence at all has been made publicly available.. none.. only allegations that the event took place. A sample of 'Novichok' nerve agent only proves the British government have a sample of 'Novichok' nerve agent.. nothing else.. Where is Skripal, his daughter, the police officer and the dozens of people allegedly poisoned at the same time.. along with supporting doctors testimony ? Remind you of Sandy Hook ??
Dr Kevin Barrett interviews the Saker
http://thesaker.is/dr-kevin-barrett-interviews-the-saker/#comments
source: https://www.patreon.com/posts/17657399 (you can listen to the interview here)
Kevin Barrett's show notes: The Saker is one of the our best geopolitical analysts. In this interview we begin with issues from his recent article "When dealing with a bear hubris is suicidal," which discusses the increasing absurdity of such obvious Western false flags as the "Skripal nerve gas attack"—par for the course for "an Empire built (and maintained) on lies, accepted on the basis of ignorance, justified by hypocrisy and energized by hysterics. This is what the 'Western world' stands for nowadays."
Is the Empire's pathological behavior rooted in Western arrogance and millenarianism dating back to medieval times? Is the current official elite religion of Anti-Religious Religious Fundamentalism (AARF) even more dangerously fanatical than traditional religious fundamentalism? Are Western elites secular humanists or satanists? Is there a meaningful difference between those categories? Why are they willing to risk nuclear war with over 500 million dead to push forward a hopelessly implausible scheme for a one-world empire? What can we do to stop them? These are some of the questions considered in this very stimulating hour of conversation.
Jonathan Revusky: Anti-Religious Religious Fanatics (ARRFs) are the real fundamentalist crazies!
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/28/arrf/
Question Less! 'Liberal' witch-finders hunt for heretics in modern Britain
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/421860-liberals-corbyn-russia-witch-hunting/
What would Orwell make of it all? 'Moderates' support wars that 'extremists' oppose, 'Free speech' advocates call to shut down some TV stations, while a 'Rights Activist' wants children expelled from school on parentage grounds.
The narrowing of the parameters about what can and cannot be said by public figures in Britain was seen again last week, with the hysterical, McCarthyite witch hunt against those, like Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who simply asked questions about what the government had claimed in relation to the Salisbury poisonings. Corbyn was branded a traitor and an appeaser for doing what opposition leaders should be doing in a democracy – namely trying to hold the government to account. Evidence? You want to see evidence! You must be some kind of Kremlin stooge!
Never mind that the presumption of innocence is a hallmark of a fair judicial system and indeed a civilized country. The Sun says it was Putin who did it, and so does John Woodcock MP, so that settles it. Trial by media and neocon propagandists has replaced due process.
Unlike in the 1970s, when Britain was truly a vibrant democracy, political debate is today vigorously policed with dissident voices hounded by obnoxious 'Witch-finder Generals' who clearly model themselves on the late Matthew Hopkins, a man who traveled East Anglia on horseback hunting for heretics. It was said of Hopkins that he had "no specific schooling for his role as witch-finder – he just came with a passionate belief in the righteousness of his own actions." With such an attitude he'd surely have a nice job working for the Rupert Murdoch media empire today.
Truly, what a state we're in. People – believe it or not – have been banned from membership of political parties on the basis on tweets or Facebook postings they made years ago. Employers are contacted too if the 'wrong' views are expressed on social media. Everyone it seems must conform and only express 'politically correct' opinions which the 21st Century witch-finders deem acceptable. That means no questioning of the official War Party narrative on foreign policy – and joining in with the current Establishment-induced wave of Russophobia. Or else. Just look at the vile attacks made by 'Inside the Tent' state and corporate media journalists on Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, for his daring to challenge the official narrative on the Salisbury poisonings.
There have been some chilling statements made in the past week, but arguably none more so than those made in a Sunday newspaper column by Ruth Davidson, the 'progressive' leader of the Scottish Conservatives. In an article entitled in its hard copy version "Keeping our press free is the best way to counter Kremlin propaganda," Davidson claimed that Britain was being poisoned "both literally and metaphorically" by "Russian aggression." In order to protect Britain's vigorous free media, we must "pull the plug" on RT.
I live less than 15 miles from where George Orwell is buried and I could swear I heard him turning in his grave on Sunday night. Repeat after me: To keep the press free we must close television stations... To keep the press free we must close television stations. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom!
Davidson is one of a small but vociferous group of witch-finders who want RT taken off air. Lord Adonis is another. The unelected peer, whose only elected office was as a Lib Dem/SDP councilor in leafy North Oxford in the 1990s, was incensed when he saw RT's witty adverts on the London Underground last year. "Russian state propaganda is no joke & it shouldn't be on London Underground," the baron tweeted. He then said he would be taking the matter up with 'the Commissioner.' As Simon Rite noted for RT: "In simple terms: he doesn't like the idea of a 'state-sponsored ' message which is not coming from his state, so wants to use the power of the state to make absolutely sure no one hears anything his state doesn't like. See?"
On March 15, the pompous, censorious peer tweeted that he had written to UK media regulator Ofcom, requesting that they consider "withdrawing licence from Putin's propaganda arm Russia Today" – which according to him is "not a news channel."
Perhaps we should move to a system whereby Lord Adonis designates what is or is not a "news channel"? We can't leave it to ordinary viewers in Sunderland or Southampton to decide, can we?
Then there are the recent comments of Peter Tatchell. The 'rights activist' is another 'liberal' who is currently advocating some pretty illiberal measures. On Sunday, on Twitter, he called for the 'seizure' of the UK assets of Putin-linked officials and their families and for their children to be expelled from British schools. Got that? Children expelled from school not because they are unruly or have been taking drugs, but because of who their mums and dads are. The parallels with Nazi Germany circa 1935 spring readily to mind.
The sad truth is that hatred of Russia and Russians has not only become an acceptable form of racism in the 'politically correct' Britain of 2018, it's almost de rigueur for anyone who wants to progress in politics and the media. What an indictment that is of the present system. The more we talk of 'tolerance,' the less 'tolerant' our public life has become.
The phenomenon of liberal totalitarianism – and I don't think it's hyperbolic to call it that – needs to be openly discussed, before it's too late. It's already too late for some. Entire countries such as Libya – which not so long ago enjoyed the highest standard of living in the whole of Africa – have been destroyed in order to 'save' their people from a leader the 'liberals' deem is beyond the pale. Whether the people want to be saved is neither here nor there. The Western 'liberal' always knows best. He's superior to everyone else. He has the right to decide who should lead countries thousands of miles away, which elections are 'free and fair' and which ones are fixed. Liberalism used to be an ideology which protected the individual and his rights. Now that it has merged with neo-conservatism, it oppresses the individual and reduces our rights. It seeks to ban, to bomb, to destroy. And all done in the name of 'moderation' and 'fighting extremism.'
Old-style liberalism took its cue from John Stuart Mill, the author of 'On Liberty,' who warned of the dangers of suppressing opinions we don't like. "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind," Mill famously wrote.
New-style liberalism by contrast takes its cue from neocon ideologues and obsessive Cold War warriors who want to clamp down on dissident voices.
An important turning point in the descent of liberalism into totalitarianism was the 'humanitarian' bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and in particular the targeting by NATO of Serbian TV. Sixteen workers were killed in a missile strike in the early hours of April 23, which also severely damaged a nearby Russian Orthodox Church. It was hailed by the truly demonic US envoy Richard Holbrooke as a "positive development."
NATO justified the attack on the grounds that RTS was broadcasting anti-NATO 'propaganda.' British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that bombing television stations was "entirely justified."
It's worth remembering that even the Luftwaffe, at the height of the Blitz, didn't bomb the BBC having demanded that it hand the microphone to Joseph Goebbels.
The way we can strike back against this new liberal totalitarianism is to refuse to be cowed by it. We must not be afraid to express views which we genuinely hold, even if it does mean being targeted by witch-finders or NATO 'democracy bombs.' The more we speak our minds, the more it will encourage others to speak out too. Anti-free speech bullies who are destroying the Enlightenment values they claim to support, can only succeed if they 'gaslight' us into submission and people decide to bite their tongues. That way – the cowardly way – leads to a thousand deaths, as Shakespeare put it; the valiant by contrast, taste death only once.
Question More, as the RT the motto says. And don't let those who want us to question less get away with it.
Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66
I was listening to the radio news this morning in the UK and caught a bit of the bbc last night, it's wall to wall coverage of this:
Britain to seek EU condemnation of Russia over nerve agent attackhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-eu/britain-to-seek-eu-condemnation-of-russia-over-nerve-agent-attack-idUSKBN1GX3C9
"Russia has shown itself as a strategic enemy, not a strategic partner," a senior British official told Reuters, who stressed however that Britain was not seeking new economic sanctions on Russia.
EU summit: Theresa May's Russia mission faces Brexit testhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43498310
Yes, you read that right, top of Theresa May's list at the EU summit won't be giving the long-running talks a shove forward.
The deal over the transition period - the buffer zone between Brexit and the ending of all ties - only needs to be rubber stamped on Friday.
Of course, there are many more tangles to be sorted in the coming months. But tonight, the prime minister's main goal is to try to stiffen up the EU's response to the threat from Russia.
Nayirah testimonyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by an American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]
In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.
Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[3] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors... fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[4][5] Amnesty International reacted by issuing a correction, with executive director John Healey subsequently accusing the Bush administration of "opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement".[6]
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.03.18, 09:07:44
But what is the motivation? I can understand Russia sending a message to potential traitors (the official story) but I can't figure out why some other state actor, especially the UK, would want to do this thing.
Figured it out yet ?
One of the commenters at the the Saker's site left this link, it's well worth the read:
No Spirit Of Liberty – The Salisbury Case, Corbyn And The Need For Dissent
http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/865-no-spirit-of-liberty-the-salisbury-case-corbyn-and-the-need-for-dissent.html
Fifteen years ago this month, the US-led 'Shock and Awe' offensive began against Iraq, supposedly to disarm the country of its 'weapons of mass destruction'. The illegal invasion and subsequent brutal occupation led to the loss of around one million lives, created millions of refugees, destroyed the infrastructure of a country already ravaged by over a decade of cruel UN sanctions, and contributed significantly to the rise of Islamic State. All of this might never have happened were it not for an intense campaign of propaganda and deception in which the so-called 'mainstream' media, including 'impartial' BBC News, were enthusiastic participants.
The 5 Principles of Ethical Journalism
https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are/5-principles-of-journalism
The core principles of ethical journalism set out below provide an excellent base for everyone who aspires to launch themselves into the public information sphere to show responsibility in how they use information.
There are hundreds of codes of conduct, charters and statements made by media and professional groups outlining the principles, values and obligations of the craft of journalism.
Most focus on five common themes:
1. Truth and Accuracy
Journalists cannot always guarantee 'truth', but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.
2. Independence
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.
3. Fairness and Impartiality
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.
4. Humanity
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.
5. Accountability
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.
Assassination in Africa: Inside the plots to kill Rwanda's dissidents
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/secret-recording-says-former-rwandan-army-major-proves-government-hires-assassins-to-kill-critics-abroad/article18396349/
RWANDA'S HUNTED
Much of the world regards President Paul Kagame as a hero. But 20 years after he helped to stop his country's brutal genocide, there are mounting allegations that he is silencing dissenters with violence.
A months-long, international inquiry by The Globe's Geoffrey York and contributor Judi Rever has uncovered explosive testimonies from those who say they were recruited for assassinations – including an alleged recording of one job offer
'The price is not a problem," says the man on the phone. "We will show our appreciation if things are beautifully done. They will be rewarded."
The tone of this offer, calm and confident, is so casual it could be about bringing on workers for a plumbing job. What is actually under discussion: $1-million for the hiring of contract killers to assassinate two of Rwandan President Paul Kagame's most hated enemies.
It is 2011, and the speaker is Colonel Dan Munyuza, Rwanda's director of military intelligence and a trusted ally of the Rwandan president. The man on the other end of the line is Robert Higiro, a former Rwandan army major living in exile.
But Mr. Higiro said he had no intention of hiring killers. He had been tapped for the assassinations months before, and informed the targets. They told him to play along with Col. Munyuza - and to tape the explosive conversations.
When one of the two targets was brutally killed on Dec. 31, and gunmen tried to kill the second, Mr. Higiro agreed to share those recordings with The Globe and Mail. Three independent sources - former army colleagues who also know Col. Munyuza personally - confirmed that the voice on tape is his. Two independent translators worked on transcribing the phone recordings from the original Kinyarwanda language.
The phone recordings are part of a months-long investigation by The Globe into murder plots organized by the Rwandan government. Rwandan exiles in both South Africa and Belgium - speaking in clandestine meetings in secure locations because of their fears of attack - gave detailed accounts of being recruited to assassinate critics of President Kagame.
Their evidence is the strongest yet to support what human rights groups and Rwandan exiles have suspected for years about the Rwandan government's involvement in attacks or planned attacks on dissidents, not only in South Africa but in Britain, Sweden, Belgium, Uganda, Kenya and Mozambique.
It also raises new questions about the world's moral stand on Rwanda. This year, the country marks the 20th anniversary of a shocking genocide. Because he helped stop the genocide, Mr. Kagame is hailed as a hero and his reborn country is touted as a model for African development - stable, business-oriented, fast-growing, environmentally clean and virtually free of pettty corruption. But as revelations of murder plots and assassinations mount, easy narratives of good overcoming evil become more and more difficult to sustain. The reality in Rwanda is far more complex. The mass killings of the 1990s and the recent assassination plots left almost no one untainted.
Meanwhile, Mr. Kagame's enemies live in fear - or in hiding - after a wave of attacks against them.
And they are the lucky ones: On New Year's Eve, one of the Mr. Kagame's most-wanted, Rwandan dissident Patrick Karegeya, was brutally strangled to death in a Johannesburg hotel room. His killer or killers remain at large.
Russia condemns Theresa May's 'circus show' over poison spy attack probe
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/930724/russia-theresa-may-circus-show-poison-spy-salisbury-attack
Mrs May said: "There are only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on March 4.
"Either this was a direct action by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of its potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others."
[So, what was the Prime Minister up to with her two 'plausible explanations' ?]
Framing effect (psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)
The framing effect is an example of cognitive bias, in which people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented; e.g. as a loss or as a gain.[1] People tend to avoid risk when a positive frame is presented but seek risks when a negative frame is presented.[2] Gain and loss are defined in the scenario as descriptions of outcomes (e.g., lives lost or saved, disease patients treated and not treated, lives saved and lost during accidents, etc.).
Prospect theory shows that a loss is more significant than the equivalent gain,[2] that a sure gain (certainty effect and pseudocertainty effect) is favored over a probabilistic gain,[3] and that a probabilistic loss is preferred to a definite loss.[2] One of the dangers of framing effects is that people are often provided with options within the context of only one of the two frames.[4]
The concept helps to develop an understanding of frame analysis within social movements, and also in the formation of political opinion where spin plays a large role in political opinion polls that are framed to encourage a response beneficial to the organization that has commissioned the poll. It has been suggested that the use of the technique is discrediting political polls themselves.[5] The effect is reduced, or even eliminated, if ample credible information is provided to people.[5]
MAY TOLD UK 'ONLY TWO NOVICHOK ALTERNATIVES'. WHAT'S HER/BBC'S EXCUSE FOR IGNORING THIS, THEN?
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/03/16/may-told-uk-only-two-novichok-alternatives-whats-her-bbcs-excuse-for-ignoring-this-then/
This claim – that the only realistic answer to the provenance of the nerve agent attack is the Russian state, with a minute possibility that the Russian state negligently lost some 'Novichok' – has been treated as fact by the mainstream media, including the BBC News channel, as well as, to their shame, by Labour 'moderates'.
None of them have any excuse.
A simple search for relevant keywords will immediately turn up the fact that – according to the BBC among other sources – there was another country that held major stocks of nerve agents.
Including 'novichoks'.
Uzbekistan was a part of the Soviet Union until 1991, when it declared its independence. Eight years later, the BBC and other outlets reported that US experts were in Uzbekistan to help destroy its stocks of nerve-agents, especially novichoks – because Uzbekistan had been a major testing centre for the chemical weapons:
[The Russians are now framing the situation using two possible explanations, but crucially.. they_have_employed_logic!]
Moscow: UK is Either Unable to Protect From Attack or Staged Skripal Attack
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201803211062757577-russia-skripal-poisoning-meeting/
The Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian Defense Ministry have jointly delivered a statement after a meeting with foreign envoys amid the scandal surrounding the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal.
According to Vladimir Ermakov, head of the non-proliferation and arms control department at the Russian Defense Ministry, "either the British authorities are unable to protect from a terrorist attack on their territory or staged the attack themselves."
[The rest of the world that is not either thick, or morally corrupt, knows this too.. which is why the EU are not willing to commit to this obviously staged false flag]
'No smoking gun': Smack in the face for May as EU fails to back British escalation over Skripal
https://www.rt.com/uk/422029-skripal-allies-gun-escalation-salisbury/
The UK was quick to point the blame for the Salisbury attack – but its own allies are refusing to do the same. Reports suggest EU leaders gathering in Brussels are backing away from British attempts to condemn Moscow.
After former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were exposed to the A-234 nerve agent (also known as 'Novichok') in Salisbury, UK Prime Minister Theresa May blamed Russia. Britain said it was "highly likely" to be a Kremlin-backed act of aggression, despite repeated denials from Moscow.
READ MORE: Accusations and threats, but where are the facts? – Russia challenges West on truth
A draft text from EU talks on the matter has emerged condemning "in the strongest possible terms" the attacks. The phrase was added to the draft text that EU leaders will discuss at a summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, which was obtained by Politico.
However, the question of attribution was not changed. The UK has been pushing for the Kremlin to be recognized as the perpetrator. Yet, its allies in Brussels appear to be refusing to cast judgment ahead of the evidence, unlike Downing Street.
The text says: "The EU takes extremely seriously the UK Government's assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible. The European Union is shocked at the offensive use of any military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, for the first time on European soil in over 70 years. The use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances is completely unacceptable and constitutes a security threat to us all. The Union calls on Russia to address urgently the questions raised by the UK and the international community and provide immediate, full and complete disclosure of its Novichok programme to the OPCW."
Diplomats familiar with talks said Greece and Italy did not want the language changed. "They say that there's no smoking gun, or at least not yet," said an EU diplomat to Politico. Greece has denied calling for alterations but admitted it lobbied for a more "clear" text.
Theresa May's team has been hoping for unequivocal world backing, but has not received it. She expelled 23 Russian diplomats from London last week, and has threatened further punishment.
The UK said it was not a snub by Brussels that the language is cooler than last week, especially that used by Germany and France, but said getting 27 countries to agree is difficult. It is especially damaging for Theresa May after President Putin was praised by Trump in a call after his re-election on Sunday, despite her hopes the special friendship between the UK and the US would see Trump backing her fully.
Moon of Alabama's latest information:
Russian Scientists Explain 'Novichok' - High Time For Britain To Come Clean (Updated)
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/russian-scientists-explain-novichok-high-time-for-britain-to-come-clean.html#more
A week ago we asked if 'Novichok' poisons are real. The answer is now in: It is 'yes' and 'no'. Several Russian scientist now say that they once researched and developed lethal poisons but they assert that other countries can and have copied these. 'Novichok', they say, is a just western propaganda invention. They see the British accusations as a cynical plot against Russia. The people who push the 'Novichok' accusations have political and commercial interests.
The British Prime Minister Theresa May insinuated that the British-Russian double agent Sergej Skripal and his daughter Yulia, who collapsed on March 4 on a public bench in Salisbury, were affected by a 'Russian' nerve agent:
"It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. It is part of a group of nerve agents known as Novichok."
Theresa May's claims are highly questionable.
A new article in the New Scientists confirms the claims by the Russian scientists that the 'Novichok' agents which may have affected the Skripals may have been produced elsewhere:
Weapons experts have told New Scientist that a number of countries legally created small amounts of Novichok after it was revealed in 1992 and a production method was later published.
In 2016 Iranian scientists, in cooperation with the OPCW, published production and detection methods for such agents. It is likely that the various government labs secretly re-developed and produced these chemicals for their own purposes even prior to the Iranian publication.
[UPDATE] In an interview with Deutsche Welle British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson admits that Porton Down had (illegal?) 'Novichok' agents when the incident in Salisbury happened:
DW: You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Boris Johnson: Let me be clear with you ... When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory ...
DW: So they have the samples ...
Boris Johnson: They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
But Porton Down did not agree with the British government to claim that the supposed nerve agent was "made by Russia." It only agreed to the compromise formulation "of a type developed by Russia" i.e. it could have been made anywhere. [End Update]
The claims by the British government that a. the Skripals were affected by a nerve agent and that b. Russia was involved in the Skripal incident because it has some exclusive access to these agents seem both baseless. Unless there is significant further evidence the British incrimination of Russia looks like a cynical plot invented for political and/or commercial purposes.
As usual in the military-industrial complex the people who push such scares, are the ones who profit from them.
Well that all flipped quickly! A charade of solidarity without an investigation, evidence presented or due process.
Read the comments.. nobody believes them:
EU recalls Russia envoy, backs UK belief Moscow 'highly likely' responsible for Skripal poisoning
https://www.rt.com/news/422087-eu-recalls-russia-envoy-skripal/
EU leaders see "no plausible alternative explanation" for the Skripal poisoning and are set to recall their ambassador to Russia for consultations, pressured by the UK to hold the Kremlin responsible for it without due process.
Following talks on Thursday, the leaders of 28 European nations agreed with the British assessment that it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind this month's poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. The European Council "agrees with the United Kingdom government's assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no plausible alternative explanation," the member states said in a joint statement.
While the EU Council insisted that member states "will coordinate on the consequences to be drawn in the light of the answers provided by the Russian authorities," the bloc made a decision to recall its ambassador from Moscow. The EU envoy "is being recalled for consultations to Brussels," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said, noting that the "measure" was not a "sanction," and that the ambassador was not being withdrawn from his post in Moscow.
Theresa May arrived in Brussels on Thursday, armed to the teeth with anti-Russian rhetoric and loud warnings that Moscow remains a threat to Europe. Without presenting a single shred of evidence of the Kremlin's involvement in the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, she led her colleagues to form an anti-Russian chorus at the summit.
"Some member states are looking into possibly expelling Russian diplomats or recalling national diplomats," Dutch PM Rutte added, according to AFP.
After expelling 23 Russian diplomats and their families from the UK earlier this month, May reportedly made other leaders contemplate similar measures. "A couple of countries spoke about their readiness" to follow up today's statement with some expulsions, Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä was quoted by Bloomberg as having said. Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said she was ready to expel Russian spies, Reuters reports, after May proposed going after Russian intelligence networks.
As the EU Council deliberated, Russia's ambassador to Britain, Alexander Yakovenko, warned that the UK has "bad record of violating international law and misleading the international community."
"History shows that British statements must be verified," he added, urging a "full transparency of the investigation" as well as cooperation with Moscow and the experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Earlier this week, OPCW agents arrived in Britain to begin their probe into the March 4 poisoning, after Russia insisted that an independent investigation be conducted by the chemical weapons body, which is based in The Hague. On Tuesday, OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said that it will take "another two to three weeks to finalize the analysis."
Amid Britain's premature conclusions that there "is no plausible alternative explanation" that the Skripals were poisoned by the nerve agent on none-other than the Russian government's orders, Moscow has repeatedly requested the UK Foreign Office to tone down its hasty speculations and launch a joint investigation into the case. On Thursday, President Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov once again told RT that Skripal held zero value for Moscow, ever since the spy swap back in 2010, and that a search for a possible beneficiary and a motive for his poisoning, just ahead of Russian presidential elections and the FIFA World Cup, should be directed elsewhere.
Iraq Dossierhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation[1] (more commonly known as the Iraq Dossier, the February Dossier[2] or the Dodgy Dossier) was a 2003 briefing document for the British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party government. It was issued to journalists on 3 February 2003 by Alastair Campbell, Blair's Director of Communications and Strategy, and concerned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Together with the earlier September Dossier, these documents were ultimately used by the government to justify its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
DossierThe term Dodgy Dossier was first coined by online polemical magazine Spiked in relation to the September Dossier.[3] The term was later employed by Channel 4 News when its reporter, Julian Rush,[4][5] was made aware of Glen Rangwala's discovery[6] that much of the work in the Iraq Dossier had been plagiarised from various unattributed sources. The most notable source was an article by then graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi, entitled Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis.[7]
Whole sections of Marashi's writings on "Saddam's Special Security Organisation" were repeated verbatim including typographical errors, while certain amendments were made to strengthen the tone of the alleged findings (e.g., "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq" became "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq", and "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" became "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes").
In its opening paragraph the briefing document claimed that it drew "upon a number of sources, including intelligence material." Before the document's release it had been praised by Tony Blair and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell as further intelligence and quality research.[8] The day after Channel 4's exposé, Blair's office issued a statement admitting that a mistake was made in not crediting its sources, but did not concede that the quality of the document's content was affected.
The claims contained in the September and 'Iraq' Dossiers were called into question when weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were not found in Iraq, and the dossiers were encompassed by House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry. The Committee subsequently reported that the sources should have been credited, and that the dossier should have been checked by ministers before being released. The dossier had only been reviewed by a group of civil servants operating under Alastair Campbell. The committee stated that the publication was "almost wholly counter-productive" and in the event only served to undermine the credibility of the government's case.
The controversy over the Iraq Dossier was mentioned frequently in the government's conflict with the BBC over the claim in the September Dossier that Iraq could deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so, and the controversy surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who wrote a report which claimed that the September Dossier had been deliberately exaggerated, stated before the Hutton Inquiry that recalling the February Dossier had led him to file his report based on his interview with Dr. Kelly without seeking confirmation from other sources. Whether or not the September Dossier was inconsistent with the original intelligence, it was altered in ways that made it inconsistent with itself.[9]
The dossier became a point of amusement in British politics. In a Questions to the Prime Minister conflict, Michael Howard (then leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition), informed Blair, "I have got a great big dossier on his past and I haven't even had to sex it up."[10] The term "Dodgy Dossier" was used again in January 2017, in reference to the "Steele Dossier" on a supposed sex scandal involving Donald Trump.[11][12]
Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officerhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war
Newly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossierA top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor.
In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."
His evidence is devastating, as it is the first time such a senior intelligence officer has directly contradicted the then government's claims about the dossier – and, perhaps more significantly, what Tony Blair and Campbell said when it was released seven months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, said: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you ... when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given."
He continued: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not 'to make a case for war'. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used."
Laurie said he recalled that the chief of defence intelligence, Air Marshal Sir Joe French, was "frequently inquiring whether we were missing something" and was under pressure. "We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD [weapons of mass destruction], generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country."
The document is one of a number released by the Chilcot inquiry. They include top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the UK if it joined the US-led invasion of Iraq.
However, a newly declassified document reveals that Sir Kevin Tebbit, then a top official at the Ministry of Defence, warned the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, in January 2003 that the US would "feel betrayed by their partner of choice" if Britain did not go along with the invasion.
Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".
Laurie's memo raises questions about the role of Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who later became head of MI6.
Tony Blair: 'with you, whatever' pledge was not commitment to warhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/tony-blair-with-you-whatever-pledge-was-not-commitment-to-war
Former PM is defiant in half-hour BBC interview after critical Chilcot reportTony Blair has insisted that a secret 2002 pledge, revealed in the Chilcot report, to stand by George Bush "whatever" over Iraq was not an irrevocable commitment to war.
Sir John Chilcot's critical report on Iraq revealed that Blair wrote to George W Bush eight months before the invasion to offer his apparently unqualified backing for war well before UN weapons inspectors had completed their work, saying: "I will be with you, whatever."
In a 33-minute interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Blair remained as defiant about his decision to back the US invasion of Iraq as he had been in a two-hour press conference on Wednesday.
"I don't think this struggle was in vain," he said, but claimed some critics would not accept his regret about mistakes over Iraq until he said the decision itself was wrong.
He said that in the "whatever" memo he was trying to signal to Bush the UK would be his "partner of choice" but it also went on to warn against a hasty decision to invade.
Blair pointed out that the next word in the memo after "whatever" was "but", and that it argued for going back to the UN for approval for military action. He said: "What I meant was: 'I'm right alongside you in dealing with this, but let's do it the right way, and it has to be done through the United Nations.'"
Blair added: "I wanted to make sure that America did not feel alone, that it did not feel compelled to go it alone. I wanted to build as big a coalition as possible. And frankly I did want the UK to be their partner of choice, to be the first telephone call they made on these issues.
"It is true that I took a decision, and I stand by that decision, that we should be right alongside America in dealing with these decisions post-9/11 and that included the issue of Iraq.
But it isn't correct to say we had made some irrevocable commitment to war.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.23, 07:12:08
In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."
[That is not what Major General Michael Laurie said, is it Mr Blair!]
A truly historical month for the future of our planet
http://thesaker.is/a-truly-historical-month-for-the-future-of-our-planet/
March 2018 will go down in history as a truly historical month
March 1st, Vladimir Putin makes his historical address to the Russian Federal Assembly.
March 4th, Sergei Skripal, a former UK spy, is allegedly poisoned in the UK.
March 8th, British officials accuse Russia of using nerve gas to attempt to murder Sergei Skripal.
March 12th, Theresa May officially blames Russia for the poisoning and gives Russia a 24-hour ultimatum to justify herself; the Russians ignore that ultimatum. The same day, the US representative at the UNSC threatens to attack Syria even without a UNSC authorization.
March 13th, Chief of Russia's General Staff Valery Gerasimov warned that "in case there is a threat to the lives of our military, the Russian Armed Force will take retaliatory measures both over the missiles and carriers that will use them". The same day Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had a phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff.
March 15th, the UK blocked Russia's draft UN Security Council statement on Skripal poisoning case asking for an "urgent and civilized investigation" into the Skripal case. The US, UK, France, and Germany issue a statement backing the UK and blaming Russia. The UK Defence Minister tells Russia to "shut up and go away".
March 16th, Major General Igor Konashenkov calls the British Defense Minister an "uncouth shrew" and "intellectual impotent".
March 17th, Russian Generals warned that the US is preparing a chemical false flag attack in Syria
March 18th, Putin overwhelmingly wins the Presidential election. The same day, General Votel, Commander of CENTCOM declares in a testimony to the Armed Services Committee that differences with Russia should be settled "through political and diplomatic channels". When asked whether it would be correct to say that "with Russia and Iran's help, Assad has won the Civil War in Syria?" General Votel replied "I do not think that is too — that is too strong of a statement. I think they have provided him the wherewithal to — to be ascendant at this point".
March 19th, the EU's Foreign Affairs Council issues a statement fully backing the UK.
March 21st The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summons all ambassadors to a briefing on the Skripal case. The language used by the Russian representative at this briefing possibly is the bluntest used by any Russian (or even Soviet) official towards the West since WWII. The French, Swedish and US representative at the meeting all stood up to declare their "solidarity" with the UK.
March 22nd, The Chief of the Russian Armed Forces' General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov had another phone conversation with Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff. The same day, General Gerasimov also held another conversation by phone with the Commander of US European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Army General Curtis Scaparrotti.
So what is really going on here? Surely nobody seriously believes that the Brits really think that the Russians had any motive to try to kill Skripal or, for that matter, if they had a motive, that they would do it in such a stupid manner? And what's the deal with Syria anyway? Is the USA going to execute their false flag and bomb?
I think that at this point we should not get bogged down in the details of all this. There is a forest behind these trees. What matters most now, is that the most powerful factions of the AngloZionist Empire's ruling elites are making a concerted effort to create a unified anti-Russian coalition. In this regard it is quite telling that the US, France, and Germany issued a statement on March 15th without even bothering to consult with their so-called "allies" in NATO or the EU. You can immediately tell "who is boss" in those crisis situations when the rest of the Euro-riffraff simply doesn't matter (poor East Europeans with their delusions about being appreciated or even respected by the West!). Furthermore, it is quite clear that in this case, the "Anglo" component of the AngloZionist Empire is far more involved than the Zionist one, at least insofar as the front of the stage is concerned (behind the scenes the Neocons are seething at Trump for calling Putin to congratulate him and offer negotiations). I think that a number of crucial developments forced the US and the UK into trying to strong-arm the rest of the western nations to "circle the wagons" around the Empire:
1. The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into submission
2. The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria
3. The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant
4. The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most likely
5. The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent
6. The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia
7. The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire
What this all means is very simple: the Empire needs to either fold or double down and folding is just not something the imperial elites are willing to consider yet. They are therefore using the tools which they perceive as most effective:
False flags: this is really a time-honored western tradition used by pretty much all the western powers. Since the general public is brainwashed and mostly can't even begin to imagine that "freedom loving liberal democracies" could use methods usually ascribed to evil, bloodthirsty dictatorial regimes, false flags are an ideal way to get the public opinion in the correct state of mind to approve of aggressive, hostile and even violent policies against a perceived threat or obstacle to hegemony.
Soft power: have you noticed how the Oscars or the Cannes festival always pick exactly the kind of "artists" which the Empire happens to politically promote? Well, this is true not only for the Oscars or the Cannes festival but for almost all of the cultural, social and political life in the West. This is especially true of so-called "human rights" and "peace" organizations which are simply political pit-bulls which can be sicked on any country in need of subversion and/or intervention. Russia has never developed that kind of political toolkit.
Verbal escalation: this tactic is extremely crude yet very effective. You begin by vociferously proclaiming some falsehood. The fact that you proclaimed it in such vociferous and hyperbolic matter achieves two immediate results: it sends all your friends and allies a clear message "you are either with us or against us", that leaves no room for nuance or analysis, and it gives otherwise rather spineless politicians no way to back down, thus strengthening their "resolve".
Herding: there is safety in numbers. So when dealing with a potentially dangerous foe, like Russia, all the little guys flock together so as to appear bigger or, at least, harder to single out. Also, when everybody is responsible, nobody is. Thus herding is also politically expedient. Finally, it changed the inter-relational dynamic from one of friends or allies to one typically found among accomplices in a crime.
Direct threats: the Empire got away with making threats left and right for many decades, and this is a habit which is hard to break. The likes of Nikki Haley or Hillary Clinton probably sincerely believe that the USA is quasi-omnipotent or, conversely, they might be terrified by the creeping suspicion that it might not. Threats are also an easy, if ineffective, substitute for diplomacy and negotiations, especially when your position is objectively wrong and the other side is simply a lot smarter than you.
The big problem is that none of these methods work against Russia or, let me correct that, don't work anymore (they sure appeared to work in the past). The Russian public opinion is fully aware of all these methods (courtesy of a Russian media NOT controlled by AngloZionists) and Margarita Simonian beautifully summarized the feelings that all this elicits in the Russian population:
"all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you. You and your so-called "values." We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those among us that you support, and for all those people who support you (...). For that, you only have yourself to blame (...) Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn the history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. White man's burden, my ass!" (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.)
The stark truth is that far from wanting to invade, appease or otherwise please the West, Russia has absolutely no need, or even interest, in it. None. For centuries Russian elites have been western-focused to some degree or other and none of them could even begin to imagine a West-less Russia. This is still true today, the Russian "elites" still want to live like (very rich) Brits or Germans and they still hate the common Russian people and Vladimir Putin. But those Russian elites have now been crushed by the magnitude of Putin's victory in the presidential elections. Normally, this should result in an even bigger exile of Russian "businessmen" to the UK, France or Israel, but the problem now is that the British are making noises about punishing them for, well, being Russians (even Russophobic, pro-western, "Russians"). As a result, these "poor" pro-western liberals can only whine on the social media and in the few pro-western media outlets left in Russia (no, not due to repression, but due to their political irrelevancy being backed, as they are, by something between 2% and 5% of the population).
But setting aside the wealthy "elites" for a moment, Russia as a country and as a nation has simply no use for the West and what it represents. Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in "Europe", "White identity" or "Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won't. Just read again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the quote above. For most Russians "Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and "Western Christianity" of the creation of the Ukraine and the "Eastern Crusades". No, Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and fondly remembered). Still, the Russians are still willing to negotiate to establish a viable coexistence between the Western and Russian civilizational realms. Putin clearly said so in his speech
There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilization. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this.
But if the AngloZionists are dead set on world domination by means of war, then Russia is ready for that too. Not a war of aggression, of course, not even against the tiny Baltic statelets, Putin made that clear too when he said "we are not threatening anyone, not going to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not need anything. Just the opposite" (emphasis added). But if attacked, Russia is now ready to defend herself:
"And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation's development, including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia (...) Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever."
Why is the nuclear issue so central? Because the Russians are fully aware of the fact that the AngloZionists cannot win a conventional war with Russia. Thus it is crucial for the Russians to convince the AngloZionists that they are neither militarily superior nor invulnerable (see here for a full analysis of these two myths). But once some kind of modus vivendi is achieved with the West, Russia will focus her efforts in different directions: much needed internal reforms and development, the work with China on the establishment of a single Eurasian zone of economic security, peace and prosperity, the restoration of peace in the Middle-East, the development of the Russian Far East and North – you name it. Russia has plenty of work which needs to be done, none of which involves the West in any capacity.
And that is, of course, what is so totally unacceptable to the West.
Hence this month's historical developments which have placed Russia and the West in a direct collision course. As I said above, the Empire can now either fold or double down. If it decides to fold, war will be averted and meaningful negotiations finally entered into. If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West). And there isn't much Russia could, or should, do at this point. As is the case every time a serious crisis takes place, the apparently united elites running the West will now break-up into separate factions and each one of these factions will pursue and promote its own, narrow, interests. There will be an intense, mostly behind the scenes, struggle between those who will want to double down or even trigger a war against Russia and those who will be horrified by that notion (not necessarily for profound moral reasons, just out of basic self-interest and a healthy instinct for self-preservation).
As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the USA and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder".
The Saker
A curious incident PART III
http://thesaker.is/a-curious-incident-part-iii/
A Curious Incident Part I may be found here: https://thesaker.is/a-curious-incident/
A Curious Incident Part II may be found here: https://thesaker.is/a-curious-incident-part-ii/
Analysis of the Attack on the Skripals
This article lays out a hypothesis in regard to the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. The reader is cautioned that this attack is possibly just one element in a larger series of associated events. These include everything from geostrategic chess in the Middle East, to the demands of domestic UK politics, to manipulating public opinion both before and after the US presidential election.
You could write several books on these issues and still not fully untangle and delineate all the interactions between the relevant actors.
This article confines itself to the events of March 4th, 2018 when two individuals were subject to an attack that left them incapacitated and subject to hospital care. Under the laws of the UK, the perpetrators are subject to criminal prosecution.
Criminal investigation rests on a triad of three elements: means, opportunity, and motive. These are the lenses through which the events of March 4th, 2018 are viewed.
-snip-
As described at the start, any investigation is an iterative process that proceeds based on the facts and the evidence. Readers are encouraged to challenge any assertion made and I will be review and amend the hypothesis and / attempt an explanation. The only exception is in regard to possible enhancements made to commercially available organophosphate.
Part IV will touch on the evidence for these events being part of a false flag, or similar concerted attempt by state actors.
In memory of David Christopher Kelly, CMG (14 May 1944 – 17 July 2003)
THE BRAIN PROCESSES FACTS AND BELIEFS THE SAME WAY
http://www.newsweek.com/brain-processes-facts-and-beliefs-same-way-79125
When a committed Christian says he believes in the Second Coming of Christ, he believes it the way he believes that Michael Jordan was a basketball player. When an avowed atheist says there is no such thing as God, she knows it the way that she knows that Elvis was a rock star. According to new research—published yesterday in the online science journal PLoS One—by Sam Harris (the neuroscientist and atheist author of The End of Faith) and colleagues, "belief is belief is belief," as Harris puts it. "We seem to be doing the same thing when we accept a proposition about God or the virgin birth as we do about astronomy."
What Harris, his fellow researcher Jonas Kaplan, and the other authors of the study want to address is the idea, which has been floating around in both scientific and religious circles, that our brains are doing something special when we believe in God—that religious belief is, neurologically speaking, an entirely different process from believing in things that are empirically and verifiably true (things that Harris endearingly refers to as "tables and chairs"). He says his results "cut against the quite prevalent notion that there's something else entirely going on in the case of religious belief." Our believing brains make no qualitative distinctions between the kinds of things you learn in a math textbook and the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school. Though the existence of God will never be proved—or disproved—by an fMRI scan, science can study a thing or two about the neurological mechanisms of belief. What Harris's study shows is that when a conservative Christian says he believes in the Second Coming as an undeniable fact, he isn't lying or exaggerating or employing any other rhetorical maneuver. If a believer's brain regards the Second Coming the way it does every other fact, then debates about the veracity of faith would seem—to the committed believer, at least—to be rather pointless.
Harris, Kaplan, et al. put 30 people in fMRI machines. Half of them were committed Christian believers, the kind of Christians who would immediately agree with the statement "Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father." Half were committed atheists, the kind who would agree with the statement "The belief that Jesus ascended to heaven is clearly false." Up on a screen before them, participants would read declarative statements. Some were statements of religious belief, some of religious disbelief. Some were statements about more ordinary facts. Participants had to push buttons—indicating true or false—as the researchers watched their brains light up. Belief in God, disbelief in God, and belief in simple empirically verifiable facts all lit up the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that governs your sense of self. We are, in some sense, what we believe.
The bigger picture, from Harris's point of view, is that science urgently needs to get involved in the biggest questions of human existence—good, evil, morality, ethics, and what he calls "human well-being"—and not cede these to the religious sphere. "It is generally imagined," he wrote to me in an e-mail, "that scientific facts and human values represent distinct and incommensurable ways of speaking about the world. Consequently, most people assume that science will never be in a position to resolve ethical questions or to determine how human beings ought to live." Questions of gay marriage, the subjugation of women under the Taliban, a community's responsibility to its children: all these have been relegated to the realm of religion or "values." But, says Harris, the more we know, through science, about how people live—and how they think, and what makes them happy—the more real information we'll have about how best to live together on this planet. The fMRI experiments do not pertain to these largest questions, of course. But they do show (again) what neuroscientists already know. "Intuition" and "reason" are not two separate activities. They're interconnected. From the brain's point of view, religious belief and empirical data are the same.
As a student of the faith-versus-reason debate, I find another aspect of these experiments more provocative. Harris proves what is self-evident from observing countless faith-versus-reason debates: each side believes firmly in its own truth claims; each side believes that the other's truth claims are absurd. If Harris is saying that Christians and atheists regard their beliefs the same way they regard uncontested facts ("tables and chairs"), it's no wonder that few conceptual bridges are ever built or crossed. (He even noted, with asterisks as to its significance, what he called the "blasphemy reaction": that when atheists disagreed with a Christian belief, or when Christians affirmed one, their pleasure centers lit up—proof that the combatants in the faith-versus-reason wars really do enjoy the fight, equally.)
But for those of us who yearn for resolution, Harris's experiments offer a glimmer of hope. While the brains of believers and nonbelievers do not differentiate between beliefs about God and about mathematics, the believers themselves do, a little. Participants retrieved their religious beliefs and their historical facts from the same place and in the same way, but they showed less certainty when thinking about the religious statements. It took them a little longer to push the button, and a part of the brain having to do with uncertainty, or cognitive dissonance, lit up. If even the strongest believers are a little unsure about God, and the strongest atheists are a teeny bit anxious that they might be wrong, there's room, perhaps, for one person to begin to try to imagine the world view of another, no matter what the brain sees as true.
Religion and children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_children
Children usually acquire the religious views of their parents, although they may also be influenced by others they communicate with such as peers and teachers.[citation needed] Aspects of this subject include rites of passage, education and child psychology, as well as discussion of the moral issue of religious education of children.
Rites of passage
Most Christian churches practice infant baptism[1] to enter children into the faith. Some form of confirmation ritual occurs when the child has reached the age of reason and voluntarily accepts the religion.
Ritual circumcision is used to mark Jewish and Muslim and Coptic Christian[2] and Ethiopian Orthodox Christian[3] infant males as belonging to the faith. Jewish boys and girls then confirm their belonging at a coming of age ceremony known as the Bar and Bat Mitzvah respectively.
Education
Religious education
A parochial school (US) or faith school (UK), is a type of school which engages in religious education in addition to conventional education. Parochial schools may be primary or secondary, and may have state funding but varying amounts of control by a religious organization. In addition there are religious schools which only teach the religion and subsidiary subjects (such as the language of the holy books), typically run on a part-time basis separate from normal schooling. Examples are the Christian Sunday schools and the Jewish Hebrew schools. Islamic religious schools are known in English by the Arabic loanword Madrasah.
Prayer in school
Main article: School prayer
Religion may have an influence on what goes on in state schools. For example, in the UK the Education Act 1944 introduced the requirement for daily prayers in all state-funded schools, but later acts changed this requirement to a daily "collective act of worship", the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 being the most recent. This also requires such acts of worship to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".[4] The term "mainly" means that acts related to other faiths can be carried out providing the majority are Christian.[5]
Teaching evolution
Main article: Creation and evolution in public education
The creation-evolution controversy, especially the status of creation and evolution in public education, is a debate over teaching children the origin and evolution of life, mostly in conservative regions of the United States. However, evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and is a part of the Catholic Catechism.[citation needed]
Display of religious symbols
See also: Laïcité
In France, children are forbidden from wearing conspicuous religious symbols in public schools.[citation needed]
Religious indoctrination of children
See also: Indoctrination, Criticism of religion § children, and Child evangelism movement § Criticism
Many legal experts have argued that the government should create laws in the interests of the welfare of children, irrespective of the religion of their parents.[6] Nicholas Humphrey has argued that children "have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas," and should have the ability to question the religious views of their parents.[7]
"Parents' religion and children's welfare: debunking the doctrine of parents' rights, Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer spoke of the subject in the 19th century:
"And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."
— Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue
Several authors have been critical of religious indoctrination of children, such as Nicolas Humphrey,[8] Daniel Dennett[9] and Richard Dawkins.[10] Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children.[11][12] A. C. Grayling has argued "we are all born atheists... and it takes a certain amount of work on the part of the adults in our community to persuade [children] differently."[13]
Dawkins states that he is angered by the labels "Muslim child" or "Catholic child". He asks how a young child can be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child."[11] He suggests there is little controversy over such labeling because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
On several occasions Dawkins made the claim that sexually abusing a child is "arguably less" damaging than "the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up a child Catholic in the first place".[11]
As a means to transmit his opinions directly to children Dawkins wrote a profusely illustrated book of scientific divulgation, The Magic of Reality, in which some natural phenomena that's usually left explained to them by means of the action of gods or other mythical creatures are demystified. Each chapter book is devoted to a single natural phenomenon, such as earthquakes, always starting with a myth or folklore of world's major religions followed by an actual scientific explanation that debunks the latter.[14]
Child marriage
Main article: Child marriage
Islam[15] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 10 years of age if they have entered puberty. The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[16] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[17][18] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[15][19]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[20] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[21] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several fundamentalist branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[22]
Health effects
A study of 2604 US children ages six to nineteen found positive correlations between physical and psychological health and religious affiliation and/or church attendance.[23] This included 272 children whose parents (children 6–9) or the children themselves (12–19) expressed no religious affiliation. However, of this group, 22% state that religion is important and 35% attend church. The study found children ages six to nineteen who attend religious services are at lower risk of suicide or suicide attempts, as well as alcohol and drug use and dangerous sexual behavior. Some religions prohibit blood transfusions, vaccinations, contraception, and abortions, which may lead to adverse health consequences. Membership in religious groups can moderate unhealthy behavior, provide social support, and enhance marital or financial prospects, and strengthen family bonds if the religion is shared by the whole family. Religions can also help both adults and children with self-esteem, as well as provide meaning to life and reduce anxiety, but can increase guilt over perceived misdeeds. Thus it is not clear whether this positive association is because of a positive effect of religion on health, an effect in the other direction, or an as of yet unknown lurking variable.[23]
85 percent of religiously affiliated children are healthy overall, as opposed to 79 percent of non-affiliated children. 79 percent of religious children are deemed psychologically healthy compared to 73 percent of non religious children. 85 percent of children who attend church at least weekly are healthy and 83 percent of those who seldom or never attend are healthy. For psychological health the numbers are 82 and 74 percent respectively.[23]
62 percent of children say religion is important to them, 26 percent say it's somewhat important, and 13 percent say it's not important. 81 percent of those who view religion as important were found to be healthy and 65 percent of the not important group were healthy. There was no difference found among the various religious denominations in regard to health. The positive correlation between religion and health was strongest for 12-15 year olds. Overall religious belief and participation have the same positive health association as being breastfed or having a mother who went to school 2.2 years longer than one who didn't. They have half the health benefit of living with both parents. Whether this association is a causal relationship in either direction (religion to good health or good health to religion) remains to be seen (see Correlation does not imply causation).[23]
Medical care
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
Some religions treat illness, both mental and physical, in a manner that does not heal, and in some cases exacerbates the problem. Specific examples include faith healing of certain Christian sects, the Christian Science religion which eschews medical care, and exorcisms.[24][25]
Faith based practices for healing purposes have come into direct conflict with both the medical profession and the law when victims of these practices are harmed, or in the most extreme cases, killed by these "cures."[26][27][28] A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.[29]
Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusion primarily on religious grounds, they believe that blood is sacred and God said "abstain from blood" (Acts 15:28-29).
Religion as a by-product of children's attributes
Dawkins proposes that religion is a by-product arising from other features of the human species that are adaptive.[10] One such feature is the tendency of children to "believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you" (Dawkins, 2006, p. 174).
Psychologist Paul Bloom sees religion as a by-product of children's instinctive tendency toward a dualistic view of the world, and a predisposition towards creationism.[10][30] Deborah Kelemen has also written that children are naturally teleologists, assigning a purpose to everything they come across.[31]
Islam and children
Main article: Islam and children
Indoctrination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.
In the political context, indoctrination is often analyzed as a tool of class warfare, where institutions of the state are identified as "conspiring" to maintain the status quo. Specifically the public educational system, the police, and mental health establishment are a commonly cited modus operandi of public pacification. In the extreme, an entire state can be implicated. George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four famously singled out explicit, state-mandated propaganda initiatives of totalitarian regimes. Opinions differ on whether other forms of government are less doctrinaire, or merely achieve the same ends through less obvious methods.
The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions.
The term is closely linked to socialization; however, in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization functions as a generic descriptor conveying no specific value or connotation (some choosing to hear socialization as an inherently positive and necessary contribution to social order, others choosing to hear socialization as primarily an instrument of social oppression). Matters of doctrine (and indoctrination) have been contentious and divisive in human society dating back to antiquity. The expression attributed to Titus Lucretius Carus in the first century BCE quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum (what is food to one, is to others bitter poison) remains pertinent.
Religious
Religious indoctrination, the original sense of indoctrination, refers to a process of imparting doctrine in an authoritative way, as in catechism. Most religious groups among the revealed religions instruct new members in the principles of the religion; this is now not usually referred to as indoctrination by the religions themselves, in part because of the negative connotations the word has acquired. Mystery religions require a period of indoctrination before granting access to esoteric knowledge. (cf. Information security)
As a pejorative term, indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics believe that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism.[4] Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[5] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism, temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[6]
However, indoctrination can occur, and often does occur with great frequency, in non-religious contexts. For example, in the 20th century, the former People's Socialist Republic of Albania and the former USSR instituted programs of government-sponsored atheistic indoctrination in order to promote state atheism, specifically Marxist–Leninist atheism, within their citizenry.[7][8] Sabrina P. Ramet, a professor of political science, documented that "from kindergarten onward children [were] indoctrinated with an aggressive form of atheism" and "to denounce parents who follow religious practices at home."[9] However, after the death of Albania's leader, Enver Hoxha in 1985, his successor, Ramiz Alia, adopted a relatively tolerant stance toward religious practice, referring to it as "a personal and family matter." Émigré clergymen were permitted to reenter the country in 1988 and officiate at religious services. Mother Teresa, an ethnic Albanian, visited Tirana in 1989, where she was received by the foreign minister and by Hoxha's widow. In December 1990, the ban on religious observance was officially lifted, in time to allow thousands of Christians to attend Christmas services (see Freedom of religion in Albania).
Similarly, in the former Soviet Union, "science education [in] Soviet schools [was] used as a vehicle for atheistic indoctrination", with teachers being instructed to prepare their course "so as to conduct anti-religious educations at all times," in order to comport with state-sanctioned Marxist–Leninist values.[10] However, in 1997, several years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian government passed a law recognizing religion as being important to Russian history with Orthodox Christianity (Russian: Православие Pravoslaviye), Russia's traditional and largest religion, declared a part of Russia's "historical heritage."
Military
Main article: Recruit training
The initial psychological preparation of soldiers during training is referred to (non-pejoratively) as indoctrination.[citation needed]
Information security
In the field of information security, indoctrination is the initial briefing and instructions given before a person is granted access to secret information.[11]
https://www.online-ministries.org/category/child-indoctrination/
Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Brainwashing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject's ability to think critically or independently,[1] to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject's mind,[2] as well as to change his or her attitudes, values, and beliefs.[3][4] Although the term appears in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association[5] it is not accepted as scientific fact.[6]
The concept of brainwashing was originally developed in the 1950s to explain how the Chinese government appeared to make people cooperate with them. Advocates of the concept also looked at Nazi Germany, at some criminal cases in the United States, and at the actions of human traffickers. The concept of mind control was later applied to explain conversions to some new religious movements and other groups. This resulted in scientific and legal debate;[7] with Margaret Singer, Philip Zimbardo, and some others in the anti-cult movement promoting the concept while Eileen Barker, James Richardson, and other scholars, as well as legal experts, rejected at least the popular understanding of brainwashing.[8]
Other views have been expressed by scholars including: Dick Anthony, Robert Cialdini, Stanley A. Deetz, Michael J. Freeman, Robert Jay Lifton, Joost Meerloo, Daniel Romanovsky, Kathleen Taylor, Louis Jolyon West, and Benjamin Zablocki. The concept of brainwashing is sometimes involved in legal cases, especially regarding child custody; and is also a major theme in science fiction and in criticism of modern political and corporate culture.
Brainwashing
https://www.psychologistworld.com/influence-personality/brainwashing
Brainwashing, its origins and its use in cults and media.
According to Jeffrey K. Hadden, the concept of brainwashing first came into public use during the Korean War in the 1950s as an explanation for why a few American GIs appeared to defect to the Communists. Brainwashing consisted of the notion that the Chinese communists had discovered a mysterious and effective method of causing deep and permanent behavioral changes in prisoners of war.
The idea was central to the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate in which a soldier was turned into an assassin through brainwashing. It is also central to The Ipcress File, where Michael Cain tries to resist being re-programmed.
Two studies of the Korean War defections by Robert Lifton and Edgar Schein concluded that "brainwashing" was an inappropriate concept to account for this renunciation of U.S. citizenship. They found that the Chinese did not engage in any systematic re-education. The Chinese were, however, able to get some of them to make anti-American statements by placing the prisoners under harsh conditions of deprivation and then by offering them more comfortable situations such as better sleeping quarters, better food, warmer clothes or blankets. Nevertheless, the psychiatrists noted that even these were quite ineffective at changing basic attitudes for most people. In essence, the prisoners did not actually convert to Communism. Rather many of them behaved as though they did in order to avoid the plausible threat of extreme physical coercion. Moreover the few prisoners that were influenced by Communist indoctrination did so as a result of motives and personality characteristics that existed before imprisonment.
Brainwashing in Groups
Another frequent use of the term brainwashing was concerning religious Cults. It was alleged that they would recruit new members by isolating them from their family and friends (inviting them to an end of term camp after university for example), arranging a sleep deprivation program (3am prayer meetings) and exposing them to loud and repetitive chanting. Religious brainwashing tended to involve love bombing rather than torture. Most anti-cult activists now accept that the brainwashing theory has been discredited. Some anti-cult activists started using the term mind control instead.
Currently the concept of brainwashing is not used by most psychologists and social scientists, and the methods of persuasion and coercion used during the Korean War are not considered to be esoteric.
The word brainwashed is still informally used to describe someone who holds strong ideas that are implausible and are completely resistant to evidence, common sense, experience and logic. Especially when these ideas developed under external influence e.g. books, TV programs, other people or a religious organization.
Is Britain Ruled by a Secret Pig-Fucking Cabal?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zngydy/sam-kriss-on-pig-gate-938
Rituals like sticking your penis into a pig's head are an intrinsic part of the British class system.
Something very weird happened as soon as the allegations emerged in the Daily Mail that Prime Minister David Cameron had, during his student days at Oxford, stuck "a private part of his anatomy" in a dead pig's mouth—a story upon which Downing Street declined to comment today. While most of us were laughing uncontrollably all evening, political and media figures across the UK Right, from Louise Mensch to James Delingpole, suddenly started insisting that it was no big deal, that he was just a student, that we've all done something embarrassing back in the day, so who cares?
This is true. There are certainly long and stupid years of my life that, whenever I'm reminded of them, make me want to slam my head into the nearest wall. But even so, I never fucked a dead pig. So the question hangs in the air. Could it be that the entire United Kingdom is ruled by a secret pig fucking cabal? Some ancient society, devoted to the enjoyment of forbidden porcine pleasures, driven wild by its transgressions, with ambitions to take over the world?
This kind of idea is difficult to prove. But I want to suggest that, at the very least, we should take the proposition seriously.
It's no secret that young men, from the age of about 12 until their final slump into total impotence, will try to put their dicks in just about anything. I have vivid memories of a year 7 school friend trying, with all seriousness, to fuck an injection-moulded plastic chair. Over the centuries, it's almost a certainty that more than a few dead pig's heads have been subjected to this kind of erotic attention.
Witless peasants, lonely in their fields since the invention of agriculture, must have occasionally looked at the damply snuffling snouts of their herds, and wondered. Butcher's boys across the world and throughout the centuries have probably independently invented an exciting new pork garnish. Wherever there's been horny idiocy, there will have been pig's heads to provide a small comfort. But Britain is different: only in this country do we then decide that our alleged pig fuckers should get to have nuclear weapons.
David Cameron is certainly weird enough and fleshy-faced enough for the story to be believable. But if the story is true, the real question isn't why he fucked a dead pig, but how anyone else managed to find out about it. According to the Mail's source, an anonymous MP, the act of forbidden love was part of his initiation into Oxford's Piers Gaveston society; it's also alleged that Count Gottfried von Bismarck, his contemporary at the university, threw dinner parties prominently featuring pig's heads. This was pig fucking raised to the level of high ritual. It fits in to accounts of similar Oxford behavior: we have heard, for instance, the claim that one of the initiations into the Bullingdon Club, of which David Cameron and Boris Johnson were members, is to burn a fifty-pound note in front of a homeless person.
But in fact, the anthropological archive is full of this stuff. Among the Tiv people of West Africa, for instance, it's a fairly common belief that the most powerful members of society are part of a secret organization called the mbatsav, who meet at night to dig up bodies from graves and eat them. The Poro secret society of Liberia, which occasionally functions as a parallel government, is ruled by the commandment ifa mo—do not speak of it. Some kind of initiation rite exists in every culture: I had a Bar Mitzvah, you might have had Confirmation, or you might have chugged a pint of piss during freshman year, and David Cameron is alleged to have fucked a dead pig.
It seems that the higher up you go in society, the more cruel and grotesque the ritual becomes. There's an obvious reason for all this: for the upper classes, good connections really matter. If you're going to have a secret society, first you need to have a secret. Whether it's singing in screechy adolescent Hebrew or corpse-eating and pig fucking, these initiations help bind people together, and a student society in which everyone knows that everyone else has done something unspeakable to a piece of ham is bound to stay close afterward. If anyone breaks ranks, or acts against the interests of the collective, they can be instantly exposed. Groups like the Bullingdon and the Piers Gaveston societies are not just rugby clubs for the ultra-rich, a vehicle for youthful excess; they're a way of fostering ruling class solidarity.
In a highly stratified society like the UK, where we're still ruled by those chinlessly perverse dweebs who can trace their ancestry to the Norman conquest, necro-bestiality isn't a weird affectation of the aristocratic classes but something intrinsic to the way our country is organized. In places with a greater degree of social mobility, like much of continental Europe, there's less of a scope for this kind of institutional ossification of perversion. But Britain is a profoundly sick society, and where you were born still determines how the rest of your life will pan out. The ruling classes will go to any lengths to keep it that way. These kids know that they might one day end up leading the country, which is why it's essential that they cum in a pig's mouth. It's not just enjoyment, it's class warfare.
There's no way of saying for sure, but it's certainly not beyond the bounds of credibility that they're all doing it. Politicians, bankers, businessmen, journalists, civil servants, everyone: the whole scummy top layer of the UK. It might not have been planned that way, but the constitutional evolution of British politics, the way that it incorporated feudal relics into its democracy right up until the present, made mass aristocratic pig fucking basically inevitable.
The Daily Mail managed to get the pig story because it's serializing a new biography of Cameron, Call Me Dave, by Lord Ashcroft. The front page of today's paper read, in huge letters, REVENGE. The story goes that Ashcroft, a major Tory donor, expected his generosity to be repaid with a position in the 2010 coalition government. He didn't get it, and so the ancient system of initiation-bonding revealed its true purpose. But Ashcroft is also a billionaire, the 37th richest person in the country. He might not have gone to Oxford, but he spends a lot of time with people who did. Ashcroft might have had his revenge, but could the story come back to bite him where it hurts? After all, what strange adventures might he have gotten into?
Sickening footage shows moment Tory Cambridge student cruelly taunted homeless man by burning £20-note in front of him
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-picture-cambridge-tory-rich-9795539
The incident, caught on camera by a shocked bystander and released by the student newspaper, reportedly shows Ronald Coyne - wearing bow tie and tails - torching the banknote
[I can't finish the cut 'n' paste i have to urgently go throw up]
An update on the Skripal situation from Craig Murray:
Boris Johnson A Categorical Liar
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/boris-johnson-a-categorical-liar/amp/
Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian "novichok" agent.
Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you ... When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory ...
So they have the samples ...
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's no doubt.
I knew and had published from my own whistleblowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said:
The Evidence
16. The evidence in support of the application is contained within the applications
themselves (in particular the Forms COP 3) and the witness statements.
17. I consider the following to be the relevant parts of the evidence. I shall identify the
witnesses only by their role and shall summarise the essential elements of their
evidence.
i) CC: Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst
Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples
tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.
The emphasis is mine. This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a "Novichok", as opposed to "a closely related agent". Even if it were a "Novichok" that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a "closely related agent" could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.
This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying – to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people – about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased.
On a sombre note, I am very much afraid the High Court evidence seems to indicate there is very little chance the Skripals will ever recover; one of the reasons the judge gave for his decision is that samples taken now will be better for analysis than samples taken post mortem.
——————————————————-
This website remains under a massive DOS attack which has persisted for more than 24 hours now, but so far the defences are holding. Some strange form of "ghost banning" is also affecting both my twitter and Facebook feeds. So please
a) Feel free to repost, republish, translate or spread this article anywhere and anyway you can. All copyright is waived.
b) If you came here by Twitter, please retweet but also in addition create a new tweet yourself containing a link to this post (or to any other site on which you have placed the information)
c) If you came here by Facebook, again please share but also in addition create a new post yourself which contains the information and the link.
The state and corporate media now have evidence of the vast discrepancy between what May and Johnson are saying, and the truth about the Porton Down scientists' position. I am afraid to say I expect this to make no difference whatsoever to the propaganda output of the BBC.
Head over to the Saker's site for this new information:
Full translated transcript of the Russian MFA on the "Skripal" false flag operation
http://thesaker.is/full-translated-transcript-of-the-russsian-mfa-on-the-skripal-false-flag-operation/
Jimmy Savile and the BBC - in 60 seconds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12172258/Jimmy-Saviles-career-at-the-BBC-in-60-seconds.html
As a report into sexual abuse at the BBC, prompted by the Jimmy Savile scandal, appears imminent, we look back at Savile's time at the BBC
A report into sexual abuse at the BBC spearheaded by the Jimmy Savile scandal is expected to be published on Thursday,
A review into the BBC's handling of sexual abuse at the corporation was set up following the Savile scandal in 2012, the year after his death, but its publication has been repeatedly delayed.
Savile was said to have raped and abused at least 60 people at Stoke Mandeville hospital including seriously ill children during a 24-year reign of terror, among other findings.
In light of the report, what did Savile host during his TV and radio career at the BBC?
Savile told hospital staff he performed sex acts on corpses in Leeds mortuary
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/savile-bodies-sex-acts-corpses-glass-eyes-mortuary
Former TV presenter said he posed with bodies in lewd positions and stole glass eyes, Broadmoor nurse tells investigators
The England vs Holland football friendly is coming towards the end of the first half and I just turned it off.
Of the 11 players to start the match I counted 7 that are not white. Simple math percentage 7/11 = 64%
Just under two thirds of the team are not my people and identified as 'English' by birth location only.
This is an obvious conflation of race and location. You can call me a racist if you want, I don't care, that is a subjective belief.. I am simply pointing out an objective fact!
Compare and contrast this to the fabled 1966 World Cup Champions, 100% white English.
How far we have come with the loss of our identity in 52 years.
http://www.worldcupteams.republika.pl/1966_presentation.htm
Belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.[1] In the context of Ancient Greek thought, two related concepts were identified with regards to the concept of belief: pistis and doxa. Simplified, we may say that pistis refers to "trust" and "confidence", while doxa refers to "opinion" and "acceptance". The English word "orthodoxy" derives from doxa. Jonathan Leicester suggests that belief has the purpose of guiding action rather than indicating truth.[2]
In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, we never ponder whether or not the sun will rise. We simply assume the sun will rise. Since "belief" is an important aspect of mundane life, according to Eric Schwitzgebel in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a related question asks: "how a physical organism can have beliefs?"[3]
Knowledge and epistemology
Epistemology is concerned with delineating the boundary between justified belief and opinion,[4] and involved generally with a theoretical philosophical study of knowledge. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, where the epistemology of Socrates (Platon) most clearly departs from that of the sophists, who at the time of Plato seem to have defined knowledge as what is here expressed as "justified true belief". The tendency to translate from belief (here: doxa – common opinion) to knowledge (here: episteme), which Plato (e.g. Socrates of the dialogue) utterly dismisses, results from failing to distinguish a dispositive belief (gr. 'doxa', not 'pistis') from knowledge (episteme) when the opinion is regarded true (here: orthé), in terms of right, and juristically so (according to the premises of the dialogue), which was the task of the rhetors to prove. Plato dismisses this possibility of an affirmative relation between belief (i.e. opinion) and knowledge even when the one who opines grounds his belief on the rule, and is able to add justification (gr. logos: reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) to it.[5]
Plato has been credited for the "justified true belief" theory of knowledge, even though Plato in the Theaetetus (dialogue) elegantly dismisses it, and even posits this argument of Socrates as a cause for his death penalty. Among American epistemologists, Gettier (1963)[6] and Goldman (1967),[7] have questioned the "justified true belief" definition, and challenged the "sophists" of their time.
As a psychological phenomenon
Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Philosophers have tended to be more abstract in their analysis, and much of the work examining the viability of the belief concept stems from philosophical analysis.
The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). So, like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind, whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.
Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (that are actively thought about) and dispositional beliefs (that may be ascribed to someone who has not thought about the issue). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers wear pink pajamas?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.[8]
This has important implications for understanding the neuropsychology and neuroscience of belief. If the concept of belief is incoherent, then any attempt to find the underlying neural processes that support it will fail.
Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary approaches to belief in her controversial book Saving Belief:[9]
Our common-sense understanding of belief is correct - Sometimes called the "mental sentence theory," in this conception, beliefs exist as coherent entities, and the way we talk about them in everyday life is a valid basis for scientific endeavour. Jerry Fodor is one of the principal defenders of this point of view.
Our common-sense understanding of belief may not be entirely correct, but it is close enough to make some useful predictions – This view argues that we will eventually reject the idea of belief as we know it now, but that there may be a correlation between what we take to be a belief when someone says "I believe that snow is white" and how a future theory of psychology will explain this behaviour. Most notably, philosopher Stephen Stich has argued for this particular understanding of belief.
Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong and will be completely superseded by a radically different theory that will have no use for the concept of belief as we know it – Known as eliminativism, this view (most notably proposed by Paul and Patricia Churchland) argues that the concept of belief is like obsolete theories of times past such as the four humours theory of medicine, or the phlogiston theory of combustion. In these cases science hasn't provided us with a more detailed account of these theories, but completely rejected them as valid scientific concepts to be replaced by entirely different accounts. The Churchlands argue that our common-sense concept of belief is similar in that as we discover more about neuroscience and the brain, the inevitable conclusion will be to reject the belief hypothesis in its entirety.
Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy – The major proponents of this view, Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that they hold that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they don't go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive device. Dennett gives the example of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did (e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and predictive strategy. In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be explanatory at their own level.
Strategic approaches make a distinction between rules, norms and beliefs as follows: (1) Rules. Explicit regulative processes such as policies, laws, inspection routines, or incentives. Rules function as a coercive regulator of behavior and are dependent upon the imposing entity's ability to enforce them. (2) Norms. Regulative mechanisms accepted by the social collective. Norms are enforced by normative mechanisms within the organization and are not strictly dependent upon law or regulation. (3) Beliefs. The collective perception of fundamental truths governing behavior. The adherence to accepted and shared beliefs by members of a social system will likely persist and be difficult to change over time. Strong beliefs about determinant factors (i.e., security, survival, or honor) are likely to cause a social entity or group to accept rules and norms.[10]
Epistemological belief compared to religious belief
Historically belief-in belonged in the realm of religious thought, belief-that instead belonged to epistemological considerations.[11]
Belief-in
To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believing-that." There are at least these types of belief-in:[12]
Commendatory / Faith - we may make an expression of 'faith' in respect of some performance by an agent X, when without prejudice to the truth value of the factual outcome or even confidence in X otherwise, we expect that specific performance. In particular self-confidence or faith in one's self is this kind of belief.
Existential claim – to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon in a general way with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in a deity" are typical examples.[13] The linguistic form is distinct from the assertion of the truth of a proposition since verification is either considered impossible/irrelevant or a counterfactual situation is assumed.
Belief-that
Economical belief
Economic beliefs are beliefs which are reasonably and necessarily contrary to the tenet of rational choice or instrumental rationality.[14]
Studies of the Austrian tradition of the economic thought, in the context of analysis of the influence and subsequent degree of change resulting from existing economic knowledge and belief, has contributed the most to the subsequent holistic collective analysis.[15]
Delusion
Insofar as the truth of belief is expressed in sentential and propositional form we are using the sense of belief-that rather than belief-in. Delusion arises when the truth value of the form is clearly nil.[16][17][18]
Delusions are defined as beliefs in psychiatric diagnostic criteria[19] (for example in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Psychiatrist and historian G.E. Berrios has challenged the view that delusions are genuine beliefs and instead labels them as "empty speech acts," where affected persons are motivated to express false or bizarre belief statements due to an underlying psychological disturbance. However, the majority of mental health professionals and researchers treat delusions as if they were genuine beliefs.
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass the White Queen says, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." This is often quoted in mockery of the common ability of people to entertain beliefs contrary to fact.
The language used by Sam Kriss is quite crude but he does make a good point:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg67191#msg67191
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.03.23, 11:26:28
There's no way of saying for sure, but it's certainly not beyond the bounds of credibility that they're all doing it. Politicians, bankers, businessmen, journalists, civil servants, everyone: the whole scummy top layer of the UK. It might not have been planned that way, but the constitutional evolution of British politics, the way that it incorporated feudal relics into its democracy right up until the present, made mass aristocratic pig fucking basically inevitable.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/268996/DeMolay-Bill%20Clinton's%20Masonic
The original article on the freemasonrytoday.com website is gone but the discussion about the article is still available. Are virtually all the positions of power throughout the establishment held by different factions of secret societies ? Is this why they are all in lockstep promoting beliefs and ignoring fact based reason ? Is this why they want at a minimum a new cold war with a strategic enemy (designated Russia and China) and will accept a WW3 to kill everyone that has figured this out ? (While they hide in bunkers and emerge after as gods)
What do you think ?
Thierry Meyssan's opinion on the motive for the false flag:
Four days to declare a Cold War
http://www.voltairenet.org/article200232.html
by Thierry Meyssan
The week that has just ended was exceptionally rich in events. But no media were able to report it, because they had all deliberately masked certain of their number in order to protect the story that was being woven by their government. London had attempted to provoke a major conflict, but lost to Russia, President Trump and Syria.
[The UK has the fourth largest army in the world ? Nope, it's tiny in comparison, and the link below has the UK's total active combined service's manpower at rank 38 globally]
https://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp
The West's 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra is wrecking lives & international relations
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/422206-russia-skripal-courts-metoo/
Western society is flirting with a disturbing trend where people are being denied the time-honored 'presumption of innocence'. The same undemocratic method is even being used against nations in what is becoming a dangerous game.
Imagine the following scenario: You are a star football player at the local high school, with a number of college teams hoping to recruit you. There is even talk of a NFL career down the road. Then, overnight, your life takes an unexpected turn for the worse. The police show up at your house with a warrant for your arrest; the charges: kidnapping and rape. The only evidence is your word against the accuser's. After spending six years behind bars, the court decides you were wrongly accused.
That is the incredible story of Brian Banks, 26, who was released early from prison in 2012 after his accuser, Wanetta Gibson, admitted that she had fabricated injurious claims against the young man.
Many other innocent people, however, who have been falsely accused in the West for some crime they did not commit, are not as fortunate as Brian Banks. Just this week, for example, Ross Bullock was released from his private "hell" – and not due to an accuser with a guilty conscience, but by committing suicide.
"After a 'year of torment'... Bullock hanged himself in the garage of the family home, leaving a note revealing he had 'hit rock bottom' and that with his death 'I'm free from this living hell,'" the Daily Mail reported.
There is a temptation to explain away such tragic cases as isolated anomalies in an otherwise sound-functioning legal system. After all, mistakes are going to happen regardless of the safeguards. At the same time, however, there is an irresistible urge among humans to believe those people who claim to have been victimized – even when the evidence suggests otherwise. Perhaps this is due to the powerful emotional element that works to galvanize the victim's story. Or it could be due to the belief that nobody would intentionally and unjustly condemn another human being. But who can really say what is inside another person's heart? Moreover, it can't be denied that every time we attempt to hunt down and punish another people, tribe, sex, religion, etc. for some alleged crimes against victims, there is a real tendency among Westerners to get carried away with moralistic zeal to the point of fanaticism.
A case in point is last year's scandal that rocked the entertainment industry as the movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women over the span of a 30-year career. Eventually, over 80 females, emboldened by the courage displayed by their peers, drove Weinstein straight out of Hollywood and into the rogue's gallery of sexual predators. Few could deny this was a positive thing.
But then something strange began to happen that has been dubbed the 'Weinstein effect.' Powered by the social media #MeToo movement, women from all walks of life began to publicly accuse men for all sorts of sexual violations, some from decades ago. Certainly, many of the claims were legitimate. However, in many cases they were not. Yet the mainstream media, which has taken great delight in providing breathless details of every new accusation, has shown little interest in pursuing those stories of men who went on to suffer divorce, ruined reputations, and the loss of jobs without so much as a fair hearing in a court of law.
As far as the mainstream media is concerned, and to be fair they don't seem that concerned, the victim's story is the only story that matters. Indeed, it was almost as if the victim had become judge, jury and executioner. This is, in reality, just one step from mob rule, and woe to anyone who questions the motives of the movement, as French star Catherine Deneuve discovered.
The (female) writer, D.C. McAllister, described the poisonous "environment of suspicion" that has beset relations between men and women.
"While women's willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it undermines trust," McAllister wrote in The Federalist. "When anything from a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is compared to rape and sexual abuse, we are not healing society but infecting relationships with the poison of distrust."
In other words, neither men nor women have gained anything from this otherwise-well-intended campaign against sexual improprieties. However, this is not the first time the West has allowed raw emotions to knock the train of progress right off the tracks. History books are replete with examples of Western campaigns rising out of sheer mass hysteria. But at least in those wild times there was still some semblance of justice, complete with trials and investigations. Now compare that with our 'modern' times, when all it took for the United States to win approval for an illicit attack on Iraq was for Colin Powell to shake a vial of faux anthrax in front of the UN General Assembly.
With these historical hiccups in mind, it is possible to argue that the West has truly forgotten the lessons of history because they are certainly repeating them today.
By way of example, consider where the great bulk of US troops are encamped today – in and around the Middle East – and then ask yourself how they got there. The answer is by hook and by crook, and not a little public manipulation and chicanery. That is because, in our insatiable desire to defend victims – the good guys, we are told – we are allowing ourselves to ignore crucial evidence while placing blind faith in what we are being told is the truth. Clearly that has not been the case to date.
From the accusations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction to launch against innocent people, to the current claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people, the West is gambling that claims based on zero evidence will always work to fulfill ulterior motives. So far, the ploy seems to be working with the gullible public, but sooner or later truth will catch up, indeed, as truth usually does.
Just this month, for example, an assassination attempt was made against Sergei Skripal – a former double agent who had moved to Salisbury, England following a spy-swap in 2010. Any guesses as to who the British authorities have ruled – without a trial, evidence or motivating factor – is the main culprit? Yes, Russia. Yet, even the usually loyal British press has started expressing reservations over the dubious claims.
This should come as no surprise since the UK, a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has staunchly refused to provide samples of the alleged nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Why would it do that? Would anyone be surprised if this investigation goes the same way it did for all those Russian athletes who were, unjustly, banned from the Winter Olympic Games this year?
Or perhaps the same way it went following the 2016 US presidential elections, when Russia was accused of meddling on behalf of Donald Trump – zero evidence to back up the slanderous accusations, which are responsible for putting US-Russia relations into a free fall.
In conclusion, the unsightly spectacle of Western capitals backtracking on legal precedent – from domestic cases to international – makes it all the more clear why it is so anxious to win back the media mountaintops – it has no evidence whatsoever to support the reasons behind its increasingly illicit behavior. It is therefore incumbent upon them to own the narrative, as well as the justice system. How long this democratic charade can last is anybody's guess.
@Robert_Bridge
Robert Bridge pretty much hit the ball out of the park with that op-ed, and the cracks in solidarity of belief, excluding fact based truth, are beginning to show in the western media. There have been some accusations lately that atheist morality is just as fanatical a zeal as religious ideology, hinted at by the Saker amongst others.. so.. I believe it only fair to address this situation in an open and honest debate. I will lay out my position later today and we can go from there and publicly debate the issue in a fair and open manner with respect to the truth of the situation. Can't be fairer than that, can I ?
UK's claims questioned: doubts voiced about source of Salisbury novichok
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/15/uks-claims-questioned-doubts-emerge-about-source-of-salisburys-novichok
[quote author=evolvingape link=topic. There have been some accusations lately that atheist morality is just as fanatical a zeal as religious ideology, hinted at by the Saker amongst others.. so.. I believe it only fair to address this situation in an open and honest...snip
[/quote]
I hope with the understanding that our controllers practice satanism, not atheism
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2018.03.24, 16:10:17
I hope with the understanding that our controllers practice satanism, not atheism
Yes I understand that. When defining satanism it would be helpful to keep in mind the Pope's comments about the 'cult of money and power', define Satan as an artificial construct created by man the same as the God concept is, and have a read of this from the sgtreport:
https://www.sgtreport.com/2018/03/did-elite-pedophiles-fake-nerve-gas-attack-in-salisbury/
Also, the Saker's interview linked in a previous post touches on this subject as well.
EMERGENCY WARNING FROM THE SAKER
http://thesaker.is/emergency-warning-from-the-saker/
Dear friends,
I have learned that several anti-Empire websites have been hit by strong and sustained DDoS attacks including Craig Murray (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/massive-attack-on-this-blog/) and, apparently, the the Russian journal New Eastern Outlook which was knocked off line by a big hacking attack and is still down Saturday. They have been attacked multiple times the past 2 months and then a final attack succeeded in shutting them down. They are trying to get it back up.
We might be next.
Should that happen, I ask you to write down the URL to the old, blogspot, domain name I used originally:
https://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/
Second, please write down these email addresses to contact me if needed: (please use them in the following order)
vineyardsaker@gmail.com
vineyardsaker@mail.ru
vineyardsaker@yandex.com
(if and when needed, I will provide other contact information)
These are truly crazy and extremely dangerous times and the Empire is already engaged in all sorts of dirty but (semi)-legal tricks (search engine tampering, YouTube channel defunding, placing silly labels like "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government", etc.). They are going berserk because they are losing the war for hearts and minds and they know that, hence all the crazy nonsense à la "Skripal" false flag. The fact that they are losing makes them not less, but much more, dangerous.
These are, objectively, frightening times. But don't let that discourage you. Remember these words of Christ: (Matt 10:28)
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell".
or these words of Saint Paul: (Eph. 6:12)
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
or these beautiful words from the Qu'ran (Surah Al-Anfal 8:30):
"Those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you. But they plan, and God plans. And God is the best of planners".
and if you are not religious, then remember these words from the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs spoken on the 22 June 1941, the last time a "united Europe" attacked Russia:
"Ours is a righteous cause. The enemy shall be defeated. Victory will be ours"
But yes, it is going to get worse, much worse, before it gets better.
So be ready for the fight.
Hugs and cheers,
The Saker
The errors in the article have been sufficiently expanded on, for now, in the Sakers comment section.
The Russians Are Flabbergasted
http://thesaker.is/the-russians-are-flabbergasted/#comments
by Israel Shamir (cross-posted with the Unz Review by special agreement with the author)
President Trump is so pissed off by the Stormy affair that he is likely to prefer a good old war to another humiliation. This suits his enemies and friends (though not his voters) to a tee. He has a choice of doing a difficult manly act that needs all his courage, but which one? Should he put the well-being of his country at stake and brave Russian missiles, or risk the displeasure of the elites and sack Mueller? He is tempted to do the easy thing. Thus he has been maneuvered into deep waters by a powerful coalition of Brits and Jews, the same people who delivered you the last two world wars.
His attempt to make sense and drop the Syrian hot potato ("I strongly wish for the withdrawal of our forces from Syria", he tweeted) has been rebuffed by the indomitable Mr Netanyahu. Don't even think of doing it, the big man from Tel Aviv said to Donny in the tense telephone conversation. Don't leave Syria, you still have to fight the Iranians and Russians. And don't forget the Syrian kiddies, added the man still covered with the gore of 2,500 Palestinians shot on his orders last week. The Pentagon and US intelligence agencies take their orders directly from Tel Aviv, or via AIPAC; they are already preparing for an extended stay in Syria, despite Donny's declarations.
The Jews went ballistic when they heard of Trump's intention to leave Syria. The scribes of WaPo and NY Times condemned the step as playing into Russian hands. "Washington Post columnist and CNN commentator Catherine Rampell said that "Putin must be ecstatic" with Trump's instructions to begin planning for withdrawal from the region. Forget the fact that it'd be odd for a president to base all of his foreign policy decisions on what would bother Russia — why isn't Rampell focusing on how delightful it must be for American soldiers to finally reunite with their families, or how the resources this country has spent overseas can now be used domestically?", – noted a media reporter. This was the cue for Mueller's raid of Cohen's office. The old fool has to be pushed, if he does not want to go by his own will, they decided.
America with its Puritan background is the only country where sexual mores are so strict that they lead to war. Clinton went to war in Yugoslavia because of a blow job, while Trump will possibly destroy the world because of a one-night stand.
An attack on Syria is likely to bring a Russian response. At the least, it will be a local conflagration, a joust, a trial of forces and wills. Who knows how it will end? This was been postponed in 2013, when the US armada sailed to Syria's shores to avenge some other alleged chemical attack. I wrote about that fateful encounter, perhaps over-optimistically, in a piece called The Cape of Good Hope.
"It was touch and go, just as risky as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The chances for total war were high, as the steely wills of America and Eurasia had crossed in the Eastern Mediterranean. The most dramatic event of September 2013 was the high-noon stand-off near the Levantine shore, with five US destroyers pointing their Tomahawks towards Damascus and facing them – the Russian flotilla of eleven ships led by the carrier-killer missile cruiser Moskva and supported by Chinese warships. Apparently, two missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to reach their destination. (We shall return to these two missiles later).
After this strange incident, the pending shoot-out did not commence, as President Obama stood down and holstered his guns. This was preceded by an unexpected vote in the British Parliament. This venerable body declined the honour of joining the attack proposed by the US. This was the first time in two hundred years that the British parliament voted down a sensible proposition to start a war; usually the Brits can't resist the temptation. This misadventure put paid to American hegemony , supremacy and exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny was over."
As we see now, the high noon was been postponed by five years, and now it is being re-run. The British Prime Minister Theresa May decided she does not need parliament's approval, President Trump decided he does not need an approval of Congress. So these brakes had been removed.
And now back to those two missiles of 2013. They were sent by the Israelis, whether they were trying to jump-start the shoot-out or just observed the clouds, as they claim. The missiles never reached its destination, shot down by the Russian ship-based sea-to-air defence system, or perhaps rendered useless by Russian GPS jammers.
Fast forward to 2018. On the night of April 10, in the small hours, the Syrian air field T-4 had been attacked by eight air-to-ground missiles; five were downed by the Syrian defence, three (or two) reached their goal and killed a few personnel. For a while, it was thought this was the American attack, but rather quickly, "Russia outed Israel", as Haaretz reported. Israel tried to dissimulate, at first claiming they warned Putin and got his okay. When Putin's spokesman denied that, they said they did it by the US request. Most probably they again tried to bring the confrontation to the fore.
Now, with the US Navy in place, with the support of England and France, the countdown to a confrontation has apparently started. The Russians are grimly preparing for the battle, whether a local one or the global one, and they expect it to begin any moment.
The road to this High Noon had led through the Scripal Affair, the diplomats' expulsion and the Syrian battle for Eastern Ghouta, with an important side show provided by Israeli shenanigans.
The diplomats' expulsion flabbergasted the Russians. For days they went around scratching their heads and looking for an answer: what do they want from us? What is the bottom line? Too many events that make little sense separately. Why did the US administration expel 60 Russian diplomats? Do they want to cut off diplomatic relations, or is it a first step to an attempt to remove Russia from the Security Council, or to cancel its veto rights? Does it mean the US has given up on diplomacy? (The answer "it's war" didn't come to their minds at that time).
The astonished Russians responded all right. They also expelled 60 diplomats, and they made it painful: all US diplomats engaged in the political department of the Moscow Embassy were on the non-grata list. The Political department consisted of three sections, dealing with foreign policy, internal Russian politics and military analysis; the most important centre of data collection, of liaison with Russian politicians, of military consequences, of Syria and Ukraine, of North Korea and China, experienced first-class intelligence officers and field hands – all gone, including their Political Officer Christopher Robinson (POL). The Russians expelled Maria Olson, the Embassy's well-known spokesperson, and the Ambassador's interpreter. They closed down St Petersburg Consulate, an important centre for connecting, influencing and interacting with the opposition in this 'second capital' of Russia. The US has lost many of its Moscow hands, people who knew Russia and had developed personal relations with important Russians. It will take a lot of time and effort for the US State Department and intelligence agencies to get back to the positions they had lost. The Brits who initiated the deportations also lost about fifty of their Moscow Embassy staff.
Surprisingly, the mass deportation of so many Russian diplomats had little effect on the Russian people, as this strike had been neutralised by another painful event, by the Kemerovo Mall blaze killing 64 cinema-goers including over 40 children. The blaze, even if it weren't arson (it has not been proven yet) had triggered a massive onslaught of fake news and internet trolls on the people of Russia. A million underfed Ukrainians were deployed by the Western psywar on the web to tell the Russians that hundreds of their children had been incinerated, and that their authorities lie to them. This operation revealed the level of influence and integration the Western spy agencies have in Russia.
Kemerovo was a good choice for the operation: it is the only ethnic-Russian region ruled by an old-style local hero who had outlived his wits, the only region that reported indecently (and unrealistically) high support for Putin in the recent elections, a depressive region of mines and miners with a big potential for trouble.
Putin managed it rather well by coming personally and dealing with the situation hands on. He learned the ropes since 2000, when, at the dawn of his first presidential term, the Kursk submarine went down with all hands. Putin stayed away from the sailors' families, and acted callous, people said. "It had sunk", Putin replied to the question "What happened to Kursk?" (It is said USS Memphis had fired a torpedo at the submarine, causing the disaster, while the new president had been reluctant to aggravate relations with Clinton Administration). Now, in 2018, he was very good, full of empathy and consideration, conveying strength and decisiveness.
Whatever American agency carried out the psyop around Kemerovo, it was very successful, but its success undermined another operation, that of the Russian diplomats' expulsion. The Russians did not pay it sufficient attention.
The alleged reason for the expulsion, the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, made very little sense. Even if the old spy were bumped off by his erstwhile employers, such a reaction would be excessive by all means. He was not a Napoleon (poisoned by the Brits 200 years ago), not a prince of blood, not a great inventor nor a successful spy. He was a retired ex-spy, a wash-out. Anyway he didn't die, he was just sick for a while. Perhaps he ate something in the pub that didn't agree with him. This is the opinion of his niece, Victoria, who is the only person alive who had been in contact with the Skripals since their alleged hospitalisation.
This affair is so obscure that it beats Rashomon anytime. Russian reporters went around Salisbury and noticed many incongruences. It is not certain whether Skripals were poisoned at all, and where they are. Their pets survived the deadly poison, and they had to be destroyed. This piece of black Russian humour had been forwarded a lot around the net:
Skripal had been poisoned by a most powerful poison, 2 grams will kill half a country instantly! The Russians
– poisoned him in the restaurant
– no, on the bench
– no, in the car
– No, the door handle was smeared
– No, the suitcase was poisoned
– No, everything in the house was poisoned.
– Oh, and buckwheat was poisoned,
– but they did not die instantly, but walked around somewhere for four hours,
– but the policeman that discovered them almost died on the spot,
– but the poison was instantly identified,
– an antidote was instantly introduced, and Skripals and the policeman were saved;
– The policeman had been discharged next day!
– But they were in coma, and they will never recover!
– but no, the daughter had recovered fast!
– Oh, and dad is revived ... a miracle!
– and they both are quickly recovering, your strongest poison is useless.
– the restaurant had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
– the park had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
– the house had surrounded by police in spacesuits
– they are in spacesuits, since the poison is deadly dangerous, but next to them are policemen without protection ...
– The bench was cut down and removed: it's such a terrible poison that the bench retained its toxic quality for two weeks;
– but the cat had survived in the poisoned house ... the policeman had touched Skripal and nearly died, and the cat survived ... and the guinea pigs would survive, but they were all forgotten, and died of hunger in the house;
– and their remains were immediately burned, as they are poisoned by the strongest poison;
– For two weeks they were poisoned by the strongest poison and survived, and now they had to be urgently cremated;
– Only guinea pigs died, the cat survived all this poison. It was stressful and hungry, so they killed it and cremated to make it certain nobody will find the secret etc etc.
The true hero of Skripal saga is the British ex-Ambassador Craig Murray, who followed the developments and unveiled many of its inconsistencies and outright lies. You may read his articles and twits to learn the details.
Julia Skripal took a daring step: she called her cousin Viktoria in Moscow. Their conversation is an amazing document. Julia says that she and her father are in good health; she doubts Viktoria will be allowed to visit her. Indeed, the British government refused to grant her visa. The feeling is that Julia is imprisoned.
I spoke with a retired Russian counter-intelligence officer who is familiar with the subject. He told me Russia never had a Novichok toxic substance: this name was given by counter-intelligence to A-232 in order to trace the leaks. It worked: a man called Vil Mirzayanov, an administrator in the chemical labs, leaked the Novichok story, and thus he was apprehended and arrested. A-232 had been produced in small amounts in 1990s, and some of it could be stolen and sold in these horrible years, when a full colonel of Russian intelligence had to moonlight as a taxi driver to supplement his measly $46 monthly salary. In those years, the poison could be indeed made available, and in one case it was used by criminals.
Theoretically it is not impossible that some of this poison could have been saved and stored by some criminals; alternatively, it was available to the Americans who dismantled the labs in 1992. Anyway we have no independent proof that Skripals were poisoned by anything at all. If they survive, if the British and the American intelligence services don't kill them, perhaps we shall know more. We can definitely exclude the possibility that Russian state agents would go to Britain to poison an old spy who had been pardoned by Russian president years ago. Even if he was active in producing Christopher Steele's Trump ("Golden Rain") file, the Russians would have no compelling reason to kill him at all, and in such an odd way in particular. "If we would kill him, he would stay killed", concluded my interlocutor.
The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair.
The connection between chemical poisoning and Russia had been prepared for the forthcoming event. Eastern Ghouta was an important and well entrenched location of the Syrian rebels. Being within easy reach from Central Damascus, it provided the rebels with a chance to seize power in the Syrian capital. As the Syrian army with Iranian and Russian support advanced into Eastern Ghouta, they learned of the rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical weapon attack, as they already had done a few times in past. President Putin warned of such a possibility at his joint (with President Erdogan and President Rouhani) press conference in Ankara last week, a few days before the alleged attack.
The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia.
We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk – it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress.
The planners of a war on Russia have utilised fear of anti-Semitism for their purposes. I called this method Anti-semitism Weaponised. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has been blocked and contained by accusations of anti-Semitism. He was the only leader able to stop Britain's descent into war with Russia. Other Labour MPs and activists have been attacked over alleged anti-Semitism issue, and – what a coincidence! – practically all of them were against demonising Russia; while Friends of Israel – whether Conservative or Labour – were viciously anti-Russian.
This is a correlation that will be discussed at another time, but it is far from obvious one. Russia has no anti-Semitism; the Russian president is friendly to Israel and to the powerful Jewish Chabad movement. Russia has no white nationalism, and little of the alt-right. However, this correlation exists. Shall we explain it by Jewish hatred of the Orthodox Church, as this Church (active in Russia, Greece, Palestine and Syria) hasn't been Jewified. Or should we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites.
However, people who can withstand accusations of anti-Semitism are the strongest enemies of the ruling power; they stand against the war with Russia and against attack on Syria, as the Haaretz newspaper explained in an article called White Supremacists Defend Assad, Warn Trump: Don't Let Israel Force You Into War With Syria . The article continues: "Alt-right calls Saturday's chemical attack in Damascus suburb a false flag operation, claiming it's an effort by Israel and 'globalists' to keep U.S. troops in Middle East" It quotes David Duke and other untouchables as the only people who reject Israeli narrative.
Not being a white supremacist (probably I do not qualify) I still applaud these brave men when they say and do the right thing. Sensitivity to anti-Semitism accusation is a strong vulnerability of character. Though people like Corbyn have their heart in the right place, they are weak on this point, and the enemy uses this weakness to neutralize them. There are people in the left that are not afraid of any accusation, but there aren't many who are resistant to metum Judaeorum.
Let us hope and pray we shall survive the forthcoming cataclysm.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
Trump tries to tweet Russia into submission
http://thesaker.is/trump-tries-to-tweet-russia-into-submission/
Submit or Die: The Geostrategic Jihad of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (Part One)
http://www.equip.org/article/submit-or-die-the-geostrategic-jihad-of-osama-bin-laden-and-al-qaeda-part-one/
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 29, number 4 (2006). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
SYNOPSIS
Rarely reported by the American media, an ideological civil war is occurring in Islam between scholars of the emerging Muslim reform movement and radicals who promote militant interpretations of Islam. This is a battle for the hearts and minds of mainstream Muslims in the Middle East. The reformers see Islam as a flexible, nondogmatic religion adaptable to the modern world, and some even call for the separation of mosque and state.1 The militant radicals want to squeeze followers of Islam into a tight-fisted sectarian army at war with the entire "infidel" world. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda epitomize the latter view. This two-part article examines the militant side of this ideological war in the life and writings of Sayyid Qutb, the twentieth-century Egyptian "martyr" whose theological/political dogma shapes bin Laden's worldview, justifies violence against those who resist it, and seeks a totalitarian rule of the world.
In the West he has been regarded as "the philosopher of Islamic terror."2 In the Muslim world, he is remembered as "the martyred scholar of Islam."3 His views help explain terrorist acts such as the Madrid train bombings (March 2004), the suicide bombings in the London underground (July 2005), and the incendiary conduct of 19 men aboard four aircraft on September 11, 2001. He increasingly is recognized as the foremost thinker behind the worldview of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden's "lieutenant"), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (deceased leader of terrorist operations in Iraq), and members of al-Qaeda. His militant views inform many other jihadi (see glossary) leaders and aid the flow of disaffected Muslim youths from the Arab street into what Jordanian political columnist Rami Khouri calls the "basement," where terrorists are born. His name is Sayyid Qutb, a formidable Egyptian radical who was imprisoned for his views and eventually executed by hanging.
It has often been assumed that Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabi (see glossary) because he was born and educated in Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabi doctrine dictates religious and educational life and social mores, and indoctrinates students from an early age in extreme anti-American and anti-Jewish values. This is not the full picture, however; for although bin Laden certainly is steeped in Saudi Wahhabism, he and other frontline terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda, are also unquestionably Qutbists, that is, adherents to Qutb's views. Their worldview has been shaped by both sources. In particular, their basic theological/political ideology derives from Qutb's views as a kind of mission statement that justifies the existence and operations of their organized network (al-Qaeda means "base" or "organization").
QUTB'S LIFE AND INFLUENCES
Born in 1906 and educated in Cairo, Egypt, the Sunni Arab Sayyid Qutb received degrees in teacher training and education in 1929 and 1933, during a period when he acquired some Western leanings and was more a man of letters than a political activist. He had interests in poetry and journalism and published literary criticism and short stories. From 1933 to 1949, he served the Egyptian ministry of education as a teacher and school inspector. Gilles Kepel, who is perhaps the first prominent Western scholar to publish extensively about Qutb (1984), writes that during the 1930s Qutb increasingly objected to British influence in Egypt and deplored Jewish immigration to Palestine. By 1945, "the principal subject matter of his articles [had] shifted from literature to nationalism, political events, and social problems,"4 and in 1948 he condemned the founding of the Jewish state.
American Secularism and Christianity
Qutb's changing opinion of the West veered in a much more radical direction when he reached American soil in 1948. During his two-plus years studying and traveling in America, Qutb grew to hate the United States for its materialism, sexual immorality, and the freedom it allowed to women. America's separation of church and state was repugnant to him, and he detested what he considered the prejudiced way the press reported overseas Muslim events. He thought that America's Christian churches, at least those he visited, were not following Jesus' teachings. For instance, while studying at Colorado State College of Education, in Greeley, he attended a local church service and, afterward, a church dance. Bruce Lincoln, a scholar of Middle East Studies, writes, "Qutb was not disturbed simply by the eroticism he took to be indecorous and improper." For Qutb, the room "became a confusion of feet and legs; arms twisting around hips; lips met; chests pressed together." More troubling, however, and "analytically most revealing [to Qutb], was the enabling condition of this offensive spectacle: the disconnection between the preceding 'religious' service and the 'social' event that followed."5 By the end of his trip, Qutb had concluded that Christianity had failed in America because it had separated religious life from political and social life. This was antithetical to the whole-life Islam that Qutb now preached.
The Muslim Brotherhood
After returning to Egypt, in the early 1950s, Qutb joined the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which had become that nation's leading political alternative, founded in 1928 by Egyptian-born Hasan al-Banna (1906–1949). In the 1940s, the Brotherhood began espousing political violence as a means of social transformation. During the 1950s, Brotherhood members were arrested for sedition and several Brotherhood leaders were executed by hanging after being accused of the failed 1954 assassination attempt on Egyptian prime minister Gamal Abdel Nasser. Many of the group's key figures fled to Saudi Arabia, where they found warm camaraderie with state-sponsored Wahhabism and where they were put to good use. Essayist and political critic Paul Berman writes,
The Saudi princes were determined to keep their own country on a path of pure adherence to Saudi Arabia's antique and rigid version of Islam; and Egypt's intellectuals, with their stores of Koranic knowledge, had much to offer. The Egyptian exiles took over professional chairs in Saudi universities. And their impact was large. Qutb's younger brother, Muhammad Qutb, a distinguished scholar in his own right, fled to Saudi Arabia and became a professor of Islamic studies. One of his students was Osama bin Laden.6
After joining the Brotherhood, Qutb quickly gained status as its leading ideologue and became the editor of its radical newspaper. In 1954 he was jailed with others who were accused of attempting to overthrow Nasser's government and was sentenced to hard labor in what some have called Nasser's concentration camps, where torture was not uncommon. Except for two short periods, Qutb spent nearly 12 years in prison, where he studied and wrote many books, including most of his 30-volume commentary on the Qur'an, In the Shade of the Qur'an. He was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966.
Al-Banna's Uniquely Islamic Worldview
Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna had a decisive, shaping influence on Sayyid Qutb's worldview. The late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century had seen the birth of the movement now known as political Islam, which preached a return to the totality of Islam for all of life, including nonseparation of religion and government. Al-Banna had become its most influential proponent after studying the life of Muhammad and his companions and examining the original vision and first decades of Islam. Islamic scholar Noah Feldman writes that for al-Banna,
Islam was not merely a faith but a comprehensive worldview that covered the whole field of human existence.... It provided a blueprint for a just society, organized along Islamic principles.... The mature Banna's Islam was therefore both political and fundamentalist: political in refusing to be relegated to the sphere of the private or the personal, and fundamentalist in the technical sense that it went back to the most basic, fundamental elements of Islam—the divine message of the Qur'an and the sayings and actions of the Prophet and his followers.7
Al-Banna popularized the term Islamic as an adjective to distinguish his worldview from Western and other worldviews, including nationalist Muslim ones. The terms Islamism and Islamist also arose from al-Banna's system of thought to describe "not just Muslims but people who see Islam as a comprehensive political, spiritual, and personal worldview defined in opposition to all that is non-Islamic."8
In 1949, when Qutb was in America, al-Banna was murdered by the Egyptian secret police. His sudden death devastated the Brotherhood and further radicalized Qutb. By the time of Nasser's rule (1954–1958), the Brotherhood had reorganized as a major political player in Egypt, with chapters springing up outside Egypt, a process that Feldman believes "was the single most important institutional element in the diffusion of political Islam."9
In his writings, Qutb developed al-Banna's Islamic worldview in ways that further radicalized the Brotherhood and kindled the intellectual struggle in the Muslim world between those who desire peaceable relations with the West and those who desire a world without the West. Qutb's many books, most of which still have been published only in Arabic, have had a major influence since the 1960s on Muslim youths as they have come of age. His radical doctrines have inspired and emboldened countless Muslim dissidents, who have had both time and opportunity to grow more politicized, organized, and clandestine. Today, through several English translations of Qutb's seminal works, we in the West find passage into a concise, black and white, absolutist worldview, one that has empowered bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, members of al-Qaeda, and many other frontline terrorists.
QUTB'S TOTALITARIAN WORLDVIEW
There is a philosophical and theological intelligence behind Qutb's criticisms of, and prescriptions for, whatever aspect of life was in his sights. Berman noted, "Qutb is not shallow. Qutb is deep."10 Besides his extensive knowledge of Islam and the Qur'an (he is said to have memorized the Qur'an in its entirety by age 10), Qutb was familiar with Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christian theology, church history, and church councils. He studied Constantinianism (i.e., the formal alliance of church and state first employed by the Roman emperor Constantine) and the Renaissance and Reformation periods and criticized as "lamentable" the intellectual climate and institutionalism of modern Western Europe. He mounted significant criticisms of American life, liberal democracy, communism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, and capitalism and was conversant with the ideas of many Western thinkers, politicians, and Christian religious figures of his day. He developed a simple, straightforward style of writing to communicate his way of thinking about Islam—Islamism—which appealed to Muslim youths. It was very different from the "complex rhetoric" of the Islamic scholars, writes Kepel. "Qutb spoke directly to his readers, using the modern idiom to get simple points across."11
In Terror and Liberalism, Berman draws convincingly from twentieth-century Western history and literature to show that, in principle, Qutb's worldview is not unprecedented when seen in the light of other totalitarian enemies of democratic liberalism, especially fascism and communism. These were "irrational, authoritarian, and insanely murderous, a politics of mass mobilization for unachievable ends."12 For Berman, therefore, the "Terror War," as he calls it, is not really new, but rather is just another totalitarian ideology with legs and arms. Berman arrived at this conclusion after studying all of Qutb's writings that he could find that were published in English. Regarding three English volumes of In the Shade of the Qur'an, Berman writes, "Qutb explains that a proper understanding of the Koran can be achieved only in an atmosphere of serious struggle, and only by someone who is engaged in a ferocious campaign for Islam, not by someone at ease in his chair. The Koran, he observes, does not merely offer a body of knowledge, to be plucked at will, as if from a tree. The Koran offers a way to live."13
Within Qutb's totalitarian worldview, Islam, or at least Qutb's view of Islam, is the totality. Qutb's doctrine of the sovereignty of God is the theological starting point for this notion. Berman observes, "Every page of In the Shade of the Qur'an can be seen as a commentary on the single affirmation, 'There is no God but Allah.' Every new theme and topic offered Qutb a fresh opportunity to demonstrate that nature, man, and man's obligations come from a single source, which is God. And Islam is the acknowledgment of that one overwhelming reality."14 This doctrine also drives what I call Qutb's radical view of history and of history's fatal flaw. This view provides the theological/political wedge that bin Laden and al-Qaeda use for dividing the world into antithetical camps. A short account follows.
QUTB'S RADICAL VIEW OF HISTORY AND OF ITS FATAL FLAW
Whether he looked east or west, or at the Soviet bloc, or even at the contemporary Muslim world, Qutb saw an unbearable crisis: "Everywhere man was ill at ease and alienated from his own nature."15 It was all sliding downward, as Qutb put it in Islam: The Religion of the Future, employing a powerful image that is reminiscent of Leonard Cohen's postmodern appraisal of a pending future in which "the blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold and it has overturned the order of the soul," therefore, things will "slide in all directions."16
History's Fatal Flaw
Starting from his conclusion about the sorry state of his contemporary world, Qutb swept back through time seeking to identify what went wrong. He found it in Jewish history, specifically in what he perceived as Judaism's eventual reduction of God's total reign from one that rules over all of life (in the Law of Moses) to one that rules over ceremonial and individual moral concerns only. Qutb viewed this as fatal for history because it produced the secular/sacred split in life. He analyzes the effects of this reductionism extensively in his books. Using a language and a way of reasoning not unlike that of Christian philosophy and worldview analysis today, he speaks in terms of various organizing principles functioning as "gods" that rule and shape people's beliefs and behavior in different areas of life. In Qutb's view, Judaism had lost its founding vision of God's rule over the totality of life. God, in Qutb's estimation, ruled only Jewish religious and private life because, over time, gods from pagan nations had wheedled in to organize the other aspects of Jewish life (e.g., social, economic, political), and the Jews thereby became idolatrous, embracing polytheism while claiming to be monotheists. Having identified history's fatal flaw, Qutb now had a starting point for his radical view of history.
Jesus, Qutb believed, was a true messenger of God sent to restore aspects of Jewish life and practice back under God's rule, but because of His untimely death and the persecution and scattering of His disciples, neither Judaism nor Christianity was able to recover in any systemic sense the original unitary vision of the Mosaic Law. Then came a worse historical disaster: the official conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in the fourth century. In his books, Qutb ranges through the domestic life, social policies, and foreign relations of the Holy Roman Empire, lambasting church councils, condemning the Crusades, and interpreting hundreds of passages in the Qur'an to justify his radical criticisms. Christianity during this era, for Qutb, had become lost to idolatries. He shows some sympathy for the faithful Christians who were horrified by Roman immorality, imperialist debaucheries, and pagan influences but who could do little about them, although he had no patience for the monasticism that arose to counter those tendencies. It is tellingly ironic, however, that the man who preached nonseparation of religion and government scandalized Christianity for its matrimony with government.
The Arrival of Islam
History, as Qutb saw it, had been sliding quickly to its nadir when, at last, the arrival of Islam in the seventh century fully implemented God's unitary message. That totality was in place only for a few decades, however, before, in Qutb's view, "the Muslim world, having seized the leadership of mankind, lost its grip on Islamic principles, and went into decline," even though "the Islamic Empire (which Qutb declined to describe as an empire: he preferred 'community') continued to spread."17 In his writings, Qutb explains what he perceives as the internal and external reasons for the empire's decline, beginning not long after Muhammad's death in 632 AD. A few words about Qutb's understanding of Muhammad's religious/political methodology and the first decades of Islam are necessary here in order for us to understand Qutb's proposed remediation of history's fatal flaw.
The Rise of Islam
In AD 622, after preaching monotheism with some success for more than a decade among the polytheistic tribes in and around Mecca, Muhammad traveled 280 miles north to Medina, a city of well-established Jewish settlers and polytheistic Arabs. The city was wild and unruly, without a stable government, and Muhammad had accepted the city fathers' invitation to become the arbiter of Medina's social and political disputes. "Islam was useful to them," writes acclaimed Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, "not so much as a new religion, but as a system that could give them security and discipline. Unlike the Meccans, they had no vested interest in paganism and could accept the religious aspect of Islam on approval, provided it satisfied their political and social needs. The full religious conversion of the Medinese did not take effect until much later."18
It was in Medina that the fledgling faith of Islam became politicized, marking a turning point for Muhammad and for those whom Muslim history calls his companions. "In Mecca," writes Lewis, "Muhammad was a private citizen, in Medina the chief magistrate of a community. In Mecca he had had to limit himself to more or less passive opposition to the existing order, in Medina he governed. In Mecca he preached Islam, in Medina he was able to practice. The change necessarily effected the character, activities and doctrines of Muhammad and of Islam itself."19 In particular, the Medina transformation created a rudimentary political Islam that first ruled Medina, then fought and subdued the Meccans, and then spread into Central Asia, across North Africa, and into Spain during an era of devastating wars known as "the age of the conquests." Muslim armies conquered cities, provinces, lands, and all sorts of Jewish, Christian, Arab, and pagan tribes that were then part of the ruling Byzantine and Persian empires of the Near and Middle East.
The emerging and new Arab empire considered itself next in the succession of great empires, from Persian to Greek to Roman to Byzantine to Islamic; but how was the new empire to rule its conquered but widespread and diverse lands? The empire would set up state rule around the religious caliphate (i.e., the central ruling institution of Islam until the twentieth century, see glossary), a process begun in earnest in the mid to late-seventh century. Through this historical process, Muslim religion and politics became fused and instituted as a unity that Westerners today find hard to imagine. It is, however, as normal for Islamists to believe in the uniting of mosque and state as it is for secularists to believe in the separation of church and state. The facts of history, then, show that Muhammad and his companions established a unitary vision of Islamic religion and politics and, with each Muslim conquest, spread that fusion of religious rule over all of life.
The Fall of Islam
Qutb's interpretation of history, however, is that despite the rule of the caliphate, Islam, after the seventh century and as it spread, did not adhere to the unitary Islamic vision of Muhammad and his companions. Seeing only a few brief historical exceptions, Qutb concludes that Islam continually fell prey to idolatry, allowing false gods to rule many aspects of life, as Judaism and Christianity had done by not complying with God's vision for all of life. The world by Qutb's day, therefore, already had well more than a thousand years to become a complete write-off. His conclusion follows logically from his premise: when an original unitary vision of life goes bad, all of life, including religion, ends up down the drain.
In Islam: The Religion of the Future, Qutb describes the secular/sacred split—the fatal flaw—as having reached such a pitch of idolatry by his day that it had become "the hideous schizophrenia." It was "leaving its destructive traces in Europe, and from there to the whole world wherever Western views, institutions, and ways of life have conquered other human societies. Once people deviated from God's system, they had to continue following fatuous ideologies of their own invention, leading predictably to their miserable state wherein individuals suffer the terrible consequences of their ideological shortcomings, moaning from the pain inflicted on them by their fellowmen."20 Worse still for Qutb was "their ineffectiveness in ridding themselves of their abominable manmade Hell."21 No matter how people and nations had tried, they had failed.
QUTB'S SOLUTION: SANCTIFICATION THEN STRUGGLE
The only solution, accordingly, was a return to the original unitary vision, and the secret for achieving this lay in following an unorthodox interpretation of Islam that Qutb had read into the first decades. "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership," Qutb writes in Milestones, "[Muhammad] called people to God through preaching, without fighting...and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate [from Mecca to Medina], and later permission was given to fight."22
In Muhammad's journey from religious prophet to political ruler to military conqueror, Qutb posited two nonnegotiable attitudes and phases to his radical view of history and its remediation. The Meccan period was a time when Muhammad held his warriors in check under intensive study of the Qur'an only. It was a time when Allah cleansed them inwardly and they received "initial stages of training" from "that one source of guidance," for only after having achieved spiritual purity would victory be granted when they went out to conquer and subdue.23 That is how Qutb read the early decades. He saw every political failure to establish Islam's totalitarian rule as the result of premature fighting, that is, of struggle before sanctification.
Berman believes that by offering a completely Muslim way of viewing history and its remediation, Qutb had put his finger on a universal experience within the modern Muslim world: "the prevailing feeling of being two instead of one, the pain of living in two worlds at once."24 Qutb's totalitarian view was indeed revolutionary for a generation of twentieth-century Muslim fundamentalists who saw in Western religion, philosophy, theology, law, culture, and politics not the redemption but the end of history.
Qutb, however, was now also shaking his fist at modern Christianity. Muslim lands were, of course, suffering because, according to Qutb, European and American imperialism was forcing the hideous schizophrenia on them externally; but Muslims could fix blame "not on anything vague such as modernity or human nature," writes Berman, "but on something specific and identifiable—namely Christianity, and its doleful influence on modern culture, as exported by the power of the Western countries. Qutb trembled in fear at the hideous schizophrenia. He thought the crisis was enormous and incomparably profound. Deep currents of theological and ecclesiastical deviation, two thousand years of Christian error, were bearing that crisis atop the roiling waves. And the tide was rushing forward, across the Muslim world."25
The Muslim Vanguard
Backed into a corner that he perceived to be of world-historical significance, Qutb took a stand, writing voluminously from prison and calling into being a new breed of Muslim leadership, a militant vanguard, to stand with him, backs to the wall, to fight against the flood of idolatry by pioneering the unitary vision of Islam. Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and other militant Islamists, such as al-Qaeda sleeper-cell operatives, would consider themselves among this vanguard.
Osama bin Laden, however, born in 1957, never met Sayyid Qutb. Qutb's influence on bin Laden was therefore indirect, from a number of sources. One, already noted, was from his university classes under Muhammad Qutb. There also were at least two other key figures. One was the Palestinian Qutbist Abdullah Azzam, who was an influential representative of the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s and 1970s and later became bin Laden's ideological mentor, a close association that lasted for many years. Bin Laden was one of Azzam's university students in Saudi Arabia and the two later became partnership leaders in Afghanistan as they fought the Soviets.26
The other figure was the Pakistani intellectual Mawlana Mawdudi (sometimes "Maududi"). Kepel writes that the theoretical basis for the Islamist movement itself "was devised...by the ideologists Mawdudi in Pakistan, Qutb in Egypt, and Khomeini in Iran.... Mawdudi and Qutb thought along similar lines and exercised influence among the Sunni Muslims, [while] Khomeini operated within the framework of the Shiites."27 When bin Laden lived and traveled in Pakistan among the jihadi-salafists (see glossary) around Peshawar in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he would have been with followers of Mawdudi (who died in 1979), whose extremist writings, in which "religion was turned into an ideology of political struggle,"28 were well established throughout the region.
Bin Ladenism, a totalitarianism that many Westerners find so perplexing (evidenced in the common question, "Why do they hate us?"), thus did not arise in a social and political vacuum, nor is it the result of mere irrational fanatics acting willy-nilly. The methodologies and goals of the political and religious actors it produces are sometimeslabeled"irrational" byWestern analysts, but nevertheless it is something of a coherent and calculated worldview, one that is based on a particular set of religious, political, and historical assumptions that lie at the heart of Sayyid Qutb's writings. Part two of this series will consider the ramifications of Qutb's militant political theology, which energizes bin Laden and the al-Qaeda vanguard.
I hope the moral people of the world have surmised by now that they are offered but two choices by the hegemon: submit, or die.
If the lies, threats, and fabricated provocations are not enough to force you to submit, they conveniently provide the pretext for your death.
In essence it comes down to: talk, or fight.
From this frame of reference it makes sense that a false flag designed to expel diplomats reduces the ability to talk, and increases the probability of a fight. If a fight is what you want then you have produced the necessary situation to make it happen.
The people in the UK don't believe it as the only British Ambassadors I have any respect for have pointed out:
Two ex-British ambassadors question claims that Assad ordered chemical attack as threat of war grows
https://www.rt.com/uk/423817-syria-murray-ford-assad/
'Monsters on one side, maniacs on the other': Proposal to attack Syria splits UK Parliament
https://www.rt.com/uk/423793-assad-may-trump-syria/
'Not in my name': Galloway calls on British public to reject calls for Syria military action
https://www.rt.com/uk/423805-galloway-syria-war-uk/
Wheels of war are already in motion: Mainstream media should try to stop it, but will it?
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/423846-syria-attack-trump-war-russia/
Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst.
I knew this was deadly serious when I saw Tony Blair being wheeled around on British television to help explain to the public why "we have to act."
Here we are again, hearing the incessant calls for another direct military action led by the United States, and all in the name of weapons of mass destruction. Whichever way this goes, it may very well be the final act in the West's long-running chemical saga.
After the hard lessons of Iraq, you might be asking how this is happening again. It's not a surprise that the US and UK might lie, exaggerate, distort or invent a narrative as a pretext for military action. However, they couldn't pull it off without their media partners, and history clearly demonstrates that when the governments and media collude, the results are catastrophic. More than any other entity, it is the Western mainstream media who have facilitated this dirty war on Syria, and who are still holding the minds of the West's public hostage.
The reasonable among us would hope that cooler heads will prevail. The OPCW announced that it will dispatch a team of experts at the invitation of Syrian Arab Republic to investigate the incident. This is promising. The real question now is: Will chemical weapons inspectors arrive in Damascus before Trump's cruise missiles?
President Trump promised a "forceful" response against Syria, with partners like Great Britain and France seemingly ready to join in at a moment's notice. Russia has responded with a reciprocal warning that any US missiles targeting Syria will be intercepted and that their launch pads will be targeted. Russia certainly does not want to see a worldwide war, but it is nonetheless committed to defending the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syrian territory.
Undoubtedly, this is the closest the US and Russia have come to a hot war since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Western governments, media outlets, their rebel and NGO proxies, are all claiming that the Syrian government has dropped a 'barrel bomb' containing lethal chemicals, possibly chlorine gas, in the district of Douma near Eastern Ghouta this past Saturday, killing at least 40 people and injuring up to 1,000 others. The source of this report is the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and the White Helmets, also known as the 'Syrian Civil Defense,' who are funded by the UK and US governments. Both of these organizations work exclusively in terrorist-held areas around Syria.
Western war hawks are all claiming that "Assad has form" and therefore must be guilty. The Syrian authorities have denied that government forces launched any such assault, while the Russian Foreign Ministry has described the event as "invented and fabricated."
Washington has wasted no time, having already compiled its dossier of internet photos, social media videos, witness testimonies, and satellite images of 'Syrian flights and helicopters' in the area.
The obvious questions to anyone familiar with this conflict should be: Why would the Syrian government invite international condemnation and risk an all-out war by launching a chemical weapons attack against the very citizens its army has been fighting and dying for, to try to liberate from terrorist occupation? Why would they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Such common sense inquiries seem lost on the Western government-media complex.
If you are serious about finding out what really happened in Douma, you need to know which parties are in control of facts on the ground. On one hand, you have the Syrian government, the Syrian Arab Army, the Russian military. One the other side, you have a group that was still in control of some of this area over the weekend, Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam), who are the ideological companions of ISIS, and who the Western media still refer to as a "Syrian rebel group." Everything in their area operates under their authority, including the Western-backed SAMS and the White Helmets.
Government interests aside, we might ask how the West has arrived in a place where it is staking its position alongside a non-state actor and terrorist group, Jaysh al-Islam, over its fellow UN members?
For years now, Western media and politicians have been trying to prop-up the viability of various 'rebel' groups, as well lending them a semblance of political credibility by claiming they are 'in opposition to the Assad regime.' In fact, up until only a few weeks ago, Jaysh al-Islam was the dominant militant group in control of East Ghouta and Douma. Since 2012, this terrorist group and its affiliates have killed or captured thousands of civilian religious minorities, along with government workers and soldiers. One of their worst atrocities commenced on December 11, 2013, when thousands of militants from Jaysh al-Islam, Al-Nusra and others invaded the key workers' town of Adra, located in the Rif Dimashq Governorate, northeast of Damascus. The terrorists – fully backed by the United States and its allies at this time – overran Syrian police and army positions before massacring the town's residents, executing people in their homes, beheading others in the street, with bodies reportedly left in the open, and the heads of victims reportedly displayed on trees and poles. Some residents are reported to have been cooked alive in the town's industrial baking ovens. On balance, the atrocities and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Jaysh al-Islam are as horrific as those of ISIS, who the US claims to be its sworn enemy in Syria. The hypocrisy is almost mind-bending.
While reporting in Syria last spring, I remember driving past Adra, and now a dead town. Locals spoke of this event in subdued tones and with empty expressions. The tragedy remains a scar on the national consciousness, but one which has been completely airbrushed from Western view for the simple reason that it would incriminate and defame the reprobate 'moderate rebels' who were being championed at the time by Western politicians like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Congressmen Ed Royce and Adam Kinzinger, British MP Brooks Newmark and many others. To the political architects of the Syrian war, the 'rebels' in Syria served exactly the same function as Reagan and Oliver North's 'freedom fighter' Contras in Nicaragua. Their role was to foment violence and sectarian division while destabilizing the state structures in that country, softening it up for an eventual regime change. Like the Contras, the US government allegedly trafficked over $1.5 billion in illicit weapons to their 'rebels' in Syria – and like the Iranian Contra scandal, much of the bill was paid by a third party, in this case Saudi Arabia.
After subduing its competition in East Ghouta and Douma, Jaysh al-Islam then proceeded to hold religious minorities in cages and parade them around the streets through their new suburban caliphate, before torturing and beheading some of them. Those who were allowed to live were then used for various forms of slave labor, including helping to dig an impressive network of tunnels underneath Ghouta, Jobar and other terrorist-held areas. These are not Vietcong-style four-by-four-foot shafts, but concrete-reinforced tunnels large enough to drive a truck through. While this underground operation has been well-documented in the Syrian, Russian and independent press, it's been more or less blacked-out by the Western mainstream media. Why? Maybe because the Western PR machine is wary of allowing their public to understand the insidious nature and substantial backing which these so-called 'rebels' have enjoyed courtesy of the US, UK, France, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and most notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar – massive foreign support which has undoubtedly extended this long war. In other words, it's the US-led coalition that is ultimately responsible for prolonging this bloody war, not Bashar Assad.
It's important to understand that Western governments and media are not merely reacting to some "atrocity" this week, rather they have been geared-up for escalating a hot war on Syria since 2011, and even well before that. At every turn, a concerted effort have been made to downplay any reports which run counter to the US-led coalition's narrative and to promote any claims or video footage supplied by Western-financed media producers like the White Helmets, Aleppo Media Center, and the SOHR (based in the UK), as three prime examples, but there are dozens of other outlets performing the same function. This command and control structure of the West's 'Syrian' information network should be obvious by now. Instead, all we hear from the mainstream media is a steady chorus of "Assad's Barrel Bombs," followed by "Assad is butchering his own people," and "Assad has killed 400,000 of his own people," and "Assad and the Russians are targeting hospitals and schools and killing children." Such talking points are often repeated, but never challenged.
The last seven years has seen one of the most coordinated propaganda campaigns in history and, save for a few brave award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, John Pilger, Gareth Porter, there's been little self-examination in the Western media. It's as if there's a party whip line in West where no one dares cross it for fear of being accused of being against "the children of Syria," or being branded with derogatory McCarthyist labels like 'Assadist' and 'Putinist,' or the latest iteration, 'white supremacist.' Such slurs suit those whose mission it is to silence dissent against what is looking more and more like an official declaration of war by the US and UK against Syria, Russia and Iran.
When you peel back all the pejoratives and political smears, however, what you are left with are the facts, and they are damning. But the problem is that you cannot find many facts in The Guardian, or the Washington Post; only polemics and narratives which are synonymous with the public policy positions of the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office. One reason is that these mainstream outlets do not have reporters on the ground in Syria, and if they do, they tend to be embedded with 'rebel' terrorist factions – which is the only side of the story which is being transmitted to Western audiences.
The day after the Rashideen Massacre in April 2017, I was with a group of journalists and international observers at the Jibrin Refugee Center outside of Aleppo, where I sought to speak to some of the survivors of what became Syria's most deadly terrorist car bombing, which killed over 120 innocents, most of them children (with some still missing to this day). I remember seeing a Washington Post journalist there and wondered how the mainstream press might report this awful tragedy. My answer came soon enough. Leading US mainstream media outlets called it "a hiccup," perhaps because they were embarrassed by the depths to which their freedom-fighting 'rebels' have sunk this time – carrying out a sectarian mass murder of Shia residents from the villages of Foua and Kafarya.
The systematic anti-Syrian bias of Western mainstream media has effectively robbed the people of Syria of any chance of getting a fair adjudication in the court of Western public opinion. It's not that they can't report the truth, it's that they won't. They can hype-up a situation and flood the information sphere with misinformation and distractions, but void of truth. Their propaganda fodder has no staying power once the facts begin to trickle in. The liberation of East Aleppo is a perfect example, as is the mainstream coverage of East Ghouta – both a universe away from reality.
This brings us back to the Douma chemical attack. At every key juncture in this long war, when the Syrian government was making significant advances, or a US official uttered that maybe the US should think about pulling out of Syria – all of the sudden and inexplicably – a "chemical weapons attack" manifests itself. Journalist Vanessa Beeley so aptly described this uncanny phenomenon in her detailed report this week on the ground in Damascus:
"If we were to map the chemical weapon claims in each terrorist-held area undergoing liberation by the Syrian Arab Army, we would clearly see that the claims are commensurate with the pressure felt by the terrorist factions as the SAA closes in on their stronghold. In other words, as the SAA nears victory and liberation of Syrian civilians, we are expected to believe they would use chemical weapons against those civilians in an urban area which is even more densely packed as the terrorists withdraw into a shrinking combat zone, taking the civilians with them as human shields and hostages."
Beeley adds: "It appears to be a propaganda tactic employed by the terrorist factions to gain time, secure a ceasefire and to call for a No Fly Zone and further "humanitarian" intervention from the regime-change-war alliance. A ceasefire allows the militants to organize themselves and to re-arm. We know that terrorist chemical weapon attacks against the civilian population in West Aleppo were never given equivalent importance by the same "humanitarian" minded nations, in fact they were largely ignored. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that crying "chemical weapon" is a tactic designed to protect the NATO-member-state assets occupying Syrian territory."
The US seems certain about "Assad's chemical weapons," but what about the WMD capabilities of the 'rebel' terrorists? Another independent journalist, Sharmine Narwani, was actually in Eastern Ghouta as it was liberated in March, where she discovered one chemical-weapons laboratory located in the farmlands between between Shifouniyeh and Douma. Narwani also noted how the Western media journalists in her press pool seemed categorically "disinterested" in this crucial discovery.
It seems that the US, UK and others have dug such a deep hole with years of deceptive reporting and fictional accounts of "Assad's atrocities" over the years, that they cannot lose face now.
After seven years of being marinated in anti-Syrian and anti-Russian propaganda, there is little chance the Western electorate can be rehabilitated with facts. These parallel realities may be irreconcilable.
With the stakes this high, we can only pray for any divine wisdom coming from Washington or London. If it comes, it will be most welcome, but it seems the wheels of war are already in motion. Perhaps the only thing standing between a wider war and de-escalation is the press. They say the pen is mightier than the sword, but can we really expect the media use it against its own corporate overlords?
If it's ever going to happen, it needs to be now.
How the East can save the West
http://thesaker.is/how-the-east-can-save-the-west/
Europe: My honor is solidarity!
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one: does anybody sincerely believe that "Putin" (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to kill a man which "Putin" himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia whatsoever who, like Berezovsky, wanted to return back to Russia, and that to do the deed "Putin" used a binary nerve agent?
Question two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their "allies" (I will be polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence that "Putin" indeed did such a thing?
Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands (for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)?
Question four: does anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or even diminish and that things will get better?
Question five: does anybody sincerely believe that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the "West") does not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war, probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of incidents?
If in the zombified world of the ideological drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most definitely those who answer "yes" to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality, everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.
And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don't want to die for your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which can be summarized in two words:
"highly likely"
"solidarity"
This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist Empire will act from now on. Let's look at the assumptions and implications of these two concepts.
First, "highly likely". While "highly likely" does sound like a simplified version of "preponderance of evidence" what it really means is something very different and circular: "Putin" is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is "highly likely" that "Putin" did it. How do we know that the premise "Putin is bad" is true? Well – he does poison people, does he not?
You think I am joking?
Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by "Her Majesty's government" entitled "A long pattern of Russian malign activity":
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations (occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret "weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don't need a law degree to see that, all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur's famous "my country, right or wrong" applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt Solidarität also comes to mind.
Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do whatever the hell the AngloZionist tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to "Putin" that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!
Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here. What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World Order indeed!
The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war
Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another tool in a type of "political toolkit" which can be used like any other political technique. As I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks in Rome decided that their own, original, brand of "Christianity" had no use for 1000 years of Consensus Patrum. Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral relativism and colonialism (with the Pope's imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest, barebones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship), violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.
Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods – these are the real "Western values" today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought, not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the (then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times: (emphasis added)
The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression "perhaps it's true" to seize upon the desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts (...) The fact that major Western powers can gang up and "sentence" a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. (...) It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value their own judgment abilities. (...) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.
As the French say "à bon entendeur, salut!": the Chinese position is crystal clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat, then the East is most definitely not.
[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage to resist the AngloZionist Diktat. Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]
The modern Ahnenerbe Generalplan Ost
Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a desperate game of "nuclear chicken" to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its demands to "go away and shut up". This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, but neither were Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don't really want a full-scale war with Russia. The problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.
Let's look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire "Ukrainian" project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:
The Europeans have been forced right back into the Anglosphere's fold ("solidarity", remember?)
The Brexiting Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again.
The Russians are now demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick.
In the Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the (purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become "known chemical-criminals" from Ghouta to Salisbury
At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then vat least ery much delay North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.
This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly "go away and shut up". Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be humiliated, truly humiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.
The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the "protection cone" of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance simply because it's location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?
My strictly personal guess is that they won't unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of weakness, not civilization, by the "modern Franks" (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to "send a message", the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to immediately escalate further to reestablish the "appropriate" hierarchy between the "indispensable nation" and the "gas station masquerading as a country". So here is the dynamic at work
Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions ==>> The Empire feels humiliated and escalates
Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would do in this situation?
The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.
For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very well, by the way. The "western project" for Russia has always been the same since the Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at another Hiroshima, but at something which we can't even really imagine: hundreds of millions of people die in the course of just a few hours.
How do we stop that?
Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?
I very much doubt it.
The one actor who can stop the upcoming war: China
There is one actor which might, maybe, stop the current skidding towards Armageddon: China. Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a "comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation" later shortened to "strategic partnership". This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an "alliance": two countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense – they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that both sides understand perfectly (see this White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to China in this "strategic community of interests". Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily. But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war! And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.
Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so "perfectly" timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen. Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the "Five Eyes") and, on top of that pyramid, the global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs peace.
Conclusion
I don't see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above, whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since, in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that "The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was" and "the silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action."
History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian "reminders of reality" will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message "The West is only a small fraction of the world" and that the rest of the world will prove this "through action" then other countries will step in and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based "solidarity" will collapse in the face of a united Eurasia.
Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths ruling the Empire.
The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.
The Saker
Yulia Skripal issues statement via British police, asks cousin not to contact her
https://www.rt.com/uk/423864-yulia-skripal-statement-police/
Yulia Skripal has refused contact with the Russian embassy and her Moscow-based cousin Viktoria and has asked for no one else to speak on her behalf, in a statement released by Scotland Yard after she was discharged from hospital.
Looks like the Skripal false flag is all over, loose ends tied up, and it's onto the one that replaced it in the news cycle.. the alleged chemical incident in Syria's Douma:
May ready to bypass Parliament & approve UK military intervention in Syria – BBC
https://www.rt.com/uk/423861-may-no-parliament-approval-syria/
UK Prime Minister Theresa May appears ready to get the UK involved in a possible military strike against Syria without seeking the Parliament's approval, the BBC reports citing "well-placed sources."
May reportedly sees an "urgent" need for a response, according to government insiders. She also appears to believe a military intervention will prevent further chemical incidents in Syria.
May's reported willingness to jump on board the looming strike, which the US says it is still making up its mind on, comes despite the fact that no investigation has yet been carried out into the alleged chemical incident in Syria's Douma, which fired up Western governments openly supporting the forces seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. While a number of anti-government groups, including the so-called White Helmets, have accused Assad of waging a new chemical attack on civilians, Damascus and Moscow have dismissed the incident as a staged act. With Douma being the last Islamist-occupied town in eastern Ghouta, which the Syrian Army has recently liberated from militants, and Damascus having been engaged in talks with the Jaysh al-Islam group now leaving the area, there was no logical justification for such an attack offered by those accusing Assad.
The absence of proof seems to have made May reluctant to jump to war immediately, at least according to a report by the Times, which suggested that she requested "more evidence" during private phone calls with US President Donald Trump. This is despite public statements by May and her government officials claiming that there were "all the indications" that the Syrian government was responsible for the yet-unverified incident.
May's spokesman declined to comment in the BBC's report.
UK Politics 2018: Where Lewis Carroll meets Hans Christian Andersen
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/423734-uk-politics-may-johnson/
Sentence first, investigate afterwards. Outlandish conspiracy theories promoted by those who screech "conspiracy theorist" at those who dare question. Welcome to the back-to-front world of British politics.
It is a world where the neocon establishment has no clothes – but we're not supposed to mention it. To get a proper understanding of British politics in 2018, two writers from the 19th century are essential reading. The first is Lewis Carroll, author of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.' The second is the Danish storyteller, Hans Christian Andersen.
The official UK government narrative on the Skripal case could easily have been penned by Lewis Carroll. For a start, there was the rush to blame – and punish – Russia, even before a proper investigation had begun. That was straight out of the trial of the Knave of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
The White Rabbit reads out the charge: "The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, all on a summer's day: The Knave of Hearts, he stole these tarts, and took them quite away."
"Consider your verdict," the King of Hearts, who is acting as the judge, says straightaway to the jury.
The White Rabbit reminds him that witnesses have to be called and the 'trial' continues. It becomes increasingly farcical. Alice notes: "They haven't got much evidence yet." After she testifies, the Queen cries: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards."
"Stuff and nonsense!" Alice replies. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue," says the Queen, who is now turning purple. When Alice says she won't, the Queen shouts "Off with her head!" at the top of her voice.
We all laughed at this scene when reading it or watching film versions as children. Who would have thought that, in the second decade of the 21st century, this is how things would be operating in 'modern' Britain.
Britain was a country, we were always told, where there was 'due process,' where the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' always applied. The idea of sentencing before the verdict, or giving the verdict before hearing any evidence – why it'd be totally absurd! But that is exactly what's been happening.
In the 1972 film version of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the King and Queen were played by Dennis Price and Flora Robson. In the 2018 Conservative Party remake, the roles have been taken by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. The 'Knave' is Vladimir Putin. Guilty as charged! Let's pass the sentence and kick out Russian diplomats – and urge others to do likewise – before we hear the evidence.
Alice, meanwhile, has been played by anyone who dares to question the absurdity. Like her, we've all been told to hold our tongues. Just remember the opprobrium heaped on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for daring to ask the 'Queen of Hearts' if she had responded to Russian requests to examine samples of the nerve agent allegedly used against the Skripals.
Corbyn was branded a "traitor" and a "Kremlin stooge" just for wanting to follow proper procedure.
It's not just the trial of the Knave of Hearts of which recent events remind us. In Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass,' the Queen talks of believing 'six impossible things before breakfast.'
In Britain today, you could say we're expected to believe six impossible things at breakfast (particularly if you listen to the BBC Radio 4 Today program or read The Times newspaper).
It's not just impossible things in relation to the Skripal case – like being told in The Times that Sergei Skripal was already dead, and then being informed that he is "improving rapidly," having been poisoned by the world's deadliest nerve agent, which is actually not always deadly.
Consider the most recent establishment smears against the anti-war Labour leader Corbyn. He celebrated Passover with a Jewish group.
Remarkably, this was used as evidence that he wasn't taking anti-Semitism seriously.
Yes, that's right. A non-Jew spending Passover with a group of Jews is 'proof' that they're not interested in Jewish issues.
Now, I don't know about you but I can think of quite a few other ways it could be proved that someone wasn't interested in Jewish issues. Spending Passover with Jewish people wouldn't be one of them.
This would have been laughed at in an 1860s Lewis Carroll tale, but – I kid you not – it was the 'narrative' pushed by 'serious' newspapers and inside-the-tent 'commentators' in Britain in 2018.
How we need a Lewis Carroll today to make fun of all this nonsense. Satirists are supposed to mock the powerful; in Britain today, they mock the people who the powerful don't like. Private Eye, for instance, the most famous British satirical publication, regularly attacks foreign policy dissidents like George Galloway.
As in 'Through the Looking Glass,' everything is back to front. The politicians lauded as 'moderates' are actually very extreme. The worst conspiracy theorists are not the ones we're told are conspiracy theorists, but the ones who are doing the accusing. Iraqi WMDs anyone?
The whole dishonest charade is maintained by the same cunning strategy deployed by the fake-weavers in Hans Christian Andersen's classic story 'The Emperor's New Clothes.'
The weavers – who are actually a pair of swindlers – promise the Emperor they will make him a new set of clothes that will be invisible to those unfit for their positions, or unusually stupid. But they make him no clothes at all and make everyone believe that the clothes are invisible to them. The Emperor parades, totally naked, but everyone is too scared to say that he is wearing no clothes. "Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool," Andersen wrote.
But one little child hasn't read the script. "But he hasn't got anything on!" he cries. The word gets round – and soon everyone is mouthing the truth.
We're in exactly the same situation in Britain today. Those 'inside the tent' know that the establishment narrative is false, but they'll be regarded as 'unfit for their positions' if they dare say it. So, they have to keep up the pretense – whether it's about Iraq having WMDs that can be assembled and launched with 45 minutes, socialism (an ideology in which intellectuals from Jewish backgrounds such as Karl Marx and Erich Fromm have played an important role in shaping), being inherently 'anti-Semitic,' or Russia, a country that has seen NATO expand right up to its borders, being depicted as a threat to world peace. Meanwhile, those 'outside the tent' are frightened that if they do cry "the Emperor's got no clothes!" they'll be branded a 'useful idiot/Kremlin stooge/Assad apologist/conspiracy theorist/extremist/anti-Semite/crank/flat Earther,' or any number of terms used by imperial 'truth enforcers' to smear dissidents.
The problem for the establishment though is that the official narrative has become so detached from reality, that the charade is increasingly harder to maintain. Like the little child in 'The Emperor's New Clothes,' we must find the courage to voice what we know is the truth, and to call out blatant falsehoods when we see them. And like Alice at the trial of the Knave, we must respond to the "stuff and nonsense" of the political and media elite by declaring forcefully: "Who cares for you? You are nothing but a pack of cards!"
Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66
Russian Embassy in London accuses UK of 'forcibly detaining' Skripals
https://www.rt.com/newsline/423863-skripals-russian-embassy-detention/
Moscow diplomats have accused Britain of failing to disclose the location and health status of Yulia Skripal, who is a Russian citizen. They say that London is "hiding evidence and putting obstacles in the course of an independent investigation" into last month's poisoning. "We will continue to insists upon meeting Sergei and Yulia Skripal, whose current situation can more and more easily be described as a forcible detention," an embassy source in London told RIA. Yulia Skripal was discharged from hospital and taken to a "secure location" on Monday, UK authorities said.
READ MORE: Secret resettlement of Skripals would be 'citizen abduction' – Russian embassy in London
https://www.rt.com/uk/423710-skripal-resettlement-citizen-abduction/
Theresa May Ready To Join Syria Strike Without Seeking Parliamentary Approval
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-11/theresa-may-ready-join-syria-strike-without-seeking-parliamentary-approval
Read the comments!
Poison Gas – Weapon of Choice for "False News"
http://thesaker.is/poison-gas-weapon-of-choice-for-false-news/
by Peter Koenig for the Saker blog
Poison gas is not only deadly, it often provokes a slow suffocating death. That, perpetrated on innocent children, is particularly cruel. But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies. Is that what we have become – brainless, greedy, selfish beings, no sense of solidarity, no respect for other beings; I am not even talking about humans, but any living being.
Poison gas, the weapon of choice for fear. Poisoning in Salisbury of the former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, visiting her dad from Moscow. Poisoning with a nerve gas, called Novichok that was allegedly made in Russia. In the meantime, we know that nerve gas made in the former Soviet Union, now non-existent in Russia, was military grade and deadly. The gas used for the alleged attack was not deadly. We also know by now that the UK – all of their highest officials, from PM May down the ladder, lied so miserably that they will have a hard time recovering. It will backfire. Unlike the foreign secretary, Johnson boy pretended their secret bio-gas / bio-weapon laboratory Porton Down, just 13 km down the road from Salisbury, where the pair was allegedly found unconscious on a park bench, assured him the gas was made in Russia. Alas, the laboratories chief chemists testified later to the media that they could not be sure that the substance was made in Russia. No, of course not.
In fact, Porton Down, working in close collaboration with the CIA, is a highly sophisticated chemical warfare facility that can easily make the gas themselves – at the grades they please, deadly or not so deadly, if it should serve a "false news" purpose – which this did.
Were father and daughter indeed poisoned? – This is a legitimate question. Who has seen them since the alleged poisoning occurred on 28 March? – They disappeared from the public eye. Apparently, they are both recovering, Yulia having been released from hospital a few days ago, but has not been seen by anyone in public, nor been able to talk to the media, lest she could say "something" the public is not allowed to know. Her father is also recovering and may be released soon – released from where? – Is this all a farce?
An aunt talked to Yulia from Moscow, where she noticed that Yulia was not free to talk. The aunt wanted to visit her niece in the UK but was obviously denied a visa.
Where are father and daughter? – Washington has "offered" them a new home and new identity in the US, to avoid further poisoning attempts... how ridiculous! A blind man or woman must see that this is another farce, or more correctly, an outright abduction. The two won't have a chance to resist. They are just taken away – not to talk anymore to anyone ever. – That's the way the story goes. The lies are protected, and the "Russia did it" syndrome will prevail – prevail in the dumb folded public, in the herd of pigs that we all have become, as Goebbels would say.
And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. But the empire needs the public for their support. And the empire is almost there. It disposes of a vicious media corporate army – that lies flagrantly about anything that money can buy. It's like spitting in the face of the world, and nobody seems to care, or worse, even to notice.
—
On the other side of the Mediterranean is Syria. A vast and noble country, Syria, with a leader who truly loves his people and country, a leader who has despite a foreign induced war – not civil war – a proxy war, instigated and funded by Washington and its vassal allies in Europe and the Middle East; Syria, a highly educated socialist country that has shared the benefit of her resources, free education, free medical services, free basic infrastructure, with her people. This Syria must fall. Such strength cannot be tolerated by the all-dominating west. Like Iraq and Libya, also socialist countries once-upon-a-time, and like Syria, secular Muslim nations, sharing their countries wealth with the people, such countries must fall.
According to Pentagon planners and those Zion-neofascist thinktanks that designed the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), as the chief instrument of US foreign policy, we know since Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied commander and Chief of NATO in Europe (1997-2000) talked to Democracy Now in 2007 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY ), saying that within 5 years seven countries must fall, one of them is Syria. – Since 2011, the Syrian people have been bombarded by US and NATO and Saudi funded terrorists, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Now, even more blatantly, US bases are vying to occupying the northern third of Syria, totally illegally, but nobody says beep. Not even the UN.
The recent fake gas attack on Douma outside of Damascus, has allegedly killed 80 to 120 people, mostly women and children. Of course, that sells best in the propaganda theatre – women and children. Strangely, like last time the infamous White Helmets discovered the gas victims, including a gas canister-like bomb laying on a bed, having been shot through the roof of a house... a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. They called on an independent investigation, one that could not be bought and corrupted by Washington. President Assad invited a team of investigators to inspect the scene.
Instead of heeding this invitation, Trump, the bully, calls Mr. Assad an "animal" and a "monster", twittering his brainless aggressions throughout the world. Tell you what, Mr. Trump, Bashar al-Assad is a far better human being than you are a monster. You and your dark handlers don't even deserve being called human. Mr. Assad has regard and respect for his people, attempts to protect them and has so far succeeded with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, recovering the last bits of Syrian territory from the terrorist, except of course, the northern part, where the chief terrorist and the world's only rogue state has itself installed, the US of A. – Why in the world would Mr. Assad choose to gas his own people? Especially, when he is winning the war? – People, ask yourself, cui bono (who benefits?) and the answer is simple: The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution. That's who.
While you, Donald, and those monsters that direct you from behind the scenes, have no, but absolutely no respect for your people, for any people on this globe, for that matter, not even for your kind, for your greed-no-end kind of elite, as you bring the world to the brink of an all-destructive, all killing annihilating war.
Since the other fake event, 9/11, we are, of course, already in a "soft version" of WWIII, but that's not enough, the United States needs a hard war, so badly it doesn't shy away from destroying itself. That's how blinded your own propaganda has made you Americans, you generals, you corporate "leaders" (sic-sic) – and all you Congress puppets. That is the sheer truth. You better read this and wake up. Otherwise your dead sentence is hastened by your own greed and ignorance.
Both Russia and the US drafted a Security Council Resolution – which of course are both not approved, with Nikki Haley lambasting Russia, accusing them of being responsible for the countless deaths in Syria – pointing again to the children and women, making up the majority. Again, it sells best in the world of psychological propaganda, while evil Nikki Haley knows very well who has caused all these deaths by the millions, destitution and refugees by the millions, tens of millions throughout the Middle East and the world – her own country, directly or through NATO, the European puppets allies and proxy wars, paid and funded by Washington and by elbow-twisting her vassals.
On 9 April – UNSC – while Nikki Haley, repeats and over-repeats her lies and fake accusations, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Vassily Nebenzia, listens. And then in a twenty-minute statement of sheer intelligence, he dismantles all the lies, and lays bare the truth, about all the fakeness being played out internationally. The depth with which he addresses the assembly is concise and so brilliant, none of his UK, French and German counterparts could have ever come close to a statement of this magnitude and excellence. Even Ms. Haley can't help glancing over ever-so often to Vassily Nebenzia, as he speaks (http://thesaker.is/russian-ambassador-to-the-un-vasily-nebenzea-addressing-the-un-sc-9-april-2018/ ). Her eyes reveal some kind of hidden admiration for what he says. – After all, she can't be as dumb as she is paid for to look and sound.
By now anybody who dares not just reading and listening to the mainstream presstitute "fake news", but has the courage to dig into the truth news, RT, TeleSur, CGTN, PressTV – and a few others, or websites like Global Research, The Saker Blog, ICH, NEO, Greanville Post CounterCurrent, Dissident Voice and many other trustworthy sources – knows about the lies and the only, but the very only purpose these false flags cum false news serve: Provoking a war with Russia, subjugating and dividing Syria, and the Middle East and becoming the hegemonic masters of the universe.
For the simple reason, and hardly anybody talks or writes about it – the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing.
The entire war industry with all its associated civil services and industries, of banking, electronics, aviation, mining.... makes up more than half of the US GDP – but of course, it's never broken down that way. The chosen people will control the world. Well, they do already – financially at least the western part of our globe. But it's not enough. They will not stop, before they burry themselves in their own-dug graves, or rather in one massive mass-grave. But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity.
BBC Piece Defining 'Modern British Identity' To Schoolkids Doesn't Go Over Well
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php/articles/2011/06/20/hackers-declare-war-on-government-agencies/files/?id=58239
"Incidentally, it's not going over very well. As of this posting, the video has only 12 upvotes compared to over 1,900 downvotes. Comments are disabled. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaMvsDmeO5g
It is at 2,300 downvotes now and only 13 up.
British National Identity
https://www.historytoday.com/robert-colls/british-national-identity
Robert Colls asks what British identity is - and what it is not.
What it is not
1. National identity is not something governments can invent. It is more a feeling than an opinion and not a policy statement. Like all identities it is not unduly hampered by being difficult to put into words.
2. National identity should not be confused with national values. The values which politicians have tried to lay on Britons are no different from the claims of other states, even nasty ones. If these values bind us, why do they need setting out? If they don't bind us, in what sense are they ours?
3. Nor is national identity an aggregate of all the diverse values that may exist in a society at any one time. Indeed, a society with high levels of diversity may have to face the fact that it has no identity to speak of. Such a society may equate diversity with tolerance, but tolerance needs the nation there in the first place to do the tolerating.
4. Much recent scholarship stresses the exclusivity of nations but misses the emergent quality of national identity, particularly the process of inviting people to become more equal and alike. In the British case national identity was built on the edging together of state and nation over a long history of political compromise and on a series of modern wars in which the Anglo-British state was remarkably successful. So closely did the British peoples appear to identify with aspects of this settlement, the political class has long been able to claim that it does not need to be regulated by a written constitution.
5. British national identity was not born of a deplorable past. It is true that British dominion was not built according to the principles of the Equal Opportunities Commission and we have to accept, too, that it was interwoven with imperialism and what we now call racism. In this it was not alone among other imperialisms – including republican and socialist imperialisms. At the same time we have to accept that British national identity survived because it was a broadly acceptable expression of the British people, to the British people, if not by the British people. Ireland was the great failure in this regard. Even so, most Irish were late in finding union with Great Britain an unacceptable representation of who they were.
6. British national identity has not always been called that. We have to be ready to deal with different names and concepts. E.P. Thompson and G.A. Williams, for instance, demonstrated that it was through their myths of national origin that the English and Welsh working poor became class conscious. It was clear to them, for example, that being ethnically Welsh or English was incompatible with being a factory slave or a dispossessed debtor.
7. National identity can be expressed in images and representations. But in order to be meaningful it has to fit experience and think of itself as a long-term arrangement. Although there has been much talk in recent years of 'invented' nations, all working nation states seek to underwrite the long-term obligations upon which all national relationships depend.
8. National identity is not just that which it is not. Sometimes called a theory of otherness, 'alterity' stems from the psycholinguistic disciplines and is ubiquitous in contemporary university teaching. Whole continents and epochs of human experience are being taught to undergraduates in terms of a 'we' that relates to an 'other'. So 'we' becomes a very unstable pronoun where all identities are rendered provisional, multiple, situational and relative. There is not even room for the 'we' of human nature.
But in an individual any notion of reacting to the other without a prior sense of self would be seen as a pathological condition. In the nation that sense derives from a living relationship with the past. Most people, like most nations, are capable of thinking of themselves as a precondition to thinking for themselves.
9. If you want a national identity, people have got to want to identify and have a reason for doing so.
What has happened to it?
Our current predicament is that the main channels of national identity as mapped, for example, by Linda Colley in Britons (1992) have almost run out. In the 1960s relationships that for over 200 years had sustained the British people began to erode: their relationship with Parliament and the belief that it was sovereign and essentially belonged to them as key component of a free society; their relationship with the armed forces and the idea of a superior British imperial world; their relationship with Protestantism and the idea of a free heritage; their relationship with manufacturing and their reputation as the world's oldest industrial nation; and finally their relationship with themselves as British and alike and growing more alike in fundamental ways. When the Millennium Dome was erected its organisers didn't know what to put in it. They certainly didn't put any of this stuff in it. In other words in 2001 there was no 'manifest doctrine' of Britishness as there had been in 1851 or even in 1951. It was not so much that the British people had ceased believing in themselves; it was more that over a very short period the conditions of that belief had evaporated. Between the Festival of Britain and the Millennium Dome, say, British national identity was no more.
In recent times the British state's thinking has been federal, multicultural, and free market – a soft Thatcherite mix which, according to the last five prime ministers at least, was more befitting the minimum process known as 'Europe' and the maximum process known as globalisation. Our current predicament is that none of this thinking has been sympathetic to the principle and the practice of British national identity.
Robert Colls is the author of Identity of England (OUP, 2002). He will take up the Chair of Cultural History at De Montfort University in October.
'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html
By Tony Rennell for MailOnline
UPDATED: 22:55, 21 November 2009
Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out.
She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand.
Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.
As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort.
Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice.
Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally.
But was it worth it? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding No.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg65827#msg65827
The Constitutional Crisis & The Solution!http://denouncethedeception.co.uk/constitutional-crisis-and-the-solution
The European Communities Act received Royal Assent on the 17th of October 1972. This Act resulted in the United Kingdom joining the EEC (European Economic Community), which had been established by the Treaty of Rome, signed on the 25th of March 1957. Britain finally became a member of the EEC on the 1st of January 1973. This state of constitutional illegality was ultimately entrenched on the 19th of June, 2008 when Royal Assent was given to the Lisbon Treaty. This final "Treaty" of the now-political European Union was ratified by all Member States of the EU on the 13th of November 2009.
When Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome in Brussels on the 22nd of January 1972, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath knowingly and willfully tricked, deceived And betrayed the British people into handing over National Sovereignty to a foreign authority under the guise of a trade deal, that trade deal being the ECTA (The common Market). Whereas Heaths true intention was to surrender our Sovereignty, he lied to the whole country as the people were unaware they were voting for Foreign Rule and under Constitutional law it stands as the most grievous high treason in British history.
The famous Lord 'Kilmuir Letter' (kept hidden for 30 years) made it painfully obvious that the British Government at this time were ready to commit very serious crimes against the people, and did. In this letter, Edward Heath is reminded of the treacherous steps that he was about to take by the then-Lord Chancellor:
'THE KILMUIR LETTER' "My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war).
And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John's action in surrendering England to the Pope, and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John he only held it in trust for those who followed on. The Money the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid. Because England's Kings were not vassal Kings to the Pope and the money was not owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
Answer as above.
The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the community;
The Constitution confers treaty making powers only on the Sovereign and the Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power or even our own parliament because they are not the incumbent Sovereigns to give away as they only hold those powers in trust for those who follow on.
Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court Justice or the European court of Human rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the Acts of Treason 1351, the Act of Praemunire 1392, The Act of Supremacy 1559, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council make regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada, in this respect Parliament here has substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, an Act of Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
It would in theory be possible for parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable, we should therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal us own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short. Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act, A Praemunire under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, and Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.
Treaty-making Powers
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and O.E.E.C. restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereign that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council's approval. But to transfer to the council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state's treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know although the treaty-making power is vested in the Crown. Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation to take two examples and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our Sovereignty a clear Act of Treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire, under the 1392 Act of Praemunire, it is Treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of 'refer'- to accept that court's decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignly involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to underestimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this stage those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their lull weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be. It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty's Courts of law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty's control."
The once-top secret documents titled "Shoe-horned into the EU" which was also obtained (under the title 'FCO 30/1048') from the Public Records office via the 30 year rule highlights the acts of Sedition and Treason along with other crimes Committed by the Heath administration. Every Government that have followed since have been complicit!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg66369#msg66369
Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour's rulehttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648008/Tony-Blair-Labour-immigration-asylum-seekers-UK-Brexit-EU-referendum
TONY Blair betrayed Britain for his own political ends by overseeing a massive conspiracy to flood the country with millions of migrants, an explosive book has claimed.
By Nick Gutteridge
PUBLISHED: 11:03, Sat, Feb 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 16:15, Sat, Feb 27, 2016
The controversial Prime Minister cynically dismantled UK border controls so that two million migrants could settle in the country - and vote for him in future elections.
He then gagged Labour officials and his most senior ministers, telling them not to discuss immigration in public under any circumstances for fear of a backlash, it is alleged.
The Labour leader knew the British people would ferociously oppose his conspiracy if they realised what was happening.
So he banned politicians from discussing even the positive aspects of immigration in case doing so brought the public's attention to the huge numbers of people entering the country from abroad, the book claims.
The disturbing conspiracy claims have been put forward by award winning investigative journalist Tom Bower, who interviewed 200 MPs, ministers and civil servants from the Blair years to build up a picture of his Government.
Shocking interviews claim to show how the former prime minister betrayed the electorate for political and ideological reasons, with one saying he "shudders" at the thought that such a man was ever trusted with running the country.
They also accuse Blair of hushed up members of his own party as he carried out a great multiculturalism experiment without the permission or backing of the British people.
Blair and Labour had barely mentioned immigration in their campaigning ahead of the 1997 election, and did not actively portray themselves as pro-immigration.
But as soon as he had the keys to Downing Street the book reveals the new Prime Minister ordered border chiefs to open the floodgates, even telling them to reclassify unskilled asylum seekers as people moving to Britain for work so that he could drum up the economic benefits of mass migration.
He also appointed a fervently pro-immigration minister to the border control brief, who astonishingly ruled against deporting failed asylum seekers because it would be too "emotional" for them, it is claimed.
As a result Britain's population was swelled with more than two million foreigners during the Blair years, the vast majority of whom would back the Labour party who let them in and lavished them with benefits at future elections.
According to the claims the aim of the project was to make the country "see the benefit of a multicultural society". Government insiders have also said that Blair did not see it as his job to "control immigration" to Britain.
But the controversial leader knew his conspiracy was against the British people's wishes from the very start, telling ministers and officials: "Don't mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won't even want that."
Instead he quietly relaxed rules on allowing foreign spouses and students in and effectively opened up an asylum seeker free-for-all in which nobody was ever deported, even if their application to stay in the UK failed.
The book says 350,000 asylum seekers benefited this way. In 2002 alone, Blair gave the go-ahead for 150,000 work permits with most of the recipients, including the unskilled, going on to become UK citizens.
Some of the most shocking revelations centre around the role of former immigration minister Barbara Roche, who was handpicked for the role by Blair and served from 1999 to 2001.
During this period she quietly adopted policies – with her leader's approval – that dramatically changed the face of the UK forever.
Upon her appointment, it is said she told a senior immigration official: "Asylum seekers should be allowed to stay in Britain. Removal takes too long and it's emotional."
She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers.
Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office's immigration directorate, said: "It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn't see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a 'holistic way' she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society."
Former Labour speech writer Andrew Neather allegedly told the author of the book that the aim was to "rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date".
According to the book an extraordinary row between then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, and Blair illustrated the divisions within the Government.
Mr Straw reportedly asked the then-prime minister: "Isn't immigration the sort of issue which can blow up in our face?"
But Blair simply replied: "Immigration won't be an issue. Immigration is good for Britain."
The revelations come as Britain prepares for a referendum on its membership of the EU, to take place on June 23.
Immigration is expected to form a key part of the debate, with Europe undergoing an unprecedented migration crisis which has brought the Schengen zone to the brink of collapse.
The Blair government oversaw mass migration from eastern European countries who gained membership of the 28-nation bloc and there are concerns that Turkish citizens could gain the right to move to Britain when they are granted visa-free travel within the EU from October.
Express.co.uk has contacted Tony Blair's office for comment.
The book Broken Vows: Tony Blair - The Tragedy of Power will be out on March 3.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg67350#msg67350
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.04.12, 10:39:48
In recent times the British state's thinking has been federal, multicultural, and free market – a soft Thatcherite mix which, according to the last five prime ministers at least, was more befitting the minimum process known as 'Europe' and the maximum process known as globalisation. Our current predicament is that none of this thinking has been sympathetic to the principle and the practice of British national identity.
Social contract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
In both moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment. Usually, the social contract concerns the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept.
Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797) are among the most prominent of 17th-century and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary). Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.[3]
Alternatively, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. According to Hobbes (in whose view government is not a party to the original contract) citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence.
Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority, and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.[3]
Critical theories
Consent of the governed
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "Of Civil Liberty". The second part of this essay, entitled "Of the Original Contract",[16] stresses that the concept of a "social contract" is a convenient fiction:
As no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. ... The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him.
— David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1][16]
Hume argued that consent of the governed was the ideal foundation on which a government should rest, but that it had not actually occurred this way in general.
My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.
— Ibid II.XII.20
Natural law and constitutionalism
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued[17] that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, this does not constitute consent to all rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O. A. Brownson,[18] who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first, the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law"; second, the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.
Tacit consent
The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such a government.
Other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be set up according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.[18]
Explicit Consent
The theory of an implicit social contract also goes under the principles of explicit consent[19]. The main difference between Tacit consent and explicit consent is that explicit consent is meant to leave no room for misinterpretation. Moreover, you should directly state what it is that you want and the person has to respond in a concise manner that either confirms or denies the proposition.
Voluntarism
According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.
Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; at that time more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.[20]
Doug Casey Warns "It's Going To Get Very Unpleasant In The US At Some Point Soon"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-11/doug-casey-warns-its-going-get-very-unpleasant-us-some-point-soon
Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,
You're likely aware that I'm a libertarian. But I'm actually more than a libertarian. I don't believe in the right of the State to exist. The reason is that anything that has a monopoly of force is extremely dangerous.
As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world's leading experts on government, said: "The power of the state comes out of a barrel of a gun."
There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other, either voluntarily or coercively. And the State is pure institutionalized coercion. It's not just unnecessary, but antithetical, for a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible, in oxcart days, for bureaucrats to order things around. Today it's ridiculous.
Everything that needs doing can and will be done by the market, by entrepreneurs who fill the needs of other people for a profit. The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.
People have a misconception about anarchists. That they're these violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn't necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.
It's always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I'm on the side of the individual.
I simply don't believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?
Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion—a very dangerous thing—it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.
What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.
I could live happily with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else.
The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, it's the US Government. And they're far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly to do anything they want with you. Don't conflate the government with America—it's a separate entity, with its own interests, as distinct as General Motors or the Mafia. I'd rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.
Even under the worst circumstances, even if the Mafia controlled the United States, I can't believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people's income from them every year. They couldn't get away with it. But—perhaps because we're said to be a democracy—the US Government is able to masquerade as "We the People." That's an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it's patriotic to do as he's told. "We have to obey libraries of regulations, and I'm happy to pay my taxes. It's the price we pay for civilization." No, that's just the opposite of the fact. Those things are a sign that civilization is degrading, that the society is becoming less individually responsible, and has to be held together by force.
It's all about control. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we're told to think, that's why you get the worst people—not the best—who want to get into government.
What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.
Hark back to the '60s when they said, "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" But let's take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? What that would do is delegitimize government. I applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, "Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don't like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing..."
Remember you don't get the best and the brightest going into government. There are two kinds of people. You've got people that like to control physical reality—things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are drawn to government and politics.
Some might ask: "Aren't you loyal to America?" and "How can you say these terrible things?" My response is, "Of course I'm loyal to America, but America is an idea, it's not a place. At least not any longer..."
America was once unique among the world's countries. Unfortunately that's no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.
I'll go further than that. It's said that you're supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here's a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, have the same worldview. But what do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood, Washington, and Manhattan? Everyone has to be judged as an individual, but probably very little besides residing in the same political jurisdiction. Most of them—about 50% of the US—are welfare recipients, and therefore an active threat. So I have more personal loyalty to the guys in the Congo than I do to most of my fellow Americans. The fact we carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.
Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called "nationalism"; in serious cases it may become "jingoism." The authorities and the general public prefer to call it "patriotism." It's understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born. But these things should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It's most virulent during wars and elections. And it's very scary. It's like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole. I have no interest in being a part of the charade—although that's dangerous.
And getting more dangerous as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying society. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate, and it's the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend, which has been in motion and accelerating for so long, is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it's going to reverse.
It's like a giant snowball that's been rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you'll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.
This makes me quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. As I said, it's been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the acceleration of the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined. It's predictable; that's what sociopaths, which I discussed earlier, do.
When there is another 9/11—and we will have another one—they're going to lock down this country like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1st might be it. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. And about zero public concern.
It's going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.
Trump: Syria Attack "Could Take Place Very Soon Or Not So Soon At All"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-12/trump-syria-attack-could-take-place-very-soon-or-not-so-soon-all
Having likely taken a lot of heat from none other than his chief of staff Gen. Kelly for his Wednesday morning tweet in which he rather explicitly revealed US military plans, stating that "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!", president Trump is backtracking this morning, and in his third tweet of the morning (after commenting on Robert Mueller and the "failing New York Times", and commending California Gov. Jerry Brown for sending the national guard to the border) Trump said that he never really said what he said. To wit:
"Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our "Thank you America?"
From the comments:
Adolph.H. Haus-Targaryen Thu, 04/12/2018 - 06:48 Permalink
Are they panicking because of British forces captured by the Syrian army in Ghouta (and now detained in a place neither the Americans nor the brits know of, so cannot bomb)?
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804121063460158-british-forces-syri...
I'll be waiting for them to appear on television any day. That would be grandiose.
And Putin somehow convinced Netanyahu not to intervene in Syria:
https://srbin.info/2018/04/11/putin-izrealskom-premijeru-njetanjahuu-ne...
----
It's okay not to be a Jew.
In reply to Its 74-dimension chess. ... by Haus-Targaryen
Adolph.H. Thu, 04/12/2018 - 06:48 Permalink
Trump has just hung May out to dry! She wants a strike asap (there is some embarrassing stuff in Ghouta, which is now back under SAA control) - she planned to get a quick strike in now and then have a debate in parliament next week. Corbyn is demanding a debate before any action - he knows parliament will not support it (just like Cameron failed to get the go ahead). She just ends up looking more incompetent whatever happens!
Edit: thanks Adolph for posting the link - I was just looking that up! It was the capture of those special forces and Putin's refusal to deal that caused the Skripal case in the first place!
Syrian Army Captures British Militants in Eastern Ghouta – Reports
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804121063460158-british-forces-syria-ghouta/
A number of British forces have been captured by the Syrian army during military operations in Eastern Ghouta, according to reports by local media.
According to a report by Al-Mayadeen news channel cited by Fars News, a number of British troops have been captured during the Syrian Arab Army's operations in Eastern Ghouta.
They are believed to be a part of international military forces deployed in the region to launch a ground assault in Damascus in cooperation with the US. According to the report, the US and other NATO countries, Jordan and Israel planned to launch attacks from several fronts, but the plot failed as Syrian armed forces made a series of rapid advances in Eastern Ghouta in March. The plot allegedly involved massive airstrikes by US and Israeli planes that were supposed to pave the way for ground forces.
"After the plot was disclosed, the Syrian-Russian military commanders started operations in Eastern Ghouta to repel it," the sources cited by Al-Mayadeen and Fars said.
Since the plot failed due to rapid advances by the Syrian army, the US cancelled all operations planned for these foreign forces and ordered an immediate withdrawal from Eastern Ghouta through the eastern suburbs of Damascus, including Douma.
The US and Turkey sought to rescue foreign "militants and agents operating for Israel, Jordan and NATO," now trapped in Ghouta, and move them to Idlib, the source says.
The Turkish initiative to help with the evacuation of Nusra Front terrorists from Ghouta has reportedly been a coverup for "special foreign forces that were among the ranks of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated" Nusra front terror organization.
"Therefore, the US has ordered Jaysh al-Islam, Faylaq al-Rahman and other terrorist groups to allow the evacuation of civilians from Eastern Ghouta to army-held regions in a bid to provide the ground for these foreign agents to also leave Ghouta in disguise and enable the Turkish intelligence service to send them to specified regions in At-Tanf and northern Syria which are under the control of US troops," the source said.
BREAKING: Germany Will Not Join Bombing Campaign in Syria - Chancellor Merkel
https://sputniknews.com/world/201804121063479088-germany-syria-strikes-merkel/
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on April 12 that a range of measures must be considered to tackle the crisis in Syria, but German forces will not attack the Syrian Army or other government forces.
She also said that "it is important to show unity on Syria" and warned that it's "obvious" the Syrian government has not destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical weapons, as it agreed to do in 2013.
"Germany will not take part in possible military action — I want to make clear again that there are no decisions — but we see, and support this, that everything is being done to send a signal that this use of chemical weapons is not acceptable."
Fears of a US attack against Syria were stoked after US President Donald Trump warned that "smart" missiles would be fired at the country in retaliation to an alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma over the weekend, which was quickly blamed on President Bashar al-Assad's government, despite there being no evidence implicating government forces.
Although the US acted alone last year, with a guided-missile destroyer firing dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in Homs province, it seems Trump is attempting to assemble a military coalition to potentially launch a widescale military campaign against Syrian government forces.
Germany's unwillingness to take part in such a campaign deals a blow to Trump's plan to launch a concerted war effort against Damascus. The UK and France have emerged as the most likely candidates for such an anti-Assad military coalition with the US.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May is under pressure to call a parliamentary vote before launching military action, but is not legally obliged to do so.
A Brief History of Chemical War
https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war
A substantial piece on Porton Down included in this article.
Iraq Report Show US And Germany Supplied WMD To Iraq
http://rense.com/general32/supp.htm
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, a German newspaper said yesterday.
Berlin's left-wing Die Tageszeitung newspaper said it had seen a copy of the original Iraqi dossier which was vetted for sensitive information by US officials before being handed to the five permanent Security Council members two weeks ago. An edited version was passed to the remaining 10 members of the Security Council last night.
British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate. Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programmes from 1975 onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms programme had continued until last year.
Original Telegraph link is broken but maybe the waybackmachine has got it ?
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
• Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
• Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
• Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion
Both Russia and Syria have OPCW confirmation that their chemical weapons ability has been destroyed and dismantled. The Western "countries" to my knowledge still possess and develop active chemical weapons programs and hold large stockpiles.. who controls the terrorist proxies in the Syrian theatre ? Do the math..
UK Government Not Fit for Purpose
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201804091063375324-uk-government-not-fit-purpose/
Jon Gaunt
Let's be frank this lousy Conservative Government is not fit for purpose and it's a good job that they have the Salisbury Nerve Gas pantomime to divert the UK population's attention, otherwise, I am sure that people would be taking to the streets.
The charge sheet includes amongst others: the betrayal over Brexit, the murder epidemic in London, the Police Cuts, the scandal over the Men child false refugees, and the Pakistani Rape gangs that seem to have been allowed to rape and sexually abuse almost at will right across the UK.
Whilst it is clear to the man and the woman in the street why these problems are happening we keep getting subjected a procession of Government Ministers who are either stupid, delusional or plain liars.
This parade of fools is of course led by Boris, the bungler, Johnson who has taken us to the edge of a third world war by leading the accusations against Russia without first gathering the evidence.
If it was an Easter miracle that Yulia Skripal recovered then it is quite honestly astonishing that her father is too now on the mend from a nerve agent that we were told that was so deadly that just a single drop would kill.
I am not going to go over the narrative that the Government and their patsies in the MSM have spread but it is quite clear now false.
The Skripal's may well have come back from the dead but meanwhile, the death toll in London appears to increase every day.
On Sunday we had to endure, Communities Minister, Sajid Javid telling us the escalating murder rate was not due to 20 thousand Police cuts?!
Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, (or should that be Rudderless?) backed him up and promised, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph, that she was launching an initiative on Monday to combat this knife and gun mayhem.
I wondered yesterday whether their reluctance to acknowledge the impact of the loss of 20 thousand Police jobs could have anything to do with protecting the previous useless Home Secretary who so aggressively implemented the cuts?
Who could that be?
Why Theresa May that's who? Yes, the same Theresa who seems to have gone missing these past two weeks as London burned and the Skripal fiasco got more and more curious. One would have thought that our Prime Minister would have rushed back to London, but no she decided instead to carry on with her walking holiday.
Meanwhile, today's launch of Amber Rudd's initiative to halt the murders was however somewhat undermined by the leaking overnight of a report which clearly laid the blame on Police cuts.
"Rudderless", only had one defence when it was revealed that the leaked document was from her own department, she had to take the ignorance is bliss tactic and claim she had not seen the report that her own Government department had researched and published?!
The nickname, Rudderless now seems even apter.
As for the actual initiative it was basically a case of everyone else is to blame: from Rap and Grime music to YouTube and social media and the fact that everyone can buy cleaning fluid and knives.
Why do politicians always think the way to close down a problem is to restrict the freedoms and rights of the decent silent majority in favour of the feral, the feckless and dare I say it the foreigners.
Let's face it, this is the elephant in the room in terms of this murder epidemic. You would have to be blind, deaf and dumb and pretty deluded if you did not recognize that the majority of these murderers and indeed the victims are black and of African descent.
It cannot and is not racist to point this out and we will never solve this problem if we tread on politically correct eggshells. I am not in a way suggesting that there are not members of our indigenous population who resort to violence but we have to face facts that unlimited, unfettered and largely un-vetted immigration has led to these problems.
But no Amber Rudderless would rather restrict my ability to buy a knife or some drain cleaning fluid than actually confront these communities and tell them some home truths.
Amber Rudd's paper-thin proposal to tackle these crimes was further undermined today when it was revealed that two-thirds of the so-called "child" refugees were actually liars and over the age of 18.
Need I remind you that the Parson Green Tube bomber, Ahmed Hassan, who made a bomb on his foster parents' kitchen table was one of these men-children. Do you also remember that every social justice warrior from JK Rowling through Gary Lineker to Lilly Allen told us we had a duty to take in and that if we objected and refused we were at best heartless intolerant bigots and at worse racists.
So now Mrs. May our glorious Leader is back, well she is in Stockholm actually, but never the less she has now rediscovered her voice. However, does she use it to assume control of the domestic agenda? Does she hell as like, instead she is strutting the world stage like a Donald Trump "Mini Me" saying that "she will hold to account" those responsible for the chemical terror attack in Syria. I wonder if she will now be so vocal about the Israeli attack?
Regardless and at the risk of sounding like a little Englander, I would rather my Prime Minister was prioritizing the threat to my family's security in the UK at this precise moment in time. As we all know, the first duty of any Government is and must be the protection of its citizens but May and this Government seem to have forgotten this.
Maybe that is why we have been subjected to this procession of deluded dullards spinning their yarns like out of control Comical Ali propagandists whilst Saint Theresa has been walking up mountains?
They know and she knows that actually the buck stops with her.
It was she, as Home Secretary, that cut the Police by 20 thousand, it was she who cut the Border Force and Immigration Service, it was on her watch that the "men" boys were allowed in to the country. Finally, it was on her watch that the Police had to blow away an armed man on the streets of London in the early hours of this morning.
This Government is clearly not fit for purpose and we need change. But then I look at the alternative and I see Jeremy Corbyn as PM, John McDonnell as Chancellor and the "human calculator", Diane Abbot as Home Secretary and I despair for my country's future.
The views and opinions expressed by Jon Gaunt are those of the columnist and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
I have received 502 bad gateway on multiple devices while trying to access RT, they may be under cyber attack and trying to keep the site up. It does work, but intermittently.
US, UK & France starting 'precision strikes' in Syria – Trump
https://www.rt.com/usa/424088-trump-syria-strike-statement/
US President Donald Trump has approved military strikes in Syria in retaliation for the alleged chemical attack by the Assad government in Douma, near Damascus, last week.
"A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad," Trump said in a televised address from the White House. He added that a combined military operation by the US, the UK and France is already underway in Syria.
READ MORE: Explosions heard in east Damascus after Trump announces Syria strikes – witnesses
The US-led intervention in Syria comes just hours before the UN's Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) experts were scheduled to visit the Damascus suburb of Douma on Saturday to determine whether chemical weapons had been used there last week.
Shortly after Trump's announcement, a statement from UK Prime Minister Theresa May said she had authorized British forces to conduct "coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability."
French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that he ordered French forces to carry out a military action against Syria in coalition with the US and France. "The facts and the responsibility of the Syrian regime are beyond doubt," he said in a statement issued by his office, accusing Damascus of crossing "a red line" set by France in May of last year.
Macron said that France's response was "limited" and solely aimed at "the capabilities of the Syrian regime for the production and use of chemical weapons."
Sky News cut off the former commander of British Armed Forces Jonathan Shaw over Syria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpdT79rm1ts&feature=youtu.be
Sky News cut off the former commander of British Armed Forces Jonathan Shaw in Iraq during Syria discussion
Syria 'chemical attack' staged to provoke US airstrike, London pushed perpetrators – Russian MoD
https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/
The Russian Defense Ministry has presented what it says is proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the "provocation."
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.
In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.
State Dept claims US has proof Damascus was behind Douma 'attack,' but it's classified
https://www.rt.com/usa/424086-syria-proof-classified-state-department/
The US State Department has claimed to have proof that the Syrian government was the perpetrator of an alleged chemical attack in Douma. It refused to make the evidence public, as the intelligence is "classified."
State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said on Friday that the US has "a very high level of confidence" that it was the Syrian government that launched an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma on April 7. Asked by AP's Matt Lee if the US can say that it has clear evidence of the Syrian government's culpability, Nauert responded that while she cannot speak for other nations, "it's the assessment of the British government, the US government, the French government" that Syria was the culprit.
"I cannot speak on their behalf, but we've all have been having conversations and sharing information, intelligence included, and we can say that the Syrian government was behind the attack," Nauert said. The US assertion relies on "different kind of sources," including those of its own, she said.
It's unclear if the strongest-worded attribution of blame by the US so far is based on some newly uncovered evidence. Pressed on whether Washington had obtained some new proof that explicitly points at Damascus' role in the incident, Nauert did not provide any new details, saying that she is not in a position to divulge the intelligence data.
She went on to criticize "some TV shows" that are calling on the White House to offer some facts in support of the accusations: "a lot of this stuff is classified at this point. We are unable to provide all of this publicly at this moment," she said.
Strike on Syria won't remain without consequences – Russian ambassador to US
https://www.rt.com/news/424094-syria-strike-consequences-antonov/
The Russian Ambassador to the US has warned of "consequences" after the US and its allies launched a coordinated military action against Syria.
Russia feels threatened by the US decision to strike Syrian targets in retaliation for the alleged chemical attack in Douma on April 7, which Moscow believes was staged.
"A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences," Anatoly Antonov said in a statement on Friday night. "All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris."
Trump Orders Syrian Military Strikes, 3 Waves Of Airstrikes Launched At Various Targets
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-13/watch-live-president-trump-expected-announce-military-strikes-syria-tonight
Update 6: Russia responds. Here is the full statement posted by Russia's ambassador to the US, Anataoly Antonov:
"The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.
A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.
All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.
Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.
The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries."
5 things you should know about US-led 'one-time' strikes on Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/424120-us-strike-syria-facts/
Multiple targets in Syria were bombarded by the US, UK, and France in retaliation to what they said was an Assad-orchestrated chemical attack near Damascus. Here are the main facts about the intervention.
Washington approved "precision strikes" against Syria early on Saturday, alongside British and French forces that also took part in the bombing. Shortly after US President Donald Trump announced the bombardment, reports began surfacing of explosions in Damascus.
Syrian air defense units were scrambled to thwart the aerial invasion, intercepting 71 out of 103 of the missiles, the Russian Ministry of Defense said. Now, as Syria deals with the aftermath of the early morning airstrikes, we look at five major things you should know about the American-British-French attack.
What did they target?
One of the strikes targeted a scientific compound in Barzeh in the vicinity of Damascus, which the coalition claimed was involved in the production of chemical and biological weapons. The Syrian government said the bombing destroyed an education center and scientific laboratories, but resulted in no casualties.
The UK Defense Ministry said four Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s launched Storm Shadow missiles at what the UK military claims was a former missile base, 15 miles west of Homs. The ministry claimed that the Syrian government kept a stockpile of chemical weapons precursors at the site.
Twelve cruise missiles targeted Al-Dumayr air base east of Damascus, according to the Russian military. The Syrians used Soviet-made S-120, S-200 and Buk-type anti-aircraft systems, claiming to have intercepted all the missiles.
What weapons were used?
The US did not specify the types of weapons deployed in the strikes, but it did use Tomahawk cruise missiles in last year's bombing of Syria's Shayrat air base. US Defense Secretary James Mattis said more than twice as many weapons were fired as in April 2017, adding "it was a heavy strike."
The Russian Defense Ministry said the US and its two allies deployed combat aircraft and warships to launch over 100 cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles on Syrian civil and military facilities. The strikes, it said, were conducted by two US ships traversing the Red Sea, adding that the coalition also deployed B-1 Lancer strategic bombers and arranged tactical air support in the airspace over the Mediterranean.
Social media & 'classified' intel: Pretext for the intervention
The timing of the American-British-French attack is noteworthy. It came just hours before the UN's Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) experts were set to visit the Damascus suburb of Douma on Saturday to establish whether chemical weapons had been used there last week.
Announcing the strikes, the White House said it has a large body of "reliable intelligence" as well as "social media users, non-governmental organizations, and other open-source outlets," which implicate the Syrian government in the alleged Douma attack. Washington also referred to the questionable claims that "the Syrian regime has repeatedly used chemical weapons to compensate for its lack of military manpower."
Earlier, the US State Department claimed to have proof that the Syrian government was behind the alleged chemical attack in Douma. However, it refused to make the intelligence public, as "a lot of this stuff is classified at this point." Moscow repeatedly dismissed the claims, saying the chemical weapon attack was orchestrated. The Russian military previously warned of a "provocation" involving chemical weapons being planned by militants.
How did the Syrians respond?
Syrian air defenses did all they could to protect the country. Ruptly footage has emerged showing Syria's surface-to-air missiles responding to the attack. Russian military said later Syrian air defense units downed 71 out of 103 cruise missiles launched by US and its allies.
Damascus harshly condemned the bombing, saying it will never bow to the West's attacks on its sovereignty. Syria's UN envoy, Bashar Jaafari, accused the US, UK, and France of blatantly violating the UN Charter. "I would clarify here that the history of these three states is built on using lies and fabricated stories to wage wars in order to occupy states, seize their resources, and change governments in them by force," he said, as cited by Syria's SANA news agency.
Russia warns of consequences
While none of the cruise missiles launched by the US and its allies reached the Russian air defense zones, the strikes sparked outrage in Moscow.
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the US-led strikes hit a war-ravaged country "that has been trying to survive terrorist aggression for many years." In a statement posted on Facebook, she compared the invasion to the start of the 2003 Iraq War, which was based on claims that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.
The defense ministry said the Russian forces did not deploy their air defense systems stationed in Syria to intercept the American, British, and French missiles. For its part, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said the Pentagon "specifically identified targets" to "mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved." The coalition did contact their Russian counterparts to "deconflict airspace," but did not "coordinate targets" with Moscow.
Goal of Syria strikes was to prevent chemical watchdog's fact-finding mission in Douma – Moscow
https://www.rt.com/news/424135-syria-strike-prevent-opcw-mission/
The US and its allies attacked Syria in order to hamper the work of the OPCW inspectors, investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
The "intimidation act" by the US, UK, and France was carried out "under an absolutely far-fetched pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7," the ministry said in a statement.
The airstrikes were carried out hours before inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were to start their fact-finding mission at the site. "There's every reason to believe that the purpose of the attack on Syria was to obstruct the work of the OPCW inspectors," the statement read.
Moscow pointed out that the Western allies ignored evidence provided by Syria and Russia that the alleged chemical attack was actually staged in a "cynical" manner.
"The aggression was undertaken at a time when the Syrian troops are continuing their successful offensive against IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS], Jabhat al-Nusra, and other terrorist groups. All facts point to the desire of the US and its allies to provide the radicals and extremists with an opportunity to gather their breath, restore their ranks, drag out the bloodshed on Syrian soil and thereby complicate the political settlement," the ministry said.
Syria airstrikes will not deter chemical weapons inspectors – OPCW
https://www.rt.com/news/424140-opcw-syria-chemical-inspection/
A fact-finding mission by the UN's chemical weapons watchdog will continue in Syria despite airstrikes carried out on the country hours earlier by the US, UK, and France.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are in the country to investigate the circumstances surrounding reports of a gas attack in the Syrian city of Douma, where at least 70 people are reported to have died from chemical exposure. Syria and Russia called for an OPCW inquiry into the claims.
The agency, set up to ensure the destruction of chemical armaments, is due to assess the scene and take samples from alleged attack victims to determine the cause and potentially uncover the perpetrators.
The OPCW, whose members include Syria, Russia, the UK, France, and Russia, issued a statement on Saturday saying the investigation into the alleged use of illegal chemical weapons will continue.
The statement comes after a night of bombing, which saw US, French, and British forces launch missiles at sites including a military facility outside Homs and a suspected research center in the capital, Damascus. Both Russia and Syria have condemned the airstrikes as a breach of international law, and insist that Assad forces did not deploy chemical weapons.
OPCW officials have carried out similar chemical checks in Syria. In 2017, the organization found that sarin or a sarin-like substance was used in the town of Khan Shaykhun, but did not undertake an on-the-ground inspection of the site.
Evidence put forward in the agency's report revealed the gas was most likely released to the north of the settlement. However, it did not attribute blame to the April 2017 attack, which was carried out in an area not controlled by the government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time.
Striking Syria: The true face of humanitarian imperialism
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424145-syria-strike-humanitarian-imperialism/
Coordinated military strikes by the US, France and the UK against Syrian government installations as punishment for President Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons have deepened the quagmire instead of deterring war crimes.
US President Donald Trump's claims that the Western attacks represent "righteous power against barbarism and brutality" of the Assad regime, and that he is prepared to "sustain this response" until Assad stops gassing his own people, shroud the strategic and geopolitical calculations driving the Western agenda in the long-drawn-out Syrian war.
The garb of morality cloaks the reality that Washington and its allies have lost the ground war in Syria and are seeking to maintain their relevance as stakeholders by invoking humanitarian pretexts.
Since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, the US and its regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey have financed and armed a variety of anti-Assad rebel groups that are now marginalized due to a tenacious counter-insurgency pushback by the Syrian state and its two principal external backers— Russia and Iran.
Much to the chagrin of strategists in Washington, Riyadh and Tel Aviv, jihadist as well as relatively secular Sunni insurgent movements like Al-Nusra Front, Jaysh-al-Islam, Ahrar-al-Sham and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have been routed. Some of these terrorists are as obnoxious and vicious as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), but they got branded as 'moderate' by the US and its allies because they served as Western proxies against Shiite Iran.
Repeated charges of chemical weapons usage by Assad and accompanying shocking video footage and photographs emanate from these Western proxies, which believe that they can avoid being totally vanquished if US-led offensives keep the Syrian state weak and uncertain about its future.
Although previous investigations by United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have blamed both the Assad regime and its jihadist foes for abominable usage of weapons of mass destruction, the drumbeat from Western intelligence and news media is against the Syrian government as the sole and main culprit. Such a cynical and selective humanitarianism is the product of realpolitik, wherein atrocities committed by Western allies are shoved under the carpet while those attributed to their antagonists are painted as unconscionable crimes which must be prevented through Western military intervention.
When a politician like Trump opportunistically cites human rights concerns as his motivation to launch missile attacks, it must be taken with a grain of salt. The US president has displayed a remarkable comfort level with several violent regimes and has praised their actions if they enable American vested interests. His foreign policy ideology is the antithesis of 'liberal' and he does not care two hoots for saving the lives of non-Americans.
What Trump does care about, or at least his hawkish advisers in the security establishment do, is the US' prestige as a hegemon whose credibility rests on periodic shows of military superiority. In Syria and Iraq, although the stated goal of the American military presence is to root out IS and other terrorists, Washington's ultimate objective is to hunker down and establish a permanent presence in the pivotal Levant region. The desire to stay put is rationalized by military planners in the US as a necessary measure to 'stabilize' Syria and Iraq, which is a code for preventing what they fear is an Iranian-Russian takeover of control of the Levant.
The dissimulation ploy of American strategic elites is to say that their troops must remain to clean up the remnants of IS and keep the area safe from a resurgence of jihadism. But what they want is a fait accompli on the ground to guarantee Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iranian and Russian expansion. The recent plea from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to Trump not to hastily exit the US military from Syria uncovers the true motivation. Chemical attack accusations amid the fog of a war full of impunity help to burnish this pre-decided plan that the US and its allies should not 'abandon' Syria.
As a populist and contrarian politician who lacks a grand strategic vision, Trump has a contradictory instinct to pull out the 2,000-odd American forces from Syria. Hence his preference for one-off demonstrations of US military might without sinking into a morass through a broader campaign to overthrow Assad. Yet, conveniently-timed chemical attacks whose occurrence and authorship are murky are tipping his hand into acquiescing in a longer-term American military presence in Syria.
Sadly, sporadic and dubiously justified US and allied airstrikes on selected Syrian targets have not and will not reduce the suffering of the Syrian people. Trump's resort to the airstrike option whenever there is a hue and cry about chemical attacks reveals how limited his leverage is in dictating a final settlement and overall end to the war. Despite his macho threat to Russia to "get ready" to face "nice, new and smart" missiles, President Putin remains the entrenched kingmaker in Syria. And as long as he is in the driver's seat, the US' 'humanitarian' bombing raids will continue under one ruse or another.
The 'sustained' reaction to chemical attacks that Trump is warning of will be implemented until the US can alter the balance of power in Syria, if not fully in its favor, then at least partially.
The frenzied narrative surrounding chemical warfare is thus an illustration of a frustrated America desperately attempting to retain some skin in the game. This is the supreme tragedy of Syria, where Western humanitarian imperialism is a smokescreen for ruthless power play.
Dr. Sreeram Chaulia is Professor and Dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs in Sonipat, India. His latest book is 'Modi Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of India's Prime Minister'.
Excellent synopsis of the situation Dr. Chaulia!
And the plot thickens..
Lavrov: Swiss lab says 'BZ toxin' used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
https://www.rt.com/news/424149-skripal-poisoning-bz-lavrov/
The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.
Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.
Lavrov said that the Swiss center that assessed the samples is actually the Spiez Laboratory. This facility is a Swiss state research center controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and, ultimately, by the country's defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.
The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of "very specific" questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.
The scandal erupted in early March, when former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found in critical condition in the town of Salisbury. Top UK officials almost immediately pinned the blame on Russia.
Moscow believes that the entire Skripal case lacks transparency and that the UK is in fact not interested in an independent inquiry. "We get the impression that the British government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence, classifying all remaining materials and making a transparent investigation impossible," the Russian ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said during a press conference on Friday.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.04.14, 18:19:24
And the plot thickens..
Lavrov: Swiss lab says 'BZ toxin' used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
The BBC will be all over this breaking news and dispatching teams of journalists to investigate this claim, reporting back to the public impartially and with urgency considering the magnitude of the situation.. won't they ?
Learn how the BBC is working to strengthen trust and transparency in online newshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342
8 December 2017
The BBC is recognised by audiences in the UK and around the world as a provider of news that you can trust. Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.
Our editorial values say: "The trust that our audience has in all our content underpins everything that we do. We are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly or materially misleading our audiences.
"Our commitment to impartiality is at the heart of that relationship of trust. In all our output we will treat every subject with an impartiality that reflects the full range of views. We will consider all the relevant facts fairly and with an open mind."
Research shows that, compared to other broadcasters, newspapers and online sites,
the BBC is seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in the UK.Even so, we know that identifying credible journalism on the internet can be a confusing experience. We also know that audiences want to understand more about how BBC journalism is produced.
For these reasons, BBC News is making even greater efforts to explain what type of information you are reading or watching on our website, who and where the information is coming from, and how a story was crafted the way it was. By doing so, we can help you judge for yourself why BBC News can be trusted.
We are also making these indicators of trustworthy journalism "machine-readable", meaning that they can be picked up by search engines and social media platforms, helping them to better identify reliable sources of information too.
I was listening to the radio earlier and the news came on, it was a piece on Syria. The news reader stated that 40 people had been killed in the chemical attack at Douma, this was not prefaced with any outs such as "allegedly" or "highly likely" but was stated as an absolute fact.
So.. Chemical weapons do not vaporise human bodies, fact number 1.
When a human dies the body is left in position until acted on by an outside force, fact number 2.
This means that the OPCW investigation team that have arrived on the ground in Douma, undeterred by the illegal and hasty missile strike of the US, UK, and France, will be able to verify that there are 40 dead bodies and may be able to tell the cause of death, stated to be by a chemical weapon.
If approximately 40 bodies are not found on location either the bodies have been moved and spirited away, or the news reader was telling an outright lie to the public, and no attack resulting in the death of 40 people actually occurred at all.
Ask yourselves: Are we the bad guys?
http://thesaker.is/ask-yourselves-are-we-the-bad-guys/
by R.Lesnoix for The Saker blog
One can fault the British for many things but not for their sense of humour. Some time ago I saw a sketch by the comedy duo Mitchell and Webb. They played two German soldiers, sitting in a fortified position at the front, enjoying the relative quiet of the moment. They were dressed in SS uniforms. In that typically British roundabout way of starting an awkward conversation one of them begins to talk about their uniforms. He has noticed something odd, something off-kilter. Their uniforms have skulls on them. So he asks the other one why that would be. In the following discussion they try to come up with positive associations with skulls. They try to find a valid reason why their uniforms would have skulls on them. When they fail to do so and can only come up with negative associations the first one looks the other in the eye and asks hesitantly "Are we the bad guys?"
It's a funny sketch partly because with our knowledge and morality of today the idea of two SS-men wondering if they are the bad guys is almost grotesque. Off course they are the bad guys. "How could they not have known they were the bad guys?" Many will have this thought flash through their minds in some way or other. It is generally posed as a rhetorical question as it's so obvious it requires no further deliberation. That is a mistake though. It's a very serious question. It needs exploring because it goes to the root of why good men are capable of doing, or supporting, great evil. So let's explore it. Why didn't the Germans consider themselves to be the bad guys?
Let's start with the skulls. Putting skulls on uniforms wasn't unique to the SS. It had a long tradition in the German army and before that in the Prussian army. It was used by the hussars for example on their hats. One likely reason the SS used it was to tap into this history, to present themselves not as something completely new but as a new way of continuing old German traditions or if you like as one of different ways they tried to legitimize themselves as part of German society. Keep this trick of trying to look like something you're not in mind. Nor were the Germans the only ones to use it, nor was it a purely military thing. If the skulls alone denote 'evil' what does that say of the Skull and Bones society which has many of Americas elite, even former presidents, among its members? Skulls have had many symbolic meanings throughout human history. Judging historical use with a narrow contemporary view will lead to wrong conclusions. So no, the presence of skulls on their uniform was not a dead give-away of being 'the' bad guys. Unfortunately this simplistic view, especially judging the 'other' with ones own limited viewpoint, is commonplace. Point to one very specific aspect that is easily identifiable as 'bad' from your point of view, ignoring context, and presto. You have your bad guys. Given that we are conditioned to view the world in absolutes that also gives you your good guys. If one side is bad, the other must be good.
For Germans in the 1930's it was far from obvious they were the bad guys. They had lost the first world war, a war they felt was forced upon them by other countries. They had requested an armistice, believed they were promised a fair settlement and were then betrayed at Versailles. Some, maybe most, believed that the war was not lost at the front by the army but back home by spineless politicians. Hadn't the army defeated the Russians on the eastern front after all? Germany lost significant parts of what it considered to be its 'Heimat' permanently while other parts were occupied by the allies. The exorbitant reparations they were forced to pay drove the country into economic misery. In other words, Germans largely felt themselves to be the victims of injustice. They felt robbed, they felt threatened, they felt betrayed, they felt wronged. So when someone came along who helped make things right, off course they went along. The economy improved, unemployment went down, political stability returned, the army was strengthened, lost parts of the 'Heimat' were regained and a settlement with the Soviets was arranged. From their point of view these were good things, worthy achievements even if it came with rough edges. When world war two broke out, it's also easy to imagine this was seen as a reaction of the western powers to the resurgence of Germany as a continental power. It was just a new phase in a centuries old political game. This time though, the manner in which the conflict played out was much, much darker as civilians became the target in very direct ways. I'll leave the rest of what happened for what it is. You all know the story.
When it finally ended Germans were, collectively, blamed for the crimes and misdeeds of their government. For most of them these came as a shock. Some were in denial and refused to accept them as true. Most accepted them though, especially when the stories of the average soldiers who had served on the eastern front or as occupation troops became more widespread. Given what they had seen and done, the camps didn't seem that farfetched. While some argued over the details of what happened there and over exact numbers, and some still do, there's no doubt of the brutality and wide scale murder that took place. The treatment of ordinary Soviet citizens and Soviet prisoners of war alone are testament to the evil nature of the Nazi regime. Note that this does not mean that their opponents were pure as snow. Whatever the misdeeds and crimes committed by the allies and Soviets, these do not justify or excuse what the Germans did in any way. It did make it easier though to see them as the bad guys and by inference, themselves as the good guys.
The Germans argued they hadn't known what had been going on, other Germans were to blame, 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst'. But looking at the scale of what happened we wonder how they could not have known. There were plenty of signs, plenty of proof in plain sight, not to mention all the public rhetoric their leaders had used. How could they not realize what was happening? How could they not know the murderous nature of their state? The counterargument against the German people can be paraphrased as 'you could have known and you should have known' combined with 'looking away from what is happening in order not to see it does not absolve you of guilt.' And truth be told, after the war the German people did carry this guilt collectively. They did realize how wrong they had been. But they also struggled with the question of how this had crept up upon them. How could they have been so blind? Individuals who had always thought of themselves as good people had somehow been led astray and had become more than just bad guys, they had supported and facilitated evil. And that question is crucial. If it could happen to the Germans, it can happen to others too. As Herman Goring said, "you don't need the support of a majority of the population, you only need about 5% of them behind you as long as it's the right 5%." Does that sound familiar to anyone?
It's easy to point fingers at a few guilty individuals but ultimately it takes a state with all its trappings to commit atrocities on this scale. And it wasn't just the Germans who got caught up in this. Just look at how easily and seamlessly local authorities in conquered countries cooperated with the occupation authorities. Local police enforced German policies without much resistance. They cooperated to combat resistance groups and to arrest whomever the Germans wanted. People tend to have a natural inclination to follow institutionalized authority without questioning its moral legitimacy. Its moral legitimacy is assumed as nearly all people consider themselves to be, individually and collectively, the good guys, irrespective of the specific collective used to identify with. Given that we all are members of different collectives at any given time, it's easy to use, consciously or subconsciously, a collective whose moral authority is obvious to ourselves. We then confuse the self-image we have of our morality with the morality of the institutions that rule our daily life.
Many in the western world identify as Christians for example and the Christian creed and morality is beyond doubt for them. So it becomes easy to say to one self 'as Christians we have the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys'. In the west we also consider ourselves to be democracies and we elevate this onto the highest of pedestals 'we are democracies, the most righteous form of government and therefor we hold the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys'. Even more abstract is the notion that we, in the west, are 'free' and therefor have the moral authority over those countries where 'the people' are 'not free'. We believe that gives us the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys. We have become moral Pavlov-dogs. Dangle a so-called noble cause in front of us and any action, any action, undertaken by us (our institutions/governments) instantly becomes justified no matter what the morality of that action itself actually is. We have killed, directly or indirectly, children not by the hundreds, not by the thousands, not by the tens of thousands but by the hundreds of thousands over the last few decades in order to make the world 'free' and 'safe for democracy'. Somehow that's okay with us. But when our own government tells us Assad killed some children with chemical weapons (cue Pavlov-reaction) no proof is required and we accept 'something' must be done. Why? Because we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys and we've been conditioned to think that the good guys don't lie. Despite all the lies we've witnessed we still think of them as incidents, not as the rule. It's always individuals that lied or did wrong. 'Tony Blair lied the UK into the Iraq war'. No, everyone did. The whole system is corrupted, not just individuals in it. The system rules and changes the individuals, not the other way around. We justify our belief in our authorities by saying that if it wasn't true 'someone' would speak up. Lies that big can't hold up. But when people do speak up we ignore or ridicule them, calling them conspiracy nuts. And a suspiciously large number of them have car accidents, commit suicide, are on planes that crash, suddenly get cancer or are the victim of robberies gone wrong. The scale of our self-delusion is mind-boggling.
For the Germans during and before world war two a similar association took hold. They felt they had been wronged in many ways after the first world war and that as the victims of that war they were only trying to make right those wrongs. So to them the moral authority obviously belonged to them no matter what they (their institutions/government) did. They saw themselves as the good guys. Period. At most they recognized some rough edges but not enough to question the moral authority of what they (their institutions/government) were doing. Latch on to one belief of absolute moral authority and the gates to mass-murder and atrocities are wide open. Machiavelli's best known observation is the mechanism of 'the goal justifies the means' as a political tool. This also applies to morality. If people are convinced of their own moral superiority they stop questioning their actions. Any action is allowed. But moral authority never rests with just belief or creed or conviction. It is not absolute, it is not unquestionable. Ones morality is determined by ones actions and by ones inactions, not by belief. Remember, looking away in order not to be confronted by unpleasant realities is not a valid excuse to claim innocence. Not acting is a moral choice too. Not questioning your assumptions is also a moral choice. 'God is on our side' or its equivalent has been uttered by just about every side in a war at some point even when the warring sides were of the exact same religion. Now looking back that looks as absurd as two members of the SS wondering if they are the bad guys. But when you don't question moral authority, when you simply assume it then both of these make complete sense.
Which begs the question, how will people in the future look back at us and our historical era? I am a citizen of one the western countries that thinks of itself as free, democratic and based on Judaeo-Christian moral authority. My fellow countrymen and women consider themselves to be the good guys. It's so ingrained into the national consciousness it's like a super-dogma. By implication they consider what their government does, especially internationally, morally good. 'They are us and since we are good so too must they be' the thinking, if any, goes. And yet domestically they denounce individual politicians and political parties in large numbers as corrupt, self-serving and elitist. The traditional political parties in most western countries are taking a beating in the polls as they are seen to represent not the people but their own pockets and supranational interests. Voters flock en masse to the so-called populist parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. We denounce the European Union as completely undemocratic and ruled by technocrats who are at the beck-and-call of big business. Fewer and fewer of us consider ourselves to be Christians and even if we do it's a vague sort of watered down version without much substance or clear morality. The popular narrative in fact is to be inclusive of 'the other' and their convictions. All creeds and convictions are supposedly equal. Tell that to the Kali-worshippers. And although we question and discard the very foundations of our own freedoms, our own democracy and our own Christian-based morality domestically, we still believe that our national and supranational governments and their attached institutions somehow represent freedom, democracy and moral authority. We still think we, both individually and collectively, are the good guys. We seem to be unable to separate the moral self-image of the individual from the morality of the state. And yet it stares us in the face.
The number of people that died in Iraq since the western aggression against that country started in 1990 has been estimated at several million. The economic sanctions imposed by the west between the first and second gulf war have cost an estimated 1.5 million Iraqi lives of which about 500.000 were children. When confronted with these numbers former US representative at the UN Madeline Albright stated that 'it was worth it'. Hillary Clinton had a similar comment. I know of no western leader who back then condemned or denounced this and who acknowledged our actions as immoral and wrong. I could go on with numerous examples of how our western policies have resulted in mass casualties of civilians, including children, over the last few decades. If this one by itself does not start you to question morality nothing will. So if you're not questioning now, maybe you should wonder why and take some time to contemplate the matter.
I do consider myself to be of high moral character. I have thought about this long and hard. I know right from wrong or at least I think I do. It is always tricky to confront ones own assumptions. I consider that what our western governments are doing is very, very wrong. I sense this clash between me as an individual and me as a member of a happy society that does, according to my individual sense of morality, evil. When I look around myself in my day to day life I don't see it. Most people are like me. I feel like I fit in. Life looks nice and shiny. Bread and games for all. But when I widen the scope and see what those we let represent us do I shudder. And I feel sick to my stomach. For me there's no doubt. The future historians will look at us and wonder in amazement. They'll ask why we buried our head in the sand so deep, why we didn't acknowledge the signs we were seeing. Why we didn't call out our leaders on their immoral actions and attitudes. They'll ask "how could they not have known they were the bad guys?". Because we are. As long as we look away and do nothing we too are guilty. We enable the system and it fills me with shame. As long as we maintain our illusion and refuse to acknowledge that we are in fact not the free and democratic societies we pretend to be and do something about it we are as much to blame as our governments are.
R.Lesnoix is a concerned citizen who grew up during the Cold War under the constant fear of nuclear weapons. He is dismayed with the direction the western democracies are going in.
After visiting Douma, western media begin to question 'gas attack' narrative
https://www.rt.com/news/424421-western-media-douma-attack-narrative/
After speaking with eyewitnesses on the ground in Syria, even mainstream media are beginning to cast doubt on the West's narrative of an alleged gas attack in Douma, as medics tell French, German and UK media it never happened.
Agence France-Presse (AFP), the world's third largest news agency, and the Independent, a British online newspaper, have each published stories that question whether chlorine or any other chemical was used against Syrians in Eastern Ghouta on April 7.
In a French language video report, AFP spoke with Marwan Jaber, a medical student who witnessed the aftermath of the alleged attack.
"Some of [the victims] suffered from asthma and pulmonary inflammation. They received routine treatment and some were even sent home," Jaber told AFP. "They showed no symptoms of a chemical attack. But some foreigners entered while we were in a state of chaos and sprinkled people with water, and some of them were even filming it."
Jaber's testimony is consistent with claims made by a Douma doctor who spoke with veteran UK journalist Robert Fisk. Although Dr. Assim Rahaibani did not personally witness what happened in the medical clinic, he said that "all the doctors" he works with "know what happened."
According to Rahaibani, intense shelling had created dust clouds that seeped into the basements and cellars where people lived. "People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a 'White Helmet', shouted 'Gas!', and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning."
Writing in the Independent, Fisk noted that locals he spoke with "never believed in" the gas attack stories – and that tales of President Bashar Assad's chemical atrocities had been spread by armed Islamist groups who had imprisoned and enslaved thousands of people in Ghouta before the town was liberated by Syrian forces in April.
Meanwhile, a report aired by the German RTL Group-owned channel n-tv says it's unclear whether the attack took place at all, given that most of the locals told them on camera they didn't smell any chemicals at all, one local told them he remembers a "weird smell" and was fine after a glass of water, and one man, who didn't want to show his face, insisted there was a "smell of chlorine."
However, a local doctor told the channel: "Saturday, a week ago, we treated people with breathing problems, but chlorine or gas poisoning – no, those are different symptoms."
All of these stories published by different outlets corroborate testimony from two men who appeared in the "gas attack" footage spread far and wide by western media and governments. Interviewed by the Russian military, the two men said they were unknowing accomplices in the gas attack ruse. "We were working and did not pay attention to who was filming us," the first eyewitness said. "They were filming us, and then a man came in and started screaming that this was a chemical attack...People got scared and started spraying each other with water and using inhalers. Doctors told us that there was no chemical poisoning."
Doctors and medical workers questioned by the Russian Center for Reconciliation confirmed that there had been no reports of patients suffering from chemical poisoning in Douma during the timeframe of the alleged gas attack.
The French and British media reports seem to contradict statements made by Paris and London, which have both stated unequivocally that the chemical attack did take place – and that Assad was responsible.
READ MORE: UK airstrikes in Syria based on 'hearsay' – Labour MP Chris Williamson (VIDEO)
French President Emmanuel Macron said before Saturday's missile strike against Syria that he had proof that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chlorine to attack civilians in a militant-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta.
For her part, British Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that a "significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack."
Western media cover tracks of Trump, May and Macron's war crime in Syria
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424407-fisk-syria-media-strike-war/
With astounding double-think, the US and Britain accuse Russia of "tampering" with the alleged chemical-weapon attack site in Syria's Douma – just days after the US, UK and France barraged the county with over 100 missiles.
If anyone is guilty of tampering with the alleged crime scene, it is the NATO trio who rushed to bomb Syria just as inspectors belonging to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) arrived in Syria – invited there by the Syrian and Russian governments.
The frenzied Western media campaign to find Syria and Russia guilty of a war crime involving alleged chemical weapons is further highlighted by the reporting this week by award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk.
Fisk, who has been covering Middle East war zones for nearly 40 years, went to Douma city to file his report for The Independent. Credit goes to The Independent for publishing Fisk's investigative work.
In the aftermath of the weekend's airstrikes, what he found from interviewing local people and medics is arresting, if not shocking. From Fisk's witness-gathering report, there was no gas attack carried out on April 7 – in stark contradiction to what the US, British and French governments have been declaring in hysterical tones for the past two weeks.
Those declarations culminated in the US-led bombing of Syria at the weekend. What's more, the US, British and French leaders are reserving the right to carry out further strikes on Syria – if "the regime repeats its chemical-weapons attacks on civilians."
What Robert Fisk reports from inside Douma corroborates what the Syrian government and its Russian ally have been saying consistently since the alleged incident on April 7. The incident, they say, was staged by the so-called "first responder" group known as the White Helmets, who work hand-in-glove with notorious terrorist outfits like Jaysh al-Islam and Al-Nusra Front. The White Helmets are also on the pay roll of the American CIA, as well as British and French intelligence agencies.
Similar to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's earlier claim, Fisk reports that on April 7, a panic scene was engendered in Douma's hospital by White Helmets activists who shouted that "chemical weapons" were being deployed. These activists began dousing people with water hoses and conveniently had video cameras on hand to capture the chaotic scenes acted out by unwitting civilians. A doctor in the hospital confirmed this to Fisk.
As for the supposed dozens of dead that Western governments and media blamed on "animal Assad" and Russian complicity, there is no evidence of the alleged victims. Video footage of dead people in a war zone is hardly proof.
This means that US President Trump and his British and French counterparts, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, just launched a criminal aggression on Syria in grave violation of international law and the country's sovereignty. This is exactly what many independent observers were decrying at the time of the missile barrage, warning that the presumed evidence for a chemical attack was far from substantiated.
Indeed, the suspicion is that Trump, May and Macron knew that their evidential ground for attacking Syria was impossibly thin, and that is why they rushed to bomb the country. It was a decision hastened by the arrival of the OPCW inspectors heading to Douma. The inspectors are due to start their investigative work on Wednesday – delayed apparently by security concerns.
In all probability, the Douma incident was a propaganda stunt orchestrated by Western-backed anti-government militants and their White Helmets media agents, precisely in order to provoke an external military attack on Syria by the US, Britain and France.
Several things stand out about Robert Fisk's latest reporting. This is exactly the kind of critical journalism that other Western media outlets should have been engaged in following the alleged chemical weapon attack on April 7. Credit goes to Fisk and The Independent. But it is a shameful case of "too little, too late."
Also, it is notable how Fisk's reportage is being roundly ignored – at least so far – by other mainstream Western media outlets. That's an impressive feat of self-censorship at a crucial time when the US, British and French governments should be open to accusations of committing a war crime on Syria over their latest blitzkrieg.
This is especially so, given their warnings of more to come, over "further" chemical-weapons use. The urgent concern is that these governments are giving themselves a license to act on more false flags. They should be held rigorously to account for their claims.
This disregard for international law is made possible because of the appalling willingness of Western mainstream media to regurgitate self-serving claims made by terrorist-affiliated groups in Syria and their propaganda outlets.
American, British and French mainstream media have given saturated coverage to the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society, and the dodgy one-man-band operation in Coventry known as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. CNN, the BBC and France 24 cite these groups as if they are "authoritative" and impartial, when in fact they are all part of the regime-change campaign in Syria sponsored by the US and its British and French allies.
It is telling, too, how Robert Fisk is being assailed as a "Syrian, Russian stooge" on social media. The one Western mainstream journalist who has had the integrity to delve into Syria's Douma to uncover a very different critical perspective – one that disproves the claims peddled by the US, British and French leaders and other mainstream media – is being vilified for principled journalism.
Western corporate media are a grotesque mockery of public information and critical, independent accounting of government power.
Apart from Robert Fisk, the few other Western journalists to have ventured into Syria to report on what is really happening are independent, "alternative" sources like Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley and Patrick Henningsen. They have exposed the "Oscar-winning" White Helmets group, which is actually complicit in staging atrocities against civilians living under a reign of terror imposed by their terrorist affiliates. It is understood the White Helmets activists behind the Douma provocation on April 7 have since fled the city along with the terrorist gangs under the cover of an evacuation deal with the liberating Syrian and Russian forces, who are now in control of most of the Eastern Ghouta suburbs near Damascus.
Western media journalists, if they were really committed to principles of accuracy and critical investigation, should be poring over the rubble in Douma, interviewing local people and finding out what really happened. But they are not.
That is why, one suspects, they are not there. That is why the US and Britain are now accusing Russia of "tampering" with the site in Douma – because there is no evidence of a chemical-weapons attack, as Robert Fisk reports.
That means the US, British and French governments just committed a brazen war crime.
This would also explain why Western mainstream media have now quickly moved their focus to allegations of "Russian cyberattacks" on American and British infrastructure. This is a classic case of "keeping ahead of the story." Western governments and their dutiful media do not have a "story" – at least not the one they claim – in Syria, so the imperative is to change to another subject as quickly as possible.
BBC Reporter Discourages Syria Questions Due To "Information War" With Russia
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-18/bbc-reporter-discourages-syria-questions-due-information-war-russia
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
A BBC interview is making the rounds today among opponents of western interventionism in Syria. The subject of the interview, Admiral Alan West, voiced some much needed skepticism about the establishment narrative around the alleged gas attack in Douma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foj29LIXpy4&feature=youtu.be&t=3m43s
Everybody's talking about it because West is an empire loyalist that nobody in their right mind would accuse of being an "Assad apologist" or "useful idiot of the Kremlin", as anyone else who doesn't swallow the official story hook, line and sinker is uniformly labeled.
West made some sensible comments about the White Helmets and the fact that Jaysh al-Islam had far more incentive to stage such an attack than Assad had to perpetrate it. Even more helpful was his personal account of having been aggressively pressured to make false reports about the success of the British bombing campaign in Bosnia, suggesting that those pressures can lead to bad intelligence and erroneous military responses.
"I just wonder, you know we've had some bad experiences on intelligence," West said.
"When I was chief of defense intelligence, I had huge pressure put on me politically to try and say that our bombing campaign in Bosnia was achieving all sorts of things which it wasn't. I was put under huge pressure, so I know the things that can happen with intelligence."
So that's a very significant addition to the dialogue. For me, though, the most interesting comments made in that interview came not from West, but from the BBC reporter who was interviewing him.
In the latter half of the interview, BBC's Annita McVeigh asked the following questions after West's comment about Bosnia:
"We know that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday, or accused a western state on Friday, of perhaps fabricating evidence in Douma or somehow being involved in what happened in Douma. Given that we're in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it's inadvisable to be stating this so publicly given your position and your profile? Isn't there a danger that you're muddying the waters?"
Whoa.
Wait a minute, did that just happen? Did a BBC reporter just suggest that it could possibly be "inadvisable" for a retired naval officer to make public statements questioning what we're being told to believe about Syria? That the conversation shouldn't even be had? That the questions shouldn't even be asked? Because we're trying to win an "information war"? Did McVeigh really suggest that the intelligence of the same war machine which led us into Iraq on false pretenses should not be questioned at the risk of "muddying the waters"?
West was introduced as someone who was skeptical of the official Douma narrative, so he didn't spring this stuff on McVeigh out of the blue and her questions could easily have been prepared in advance. I am genuinely curious if she came up with this bizarre line of inquiry on her own or was given it by a superior. Attempts to contact McVeigh via email and Twitter have thus far gone unanswered; I'll update this if she responds.
You know you're in trouble when the military man tries to do the journalist's job by asking questions and holding power to account... and the journalist tries to stop him.
I have said that truth is the first casualty in war and that this is doubly true of cold war, but it isn't supposed to be that way. We all know that the BBC has an extensive history of functioning as a propaganda firm for the western war machine, but it isn't supposed to be that way. It isn't supposed to be a BBC reporter's job to concern herself with beating Russia in an "information war", it's supposed to be her job to tell the truth and hold power to account.
By suggesting that winning an "information war" with Russia should take priority over critical thinking and truth telling, McVeigh essentially admitted that she is a propagandist for the western war engine. Her comments say a lot about how she sees her role at the BBC, and it's likely that this is a culture that is being fostered within the entire outlet as well.
This is very concerning. Anyone who's studied the situation in Syria understands that western military involvement always comes with a risk of confrontation with not just the armed forces of the Syrian government, but with those of Russia and Iran as well. All that it would take right now is a miscommunication or a weapon discharging in an unintended way to set off a swift chain of events that could lead to all out hot war, which when Russia is involved always comes with the possibility of a nuclear warhead being deployed by either side in the chaos and setting Mutually Assured Destruction into effect.
These are not at all outlandish possibilities to consider; they are breathing down our necks as you read this. And yet in this hotly volatile climate, people are being dissuaded from asking questions.
We as individuals are all vastly smarter and wiser than the oligarchs who rule us, and we can handle picking our way through a wide array of information, even information which runs counter to western interests in an "information war". Ideas are not inherently dangerous. What is dangerous is truth being hidden from the public, making us incapable of making accurate determinations about what's true and what's false and using that knowledge to make our wishes known to power. What is dangerous is escalations with a nuclear superpower and its allies and a steadily increasing hostility toward skepticism and detente advocacy.
It isn't their place to protect us from ideas and information. It isn't their place to use us as pawns in their idiotic "information war". They need to stop concerning themselves with controlling the way we think.
We are not children that they get to lie to because they believe it is in our best interest. The state of the world today shows that the people running our media and our governments are the very last people on earth who should be making such calls on our behalf.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.04.19, 01:00:40
We as individuals are all vastly smarter and wiser than the oligarchs who rule us
Careful Caitlin.. do not underestimate your designated enemy, and do not deceive yourself with misplaced generalisations. I know a lot of people who are thick as ****! Their 'ideas' are given to them and they live, act and vote accordingly.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2018.04.19, 01:00:40
Ideas are not inherently dangerous.
Some would disagree:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo
In the sense that the only thing that can change the world for the better is new ideas and as such 'ideas' are inherently dangerous to an entrenched order.
Ideahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
In philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place. A new or original idea can often lead to innovation.[2]
What Can Be Done?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/30/can-done-paul-craig-roberts/ (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/30/can-done-paul-craig-roberts/)
Paul Craig Roberts
April 30, 2018
It is up to Europe whether or not the Earth dies in nuclear Armageddon.
European governments do not realize their potential to save the world from Washington's aggression, because the western Europeans are accustomed to being Washington's vassal states since the end of World War 2, and the eastern and central Europeans have accepted Washington's vassalage since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Vassalage pays well if all the costs are not counted.
By joining NATO, the eastern and central Europeans permitted Washington to move US military presence to Russia's borders. This military presence on Russia's borders gave Washington undue confidence that Russia also could be coerced into a vassal state existence. Despite the dire fate of the two finest armies ever assembled—Napoleon's Grand Army and that of Germany's Wehrmacht—Washington hasn't learned that the two rules of warfare are: (1) Don't march on Russia. (2) Don't march on Russia.
Because of Europe's subservience to Washington, Washington is unlikely to learn this lesson before Washington marches on Russia.
Washington in its hubristic idiocy has already begun this march piecemeal with the coup in Ukraine and with its attacks on Syrian military positions. As I wrote earlier today https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/30/syrian-cisis-escalates/ Washington is escalating the crisis in Syria.
What can stop this before it explodes into war is eastern and central Europe's decision to disengage as enablers of Washington's aggression.
There are no benefits to Europe of being in NATO. Europeans are not threatened by Russian aggression, but they are threatened by Washington's aggression against Russia. If the American neoconservatives and their Israeli allies succeed in provoking a war, all of Europe would be destroyed. Forever.
What is wrong with European politicians that they take this risk with the peoples that they govern?
Europe is still a place of beauty constructed by humans over the ages—architecturally, artistically, and intellectually—and the museum should not be destroyed. Once free of Washington's vassalage, Europe could even be brought back to creative life.
Europe is already suffering economically from Washington's illegal sanctions against Russia forced upon Europeans by Washington and from the millions of non-European refugees flooding the European countries fleeing from Washington's illegal wars against Muslim peoples, wars that Americans are forced to fight for the benefit of Israel.
What do Europeans get for the extreme penalties imposed on them as Washington's vassals? They get nothing but the threat of Armageddon. A small handful of European "leaders" get enormous subsidies from Washington for enabling Washington's illegal agendas. Just take a look at Tony Blair's enormous fortune, which is not the normal reward for a British prime minister.
Europeans, including the "leaders," have much more to gain from being connected to the Russia/China Silk Road project. It is the East that is rising, not the West. The Silk Road would connect Europe to the rising East. Russia has undeveloped territory full of resources—Siberia—that is larger than the United States. On a purchasing power parity basis, China is already the world's largest economy. Militarily the Russian/Chinese alliance is much more than a match for Washington.
If Europe had any sense, any leadership, it would tell Washington good-bye.
What is the value to Europe of Washington's hegemony over the world? How do Europeans, as opposed to a handful of politicians receiving bags full of money from Washington, benefit from their vassalage to Washington? Not one benefit can be identified. Washington's apologists say that Europe is afraid of being dominated by Russia. So why aren't Europeans afraid of their 73 years of domination by Washington, especially a domination that is leading them into military conflict with Russia?
Unlike Europeans and Russians, Americans have scant experience with wartime casualties. Just one World War 1 battle, the Battle of Verdun, produced more casualties than the battle deaths that US has experienced in all the wars of its existence beginning with the Revolutionary War for independence from Britain.
The World War 1 Battle of Verdun,which took place prior to the US entry into the war, was the longest and most costly battle in human history. An estimate in 2000 found a total of 714,231 casualties, 377,231 French and 337,000 German, for an average of 70,000 casualties a month; other recent estimates increase the number of casualties to 976,000 during the battle, with 1,250,000 suffered at Verdun during the war.
In contrast, US casualties for World War 1 after US entry were 53,402 battle deaths and 200,000 nonmortal woundings.
Here is the list of US battle deaths from the War of Revolution through the "global war on terror" as of August 2017:
American Revolution: 4,435
War of 1812: 2,260
Wars against native Americans (1817-1898): 1,000
Mexican War: 1,733
War of Northern Aggression :
North: 104,414
South: 74,524
Spanish-American War: 385
World War 2: 291,557
Korean War: 33,739
Vietnam War: 47,434
Gulf War: 148
This comes to 561,629 battle deaths
If we add the battle deaths of the global war on terror as of Aug. 2017—6,930—we have 568,559 US battle deaths in all US wars. See: https://www.infoplease.com/us/american-wars/americas-wars-us-casualties-and-veterans
That compares to 714,231 casualties, from which I am unable at this time to separate battle deaths from nonmortal wounds and maiming from a single World War 1 battle that did not involve US soldiers.
In other words, except for the Confederate States and native Americans, who endured enormous Union war crimes, the US has no experience of war. So Washington enters war with ease. The next time, however, will be Armageddon, and Washington will no longer exist. And neither will the rest of us.
US deaths in World War 1 were low because the US did not enter the war until the last year. Similarly in World War 2. Japan was defeated by the loss of her navy and air force and by the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, which required few US battle deaths. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were gratuitous and took place when Japan was asking to surrender. Approximately 200,000 Japanese civilians died in the nuclear attacks and no Americans except prisoners of war held in those cities. In Europe, as in World War 1, the US did not enter the war against Germany until the last year when the Wehrmacht had already been broken and defeated by the Soviet Red Army. The Normandy invasion faced scant opposition as all German forces were on the Russian front.
If there is a World War 3 the US and all of the Western world would be immediately destroyed as nothing stands between the West and the extraordinary nuclear capability of Russia except the likelihood of complete and total destruction. If China enters on Russia's side, as is expected, the destruction of the entirety of the Western World will be for all time.
Why does Europe enable this scenario? Is there no humanity, no intelligence left anywhere in Europe? Is Europe nothing but a collection of cattle awaiting slaughter from the machinations of the crazed American neocons? Are there no European political leaders with one ounce of common sense, one ounce of integrity?
If not, doom is upon us as there is no humanity or intelligence in Washington.
Europe must take the lead, especially the central Europeans. These are peoples who were liberated from the Nazis by the Russians and who have in the 21st century experienced far more aggression from Washington's pursuit of its hegemony they they have experienced from Moscow.
If Europe breaks away from Washington's control, there is hope for life. If not, we are as good as dead.
Great Britain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
A single Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the Kingdom of England (which had already comprised the present-day countries of England and Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland by the 1707 Acts of Union. More than a hundred years before, in 1603, King James VI, King of Scots, had inherited the throne of England, but it was not until 1707 that the two countries' parliaments agreed to form a political union. In 1801, Great Britain united with the neighbouring Kingdom of Ireland, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" after the Irish Free State seceded in 1922.
Political union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_union
A political union is a type of state which is composed of or created out of smaller states. The process is called unification. Unifications of states that used to be together and are reuniting is referred to as reunification. Unlike a personal union or real union, the individual states share a central government and the union is recognized internationally as a single political entity. A political union may also be called a legislative union or state union.
Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups (as well as syndicates, or guilds) such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests.[2] The relevant adjective is corporatist (or corporativist), but the adjective corporate is also sometimes confusingly used though it normally refers to the underlying interest groups (corporate groups), not their organization of society. Corporatism is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body, a living organism with different organs.[3] The term "corporatism" is based on the Latin root word corpus (plural corpora) meaning "body"[4] or, in the case of Fascist Italy, on the word corporazione (derived from the aforementioned Latin word, with the meaning of "embodiment", "association"), the Italian name for what was known in Germanic Europe as a Medieval guild.
In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[5] Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[6] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.[7] In addition to humans, certain animal species like penguins exhibit strong corporate social organization.[8][9] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism and guild socialism.[10]
Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.
Corporatocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, a portmanteau of corporate and -ocracy (form of government), short form corpocracy, is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][excessive citations]
Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011).[16] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, large corporations using money to finance election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance of power away from workers.[16]
This collective is what author C Wright Mills in 1956 called the 'power elite', wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in corporatocracies. They control the process of determining a society's economic and political policies.[17]
The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[18] It has been used by critics of globalization,[19] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[20] or unfair lending practices,[18] as well as criticism of "free trade agreements".
Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[5][6][7][4][8][9]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[10][11] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[10][11]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[13][14][15][16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[17]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.
What is the only structure that stands in the way of Corporate Fascism ?
Sovereign Independence and Self Determination of unique peoples and the nation state they control for the common good of those peoples, hence the constant drive for political union into a federalised nation, and the cultural genocide of independent peoples via open borders and the racism card to silence dissent. The one party system of the west operates under the illusion of democracy and political choice but in truth all mainstream political parties work towards the goal of a one world government via the political union mechanism. The current propaganda war disseminated by the west is designed to designate independent sovereign states as strategic enemies of the federation and to form a national consensus for aggressive warfare. Conspiracy and deception to commit fait accompli is the main weapon of choice to achieve these goals:
Fait Accompli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fait_Accompli
Fait accompli, a French phrase commonly used to describe an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it
Charlemagne Prize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize
The Charlemagne Prize (German: Karlspreis; full name originally Internationaler Karlspreis der Stadt Aachen, International Charlemagne Prize of the City of Aachen, since 1988 Internationaler Karlspreis zu Aachen, International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen) is a prize awarded for work done in the service of European unification.
The first Charlemagne Prize was awarded to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European Movement.
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi[1] (November 16, 1894 – July 27, 1972) was an Austrian-Japanese politician, philosopher, and Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi. The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union.[2][3] His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and major landowner in Tokyo.[4] His childhood name in Japan was Aoyama Eijiro. He became a Czechoslovak citizen in 1919 and then took French nationality from 1939 until his death.
His first book, Pan-Europa, was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement, which held its first Congress in 1926 in Vienna. In 1927, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president of the Pan-Europa movement. Public figures who attended Pan-Europa congresses included Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud.[5]
Coudenhove-Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize in 1950. The 1972–1973 academic year at the College of Europe was named in his honour. Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as the music for the European Anthem. He also proposed a Europe Day, European postage stamp[6] and many artefacts for the movement (e.g. badges and pennants).
Angela Merkel received the COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PRIZE in 2010
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=20058.0
"Hundreds of Germans are attempting to bring criminal charges against
Chancellor Angela Merkel, accusing her of treason by opening the
borders of Germany to mass migration."
Blair wins the Charlemagne Prize
https://www.historytoday.com/russell-chamberlain/blair-wins-charlemagne-prize
Tony Blair becomes the third British PM to receive this annual prize for promoting European unity.
The International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen
http://www.karlspreis.de/en/
Charlemagne Prize Laureate 2018
Emmanuel Macron
The President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, will be awarded the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen on 10 May 2018.
Emmanuel Macron receives Charlemagne Prize for European unity in Aachen
http://www.dw.com/en/emmanuel-macron-receives-charlemagne-prize-for-european-unity-in-aachen/a-43727296
French President Emmanuel Macron received the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen "in recognition of his vision of a new Europe." In his acceptance speech, Macron described his long-term goals for the European bloc.
Suspect in deadly Paris knife attack was native of Chechnya, official says
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/13/paris-knife-attacker-claimed-as-soldier-isis.html
A knife-wielding suspect who slashed five people, killing one, in central Paris on Saturday night -- before being slain by French authorities -- has been identified as a native of Chechnya, born in 1997, a French judicial official said.
The parents of the suspect, who was claimed as a "soldier" of ISIS after the attack, have been detained for questioning, the official said.
Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign.[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term traitor is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the Dolchstoßlegende (Stab-in-the-back myth), the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message. Treason is considered to be different and on many occasions a separate charge from "treasonable felony" in many parts of the world.
We were lied to! Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.
Surprised to see this in the UK MSM ? Me too! Now where is the BBC report on this I can't seem to find it..
I can find a complaint about it though:
http://bbccomplaints.com/jeremy-vine-3/
Jeremy Vine
Channel: BBC Radio 2
Programme Date: 24/05/2016
Author: Ratcatcher, Westminster Sewers
An interview was arranged head to head between Nigel Lawson and Neil Kinnock under the heading of those politicians that have changed their minds over Europe and these were invited to put their story. However what the program failed to mention was that Neil Kinnock was along with his wife, appointed an EU commissioner and as such became multi millionaires from their positions. What was also not mentioned was that it was Neil Kinnock that sacked Marta Andreasen the EU chief Auditor, after she reported that Fraud and Theft from the EU ran into billions of euros and she could not sign off the accounts. This man and his wife were bought and paid for by the EU and supported the attempted cover up of fraud and theft. The EU made them both multimillionaires from taxpayers money, they are not fit to give any kind of opinion about the EU.
2 Comments on "Jeremy Vine"
REPLY
Julie
06.06.2016 AT 9:03 AM
Read her book Brussels Laid Bare. The Leave campaign should also have pointed this out. Also the Jean Monnet quote That the EU is a superstate, that the public should not be told this, that the EU would be all about economics to conceal the true meaning of the EU to bring about a Federal supersater , the FCO 30/1048 document showing how the public were lied to by Edward Heath and then Harold Wilson, this should be the core of the Leave EU campaign
REPLY
ALAN OLIVER
06.10.2016 AT 8:13 PM
Disgrace!!! Can these facts be made to wider the wider public.
I would love to post John Wight's investigative op-ed from a western MSM outlet, but they don't have articles of this quality, so I post it from RT:
Can Pyongyang trust Washington? Ask Native American Chief Red Eagle
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/426925-north-korea-trust-us/
John Wight
Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement casts serious doubts over Washington's role in the peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
It poses the question of how Washington can possibly be trusted to keep its word when it comes to guaranteeing North Korea's security if it proceeds with denuclearization and the dismantlement of its nuclear development program. For as any serious student of US history knows, trusting Washington to keep its word is akin to trusting a crocodile not to close its jaws upon putting your head in its mouth.
With this history of mendacity and duplicity in mind, the recent photo op involving US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un – shaking hands and smiling at the camera – calls to mind Shakespeare's admonition: "False face must hide what the false heart doth know."
Don't believe me? Just ask Native American Indian Chief Red Eagle.
In her landmark book on the shameful history of Indian Removals, 'The Trail of Tears,' Gloria Jahoda recounts a meeting that took place between Red Eagle and US General and future President Andrew Jackson in 1813. It occurred in the aftermath of the futile attempt by Red Eagle and his people to halt the westward expansion of white European settlers into their lands.
After a hard fought struggle against overwhelming odds in which hundreds of his warriors were killed, and desperate to save his tribe's women and children, Red Eagle arrived at Jackson's headquarters to offer himself up in surrender. According to Jahoda, despite shaking hands with his Indian counterpart and guaranteeing the safety of his people and their right to remain in peace on their own land, Andrew Jackson was convinced that "America's frontiers would always be frontiers while there were Indians to annoy the settlers. The Indians must go." Thus Jackson "silently pledged to himself to the policy of Indian Removal which in his presidency was to become law. It would be a simple law: any Indian who remained on his ancestral lands affirming his Indian identity would be a criminal."
The burning question is whether 2018 is a re-run of 1813, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the role of Andrew Jackson and Kim Jong-un a latter day Red Eagle; with the former providing assurances to the latter that neither he nor the government he represents has any intention of fulfilling?
Just how much trust can the North Koreans place in the word or an administration which at the same time it is pledging to guarantee their security in return for denuclearization, is unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty its predecessor made with Iran in conjunctions with the other five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany over its nuclear development program?
History is the best teacher and never more than now, crucial for a world interested in stability and peace when it comes to understanding the nature of what it is dealing with in Washington.
Just in case anyone is under any illusions in this respect, US author William Blum in his classic book 'Rogue State,' described in the subtitle as "a guide to the world's only superpower," lays it out: "The leaders of the United States strive for world domination, for hegemony wherever possible; this had been their main occupation for over a century, it's what they do for a living."
He goes on: "The United States, NATO and the European Union form a Holy Triumvirate. The Holy Triumvirate has subsidiaries, chiefly the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court. All help to keep in line those governments lacking the Holy Triumvirate seal of approval."
Another leader with hard experience of Washington's duplicity and perfidy is Mikhail Gorbachev, hailed for his role in ending the first Cold War, though in the process unable to save the Soviet Union.
Based on declassified documents, a 2017 report by the Washington-based independent research institute, the National Security Archive, confirms that during negotiations with the Soviet government, led by Gorbachev and undertaken as part of the process of bringing the Cold War to an end, categorical assurances were given by Western governments, led by Washington, that upon the reunification of Germany there would be no attempt to expand NATO eastward towards Russia's borders.
In fact, a "cascade of assurances" was given to the Soviets, with then-US Secretary of State James Baker going as far as to pledge that NATO would expand "not one inch eastward" in a meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. It was only as a result of these assurances that the Soviet leadership was prepared to accept German reunification, given its security ramifications in a period of political turmoil.
Returning to the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the decision, clearly, was taken at the behest of a fundamentalist neocon foreign policy establishment in Washington in conjunction with US regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thus the security of the American people and stability of the Middle East has been sacrificed on the altar of a hegemonic agenda that can only sound a warning in Pyongyang that Washington's objective is not peace with North Korea but the country's surrender.
Further proof is the demand issued by Trump's notorious national security adviser, John Bolton, that the North Koreans must ship all their nuclear weapons to the US in return for assurances on their security and a relaxation of US sanctions. Such a move by the North Koreans would be folly, tantamount to placing themselves at the mercy of a neocon Taliban.
Washington's role in any process of peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula can, ultimately, only be an impediment to its chances of success. If it is to succeed, then Washington must be excluded, requiring that the South Koreans step forward as an independent state and refuse to accept any longer its status as a US satellite. The Trump administration's demand that Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear deterrent as a precondition for peace and reconciliation is an impertinence that should be treated with the contempt it deserves. If there is to be a precondition, it should be a joint one on the part of the North and South Korean governments, demanding the departure of US troops and military installations from the peninsula.
Whatever happens, none should forget the price paid by Red Eagle and his people for trusting the assurances of Washington: We were told that they wished merely to pass through our country... to seek for gold in the far west... Yet before the ashes of the council are cold, the Great Father is building his forts among us... His presence here is... an insult to the spirits of our ancestors. Are we then to give up their sacred graves to be allowed for corn?
'The Saker' Isn't Just Wrong, He's Irrelevant – Putin's An Excellent Warrior
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/05/the-saker-isnt-just-wrong-hes-irrelevant-putins-an-excellent-warrior/
"The greatest warrior is not he who wins every battle. The most excellent warrior is he who wins without fighting."
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 600 B.C.
I have read The Art of War many times, and you can bet that Vladimir Putin has too. I found the quote above to be the most important maxim in that masterpiece, and I think Putin would agree. And when the "fighting" could potentially lead to the 3rd World War and the extinction of Humanity, then to avoid fighting becomes as important as avoiding defeat, because the 3rd World War is a war no one will win. Once it starts, we all lose. And so far, it is Putin who has prevented the war from starting.
The recent criticism of Vladimir Putin for "betraying" Syria or the Donbass Republics or even Russia itself is as impudent as it is misguided, and it comes from the usual collection of armchair warriors and self-styled pundits who actually seem to think they know more about geopolitics than Vladimir Putin does.
They seem to fail to understand that war requires sacrifices, as well as deception, and that perhaps all may not be exactly as they think it is. They also fail to understand that preventing war sometimes requires distasteful compromises. These self-appointed critics and "strategists" should look at the results of Putin's work, rather than be confused by their amateur interpretation of how he accomplishes it. And they should keep in mind the fact that Putin's objectives may not be the same as their own, and that it is always easy to talk when you have no skin in the game.
Let's start with the recent words of "The Saker", aka Andrei Raevski, an alleged "Pro-Russian analyst" who is "personally bitterly disappointed" by the nomination of Dmitri Medvedev as Prime Minister. He goes on to quote a comment he read on Youtube – "Putin betrayed the people, we didn't vote for Medvedev". While the second part of the comment is technically correct, it is the parliament, not the people, who votes for or against the President's nominee, the "Putin betrayed the people" lie is straight off the Strelkov/Suchan/5th column troll farm.
Note that The Saker doesn't actually say it himself, but by quoting an anonymous comment off Youtube, he does actually say it himself, and then our illustrious analyst goes on to say he is "afraid" it's going to be a "very widely shared feeling". As he himself shares it as widely as he can. It is not a feeling shared by those with any sense or any skin in the game, but perhaps among some of the credulous naifs who read and believe his drivel.
There are a number of legitimate explanations for Medvedev's appointment, but The Saker "doesn't buy any of them". Or apparently even understand any of them. He then goes on to claim the appointment pours fuel on the fire of rumors that Putin will cave in on Syria and/or Donbass, even as he pours fuel on the fire of those rumors by spreading them himself.
He claims to be aware (as "we all" are) of "alarmist rumors circulating all over the internet about this for many days", and goes on to say the nomination will strengthen these "very dangerous" rumors, even as he spreads and strengthens them himself. Is it treachery or idiocy? Either way, it's anti-Russian propaganda by a White Russian immigrant who lives in the USA, and pretends to support Russia's battle against US hegemony.
A calm and rational examination of the facts shows the above interpretation of Medvedev's appointment to be baseless, melodramatic fear-mongering. The fact is, the Prime Minister, whose actual official title is "Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation", serves at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired and replaced at the President's discretion. The President may himself chair meetings of the Cabinet, may give obligatory orders to the PM, and may revoke any act of the government. The term "Prime Minister" is strictly informal and is actually never used in the Russian Constitution, federal laws or official documents.
The President has complete control of the PM. Putin is the immensely popular President, Medvedev is the unpopular PM who Putin appointed and can fire at any time. No need for fear or bitter disappointment. Or abject misinterpretation. What better way could Putin have to keep Medvedev on a short leash than to have him as PM under these conditions?
I am no fan of Medvedev or his oligarch clique, but Putin's appointing him doesn't mean that he is either. There is a well known quote that is from the book The Godfather – "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The simple interpretation of this quote is "know your enemy", but the much more profound meaning is that you don't want your enemies to know that you are enemies. This vital distinction may be lost on some Russian voters, Youtube commenters and self-styled analysts who think they are qualified to advise and criticize the former KGB Colonel and current President of the Russian Federation, but I am quite certain that Putin himself understands it perfectly. So, only a fool or a liar would say "Putin betrayed Russia" by appointing Medvedev.
Sergey Kurginyan (the only Russian I trust and admire as much as Putin) pointed out that Putin has six years to complete the monumental tasks he has set for Russia, and realistically, he needs the Medvedev Bloc's help. Their report card comes out two years from now. If they help, they stay, if they don't, they get booted, all Russia sees it, and Putin sill has four more years to install a new team of oligarch hunters, and to do some hunting himself. And if you haven't heard of Kurginyan or want to know where he stands on other huge questions facing Russia, check out this clip where he breaks down who Gorbachev really was, and what he was all about. His analysis is cutting. He's no liberal, no bourgeois reformer.
If Putin did not betray Russia, what about Syria and the Donbass Republics? The quick, simple and obvious answer is that the fact that they still exist proves that he continues to support them and has not betrayed them in any way. The idea that Syria or the Republics could have survived without Putin's support is laughable, and only an idiot could put forth such a proposition. Yet some do. They say that Putin has "betrayed" Syria by not responding to recent provocations and that Russian forces should have attacked US forces that are illegally in Syria after the US attack in which Russian contractors were killed.
The story about "500 Russians killed" is a lie. There were about 100 soldiers killed by the US air attack, mostly Syrian Army, with about 15 to 20 Wagner contractor/advisers. And unlike the various keyboard commandos who called for the start of WW3 over the incident , I actually know what happened. A friend of mine was there, and I have seen the video. Yes, it was a treacherous and underhanded attack by the US, knowing there were Russians among the Syrian soldiers, but this provocation is not worth risking a real world war over, is it? What kind of imbecile could possibly think it would be?
The same goes for Trump's impotent and ridiculous missile attacks, and Israel's as well. Yes, all these attacks were "allowed" by Russia, but Russia told both the US and Israel where they were, and were not, allowed to shoot, and both obeyed the Russian mandate. The cost of the attacks for the US was far greater than the destruction they imposed on Syria, and the Israelis probably just barely broke even. Enough Pyrrhic victories like these, and the US and Israel will defeat themselves. And Putin will stand aside and allow them to. He will win without fighting.
Of course, the Russians are fighting in Syria, against ISIS and other Western terrorist proxies, and they are winning. The US and Israeli attacks are absolutely meaningless in regards to the final outcome of the war, so why should Putin escalate? Putin and the Russian military have drawn their lines in the sand, and it is clear the US and their allies understand and respect them. If they are foolish enough to cross them, those who now call for war will soon be begging the Russians for peace. Yes, soldiers were killed, but they were not Russian soldiers or Bashar al Assad. And getting killed is a risk every soldier must face. It's part of the job, and sometimes they must even be sacrificed. That too is part of the job. This is sometimes hard for keyboard commandos and those who have never been soldiers to understand. And they should refrain from commenting on things they don't understand.
As for Putin's "betrayal" by inviting Netanyahu to Moscow, yes, a rather disgusting sight considering Israel's recent actions, but a very shrewd move, not "stupid" or a betrayal.
There's a difference between bad optics, and bad moves. Bad optics can be a bad move, but there's much more to reality than optics – much more than meets the eye. This is so basic, the expression itself is currency.
No doubt Netanyahu standing beside Putin made Trump, Poroshenko and Netanyahu nervous. Yes, Russia has again put the S-300 delivery to Syria on hold, but the sale and delivery of S-400's to Turkey is still on schedule. Think about Erdogan calling for all Muslim countries to unite against Israel.
Erdogan truly is a megalomaniac, with dreams of being a new Salahudin and leading the ME, and a war against Israel makes him exactly that. And I doubt he's forgotten about the US engineered coup attempt against him, and where Fetullah Gulen lives. But Turkey doesn't even need the S-400's. It's still in NATO, so basically bulletproof from Israel, even from their nukes. Because if Israel gets into a shooting war with Turkey, it invokes Article 5, and either NATO has to go to war against Israel, or NATO falls apart, because if the US and EU NATO members don't defend Turkey, how can they trust each other?
Either way, Putin wins without fighting. The more you think about it, the more you like it!
The same applies to those who say Putin "betrayed" Donbass. Take my word for it or figure it our for yourself. After four years of war, the Republics still stand.
While we certainly do have our problems, life has gotten better in every measurable way, and continues to, just as it has gotten continually worse in Ukraine. If not for Putin's support, we would have been attacked and overwhelmed long ago. Putin has said these exact words – "If the Ukraine army overruns Donbass there will be a genocide of ethnic Russian people. We will not allow that." What do you think he means, "We will not allow that"? I know, the people here know, the Ukrops and US military knows, and so far, they have not been suicidal enough to try it. Putin will never betray Donbass.
I'd bet my life on it. In fact, I do bet my life on it. Millions of us here do. And we know it. We respect and appreciate it. We are still here because he is with us. As long as the Republics exist, we are winning. Time is on our side, and just like NATO, the Kiev junta and Ukrop Nazis will eventually consume themselves. The Republics too, can win without fighting.
There are few men in history, much less alive today, who have the courage, the honor and the true genius of Vladimir Putin. Those who call themselves "pro-Russian" and use the words "Putin" and "betrayed" in the same sentence only prove themselves, without exception, to be either fools, or liars and traitors. Remember the lesson Girkin ("Strelkov") taught us here in Donbass. A false comrade is a real enemy. As for the fools, they are not just wrong, they're irrelevant. They blow wind about actions they don't even understand. The dog barks, and the caravan moves on. What matters is the results. And the results speak for themselves. Things have gotten better in Syria, Donbass and Russia itself ever since Putin came along, he hasn't betrayed anybody, and he's not going anywhere till the job is done.
The job is to protect Russia, and protecting Syria and Donbass does protect Russia. It also prevents World War Three. And preventing World War Three protects us all. So far, Vladimir Putin has done it, and done it well. He is refusing to escalate, minimizing violence as long as his red lines are not crossed. And those lines have not yet been crossed. It is important for those who live under the regimes that make provocations and call for war to do whatever they can to prevent their governments from going too far and crossing those lines. We should all give Vladimir Putin a hand in trying to prevent World War Three. If we win without fighting, we all become most excellent warriors.
Russell Bentley has a very good point to make. I have been wondering myself what is going on with The Saker lately (he has said he has been struggling with poor health). I have not been able to detect any change in the writing style so it's probable that the latest crop of articles has been written by the same person.. but I wouldn't go as far as Russell in asking "Is it treachery or is it idiocy?" it could well just be personal bias bubbling up. Sometimes you can overextend yourself. Whatever the reasons are I don't agree with The Saker's latest positions.
Quote from: ronee on 2018.05.20, 16:15:12
"The greatest warrior is not he who wins every battle. The most excellent warrior is he who wins without fighting."
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 600 B.C.
The Art Of Fighting Without Fightinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ycw0d_Uow
Looks like it's finally going to court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3cfCX1s1Y
Exceedingly good news TinMan!
Thanks for the link. It seems that there is a
change occurring in the World Climate; Truth
is finally busting out all over the place!
We are fortunate that there are Truthseekers
who literally cannot rest until the TRUTH is
made known to all while exposing the LIES that
have been promulgated by the mainstream.
Exciting time indeed!
Who do you all think carried out these attacks?
I mean-who was the ring leader--who was the group?
What impact will this have on the American people if it is found that there own government orgistrated these attacks?
The more you look into this,the more idiotic it becomes to think that this was all carried out by Bin-ladin.
Building 7 is what will bring down the real perpetrators--no pun intended.
I know our own Steve Jones was also investigating the use of thermite--maybe he could share his finding direct with us-->a thread update if you will.
Brad
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.12.27, 23:09:49
Who do you all think carried out these attacks?
I mean-who was the ring leader--who was the group?
What impact will this have on the American people if it is found that there own government orgistrated these attacks?
The more you look into this,the more idiotic it becomes to think that this was all carried out by Bin-ladin.
Building 7 is what will bring down the real perpetrators--no pun intended.
I know our own Steve Jones was also investigating the use of thermite--maybe he could share his finding direct with us-->a thread update if you will.
Brad
Brad,
The usual suspects, Bush Chenney, Mossad, CIA, FBI, NSA a good explanation is Molecular dissociation weapons, Beam weapons...
3. Molecular Dissociation: "The collapse of the WTC buildings produced the highest mass per volume of very fine particles (nanoparticles) ever measured in an air sample in the United States. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to dissociate or break the molecular bonds of steel, concrete and other building materials that were "powdered" into very fine particles during the collapse of the buildings. The largest mass per volume of metals ever measured in an air sample in the US were reported by Dr. Thomas Cahill who did air monitoring for 5 months. Metal is used in buildings because it is very strong – and would require large amounts of energy to reduce it to nanoparticles. Chemical explosives do not release enough energy to produce that volume of very fine particles. A much more energetic process was involved such as laser or beam energy which releases focused and concentrated energy as complex waveforms necessary to cause molecular dissociation."
4. Physical Evidence of Buildings Collapsing: "In videos of the collapses on 9/11 the WTC buildings erupted into emulsion like a drinking fountain, and the rubble did not hit the ground. Even on tape huge pieces of aluminum building siding vaporized as they were freefalling, and never hit the ground."
5. Controlled Demolition: "The [collapse of the WTC buildings] was not a 'controlled demolition' for the following reasons:
WTC Detritus Pile - "Should have been 1/3 the height of the WTC buildings. The 100+ story WTC buildings were about 1 story high when the collapse of the buildings ended. A fireman on one of the news videos said the antenna that had been on the top of WTC Building 1 was on the top of a pile of rubble about one story high. The rubble pile should have been 35 stories if it was a conventional controlled demolition."
WTC Rubble Never Hit the Ground – "This defies gravity, where did the rubble go?"
Footprints – "Geometrically Round Holes: contiguous round holes 24' in diameter were in the footprints of the WTC buildings 1 and 2, and a 60' deep geometrically round hole was in the middle of Liberty Street near the WTC. This is evidence of beam weapons. There was no debris inside the footprints of the two WTC buildings, only bare dirt with circles in the dirt."
Dust - "In videos of the collapse larger particles fell and cascaded down from the buildings under the forces of gravity, but before they hit the ground they vaporized and suddenly went up into the atmosphere like an antigravity demonstration. Nanoparticles are so tiny that they are not subject to the forces of gravity, so molecular dissociation occurred on the larger particles as they were freefalling, reducing them into nano-particles (0.1 microns in diameter and smaller) that suddenly obeyed other physical laws of quantum mechanics. More evidence of [directed energy weapon or] HAARP/beam weapon technology applied during collapse."
9/11 Satellite photos - "[9/11 satellite photographs showed] dust going into upper atmosphere –which had to be nanoparticles and may have been enhanced by other technology because most very fine particles/dust would stay in the Troposphere and be rained out in 2 months as we know from depleted uranium particulate releases from battlefield already."
1400 Toasted Cars - "Located blocks from the WTC buildings, with door handles missing, engine blocks missing, blistering on some parts of the car finish, strange rust patterns on the bodies of the cars."
Paper Around Cars Not Burned - "Whatever 'vaporized' the engine blocks and the door handles on 1400 cars did not ignite fragile and flammable paper lying all over the ground around the cars. If engine blocks and door handles selectively vaporized, why didn't body of car vaporize?"
Pile of Cars Spontaneously Combusted - "In a news video, the entire pile of cars started burning spontaneously at the same time with no visible cause, it was not a fire that started in one car and spread to others."
Rust Occurred Immediately - "On cars and trucks, and in FEMA photos there was heavy rust on steel beams – steel does not rust, and it is a slow oxidation process that results in rusting of iron. This rusting happened immediately."
Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged - "Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage."
Prof. Cahill Air Monitoring Samples - "The hardest and most durable materials vaporized (steel, concrete etc), and the most fragile materials (paper) cascading out of WTC windows and all over the ground for blocks were undamaged."
Truckloads of Potting Soil - "Right after the WTC disaster, the ground was "fuming", and sequential FEMA aerial photos show 130 dump trucks full of soil (filled almost to the top of the dump truck space) covered with tarps so that the dirt in the trucks was not visible to onlookers on the street, coming into the WTC area, dumping the soil and going out for more. This happened even before the rescues or cleanup started and it continued for some time. The piles of soil were left for a week and got higher each day in sequential photos. The soil 'fuming' lasted until March 2002 (8 months)."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBW4JjBZJMw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBW4JjBZJMw)
Boots Disintegrated – "Boots on emergency responders disintegrated after 2 hours. They had to get new boots every 2 hours – an effect of molecular dissociation. It was not from burning, their skin would have been damaged."
No Ground Fuming During Rain - "For 99 days the "burning" (fuming) continued at the WTC site, but when it rained there was no fuming. If it had been fires burning, the rain would have caused steam from heating rainwater."
USGS: Iron versus Steel - "The USGS analyzed the mineral form of the rust on steel beams and iron objects at the WTC. They did not address the 'steel does not rust' issue, but dodged it by referring to the rusted steel beams in the rubble pile as 'iron beams' and gave mineral analyses of iron minerals produced by oxidation."
Official Sample Data Not Reliable – "Spectral absorption images at the WTC indicated average particle size was about 1 micron, which is subjected to gravity and would have fallen with the collapsed buildings. USGS did not collect many dust samples and collecting samples by other different agencies did not agree with each other. No samples were taken at the toasted cars."
Directed Energy Weapon Evidence - "Evidence of use of a directed energy weapon was present at the top of the WTC buildings as 'lathering up' started before buildings started coming down. 'Lathering up' in videos preceded the collapse of all buildings, even Building 7 which supposedly Larry Silverstein when he said, 'Pull it' to firefighters meant controlled demolition. Color alteration and modification in news videos compared to other photos/videos at tops of buildings indicates "doctoring" of images. When the Seattle Dome was destroyed with controlled demolition, the dust created by the destruction did not get any higher than the top of the building. The WTC dust got into the upper atmosphere almost immediately – which indicates very tiny atmospheric dust sized particles (0.1 micron and smaller), in fact smaller than atmospheric dust that stays mainly in the Troposphere.
"Lathering Up" Incriminating - "WTC Building 7 'lathered up' even before WTC Building 2 went down. WTC Building 7 not damaged at all by WTC Building 2 going down – right next to each other."
Freon tanks - "Very odd, large tanks were removed from WTC building and OSHA made bogus statement about what and why they were removed. Was freon used in WTC takedown? A NYC cop whom the researcher met with Cindy Sheehan said he was injured in WTC Building 7 and removed on a gurney, but his eyes were covered so he could not see anything as they left the building. He reported he was able to see dead bodies lying all over the floor as he was being carried out – before building 7 had collapsed. Was this due to Freon asphyxiation put through ventilation system like in a recent Russian submarine disaster?
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html (https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html)
Ron
Hi, Brad.
Regarding the Physics, I'd refer all to our August 2016 publication in EuroPhysics News:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Note that there are over 850,000 reads/downloads of our paper! This paper is by far the most read paper in this important journal.
Click on "PDF" to download our full paper, including discussion of the use of thermite/superthermite in the World Trade Center destruction (and subsequent dust). Recall that WTC 7 was NOT hit by any airplane, yet it fell completely to the ground that afternoon on 9/11/2001.
One quick video (less than 2 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laBV8Pq-RMc
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.12.28, 17:56:35
Hi, Brad.
Regarding the Physics, I'd refer all to our August 2016 publication in EuroPhysics News:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Note that there are over 850,000 reads/downloads of our paper! This paper is by far the most read paper in this important journal.
Click on "PDF" to download our full paper, including discussion of the use of thermite/superthermite in the World Trade Center destruction (and subsequent dust). Recall that WTC 7 was NOT hit by any airplane, yet it fell completely to the ground that afternoon on 9/11/2001.
One quick video (less than 2 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laBV8Pq-RMc
That is a well written article, however I think my previous post has a fuller hypothesis, with Directed Energy Weapons.
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html (https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html)
These weapons are still with us as can be seen in the Fort McMurray fire and the recent California "forest fires" where burnt homes are surrounded with still green shrubbery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQdEDRYu0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQdEDRYu0)
https://www.aircrap.org/2017/10/13/california-fires-dew-directed-energy-weapons/ (https://www.aircrap.org/2017/10/13/california-fires-dew-directed-energy-weapons/)
Ron
Ronee: "That is a well written article,"
Thank you.
" however I think my previous post has a fuller hypothesis, with Directed Energy Weapons."
The video I cited shows the rapid fall of WTC building 7, including the fact that the roof remained intact along with the higher floors as the building accelerated and fell -- clearly no "Directed Energy Weapons" destroyed the building from high above -right?
Please explain specifically how "Directed Energy Weapons" could account for this observed behavior in the fall of WTC7.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.12.29, 04:05:35
Ronee: "That is a well written article,"
Thank you.
" however I think my previous post has a fuller hypothesis, with Directed Energy Weapons."
The video I cited shows the rapid fall of WTC building 7, including the fact that the roof remained intact along with the higher floors as the building accelerated and fell -- clearly no "Directed Energy Weapons" destroyed the building from high above -right?
Please explain specifically how "Directed Energy Weapons" could account for this observed behavior in the fall of WTC7.
Clearly we are on a different focus here. I was speaking almost entirely on the twin towers and ignoring the demolition of building seven, but:
"Lathering Up" Incriminating - "WTC Building 7 'lathered up' even before WTC Building 2 went down. WTC Building 7 not damaged at all by WTC Building 2 going down – right next to each other."
The collapse heap of the towers at one story when it should have been 30 stories. the 1400 burned cars.yet masses of unburned paper, the tons of dirt they had ready and were bringing in. The top of the tower starting to tilt over yet turned to dust and falling straight down. The "spires" turning to dust, etc
So I take a broader focus and suggest that there were no planes. that preplanted explosives and additional explosives were used but that also one should not ignore the use of directed energy weapons were a big part of the twin towers destruction and there continued use to the present day.
Actually 9/11 can be laid to rest as a Saturn worshippers grand sacrifice.
Saturn, Saturday, the X, (X Box) the Black cube of Mecca and hundreds of stylized symbols of the Corporations are signs that Saturn still holds sway over mankind.
https://tinyurl.com/y7rgex7q (https://tinyurl.com/y7rgex7q)
The UN prayer/meditation room:
https://tinyurl.com/ybx33nts (https://tinyurl.com/ybx33nts)
The smoking gun in this case is what "they" have built at ground zero
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200892/How-9-11-memorial-cost-700million-build-needs-1million-week-run.html
The stylized black cube with an X through it. Not like it is "in your face" is it?Ron
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.12.29, 04:05:35
Ronee: "That is a well written article,"
Thank you.
" however I think my previous post has a fuller hypothesis, with Directed Energy Weapons."
The video I cited shows the rapid fall of WTC building 7, including the fact that the roof remained intact along with the higher floors as the building accelerated and fell -- clearly no "Directed Energy Weapons" destroyed the building from high above -right?
Please explain specifically how "Directed Energy Weapons" could account for this observed behavior in the fall of WTC7.
I have no problem with Building 7 being a controlled demolition, after all that was most likely the control center for the operation in the Emergency Control Bunker and they would not be wanting to bring down DEW on their own heads.
However the towers were a different animal. Originally built as the Rockefeller Center for such an "event" it was realized that a name change would be best in order. The Twin Towers were packed with C4 when built, supposedly for insurance purposes. But the time table had slipped so drastically there was some concern about the shelf life of the C 4. Hence the upgrading with additional explosives and Thermite. The core was the main worry with 13 foot thickconcrete walls and 3 inch diameter rebar. So in all probability that was the location of a mini nuke.
I hope this clarifies my position as regards your PDF, it is excellent.
The key to understanding the use of DEW on 9/11 is the hundreds of truck loads of dirt. In the link I posted the guy thinks they are coming to take stuff away but in fact the empty trucks filmed are leaving after dumping the dirt... to cut down on the DEW fuming.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2018.12.28, 17:50:19
Brad,
The usual suspects, Bush Chenney, Mossad, CIA, FBI, NSA a good explanation is Molecular dissociation weapons, Beam weapons...
3. Molecular Dissociation: "The collapse of the WTC buildings produced the highest mass per volume of very fine particles (nanoparticles) ever measured in an air sample in the United States. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to dissociate or break the molecular bonds of steel, concrete and other building materials that were "powdered" into very fine particles during the collapse of the buildings. The largest mass per volume of metals ever measured in an air sample in the US were reported by Dr. Thomas Cahill who did air monitoring for 5 months. Metal is used in buildings because it is very strong – and would require large amounts of energy to reduce it to nanoparticles. Chemical explosives do not release enough energy to produce that volume of very fine particles. A much more energetic process was involved such as laser or beam energy which releases focused and concentrated energy as complex waveforms necessary to cause molecular dissociation."
4. Physical Evidence of Buildings Collapsing: "In videos of the collapses on 9/11 the WTC buildings erupted into emulsion like a drinking fountain, and the rubble did not hit the ground. Even on tape huge pieces of aluminum building siding vaporized as they were freefalling, and never hit the ground."
5. Controlled Demolition: "The [collapse of the WTC buildings] was not a 'controlled demolition' for the following reasons:
WTC Detritus Pile - "Should have been 1/3 the height of the WTC buildings. The 100+ story WTC buildings were about 1 story high when the collapse of the buildings ended. A fireman on one of the news videos said the antenna that had been on the top of WTC Building 1 was on the top of a pile of rubble about one story high. The rubble pile should have been 35 stories if it was a conventional controlled demolition."
WTC Rubble Never Hit the Ground – "This defies gravity, where did the rubble go?"
Footprints – "Geometrically Round Holes: contiguous round holes 24' in diameter were in the footprints of the WTC buildings 1 and 2, and a 60' deep geometrically round hole was in the middle of Liberty Street near the WTC. This is evidence of beam weapons. There was no debris inside the footprints of the two WTC buildings, only bare dirt with circles in the dirt."
Dust - "In videos of the collapse larger particles fell and cascaded down from the buildings under the forces of gravity, but before they hit the ground they vaporized and suddenly went up into the atmosphere like an antigravity demonstration. Nanoparticles are so tiny that they are not subject to the forces of gravity, so molecular dissociation occurred on the larger particles as they were freefalling, reducing them into nano-particles (0.1 microns in diameter and smaller) that suddenly obeyed other physical laws of quantum mechanics. More evidence of [directed energy weapon or] HAARP/beam weapon technology applied during collapse."
9/11 Satellite photos - "[9/11 satellite photographs showed] dust going into upper atmosphere –which had to be nanoparticles and may have been enhanced by other technology because most very fine particles/dust would stay in the Troposphere and be rained out in 2 months as we know from depleted uranium particulate releases from battlefield already."
1400 Toasted Cars - "Located blocks from the WTC buildings, with door handles missing, engine blocks missing, blistering on some parts of the car finish, strange rust patterns on the bodies of the cars."
Paper Around Cars Not Burned - "Whatever 'vaporized' the engine blocks and the door handles on 1400 cars did not ignite fragile and flammable paper lying all over the ground around the cars. If engine blocks and door handles selectively vaporized, why didn't body of car vaporize?"
Pile of Cars Spontaneously Combusted - "In a news video, the entire pile of cars started burning spontaneously at the same time with no visible cause, it was not a fire that started in one car and spread to others."
Rust Occurred Immediately - "On cars and trucks, and in FEMA photos there was heavy rust on steel beams – steel does not rust, and it is a slow oxidation process that results in rusting of iron. This rusting happened immediately."
Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged - "Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage."
Prof. Cahill Air Monitoring Samples - "The hardest and most durable materials vaporized (steel, concrete etc), and the most fragile materials (paper) cascading out of WTC windows and all over the ground for blocks were undamaged."
Truckloads of Potting Soil - "Right after the WTC disaster, the ground was "fuming", and sequential FEMA aerial photos show 130 dump trucks full of soil (filled almost to the top of the dump truck space) covered with tarps so that the dirt in the trucks was not visible to onlookers on the street, coming into the WTC area, dumping the soil and going out for more. This happened even before the rescues or cleanup started and it continued for some time. The piles of soil were left for a week and got higher each day in sequential photos. The soil 'fuming' lasted until March 2002 (8 months)."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBW4JjBZJMw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBW4JjBZJMw)
Boots Disintegrated – "Boots on emergency responders disintegrated after 2 hours. They had to get new boots every 2 hours – an effect of molecular dissociation. It was not from burning, their skin would have been damaged."
No Ground Fuming During Rain - "For 99 days the "burning" (fuming) continued at the WTC site, but when it rained there was no fuming. If it had been fires burning, the rain would have caused steam from heating rainwater."
USGS: Iron versus Steel - "The USGS analyzed the mineral form of the rust on steel beams and iron objects at the WTC. They did not address the 'steel does not rust' issue, but dodged it by referring to the rusted steel beams in the rubble pile as 'iron beams' and gave mineral analyses of iron minerals produced by oxidation."
Official Sample Data Not Reliable – "Spectral absorption images at the WTC indicated average particle size was about 1 micron, which is subjected to gravity and would have fallen with the collapsed buildings. USGS did not collect many dust samples and collecting samples by other different agencies did not agree with each other. No samples were taken at the toasted cars."
Directed Energy Weapon Evidence - "Evidence of use of a directed energy weapon was present at the top of the WTC buildings as 'lathering up' started before buildings started coming down. 'Lathering up' in videos preceded the collapse of all buildings, even Building 7 which supposedly Larry Silverstein when he said, 'Pull it' to firefighters meant controlled demolition. Color alteration and modification in news videos compared to other photos/videos at tops of buildings indicates "doctoring" of images. When the Seattle Dome was destroyed with controlled demolition, the dust created by the destruction did not get any higher than the top of the building. The WTC dust got into the upper atmosphere almost immediately – which indicates very tiny atmospheric dust sized particles (0.1 micron and smaller), in fact smaller than atmospheric dust that stays mainly in the Troposphere.
"Lathering Up" Incriminating - "WTC Building 7 'lathered up' even before WTC Building 2 went down. WTC Building 7 not damaged at all by WTC Building 2 going down – right next to each other."
Freon tanks - "Very odd, large tanks were removed from WTC building and OSHA made bogus statement about what and why they were removed. Was freon used in WTC takedown? A NYC cop whom the researcher met with Cindy Sheehan said he was injured in WTC Building 7 and removed on a gurney, but his eyes were covered so he could not see anything as they left the building. He reported he was able to see dead bodies lying all over the floor as he was being carried out – before building 7 had collapsed. Was this due to Freon asphyxiation put through ventilation system like in a recent Russian submarine disaster?
https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html (https://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/02/scientistdirected-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911-.html)
Ron
While the DEW's idea/theory sounds plausible ,i have to ask-->do you really think that they have such powerful and advanced weapons ?. Remember,we live in a world where science cannot even cure the common cold C.C
Is there any examples of such energy weapons being able to disassociate the molecules of materials,such as concrete and steel--other than John Hutchensons :D
I mean,we can disassociate water on our bench,but that is very different to turning 1000's of tons of steel and concrete into molten steel and dust.
Brad
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.12.28, 17:56:35
Hi, Brad.
Regarding the Physics, I'd refer all to our August 2016 publication in EuroPhysics News:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Note that there are over 850,000 reads/downloads of our paper! This paper is by far the most read paper in this important journal.
Click on "PDF" to download our full paper, including discussion of the use of thermite/superthermite in the World Trade Center destruction (and subsequent dust). Recall that WTC 7 was NOT hit by any airplane, yet it fell completely to the ground that afternoon on 9/11/2001.
One quick video (less than 2 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laBV8Pq-RMc
Thanks Steve.
I would like to ask you this--
In the video's and pictures that show where the planes hit,we see that !!apparently!! the planes aluminum wings and body can cut through those very large box beams the WTT were constructed with.
But,in this video,we see a steel loaded truck (with large cast iron engine still installed),being stopped dead,and torn to pieces by a hollow bollard that is only 350mm in diameter-->and braced at only one end.
The bollard is not even bent a little after the impact,as it is once again retracted into it's below ground carrier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAkCypsQIQk
Most i have argued this point with (the aluminum could not have cut through those large box beams),there reply is always-->the plane was going some 500MPH,and that is how the aluminum cut through the steel.
I tell them that that is no different to the plane being motionless,and the large steel box beam traveling at 500MPH hitting the plane.
So i have to ask--how dose a hollow aluminum wing cut through large box beams of steel ?
Also some pics of the damage done to planes after being hit by just birds.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.12.29, 23:34:06
While the DEW's idea/theory sounds plausible ,i have to ask-->do you really think that they have such powerful and advanced weapons ?. Remember,we live in a world where science cannot even cure the common cold C.C
Is there any examples of such energy weapons being able to disassociate the molecules of materials,such as concrete and steel--other than John Hutchensons :D
I mean,we can disassociate water on our bench,but that is very different to turning 1000's of tons of steel and concrete into molten steel and dust.
Brad
Brad,
It is really an outgrowth of Harp, to control the weather, (Oz, California) earthquakes (Haiti, China) and forest fires (Oz, California and Canada)
Best proof is 9/11, just look at the picture...do you see a pancake collapse or molecular disassociation?
https://tinyurl.com/yb299v9q (https://tinyurl.com/yb299v9q)
Minneapolis Bridge Collapse (August 1, 2007) – The researcher states, "Similarities to WTC disaster,
every bridge segment [in the August 1, 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse] failed at exactly the same timeThe first 40 seconds of this vid (below just the car)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8V09WbBmdw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8V09WbBmdw)
In California first several years of drought, then a flood, then more drought and then the "forest fires"
When you see a hundred cars all burst into flame at the same time (9/11) or a series of forest fires all start at the same time then one needs to ask WTF?
But the Twin Tower site is the best example yet,
"Rust Occurred Immediately - "On cars and trucks, and in FEMA photos there was heavy rust on steel beams – steel does not rust, and it is a slow oxidation process that results in rusting of iron. This rusting happened immediately."
The soil 'fuming' lasted until March 2002 (8 months)."
And apparently they could not build with steel on the twin towers site as iron and steel would still rust up right away, so they built to one side and put "swimming pools" where the towers stood.
Ron
I've wondered, as have many others, what happened
to the real aircraft and the real crews and passengers.
This interview answers those questions as well as some
other questions about the towers and how they were
wired for destruction. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMjfc9d8dwc)
A grisly chain of events.
This channel has an 12 part series on 9/11. (https://www.youtube.com/user/MathEasySolutions) I'm starting with
the most recent part and working backwards through the
series. A lot of other very interesting stuff there too.