Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he
or she was accused of fomenting class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right, "Mr.
Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
Greatly simplifying Neoliberalism =
Casino Capitalism = "Transnational elites, Unite!" It is a
neo-Trotskyism with the word "proletarians"
substituted by the word "elites"
in famous slogan "Proletarians of all countries, Unite!" and permanent "Color
revolutions" as a variation and enhancement of Trotsky idea of "Permanent revolution"
Neoliberalism is a very interesting social system which by-and-large defeated and replaced both New
Deal capitalism and socialism (and facilitated the dissolution of the USSR by buying out Soviet nomenklatura,
including KGB brass). It is the only social system in which the name of the system is somehow is prohibited
by MSM to mention. In this system, like under Stalin's version of socialism, the state play the leading role in enforcing
the social system upon the people, brainwashing them with wall-to-wall 24 x 7 USSR-style propaganda
an, if necessary, by state violence (As Sheldon Wolin mentioned neoliberalism try to use violence selectively, as overuse of
state violence undermines the social system, see Inverted Totalitarism).
Instead of regulating predatory tendencies of capitalism
like under New Deal, state became just a corrupt policeman that serve large corporations and against
the people. In this sense any neoliberal country is to certain extent is an "occupied country" and the
neoliberal regime is occupying regime, much like Bolsheviks (with their theocratic state) were in USSR space. Much like during Robber
barons era, when the state helped to squash
West Virginia miner upraising in
1912-21.
The neoliberal state justifies its decisions, policies and rules in terms that
are commensurable with the logic of markets. Neoliberalism might therefore be defined as the
elevation of market-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed
norms. To the level of a secular religion in which "market" and "competition" are new deities.
Neoliberalism radically transforms welfare state. The idea of welfare is not abolished. But under neoliberalism only corporations
are desirable welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up.
In labor relations neoliberal pursue a staunch anti-unit stance. Labor is atomized, unions suppressed and individuals put
on the market "naked" on conditions dictated by employees. Which means squeezing goo paying job in favor of terms and contractors,
outsourcing and other anti--labor measure designed to preserve falling profitability in the market condition characterized by
falling consumer demand (due to lower standard of living for the majority of population). And this is done at any cost. Even at the
cost of human life. That situation gave rise to the term "naked capitalism".
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. that gave a rise of verious (often
stupid) metrics and cult of "performance reviews". It
redefines citizens as consumers, who exercise they political power mainly buying and selling, the
process which supposedly rewards merit (producing market winners) and punishes inefficiency. It
postulates a primitive (and wrong) dogma that “the market” always delivers benefits that are
superior and could never be achieved by planning. Which is definitely untrue for military
contractors. In a way "market" under neoliberalism is a kind of "all powerful deity". Which
makes neoliberalism a variation of a secular religion (compare with "God
building" faction of Bolsheviks Party which included such prominent figures as
Lynacharsky). As such neoliberalism, like
Marxism before, is very hostile to Christianity. And while Marxism absolutize the power of human
compassion and redefines paradise as a social system that supposedly can be built on Earth
(communism), neoliberalism denigrates the power of human compassion and enforces "greed is good" and "homo
homini lupus est" morale. Which turns into law of jungle for lower and middle class. In this sense it is more like a
branch of Satanism, with greed as a virtue ("Greed is good"), speculation as a noble activity (while
according to Chris Hedges "Speculation
in the 17th century was a crime. Speculators were hanged." ) and
the slogan "Homo homini lupus est"
as one of the key Commandments. See
Neoliberalism and Christianity
This social system can be viewed as dialectical denial of socialism and represents the other extreme
in classic triad "Thesis, antithesis,
synthesis". We do not know yet what the synthesis will be like, but neoliberalism as a social system after
2008 shows definite cracks. Much like the USSR after the WWII when people serving in Red
Army discovered what the standard of living was in Central and Western European workers and start
to understand that "state socialism" as practiced in the USSR can't deliver promise high standard of living.
And that helped
decimated communist propaganda once and for all, although Bolshevism as a social system still was
around for
another 40 years or so. Like Bolshevism before it, neoliberalism proved to be unstable social system. A utopian system
which is unable to deliver promised benefits to the common people, and which destabilizes capitalism
in comparison with New Deal capitalism, producing periodic crisis with increasing severity. The first of such crisis was "savings and loans" crisis,
followed by dot com bubble burst, and the financial crisis in 2008 which led
to the Great Recession.
In 2008 the large banks, which are the core of neoliberal economics, were saved from facing consequences of their "transgressions" only by massive state
intervention. All powerful market was unable to save those sick puppies. The consequences of 2008
crisis did buried neoliberal ideology which from this point looks like cruel and primitive hypocrisy
designed to restore the power of financial oligarchy to the level the latter enjoyed in 1930th. In 2016 it led to the
election of Trump who managed to defeat establishment candidate, neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton despite all the efforts of the
neoliberal/neocon establishment to derail him. Trump pursues the version of neoliberalism which can be called "bastard
neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism limited to the USA with implicit rejection of globalization (or at least large part of it).
Which makes Trump_vs_deep_state somewhat similar to Stalinism. Unlike Trotsky Stalin did not believed in the "World Revolution" mantra.
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism managed somewhat recover after 2008 debacle, and even successfully counterattacked in
some LA and European countries (Argentina, Brazil, Greece), but the Great Recession still left of huge and
ugly scar on the neoliberal face. In any case glory days of triumphal march of neoliberalism all over globe are over.
Also the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class is no longer possible to hide ("it 's not enough cookies
for everbody"). Outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing in the USA -- the citadel of neoliberalism led to epidemic of
opiod abuse similar to epidemic of alcoholism among workers in the late USSR.
Impoverishment of lower 20% of the society (those who have so called McJobs) reached the level when we can talk about a third world country within the USA.
All those factors created pre-conditions for a sharp rise of far right nationalism.
In a way neoliberalism creates far right nationalism splash much like Gilded Age and the maker crash of Sept 4, 1929
capitalism created precondition for the rise of national socialism. Reading
NDSAP 25 points program (adopted in 1920) we can instaltly
feel that many problem that exited then are now replayed on the new level. After approximately 40 years of
global dominance is shows cracks. Backlash against neoliberal globalization became strong enough to
provide upsets, albeit temporary, which demonstrated itself in Brexit, and election of Trump.
Who, despite his election-time claims to be a fighter against neoliberal globalization, for
restoration of local jobs, and against the wars for expanding neoliberal empire, folded in two-or
three months after the inauguration.
Like Soviet version of Communism before it, Neoliberalism failed to meet
its promises of rising standard of living (and the key idea of justifying of raising of inequality
and redistribution of wealth up under neoliberalism was "rising water lifts all boats"
mantra, or as Kenneth Galbraith famously defined it
“Trickle-down theory - the less than elegant metaphor
that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” ).
We can stress again, that the current opiod epidemics in the USA is not that different from epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR under
Brezhnev's "well developed socialism". It is important to understand that under neoliberalism the key priority is
the maintenance of global neoliberal empire for the benefits of multinationals (with the associated idea of Global Neoliberal
Revolution which makes is similar to
Trotskyism). Opening new markets is vital for the interest of transnational corporations and that means that the USA
government supports the war for neoliberal empire explosion at the expense of interests of regular US citizens. Outsourcing and
atomization of the US workforce (squeezing unions) means that neoliberal government has an adversarial attitude towards its
common citizenry. They are, by definition, the second class
citizens (Undermensch or as Hillary Clinton elegantly coined it "basket
of deplorables" ) . While neoliberal themselves ("creative class") are new Ubermench
and like old aristocracy are above the law. So the idea Implemented in Soviet nomenklatura is now replayed on a new level.
As it evolved with time, neoliberalism is a somewhat fuzzy concept (
much like Bolshevism evolved from Leninism to Stalinism and then to Brezhnev's socialism ). In
various countries it can morph into quite different "regimes", despite the common "market fundamentalism" core. The simplest
and pretty precise way to define is is to view it as "socialism for the rich, feudalism
for the poor" or, more correctly "Trotskyism
for the rich" ("Elites of all countries unite !" instead of “Proletarians of all countries,
Unite! ...). So Stalins's idea of socialism in a single country mutated into "socialism for
the upper strata of population and corporations, especially transnationals".
In this sense neoliberals are as "internationalists" as communists
were at their time, and may
be even more. Thhe term "globalism" is commonly used instead of "internationalism". And like "Communist
International", the "Neoliberal International" accepts the
elite from any country, but only a very narrow strata of the elite and only on a certain conditions,
with the leading role reserved for the USA elite and part of G7 elite.
Much like in Comintern the role of Moscow as a leader was something that can't be even discussed.
Only taken for granted. Although spying capabilities of "Neoliberal International" via "five eyes"
are tremendously more powerful then the rudimentary capabilities of Comintern and the technology of
staging "color revolutions" is more polished then Trotskyite approach to staging proletarian revolutions.
Neoliberals also have more money and that matters. The allow to create a powerful "fifth column" in
countries other then G7 who are on the receiving end of neoliberal expropriation of wealth to
the top countries of Neoliberal International. Like in Comintern, "all pigs are created equal,
but some pigs are more equal then others."
The key idea of obtaining power by training the cadre of "professional revolutionaries" introduced
by social-democratic parties and, especially, Bolsheviks are replaced with no less effective the
network of neoliberal think tanks. In other words neoliberalism borrowed and perverted almost all major
ideas of social-democratic parties. The party core typical for Bolsheviks, and instrumental to the success
of their coup d'état in October 1917 against Provisional government by Kerensky was essentially replaced
by
the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored. Monte Perelin society
(the initial neoliberal think tank) explicitly tried to adapt successful idea of western social
democratic parties and Bolsheviks to neoliberal doctrine. One such "appropriations" is the level of
secrecy and existence of "underground" part of the party along with "legal" parliamentary faction (a
set of honorable (in a sense, what hey such politicians for example in the USA congress (honorable politician
is the one who after he was bought stays bought) politicians are just a tip of the iceberg), . Some
important work was also done by renegade Trotskyites in the USA (aka neoconservatives, especially by
James Burnham as well as staunch neoliberals like James
Buchanan (The
Guardian)
The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators
that “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”. Instead of revealing their ultimate destination,
they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system,
they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical “reforms”...
Gradually they would build a [well-paid] “counter-intelligentsia”, allied to a “vast network
of political power” that would become the new establishment.
It also created it's own Neoliberal newspeak
and a set of myths ("greed is good", "invisible
hand",
"the efficient markets hypothesis", "rational
expectations scam",
Shareholder value scam, supply side voodoo aka "rising tide lifts all boats", etc). In
"neoliberal newspeak" the term "freedom" is used as the excuse for ripping down public protections on
behalf of the very rich. For example "free
market" means the market free from any coercion by the state (read "free from regulations") which makes it the
corporate jungle where the most powerful corporation dictate the rules of the game and eat alive small
fish with complete impunity. In no way neoliberal "free market" is fair.
Actually neoliberals try to avoid to discuss the issue of farness of the market. This is anathema
for them. As such neoliberalism has distinct
Social Darwinism flavor and enforces
scapegoating
and victimization of poor and unemployed
It facilitates over-consumption and getting into the debt both on the country (neo-colonialism)
and on the individual workers (debt-slavery) levels, and has sophisticated mechanisms of
enforcing this situation on unsuspecting population (IMF, World banks on the level of the countries),
credit card companies, mortgages, student debt on individual level. And a worker with a large debt is,
essentially, a debt-slave. Atomization (neoliberalism is openly and forcefully anti-union) and
enslavement of the workforce is exactly what neoliberalism is about: recreation of the plantation economy
on a new technological and social levels. Not that unions are without problems in their own right, but
crushing the union is the goal of every neoliberal government starting with Thatcher and Reagan. The
same model that is depicted in famous song
Sixteen Tons. With replacement of the
company store debt and private corporate currencies with credit card debt.
Like Trotskyism it is pretty militaristic creed and the dream of global Communist empire led from
Moscow was replaced by the dream of global neoliberal empire led by Washington. Neocons in this
sense is just a specific flavor of neoliberals --" neoliberals with the gun" as in Al Capone maxim "You
Can Get Much Further with a Kind Word and a Gun than with a Kind Word Alone" ;-). This "institualized
gangsterism" of the US neocons represents probably the greatest threat to the survival of modern civilization.
Neoliberalism elevates of market-based principles and techniques of
evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms. The authority of the neoliberal state is heavily dependent on the authority of neoliberal economics (and economists). When this
authority collapses the eventual collapse of neoliberalism is imminent. This is a classic "the
castle built of sand story. "
"Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical"
He also used poison gas to kill thousands of his own Kurdish civilians, the Reagan
administration was in many ways a moral cesspit. They knew exactly what he was doing. A
spokesman said the Iranians - who never used Chemical Weapons on principle - used the poison
gas, on Iraqi Kurds. I think Reagan never really understood this, that is my assessment of
his character, he saw what reality he wanted to see, but nothing else.
" Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than 400,000 have died
since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction, too, can be
deadly"
And how many died after the war was "won" in Iraq. And how many would have died trying to
remove assad. Toppling assad would almost certainly not have brought peace. Your analysis is
simplistic and blinkered and definately doesn't contain any proof of anything. Sometimes
there's just not a solution. The current proposed bombing campaign smacks of
somethingmustbedoneism. Those responsible for the gas attacks must face justice. But it might
have to be further down the line.
We're now in a strange position where the media is actually behind the government. May is
doubtful about bombing because she's a politician and so has to constantly monitor her
popularity, but the only people left still writing in 'newspapers' are still programmed to
want war and bombing because it always used to sell.
The UN duly investigated and in October concluded unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas.
You omitted to mention that the same report also concludes that ISIL deployed Sulphur
Mustard, isn't this the same gas that France claims to have evidence regarding the recent
incident?
Besides, how much evidence do we need? Even before Douma, Assad's use of chemical
weapons had been documented seven times this year alone.
The link you provided to back-up this claim contains no substantiative evidence to
attribute those incidents to Assad.
Clearly both sides in this conflict appear to have used chemical weapons, making
assumptions or false accusations of blame at this stage is incredibly dangerous. I'm in total
agreement with Jeremy Corbyn, we need a solid investigation on which the international
community can act. Any potential escalation of this awful conflict must be avoided at all
costs, particularly when it involves a nuclear armed superstate, considering the on-going
humaitarian crisis in Syria and how it has already affected the world. Furthermore we must
not allow a cabinet of a minority government to make any final decisions on the UK
involvement in further militrary action, our elected representatives MUST be allowed
to debate and decide a course of action, otherwise our democracy is in a far worse state than
I could have possibly imagined.
Theresa May leads a minority government propped up by an unlawful bung to a right wing
extremist group. May, her Cabinet of half wits and her self serving party have a mandate for
sweet FA, and that includes killing people in our name.
There is massive, overwhelming opposition in the UK to May's attempt to join Trump &
Macron in bombing Syria and to by-passing our democratic parliament, but who would have
thought it?
The media are generally presenting Theresa May with a free ride to cause death and
destruction on a massive scale. Claiming she's joining an international coalition (even
though it consists of only 2 other countries) and having the backing of the Cabinet and
therefore possessing the authority to go to war.
The reality is that she's virtually politically isolated and working in defiance of the
British people. Labour - and most other opposition parties, including the Lib Dems, SNP,
Plaid, and the Greens are totally against military intervention and calling for a full,
democratic debate in Parliament.
Then the Conservative Party itself is bitterly divided over the issue.
And only 22% of British people would support the war effort, according to a poll in the
Times.
The timing is being forced by Donald Trump and the US, so where's the substance in the
Conservative claim that they're 'taking back control'?
And then any intervention is likely to cost billions, so what about The Deficit? And what
about that magic money tree?
Moreover, the Government maintain we cannot allow such inhumanity in Syria to go
unchallenged. So where is the outcry at defenceless citizens being killed in Gaza? And in
Yemen? And in Saudi Arabia? What accounts for the blatant double standards? What are they not
telling us?
And why does the British Goverment justicfy selling all these lethal and inhumance weapons
to these countries in the first place?
Where is the media reminding the Government of what happened in Iraq, in Libya and in
Afghanistan?, whenever we intervened?
Where is the media remembering the findings of the Chilcott Report?
If this was Labour nationalising the railways or expropriating land in an emergency bill
to launch a massive house-building programme, the BBC and mass media would quote every
adversary and critic they could muster and express total outrage at any attempt to by-pass
Parliament.
The Syrian conflict is a hugely complex quagmire and we enter it at our peril. We need a
much more objective Press to scrutinise Government policy, before this lunacy unravels and
triggers a seriously calamitous hot war between the Superpowers, from which we'd all be
losers.
Jeremy Corbyn is often mocked and scorned by the media for his measured reactions, but his
call for the UK to use its influence to defuse tensions makes him one of the only responsible
and mature political leaders around right now!!
The government and the BBC have been using the words "suspected chemical attack" in Syria and
that Russia is "highly likely" to be responsible for the Salisbury affair.
Now if that isn't official doubt I don't know what is.
Still May happy to drop bombs on this basis without parliamentary approval (if Donald says
so that is)!
This is pathetic. The mouthpieces of the British government (Guardian and BBC) have spent the
last week on a steady pendulum of demanding war, shitting themselves, then when the rhetoric
calms down a bit, demanding war again. The U.K., its security agencies and its house-trained
media are destabilising the world.
"... How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective ..."
"... Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years? ..."
"... For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end ..."
"... Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons. ..."
Here's an idea Jonathan for another solution. How about some basic honesty about the role
the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled
by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know,
might just be incredibly effective
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why not? We're watching Israelis shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians, we're
watching our favourite Saudis bomb and kill Yemeni civilians, we're watching our
Nobel-winning inspirational Myanmar leader oversee the persecution, massacre and forced
displacement of an entire people, we're watching the North Korean leader oppress and starve
his people while stepping closer to a nuclear war against a currently volatile superpower,
we're watching the Philipino head of state launching a literal war against low-level drug
dealers and junkies, we're watching several central Asian dictators imprison and torture
dissidents and oppress their people while robbing them of their national wealth, we're
watching the Chinese and Russian leaders do pretty much the same, we're watching the Turkish
leader kidnap dissidents from EU countries, imprison thousands of alleged dissidents and
invade a neighbouring country to fight against part of said countries' inhabitants, we're
watching corrupt politicians, media and judges completing the final touches of a coup in the
fifth largest country in the world, and then there's Africa, which is a whole other chapter.
What specifically is it about Syria that made you decide that yeah, all these things are
pretty bad, but that's the one thing we really have to do something about?
Perhaps that was why, five years ago, the House of Commons voted to leave the Assad
regime untouched. Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than
400,000 have died since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction,
too, can be deadly.
Inaction? Really? Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided
financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure,
but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the
atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years?
For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an
end. Israel has to comply with UN resolutions and the US has to stop using its veto to block
those resolutions that seek to make Israel comply to international standards of acceptable
behaviour.
If we can't do that we can forget getting Assad or Putin or anyone else to respect
anything we have to say. As it stands the so called West has no moral authority in the Middle
East.
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why is this supposed slaughter such an imperative when we seem to approve of and even
profit from selling weapons to slaughters elsewhere in the region
Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda
of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical
reasons.
"... Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria: That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war. ..."
"... Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then. ..."
Conveniently missing from this short history of Syria:
That the US was actually heavily involved using the CIA in getting rid of Assad. Had that
not been the case, perhaps there would have been no prolonged civil war.
It would be just another dictator, the likes of which can be found all over the world
without columnists noticing it.
Strangely though, all that is deplored is that the US didn't do even more. That they
didn't also do a full blown invasion.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any
country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
Pay for what? Be President of a country marked out for regime change by the West and
successfully managing to fight off the West's proxy armies of terrorists over seven years in
defence of that country?
Oh, I know challenging the holy West and its exceptional leading
nation is verboten nowadays, but can we at least be honest about what is really going on
today? Syria is being punished for not joining the coalition of the willing in 2003 by being
subjected to the same illegal war by false claim as Iraq was then.
Assad has always acted in this like any other authoritarian government anywhere in the Middle
East would, fighting a civil war. Israel is just as ruthless when facing a threat to its
authority.
This mess was financed, planned, egged on and armed by the U.S., it's junior partners and
its clients in Turkey and the Gulf. And it goes back years before the rebellion against
Assad. The Wahabbi rebels have been given billions in cash, arms and training, funneled
through Turkey and the Gulf states.
Now we have Washington, London and Paris shrieking outrage and promising revenge against a
strongman they unleashed as the result of yet another regime change adventure. And then
there's the incredible hypocrisy and cynicism of using Al-Qaeda affiliated actors to do
it.
Assad's wartime iteration, like ISIS, is the result of American greed, ambition, pride and
the old imperialist bent for aggression as a way of imposing its geopolitical will.
Watch the Unbearable video gain. The children are no foaming at the mouth, their colouration
is not cyanotic, they do not appear to be in respiratory distress. The premise of the
argument is not based on fact. These children are not the casualties of a gas attack. GROW UP
and recognize the propaganda.
The article takes a self-righteous moral high ground while calling for some vague affair of
violence. I can't help but notice that these articles by people who pretend to be moderates
and centrists have a habit of turning reality and morality on their head. It's dangerous and
very Orwellian stuff.
The question that I struggle to answer is, "Are journalists like this actually duped by
propaganda themselves, or are they knowingly part of the process of dissemination?"
What I do not struggle to see is that they are undoubtedly part of the prevailing
neolib/neocon philosophy which we rapidly need to dismantle.
"... It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury thing. We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next. ..."
Why is the prime minister of the United Kinkdom on the phone discussing whether or not to
bomb a Sovereign country with the highly unstable, Donald Trump?
Can she not make up her own mind? Either she thinks it's the right thing to do or it
isn't.
Hopefully, the person on the other end of the phone was not Trump but someone with at least
half a brain.
Proof, let's have some proof. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
Russia is saying it's all a put up job, show us your facts.
We are saying, don't be silly, we're British and besides, you may have done this sort of
thing before.
It is perfectly possible that the British government manufactured the whole Salisbury
thing.
We are capable of just as much despicable behavior and murder as the next.
Part of the Great British act's of bravery and heroism
in the second world war is the part played by women agents who were parachuted into France
and helped organize local resistance groups. Odette Hallowes, Noor Inayat Khan and Violette
Szabo are just a few of the many names but they are the best known. What is not generally
know is that many agents when undergoing their training in the UK, were given information
about the 'D' day landings, the approx time and place. They were then dropped into France
into the hands of the waiting German army who captured and tortured and often executed
them.
The double agent, who Winston Churchill met and fully approved of the plan was Henri
Dericourt, an officer in the German army and our man on the ground in France. Dericourt
organized the time and place for the drop off of the incoming agents, then told the Germans.
The information about the 'D' day invasion time and place was false. The British fed the
agents (only a small number) into German hands knowing they would be captured and the false
information tortured out of them.
Source :- 'A Quiet Courage' Liane Jones.
It's a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what
else in Syria.
From The Guardian articles today that I have read on Syria, it makes absolutely clear that if
you in any way question the narrative forwarded here, that you are a stupid conspiracy
theorist in line with Richard Spencer and other far-right, American nutcases.
A more traditional form of argument to incline people to their way of thinking would be
facts. But social pressure to conform and not be a conspiratorial idiot in line with the
far-right obviously work better for most of their readers. My only surprise it that position
hasn't been linked with Brexit.
Did anyone see the massive canister that was shown on TV repeatedly that was supposed to have
been air-dropped and smashed through the window of a house, landed on a bed and failed to go
off.
The bed was in remarkable condition with just a few ruffled bedclothes considering it had
been hit with a metal object weighing god knows what and dropped from a great height.
"More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to
defoliate"
The Defoliant Agent Orange was used to kill jungles, resulting in light getting through to
the dark jungle floors & a massive amount of low bush regrowing, making the finding of
Vietcong fighters even harder!
It was sprayed even on American troops, it is a horrible stuff. Still compared to Chlorine
poison gas, let alone nerve gases, it is much less terrible. Though the long term effects are
pretty horrible.
Who needs facts when you've got opinions? Non more hypocritical than the British. Its what
you get when you lie and distort though a willing press, you get found out and then nobody
believes anything you say.anymore. The white helmets are a western funded and founded
organisation, they are NOT independent they are NOT volunteers, The UK the US and the Dutch
fund them to the tune of over $40 million. They are a propaganda dispensing outlet. The press
shouldn't report anything they release because it is utterly unable to substantiate ANY of
it, there hasn't been a western journalist in these areas for over 4 years so why do the
press expect us to believe anything they print? Combine this with the worst and most
incompetent Govt this country has seen for decades and all you have is a massive distraction
from massive domestic troubles which the same govt has no answers too.
""I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," [Winston
Churchill] declared in one secret memorandum."
The current condemnation by the international community and international law is good and
needs enforcement. But no virtue signalling where there is none.
But we're still awaiting evidence that a chemical attack has been carried out in Douma,
aren't we? And if an attack was carried out, by whom. But before these essential points are
verified, you feel that a targeted military response is justified. Are you equally keen for
some targeted military response for the use of chemical weapons, namely white phosphorus, in
Palestine by the Israaeli military? Unlike Douma, the use of these chemical weapons in the
occupied territories by the IDF's personnel is well documented. But we haven't attacked them
yet. Funny that.
Instead of "chemicals" why not just firebomb them - you know like we did to entire cities
full of women and children in WW2?
Hamburg 27 July 1943 - 46,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Kassel 22 October 1943 - 9,000 civilians killed 24,000 houses destroyed in a firestorm
Darmstadt 11 September 1944 - 8,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Dresden 13/14th February - 25,000 civilians killed in a firestorm
Obviously we were fighting Nazism and hadn't actually been invaded - and he is fighting
Wahhabism and has had major cities overrun...
Maybe if Assad burnt people to death rather than gassing them we would make a statue of
him outside Westminster like the one of Bomber Harris?
Remember the tearful Kuwaiti nurse with her heartrending story of Iraqi troops tipping
premature babies out of their incubators after the invasion in 1990? The story was published
in pretty much every major Western newspaper, massively increased public support for military
intervention............................and turned out to be total bullshit.
Is it too much too ask that we try a bit of collective critical thinking and wait for hard
evidence before blundering into a military conflict with Assad; and potentially Putin?
Well, this is the sort of stuff that the Israelis would be gagging for. They want Assad
neutralised and they are assisting ISIS terrorists on the Golan Heights. They tend to their
wounded and send them back across the border to fight Assad. What better than to drag the
Americans, Brits and French into the ring to finish him off. Job done eh?
Are you sure you are not promoting an Israeli agenda here Jonathan?
Incidentantally what did we in the west do when the Iraqis were gassing the Iranians with
nerve agents in the marshes of southern Iraq during the Iran Iraq War? Did we intervene then?
No, we didn't we allowed it to happen.
Come on frip, you have to admit there was absolutely no motive for Assad's forces to carry
out this attack. Why do you think the Guardian and other main stream media outlets are not
even considering the possibility the Jihadi rebels staged it to trigger western intervention?
I know, I know.. it's all evil Assad killing his own people for no other reason than he likes
butchering people... blah blah. The regime change agenda against Syria has been derailed, no
amount of false flag attacks can change the facts on the ground.
More than 40 years after the US sprayed millions of litres of chemical agents to defoliate
vast swathes of Vietnam and in the full knowledge it would be have a catastrophic effect on
the health of the inhabitants of those area, Vietnam has by far the highest incidence of
liver cancer on the planet.
Then more recently we have the deadly depleted uranium from US shells that innocent Iraqis
are inhaling as shrill voices denounce Assad.
The Syrian people are heroically resisting and defeating western imperialism. This "civil
war" has been nothing but a war for Syrian resources waged by western proxies. So now, In
desperation borne out of their impending defeat, the imperialists have staged a chemical
attack in a last throw of the dice to gain popular support for an escalation in military
intervention. Like military interventions of the past, it is being justified in the name of
humanitarian intervention. But if we have a brief browse of history we can see that US &
UK governments have brought only death, misery and destruction on the populations it was
supposedly helping. Hands off Syria.
I always thought that Brexit was UK populati0on protest against neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Then there is of course the ongoing Brexit shambles. The inflexible Eurocrats have always only had one position on Brexit: accept our terms for leaving the EU or you get nothing. ..."
"... Ukania's chief Brexit negotiator, David Davies, is a retired special-services commando who was given the job because he is the Conservative's most dyed-in-the-wool anti-EU ideologue. ..."
"... On the other hand, this Empire 2.0 fantasy also serves a more sinister purpose. The Brexiteer dream is basically a fusion of neo-imperial illusions with a no-holds-barred neoliberalism. ..."
Tom Nairn coined the phrase "Ukania" to designate the confused and disorganized hotchpotch of an island-nation off the coast of
northern Europe, tottering on the nation-state equivalent of varicose-veined and arthritic legs, and further enfeebled by an unproductive
nostalgia for Empire (aka Empire 2.0).
... ... ...
"Dilapidation" is the word to describe the UK today. I was last there in November and will be there again in July. Frequent, indeed
daily, contact with family and friends confirms that the UK is indeed Nairn's "Ukania".
This week London overtook New York as a "murder capital". Brits were shocked, because this reversed their notion of the US as
a place where gun nuts can kill whenever they want.
I tried to reassure my Brit friends and family that the murder statistics for New York don't include police killings of unarmed
black men, and that inclusion of the latter statistic in the murder toll would probably tell a somewhat different story.
Ukania has stringent gun laws, but nearly all the killings in London are stabbings. Acid attacks have also become increasingly
common.
The causes for this outbreak of knifings and acid-throwing are almost certainly multiple. A decaying social fabric caused by nearly
a decade of Tory austerity, high youth unemployment as well as employed youth who nonetheless dominate the precariat, and savage
cuts in police numbers (a result of deliberate Tory policy to hand over policing to private security firms, who in turn donate generously
to the Tories), are almost certainly key factors here.
The Tories however have "none of the above" on their list of causes for London's crime wave. For them and their allies in the
rightwing media, drugs, a form of rap known as UK drill, and social media are to blame!
This ignorance is obviously contrived -- absolutely unlike the social media-illiterate geriatric US senators who questioned Mark
Zuckerberg on the issue of Facebook's data leaks, and who in their genuine bafflement were unable to tell the difference between
Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, among other things.
Unlike the technologically-senile US senators befuddled by contemporary social media and its associated technologies, the Tories
know damn well the underlying conditions for London's stabbing and acid-throwing epidemic.
Then there is of course the ongoing Brexit shambles. The inflexible Eurocrats have always only had one position on Brexit:
accept our terms for leaving the EU or you get nothing.
The Ukanians in response alternate hopelessly between faux bravado ("we're prepared to leave with nothing") and conciliatory placation
("please, oh please, can we come to a fresh understanding of what's on the table? ").
The Eurocrats see right through the phony bravado and dismiss it outright, while responding to pleas for a "fresh understanding"
with a bored shrug– in effect saying that it is "you deluded Brits who need to understand we are not having negotiations about the
terms of your departure, but only about such minutiae as the timetabling of this this or that move that (according to us) needs to
be made".
The intransigent Eurocrats thus insist that negotiations can only be about "process", while the Ukanian government persists in
thinking the door is somehow still open for negotiations about "substance".
Alas, those who insist on talking about "process" have held all the cards from the beginning. The Ukanians have not helped themselves
by sending absolute third-raters to deal with the meritocratic wolves in Brussels. The EU wolves make it to the top by speaking two
to three, or more, languages fluently, by graduating from Europe's top schools of international relations and public administration,
and by having decades of experience in international diplomacy.
Ukania's chief Brexit negotiator, David Davies, is a retired special-services commando who was given the job because he is
the Conservative's most dyed-in-the-wool anti-EU ideologue. Davies sits at the Brussels negotiating table without a piece of
paper in front of him, while his guileful and well-schooled EU counterparts consult bulky folders as they take the woefully underprepared
and intellectually underwhelming ex-commando to the woodshed. It is, in sporting terms, the equivalent of the lard-encased Donald
Trump presuming he can win an Olympic race against Usain Bolt.
Ukania's self-deceptions are not confined to its dealings with the wolves of Brussels. Most of the Brexiteers (not to be confused
with Lexiteers, of whom I've always been one) are gripped by nostalgic imperial fantasies. The neo-imperial fantasy of these Brexiteers
is that the former members of their Empire will fall in line, dutifully, in order to conclude trading agreements with their ex-imperial
master– the Brexiteer hope being that these Empire 2.0 "agreements" will somehow compensate economically for the cessation of trading
links with the EU countries. This is simply not going to happen, given the dynamos driving post-imperial economic development.
The EU exists for the purpose of extending and sustaining the European embodiment of the current neoliberal order, and in so doing
maintaining the very comfortable livelihoods of its Eurocratic elite. But that, or its equivalent, alas, is also the "mission" of
the members of the ex-Empire, who are supposed by the Brexiteers to salute and fall in line when asked to do so by their erstwhile
imperial master!
The raison d'etre of such countries as India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc., is precisely to subserve the exigencies of
the forms of capitalist of accumulation prevailing in their countries, forms which in turn coincide more or less with the needs of
their national elites.
And this post-imperial raison d'etre is clearly not congruent with daydreamed requirements imposed by a post-Brexit Empire 2.0
nostalgia on the part of Ukania. Australia and New Zealand now have their economic systems attuned, profitably, to demand from China
and the rest of the Pacific Rim; Canada likewise with regard to the US; and India in relation to the economies of the Gulf States;
and so on.
Ukania will get nowhere with Empire 2.0 après Brexit unless it can provide terms of trade and revenues matching or surpassing
those now available to its former colonies.
... ... ...
On the other hand, this Empire 2.0 fantasy also serves a more sinister purpose. The Brexiteer dream is basically a fusion
of neo-imperial illusions with a no-holds-barred neoliberalism.
The EU at least insists on health and safety standards that are better than India's. But why shouldn't India's standards be good
enough for Ukania's pampered workers? The latter's ancestors worked in dark satanic mills, so surely these f*@#ers can work in factories
recycling toxic metals from discarded computers and mobile phones? The EU's food inspection standards are better than China's, but
why should Ukania hold itself to a standard higher than China's? Milk "supplemented" with de-icer fluid anyone? The EU has minimal
standards on bank operations and financial transactions – get rid of these and Ukania can be freed to become the world's premier
haven for tax-dodgers and money launderers. Okay, it already holds the latter title, but Ukania will be able to lower the bar even
more on money laundering once it gets rid of the EU's regulatory shackles.
In another development (probably to run with the Syria script) the UK announces it has a
dossier that proves Russia was experimenting with delivering nerve agents from door handles.
Not as hilarious as breathlessly closing a children's playground near the Skripal's days
after the event for "contamination checks" even though it had been raining in the days in
between (the narrative was presumably the dastardly Russian agents planned to kill a few
innocent kids for good measure).
As usual, our wise men are busy preparing the evidence dossier for this gas attack. Hacking
someone's phone is now evidence of you delivering chemical weapon. I wonder how many doses of
novichok NOTW managed to deliver to its phone hacking victims.
Hope everyone understands that telling lies is not good, and it is especially disgusting when
lies form the basic argument for launching a war or some prolonged military assaults.
Please, compare the articles, this one and those mentioned below, and judge for yourself
whether J. Freedland can be trusted.
1. J. Freedland, about the West: "The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as
Assad kills and kills and kills, And yet that's what we've done".
O. Jones: "The US has been bombing the country and supplying arms to rebels for some time.
Our client states ... have funnelled weapons and billions of dollars into the conflict,
backing extremist groups responsible for multiple atrocities".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/attack-syria-disastrous-warmongers-middle-east-unjust
2. J. Freedland: "The taboo on the use of such (chemical) weapons held, with exceptions, for
nearly a century. It meant there was a limit".
For the actual details of such "limit" see:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-syria-war-uk-chemical-weapons-attack-iran-iraq-thatcher-russia-a8300881.html
3. It looks like J. Freedland is sure only Assad "kills and kills and kills" in this civil
war. Does anyone believe this, i.e. that the opposing jihadists have never killed during the
war?
they're quite happy to gloss over the absolutely vile nature of Assad's regime.
Strawman. It's a nasty regime in all sorts of ways but no more so - probably less so -
than many regimes enthusiastically supported and armed by the British government.
If we're talking about culpability, it's worth noting that the rebel groups have become
radicalised over time -
That old fib! This was an Islamist uprising from day one. How does a liberal pro-democracy
type suddenly morph into a bearded Islamist overnight?
And yes, we gave aid to the rebels. Did it prolong the war? Possibly.
Possibly? It didn't prolong the war, it pretty much caused the war.
Should we have done nothing? Possibly yes, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing.
Hindsight eh? So you thought "Yup, let's join in with the Saudis and other Gulf
dictatorships in arming extremist Islamist rebels in a crucial Middle Eastern country.
Nothing could possibly go wrong! That sort of thing has been a roaring success everywhere
it's been tried."
Make Assad pay ?.......pay for what Johnny .... for defending his people from murderous
insurgents who are being constantly ferried into and supplied by hostile countries with the
intent of horrifically slaughtering anyone they can get their claws on in order to initiate a
reign of terror that they hope will weaken the moral of the people and the government?
......Jesus, I don't think I've read such a nastier piece of pure propaganda than this in the
Guardian ever before.
Remarkable how Saddam Hussein gassing Iranian troops by the thousand, while world powers
helped him do it and covered for him at the UN is treated as a minor exception to non-use of
chemical weapons, whereas Assad's is some unprecedented crime.
And let's not pretend that Saddam paid for his use of chemical weapons - the West punished
him for the transgression of threatening Saudi Arabia, nothing more.
In August 2012, as reported by the Times , William Hague writes that discussions are taking
place with the Free Syrian Army:
"This week, on my instructions, my ambassador-level representative to the Syrian
opposition has contacted and is meeting political elements of the Free Syria Army."
"We want to deter those committing war crimes by making it possible for them to be held to
account. We will provide urgent training and equipment to Syrian human rights activists,
including cameras, video recorders and forensic equipment.
The aim is to help them to document human rights violations, identify the military commanders
responsible and gather medical forensic evidence to be used in trials. Britain has already
trained more than 60 Syrian human rights activists to collect information to support criminal
investigations. This new assistance will enable others to do the same."
The Guardian headline on this subject reads: "Syria: UK to give £5m to rebels":
Why are the Guardian and its writers continuing to peddle the lie that the Syrian Government
has been proved to have used chemical munitions? For seven long years now the Syrian people
and their government have had to fight off a jihadi onslaught armed and financed by NATO and
the Gulf autocracies. With help from Russia and Iran, they are winning: they have no need to
use chemical weapons and they know that doing so is to invite intervention on the side of the
Islamist terrorists. The terrorists, by contrast, know that their only chance lies in such
intervention and that convincing the World that the Syrian Government has used chemical
weapons is the best way to bring it about.
It is also obscene for Mr Friedland to ascribe all of the casualties of the Civil War to
the Government while ignoring the terrorist tactic of occupying and defending populated
areas. The Syrian Arab Army is no more responsible for the resulting casualties than were the
pro Western forces for the destruction of Mosul during its liberation from ISIS. I am sick to
the teeth of formerly respectable media like the Guardian and the BBC functioning as
propagandists for jihadi murderers and terrorists, particularly now that doing so is pushing
us towards a very dangerous international conflict.
I watched that idiot Jo Johnson last night going on about how the international community had
banned chemical weapons in 1925 and no one pulled him up on it. Britain developed and
stockpiled chemical weapons all through the 20th Century- the 'greatest' Britain of all time
Churchill regularly argued for their use on 'lesser' races. The US (our allies in this) is
the same US that dumped unbelievable amounts of agent orange on Vietnam at the same time it
bombed a poor undeveloped country 'into the stone age'.
A woman in the audience pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of abhorring Asssad's actions
(quite rightly) but at the same time arming the Saudis to kill more civilians and supporting
the Israeli government (which whilst clearly not in the same league as Assad or the Saudis is
still a major human rights violater). Unsurprisingly she was cut off and the 'left-wing' BBC
moved on and ignored her points
We went into Iraq because Blair warned, in the sternest terms, British cities could be under
imminent attack from Iraqi WMD. How ridiculous do those grave statements, made to a hushed
HoC, look today?
Graun, genuinely bugger off with this drumbeat for war. Seriously, hasn't the current
murderous anarchy in Libya given you pause for thought?
There's no definitive evidence yet available that proves Assad's forces carried out a
chemical attack. Furthermore, whilst it's not inconceivable that he did, it does seem to defy
logic. Why invite Western intervention when you're winning the war? The Syrian opposition had
far more to gain from the deployment of chemical weapons than Assad did.
Assad is a loathsome individual, but he's probably the only thing standing in the way of a
Jihadist Theocracy being established in Syria. To put in bluntly, it's in our interests that
he wins this war. The alternative is worse.
I wish I could say I was shocked by the latest pro war tub thumping by this increasingly
unrecognisable paper. Sadly it's has become all too synonymous with its support for Theresa
May and its attempts to persuade an unwilling public to join the hysteria. Freedland says
that Assad's guilt is beyond doubt; no it isn't. He talks of the effectiveness of bombing in
the Balkan conflict, conveniently ignoring Iraq and Syria. He ignores the obvious incentive
for ISIS or perhaps he would prefer "rebels", to launch an attack in a a desperate attempt to
recover a war they are losing. He ignores the war in Yemen and the murderous regimes around
the world that we seem totally uninterested in putting right. No, Mr Freedland, I and I think
many others are not giving Mrs May her Falklands moment at your behest.
Agreed Macron is so proud about the weapons Saudi Arabia bought of him. And strangely enough
Saudi Arabia supports the ISIS head choppers in Syria, I think of a coincidence. And I didn't
mention the gaz pipeline crossing Syria, that if Russia/Assad win, will be beyond the control
of Europeans, a real bummer, given that Russia controls the supply east of Germany. I guess
civilian death, is the only thing in the forefront of the France/UK/US preoccupations.
Surely, they wouldn't condone civilians dying for geo-political reasons?
Yes, I remember Rice, Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld telling the world that they had evidence
that Saddam was hoarding WMD. I'm still waiting to hear what it was. Now M. Macron spouts the
same ambiguous nonsense expecting us to take his word for it.
Trump publicly states that US troops are being withdrawn from Syria. The next thing you
know, Assad is allegedly gassing civilians. That makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? If
there's a sure-fire way of making sure you're on the wrong end of a bit of American 'shock
and awe,' it's gassing innocents. Assad must have a death wish; or so they'd have us believe.
The more I read about this fiasco, the more I think David Icke is the most rational man on
the planet.
Western neoliberal governments lost the remnants of patina of legitimacy on international
scene and now look like bloodthirsty predators, they always were.
But where is the incontrovertible proof that the regime is in fact responsible for the attack
rather than 'rebel groups' now on the point of final defeat, who'd wish to draw in the major
NATO powers? Why would the regime afford the US, France and UK the pretext to do one thing
that'd undermine Assad's otherwise certain victory? The timing seems odd indeed while Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and Israel act with impunity against minority populations. Each of the latter
has form and interest the destruction of Syria in this proxy war.
The UK thinks it's "highly likely" Assad is to blame for the chemical attack. France says
it has evidence Assad is responsible but won't say what it is. US Secretary of Defence Mattis
believes a chemical attack took place but says there's no evidence. And depending on the day
of the week, Russia believes there was either no chemical attack or if there was then it was
staged by the UK.
And for good measure we appear to be going headlong into war on the basis of all this.
The UN investigations concluded that the chemicals had come from Syrian Army stocks which
there wasn't much doubt about to start with. Where they were less conclusive was the matter
of who had deployed them given the capture of large stocks of munitions by the terrorists
early in the war. On the basis of cui bono? it seems more likely that it was the
terrorist side who sought to provoke Western intervention by staging chemical incidents
rather than the Syrian Government who had little to gain and much to lose from the use of any
kind of WMD.
First Blair holding onto an idiot's shirt tails to attack a Middle Eastern country based
on hearsay and no coherent withdrawal policy. Now we have May and Macron holding the hands of
an even bigger idiot whose populist thoughts change by the minute so no hope of any
withdrawal plan.
Does May and her hawks (Gove, Johnson) really want to be compared with Trump, Kim, Putin,
Assad, W Bush, Blair et al in the history books?
The rebels in Syria have a history of using sarin, chlorine and mustard gas against troops
and civilians. But Washington, London and Paris are completely dummy on this. Not a whisper.
Rather straight to accusations and threats against the regime they have been trying to
overthrow for years.
I don't know who did it. But I know who lies every time they take a breath if they
consider it in their interests. Truth is the first casualty. I don't believe any of them.
Noticeable that the Guardian live coverage provides Western refutations of Russia's claims of
evidence regarding a staged false attack, but doesn't actually cover the evidence the
Russians have provided - testimony from medical staff who claim to be witnesses. Now I'm not
so stupid as to take these claims as gospel, the Russians are just as capable as anyone of
finding a couple of fake or pressured witnesses. However the failure of the Western press to
even elaborate on the evidence, even just to ridicule and debunk it, is suspicious.
It is getting very tiresome tying to read between the lines of what Britain, America, Russia,
etc, etc, etc spin to us in a constant barrage of disposable half truths. The worrying part
is that it is now harder then ever to gauge if these 'bastions of truth' really believe their
own bullshit or not and end up dropping us all into a war of no return.
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with
Eurasia."
The White Helmets were set up by a Briton (I can't remember exactly but I think he was ex
intelligence services). They've consistently been shown to have links with extremists. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if what the Russians are claiming is accurate.
Well the problem is that the vast majority of Syrians support Assad. This chemical attack, if
it is confirmed by the OPWC investigation, could have been staged by the ISIS head choppers,
or it was Assad. Nobody has a clue, so we need an investigation and see, whether, this is
just propaganda bullshit from the head choppers. One thing is sure, if you care about
civilian life, the best option is to accept that Assad and Russia won. Else, well you a
hypocrite, and you don't care about civilian lives at all, but care more about the UK/US and
France gaining the geo-political upper hand, without a care in the world about civilian life.
Hence, you just as big a sociopath than Assad.
Yes Millions of Gallons of Chemicals were rained down on Vietnam including Agent Orange and
Napalm during the war.
Plus White Phosphorous was used by the US in Iraq as an "anti-personnel" weapon.
Look, the Russians have a microscopic force in Syria, about 30 jets, very low army presence,
usually one soldier per SAA Unit. The West and especially that inadequate May can look good
by bombing some camels and then letting the Daily Mail and the BBC do the rest. Yes the
Russians have S400 missiles in Syria but only to protect important targets and they simply
don't have enough missiles to shoot down 100+ allied cruise missiles. The Russkies will just
have to take the hit (again) but it will change nothing in the long run, except relations
will deteriorate even further.
One has the impression poodles Macron and May, in their ridiculous eagerness to assist Trump
with his nice new smart shiny social media bombing of Syria, appear pathetic, even stupid,
for their precipitate grandstanding now that the USA has, for the time being, reigned back
from an immediate punishing strike on Syria.
The "slaughter his own people" phrase is western spin; even the anti-government SOHR quotes a
more or less even split between government forces, rebels and civilians, which means as civil
wars go, this one is comparatively humane.
Compare the death toll of hundreds on the final assault on Aleppo with that on Raqqa
(thousands) or Mosul (tens of thousands) or the civilian toll in Indo-China and Korea (>10
million) and you'll realise the identity of the greatest war criminal of them all
Ultimately Trump is a typical playground bully, he's a bullshitter, a blowhard. All talk.
Trump was the same with Kim, and is the same with Putin and Assad.
Like all bullies underneath he is a coward, he threatens Putin with ridiculous teenager
Tweet threats, but as soon as Putin but back Trump backpeddles.
"... How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline was a pre requisite for that recognition. ..."
"... And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid. ..."
How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into
Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't
believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline
was a pre requisite for that recognition.
Israel? which is not happy with Iran and Lebanon having a presence in Syria, worried that
America was withdrawing.
AlQaeda or the Syrian Rebels, many are both who are losing the war and this is a last
desperate attempt to drag in America and the west?
You've also got Turkey and the Kurds (the Kurds were abandoned by the West after they had
fulfilled their useful purpose), both also players in the region but I can't see a motive
here.
And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America
and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral
indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid.
Any or all of the above could be the true motivation. I am no fan of Assad, Putin, or
Trump or May (or the Blair clone Macron) but the question you have to ask yourself is who
gains from this? And is. this in the interests of a resolution to a conflict, to your safety
or is it something else?
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
"... The best solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence. ..."
"... It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are. ..."
'.....Given Russia's presence, it would not be easy...... '
Understatement of the century. If you start bombing strategic military targets you are
quite, likely to hit Russian planes and troops.
As I said yesterday - What is the point ? Assad ( helped by his ally Russia ) has all but
won the war ( which makes his use of chemical weapons surprising / a big mistake ) - The best
solution being that he defeats all rebel forces as quickly as possible. The UN Chemical
Weapons people can then go in ( or even before ) and try to collect some evidence.
Meanwhile, the Saudis are bombing Yemeni children with UK manufactured bombs.
The Syrian situation was made far worse by the USA / France and the UK arming extremist
Islamic groups during the ' Arab Spring ' in an attempt to depose the legitimate ruler of a
sovereign nation.
We don't say much about China's interference in Tibet these days, do we ?
Or the effect of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War ?
"here are many, many notable historians who state the death toll as high as 135,000 "
The biggest single death toll in WWII was the low level firebombing of Tokyo, large areas
of Japans capital city were wiped out. With houses as flammable as you can ever imagine, an
unimaginably horror filled event. The Japanese death toll was around 100,000 dead. You are
saying more died in Dresden?
"On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping
2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16
square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and
130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded
history." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo
It is all about oil and supremacy in the region. Since when has our government or that of any
western Country - cared about their people. Canon fodder - that is what we are.
OK so let's attack Saudi for what they are doing in Yemen.
And Myanmar for their behaviour. Then there's Mexico, where the cartels keep murdering people. Really, let's apply the same standards everywhere.
How will this proposed action change anything? The Syrians have hidden everything that matters, the Russians will get 90 minutes warning
of the targets .... It's a PR exercise on the usual lines of "Something must be done .... this is something
..... "
Russia has transferred forty Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to Syria' Air Defence.
This is the latest air defence technology (the system is in service since 2012) - a combined
short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system
against aircrafts, helicopters, precision munitions, cruise missiles and UAVs.
Israeli's deep incursions in Syria and the bombing of military bases also used by Russian
military have provided a lot of information about the capabilities and limitations of the
Russian military technology deployed in Syria.
Sure, here's the UN OPCW investigation report which directly blames the Assad forces for
chemical attacks. Take as much time as you need.
https://undocs.org/S/2016/738
I couldn't find the paragraph which directly blames Assad's forces.
I note it does refer (at para 44) to Assad's allegation that a video had been staged. It
concludes that the patients on the video "appear relatively unaffected by the typical
symptoms. No red eyes, tearing, paleness, sweating, cyanosis or breathing difficulties can be
observed from the footage. The patients interviewed in the video show little or no signs of
having been exposed to a toxic chemical".
As I've said , I consider the term 'putinbot' - infantile and indicative of a lack of logical
argumentation as it is - as a compliment, since it appears to be code for those who retain
the ability to think for themselves and not fall glumly for the latest official line.
since the OPCW proved it was Putin who tried to murder British civilians with nerve
agents.
Actually, they proved no such thing, but in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion at
hand.
Personally I am uncertain what has happened regarding the chemical attack in Syria however it
is pretty clear to me what has happened and continues to happen in Yemen and Palestine.
Send Dearest Jeremy to Damascus with one of his megaphones and a bunch of his most loyal.
I am not sure what he will yell down the megaphone, but whatever it is I am sure it will make
him feel better about protesting, something.
so you have an answer for the Russian narrative but not for the British viewpoint.
Laughable and ridiculous. What source do you have for the Russian military's claim ?
Let me guess ? Some obscure blog site or RT?
The notion of inaction, of standing by and watching as Assad kills and kills and kills,
racking up a death toll in Syria of 500,000
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes
segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have
died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth
it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it."'
From tomorrow the weather in some parts of the UK stops being an utter bastard and starts to
look like spring. The sun will get its hat on, hip, hip, hip, hooray!
Go out and listen to the birds, look at the blossom. Lots of good in the world.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Just in case anyone asks for an example of US diverging from Israeli objectives (I realise
that I did not elucidate on that in my post), US air strikes have focused entirely on ISIS
and have, up to now, left the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah alone. There's no
doubt that the Americans are very closely tied to Israeli objectives, but they certainly
aren't being controlled by a 'Zionist elite', America still fights for America. As I outlined
above, it's really only the British government that doesn't appear to have anything even
beginning to resemble an independent foreign policy.
I watched RT for the first time last night and it was interesting.
But right now its like we are being ruled by lunatics. It is absolutely sickening. Quite
literally some moron in the White House is tweeting, 'My bombs are bigger than yours' and
'The missiles are coming.' And they still let him in rule one of the most powerful countries
on the Earth with a vast mass of WMD and Theresa May is trying reason with a fucking moron.
Hey Guardian if Trump is talking like this my swearing is the least of our problems, so
please don't moderate. We need someone to Moderate the madmen.
hallelujah - the Russians have decided to allow the UN chemical weapons inspectors to now
visit the site. Of course they vetoed it initially because out of a sense of tidiness, they
wanted to clean up the place before guests came.
Overthrowing the B'aathist regime would also cause chaos. You have several proxy wars going
on in Syria. Having jihadists groups with links to Saudi/ Iran etc fill the void is hardly a
great prospect. We've just seen the back of ISIS after all.
Perhaps the place they visited to check if an attack happened was the wrong place, who knows?
Does seem rather perverse though to predict an impending gas attack and then go and carry it
out yourself.
We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels"
in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside
Syria
So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA
and MI6.
I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to
face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.
This is a sensible article. Funny how those shouting abuse offer NO alternative and would
rather turn a blind eye to children being gassed, than be part of a country that has the
moral fibre to stand up to this butchery.
Sergei, you are the one with imagination. I wonder why the putinbots have gone quiet about
salibusry since the OPCW proved it was Putin who tried to murder British civilians with nerve
agents.
better the devil than allah looking at the state of the islsmic world maybe?
but meanwhike lets excuse putin and asdad...
you are jeremy corbyn and i donate my 5 pounds to charity
The Syrian Negotiation Commission has called for action to deter Assad from killing
civilians. What they envisage is that each time Assad launches a deadly attack on
noncombatants, allied forces reply by taking out one of the strategic assets he uses to
kill civilians. It could be an airfield, it could be a command centre. If the target were
aircraft, that would simultaneously inflict a cost on the regime and deprive it of the
means of dropping its barrel bombs and toxic, yellow cylinders. The objective would be to
make Assad pay a price for killing his own people, a price he has not paid until now.
Eventually, or so runs the hope, he would be deterred.
That kind of reminds me of when Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress were
explaining how to get rid of Saddam without plunging Iraq into mayhem and destabilising the
wider region.
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and dont forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favour of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:
"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S.
government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi
defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show
(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish
villages that killed 5000 civilians], and
(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a
fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its
diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
"Trump is a congenital liar who is devoid of empathy, a narcissist with a nihilist's view of
the world. These are not mere character defects; they have a bearing on the decisions the de
facto leader of any action in Syria would take. Among the reasons I opposed the 2003 invasion
of Iraq was my fundamental distrust of George W Bush and his circle, especially on the matter
of motive. "
That is why Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell fought so hard to oppose invasion of
Iraq. In the end they had to resort an academic paper to do it. I feel terrible for them.
Assad: So tell me, what is the military situation?
Generals: We are winning and winning decisively Mr President and the terrorists are
pulling out of East Ghoutta
Assad: Excellent news. I suggest we kill a few dozen innocent civilians in a gas attack to
celebrate.
Generals: Mr President, this would be utter folly. It would serve no possible military
purpose and would risk catastrophic air strikes against our military assets.
Assad: Do it anyway! ** strokes fluffy white cat with a Mwwahh, mwah, mwah. **
"... it's pretty obvious what the likes of Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their puritanical strain. ..."
"... Assad is no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA prominent among them ..."
"... The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold like Saddam and Gadaffi ..."
"... Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries. ..."
"... When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed by us. ..."
The situation in Syria is more nuanced than just calling out Assad as a butcher of his own
people. For one, he is a butcher of some of his own people, for many others he must
seem like a saviour as without his regime's resistance it's pretty obvious what the likes of
Isis would have done to the non-extremists in Syria - the Christians and anyone not of their
puritanical strain.
The real issue is that the established powers are struggling to cope with a multi-polar
world. It was only a few decades ago that the world's capitalists were looking forward to a
'new world order' without any serious opponents. But then things went wrong, and countries
refused to lay down for their new masters. Not only that, but Russia re-awoke and rejected
the funnelling of its wealth into the coffers of the West via a few carefully selected
oligarchs. Putin is undoubtedly not to liberal tastes, but he is the kind of leader Russians
are historically used to and who has put Russia back on the map as a world power.
Striking Syria now will not halt the suffering of the Syrian people, and it will place the
whole world in jeopardy. The potential price is too high. The best thing that could happen
now is that Trump is removed from office and replaced by a sane politician intelligent enough
to look after America's interests peacefully. Would the Syrian rebels have even started their
uprising if they hadn't thought that they would be backed-up by the liberal West? We should
withdraw from Syria and allow history and the Syrian people to make their own peace from the
rubble.
The two main points of this argument are so hypocritical that I want to start yelling at the
screen.
First, that Assad is a butcher because the war made half a million victims. No, Assad is
no more a butcher than the countries that armed, trained and financed the rebels, the USA
prominent among them. If they hadn't done that to advance their own strategic objectives and
to topple dictator they didn't like (because there's a lot of dictators that they like), the
war wouldn't have even started. The 500000 victims are on the US's conscience, not
Assad's.
Second, the idea that "It is indeed strange, but the extra revulsion at the use of
chemical weapons is not groundless. The taboo on the use of such weapons held, with
exceptions, for nearly a century."
Respectfully, it's bullshit. It emerged in 2013 that Saddam was helped by the USA gassing
50000 Iranians, both soldiers and civilians, in the 1980s- with chemical weapons developed
with the help of American, British and French companies, among others. Exactly those that
find unacceptable now the idea that 40 civilians *might* have been killed in a chemical
attack by the "butcher" Assad. So tell us, when are these countries going to bomb themselves,
as a just retribution for their heinous crimes?
But there is *no* evidence that Assad has even done this. On the contrary, Russia has even
accused the U.K government of being complicit in Douma.
Just apply logic to this: why would Assad do this? He has, buttressed by Russia, all but
'won' this wretched, heartbreaking civil war. So, on the cusp, he decides do use chemical
weapons which all but guarantees the U.S will stay in Syria funding the 'rebels' that he's
fighting. Sorry, it's just ludicrous to think he would do this.
The problem with Syria is from the start the West saw Assad as an easy domino that will fold
like Saddam and Gadaffi, but with one subtle difference Syria is a government that has the
backing of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah from the start. That they will not let Assad fall
easily to have a puppet regime installed in Damascus that will do the West's bidding. No way
that was going to happen. Iran saw it as a chance to consolidate itself as a hegemon in he
Middle East and Russia as chance for payback time for their humiliation in Iraq and Libya,
they were treated as an irrelevant country.
Assad is lucky and knows it, the West does not seem to learn that their interventions are
resented around the world and smacks of neo-colonialism. Syria is third time unlucky, Russia,
Iran and Syria are goading the West. It is your move and one false move they will be laughing
for a long time. Lesson in this is let countries resolve their problems by themselves, Syria
will not be the first or last country to see the use of Chemical weapons. It is vile &
disgusting way to attack civilians but remember we supplied Saddam the same weapons to attack
Iran in the 1980's and the world did nothing then. The West is not part of the solution in
Syria neither from the start or now. Read the history books on who put the Alwaites and
Assad's in power. It was France, the same France claiming they have evidence against Assad
now. Please!
Something I also notice not mentioned is the amount of billions that weapons manufacturers
and their lackeys in the foreign office make out of these destabilized countries.
When Hitler launched his V1 cruise missiles us killing 5,000 Londoners we called them a
vengeance weapon... But somehow 70 years later cruise missiles are liberators when deployed
by us. The war crime committed by Bommer Harris on the people of Dresden shows you cannot
bomb people into peace... So why are we still trying?
Not a supporter of any of the criminal operations that masquerade as governments worldwide,
but it's way past the time when I can believe a word the Western powers utter in their quest
to spread their vile economic doctrine.
For me the biggest question now is how best to avoid financing the evil they perpetrate
So the Russian military claimed a month ago that Syrian rebels were planning a chlorine
chemical weapon attack somewhere in Syria, three weeks later a chemical weapon chlorine
attack happens in Douma... but the UK government along with all the UK mainstream media do
not question perhaps it's the Jihadi/rebels who staged this attack, they ALL automatically
blame Assad? Stinks to high heaven.
President Assad and his wife, daughter of a UK BP man lived comfortably near my brother in
London's Chelsea for several years.
This all reminds me that the roles may have reversed nowadays but otherwise not much has
changed:
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration.
To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans.
The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial Theories,
1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
As much bad as Assad did, nothing is more worse than the killings on civilians done my the
"freedom fighters". Why is it for us Syria so important? How come other countries are not
getting involved in a Iraq 2.0 just the same warmongers who want to test their new toys...
USA, France and us... fighting a fight that costs us so much, plus the Brexit, plus the
eventual payment afterwards , I really do not understand. What the frick are we doing in
Middle East? Is there a English colony that we have forgotten? Or a France colony or even a
USA colony? This strikes me as a fight for either resources or for influence or for pleasing
the master Israel. I am clear of how this White Helmets operate , Eva Bartlett told us, and
do not forget that there are plenty of vids on the whole internet of how they operate "Lights
camera action" actors.
Labour calls for the attack on Douma to be "fully investigated". That sounds unarguable.
But then what? Jeremy Corbyn issued the same call after the chemical attack that killed at
least 74 at Khan Sheikhoun a year ago: demanding there be a "UN investigation and those
responsible be held to account". The UN duly investigated and in October concluded
unambiguously that the Assad regime had used sarin gas. But Corbyn greeted that verdict
with silence.
The report that Mr Freedland provides a link to, actually says:
"5. While the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic works to establish
the facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the
country, it is not mandated to reach conclusions about attributing responsibility for
chemical weapons use. 1 Following a determination by the FactFinding Mission that a specific
incident in the Syrian Arab Republic involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as
weapons, the Mechanism conducts an investigation to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or those otherwise involved. In conducting
its investigation, the Mechanism relies on findings of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding the
use of chemicals as weapons in each incident and pursues a rigorous independent examination
of the available information surrounding such use so as to identify, to the greatest extent
feasible, those responsible."
It doesn't appear to be claiming to be concluding "unambiguously that the Assad regime had
used sarin gas." Am I missing something here?
Mr Freedland's allegation that "Corbyn greeted that verdict with silence" is highly
suspect:
"RT:Today, Moscow says it has evidence that rebels have used sarin gas. Earlier Britain
said that Assad forces were behind the chemical attack. But why didn't Britain and the US
come forward with the same sort of hard evidence that Russia has come forward with?
JC: That's an interesting question. I can't speak for the British or the US
governments, but they made these allegations about the use of chemical weapons – and
there are apparently stocks of chemical weapons being held in Syria, which may well have
fallen into opposition hands, or may still be in government hands, or maybe both – but
the assertion was made that they had been used. But no hard evidence came up, and indeed,
there was a great deal of skepticism surrounding the evidence that was never presented. And
the Russian evidence today appears much stronger, and they said they were going to put that
evidence in the hands of the United Nations - that has got to be a good thing. However,
proving or not proving this doesn't end the crisis, there has to be the rapid resumption of
talks by Geneva too, all parties must be involved – including Iran. If we're to bring
about a settlement, there's got to be involvement of Iran, as well as all the different
parties in Syria."
This post by Just in Thyme has just been mode rated:
"As the British government release shedloads of crocodile tears over their paid for White
Helmet video footage, and moan like spiteful children how they want to bomb more people, let
look at some other inconvenient facts.
The Yemeni Ministry of Human Rights announced on March 25 that the Saudi-led war had left
600,000 civilians dead and injured since March 2015. The United Nations says a record 22.2
million Yemenis are in need of food aid, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger.
Meanwhile the Saudis shovel their bits of silver into the empty coffers of the NATO
warmongers.
Who said money cannot buy influence, Its was the UK that backed Britain backed Saudi
Arabia's election to the United Nations top human right's body as part of a vote trading deal
– despite the Gulf State's appalling abuse record. Secret cables reportedly show that
Britain approached Saudi Arabia about the trade ahead of the 2013 election for membership of
the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Saudi regime has executed 135 people since January on
charges ranging from murder to witchcraft.
The lynch mob government, we all voted for, and this is what democracy is really all
about???"
Iran didn't instigate the Twin Towers or the London attacks, didn't instigate the invasion of
Iraq, didn't instigate the overthrowing of Libya, didn't instigate the war in Syria, didn't
instigate the war in Yemen and didn't fund and arm ISIS.
The gave support following US intervention. Mmm, I wonder why they have such an issue with
the US?
In an age of fake news and endless propaganda it's very difficult these days to see the woods
from the trees... The words butcher and thug are easily thrown around in the Syrian civil
war.
It appears some people have short memories as it wasn't that long ago when we were witnessing
the alternative world of Islamic State in Syria. Head choppers running amok and anyone
suspected of being gay being chucked off tall buildings. Women being flogged to death for
trumped up charges of adultery. Kids having their hands cut off for stealing apples.
To make matters worse these sadistic psychopaths were armed and driving around in vehicles
supplied by the West... It had developed into a living hell for many as the death cult of
Isis took hold.
I remember the so called thug Putin saying someone had to take on these terrorists...
The West were reluctant to do the dirty work required... So it came down to Russia to get
boots on the ground to help defeat Islamic State.
Why does the UK supply the terror supporters of the Arabian Peninsula with weapons while
fighting and vilifying Assad? This is real hypocrisy. Yemenis suffer horrendously from Saudi
attacks, the UK's close friends. Assad always guaranteed religious freedom and Syrians
enjoyed much more freedom than any of the Middle Eastern countries.
What's actually is disconcerting is the fact that mainline media have taken the alleged
chemical attack as a fact. They don't have their reporters on the ground or even Western
military personnel in the area. But a claim and some unauthenticated videos from headchoppers
are taken as a fact. A fact which is not allowed to be tested or critiqued. Does it mean they
just want more bombs and missiles to hammer Syria and any reason/justification would do?
The father of Imran Awan - a longtime IT aide from Pakistan who made "unauthorized access" to the
House computer network -
reportedly transferred a USB drive to the former head of a
Pakistani intelligence agency
, alleges the father's ex-business partner, Rashid Minhas.
Imran Awan and wife Hina Alvi
Minhas told the
Daily Caller News Foundation
(DCNF) - which traveled to Pakistan to
interview those involved - that Haji Ashraf Awan, Imran Awan's father, had been giving information
to Rehman Malik - former head of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and current senator.
Malik was appointed to Interior Minister in early 2008, only to step down in 2013 after he lost a
Supreme Court hearing over holding dual UK citizenship.
Minhas told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Imran Awan's father, Haji Ashraf Awan, was
giving data to Pakistani official Rehman Malik, and that Imran bragged he had the power to "
change
the U.S. president.
"
Asked for how he knew this, he said that on one occasion in 2008 when a
"USB [was]
given to Rehman Malik by Imran's father, my brother Abdul Razzaq was with his father
."
-
DCNF
"After Imran's father deliver (sic) USB to Rehman Malik, four Pakistani [government
intelligence] agents were with his father 24-hour on duty to protect him," he said - however Minhas
did not say what was on the USB.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague (left), Rehman Malik
The House watchdog, Inspector General Michael Ptasienski, charged in September 30, 2016 that
data was being
siphoned off
of the House Network by the Awans as recently as two months before the US
presidential election.
The Awan family had virtually unlimited access to Democratic House members' computers, including
classified information.
Nearly Imran's entire immediate family was on the House payroll working as IT aides
to one-fifth of House Democrats
, and he began working for the House in 2004. The
inspector general, Michael Ptasienski, testified this month that "
system administrators
hold the 'keys to the kingdom' meaning they can create accounts, grant access, view, download,
update, or delete almost any electronic information within an office. Because of this high-level
access, a rogue system administrator could inflict considerable damage
." -
DCNF
According to Minhas - "Imran Awan said to me directly these words: '
See how I control
White House on my fingertip
' He say he can fire the prime minister or change the U.S.
president," Minhas said. "
Why the claiming big stuff, I [didn't] understand 'till now
."
"
I was Imran father's partner in Pakistan,
" Minhas said, in two land deals
in Pakistan so big that they are often referred to as "towns."
In 2009, both men were
accused of fraud
, and
Haji was arrested but then released after Imran flew to
Pakistan
, "allegedly exerting pressure on the local police through the ministry as
well as the department concerned," according to local news. Minhas and multiple alleged victims
in Pakistan also told TheDCNF
Imran exerted political influence in Pakistan to extricate
his father from the case
. -
DCNF
Minhas is currently sitting in US federal prison for fraud, and the
Daily Caller
says
they can not confirm whether Minhas' claims about the USB is true. That said,
Minhas says
that neither the DOJ nor the FBI ever interviewed him about the Awans
, which is odd
considering that he's available and connected to Imran Awan.
He is also one of many people with past relationships with the Awans who have said
they believe they are aggressive opportunists who will do
anything for money
.
And parts of Minhas's story correlate with observations
elsewhere. Haji's wife, Samina Gilani -- Imran's stepmother -- said in
court documents
that Imran used his IT skills to wiretap her as a means of exerting pressure
on her.
Haji would frequently boast that Imran's position gave him political leverage, numerous
Pakistani residents told TheDCNF. "
My son own White House in D.C.
," he would
say, according to Minhas. "
I am kingmaker
."
Senator Malik has denied any relationship with the parties reportedly involved, saying "I am
hearing their names for the first time. I am in public and people always do name-dropping."
Imran Awan's attorney Chris Gowen says Minhas's claims are
"completely and totally
false."
The Awans were banned from the congressional network on Feb 2, 2017 by House Seargant-At-Arms,
Paul Irving - after the IG report concluded that the Awans had been making "unauthorized access" to
House servers. The Awans
were logging in using Congressional members' personal usernames
,
as well as breaching servers for members they did not work for.
After several members fired
them, the Awans continued to access their data
, says the IG.
The behavior mirrored a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an
organization,"
and "steps are being taken [by the Awans] to conceal their activity," reads
the report.
Shortly before the 2016 election, the House Democratic Caucus server was breached by Awan - who
authorities believe secretly moved
all the data
of over 12 House members' offices onto the caucus server.
The server may have been "
used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that
individuals could be reading and/or removing information,
" an IG presentation said.
The Awans logged into it 27 times a day, far more than any other computer they
administered
.
Imran's most forceful advocate and longtime employer is Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who led the DNC until she resigned following a hack that exposed committee
emails. Wikileaks published those emails, and they show that
DNC staff summoned Imran
when they needed her password
. -
DCNF
Shortly after the IG report came out,
the House Democratic Caucus server - which the
Awans were funneling data onto,
was physically stolen
according to three
government officials. During the same period of time, the Awans were shedding assets at a rapid
pace.
In January 2017 they took out a loan intended for home improvement, falsely claimed a medical
emergency in order to cash out their House retirement account, and
wired $300,000
overseas
, according to an FBI affidavit. -
DCNF
The FBI arrested Imran Awan at Dulles Airport in July 2017 while trying to flee to Pakistan with
a wiped cell phone and a resume that listed a Queens, NY address. Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi,
were indicted last August on charges of bank fraud - which prosecutors contend was hastened
after the Awans had likely learned that authorities were closing in on them for various other
activities
.
That said, neither Imran nor Hina have been charged over the unauthorized access
concluded
by the House's own Inspector General,
after reviewing server logs. Three other suspects,
Jamal and Abid Awan, and Rao Abbas, have faced no charges whatsoever.
Judging from German press, Germany really looks like a US colony, not even vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party. ..."
"... Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. ..."
"... Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing. ..."
The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non
participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn.
Time is working against Imperial Washington.
Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and
her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party -- she herself lacked both
the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted
over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling
allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.
Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of
the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on
Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same
time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever
mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections -- funny
how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.
Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for
breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.
Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her
party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon
brainwashing.
There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a
distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French
patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.
Merkel's party has no majority – actually her party's share of the vote is at
historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that
formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the
competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced
to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new
"right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.
But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure
to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is
subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German
newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.
Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is
keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its
deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to
Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it
would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve
of Merkel.
What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.
You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I
have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause
the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops
degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that –
can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go
along for the next war so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.
Eleven GOP members of Congress led by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have written a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, Attorney John Huber, and FBI Director Christopher Wray -
asking
them to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others - including FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
, for a laundry list of potential crimes surrounding
the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Recall that Sessions paired special prosecutor John Huber with DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz - falling short of a second Special Counsel, but empowering Horowitz to fully investigate
allegations of FBI FISA abuse with subpoena power and other methods he was formerly unable to
utilize.
The GOP letter's primary focus appears to be James Comey, while the charges for all include
obstruction, perjury, corruption, unauthorized removal of classified documents, contributions and
donations by foreign nationals and other allegations.
The letter also demands that Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein "be recused from any
examination of FISA abuse
," and recommends that "
neither U.S. Attorney John Huber
nor a special counsel (if appointed) should report to Rosenstein.
"
The letter refers the following individuals for the following conduct:
"Comey's decision not to seek charges against Clinton's misconduct s
uggests improper
investigative conduct
, potentially motivated by a political agenda."
The letter calls Comey out for leaking his confidential memos to the press. "
In
light of the fact that four of the seven memos were classified, it would appear that former
Director Comey leaked classified information when sharing these memos...
"
Comey "circulated a draft statement" of the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton for
mishandling classified information - a conclusion reached before the agency had interviewed key
witnesses. "At that point, 17 interviews with potential witnesses had not taken place, including
with Clinton and her chief of staff..."
The letter also seeks clarification on "material inconsistencies between the description of
the FBI's relationship with
Mr. Steele
that you [then FBI Director Comey] did
provide in your briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made
available to the Committee only after the briefing."
Hillary Clinton - contributions and donations by foreign nationals
"A lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid
Washington firm Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier..."
"Accordingly, for disguising payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the
Federal Election Commission, we refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 52
USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101"
Loretta Lynch - obstruction, corruption
"We raise concerns regarding her decision
to threaten with reprisal the former FBI
informant who tried to come forward in 2016 with insight into the Uranium One deal
."
Of note, this refers to longtime CIA and FBI undercover informant
William D. Campbell
, who came forward with evidence of bribery schemes
involving Russian nuclear officials, an American trucking company,
and efforts to route
money to the Clinton Global Initiative
(CGI).
Andrew McCabe - false statements, perjury, obstruction
"During the internal Hillary Clinton investigation, Mr. McCabe "lacked candor -- including
under oath -- on multiple occasions," the letter reads. "That is a fireable offense, and Mr.
Sessions said that career, apolotical employees at the F.B.I. and Justice Department agreed that
Mr. McCabe should be fired."
"The DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently released a February 2018 misconduct
report... confirming four instances of McCabe's lack of candor, including three instances under
oath, as well as the conclusion that McCabe's decision to confirm the existence of the Clinton
Foundation Investigation through an anonymously sourced quite violated the FBI's and DOJ's media
policy and constituted misconduct."
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - obstruction, corruption,
"We raise concerns regarding their interference in the Hillary Clinton investigation
regarding her use of a personal email server."
Referring to a
Wall Street Journal
article from January 22, 2018 - "The report
provides the following alarming specifics, among others: "
Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to
tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President
Obama to 'another senior government official
." By the time Mr. Comey gave his public
statement on July 5, both references - to Mr. Obama and to "another senior government official"
had disappeared."
"Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI personnel connected to the compilation of documents
on alleged links between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump known as the "Steele
dossier."
This section of the letter calls out Comey, McCabe, former acting AG Sally Yates, and former
acting Deputy AG Dana Boente regarding the Steele dossier.
"
we raise concerns regarding the presentation of false and/or unverified information
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with the former Trump aide Carter
Page"
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the Committee that
unverified information from the Steele dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA
applications related to Carter Page"
"Accordingly
we refer to DOJ all DOJ and FBI personnel responsible for signing the
Carter Page warrant application that contained unverified and/or false information"
The criminal referrals for the group allegedly responsible for FISA abuse include:
obstruction,
deprivation of rights
under color of law, corruption.
On a side note I would add that 3-4 years ago when Ukraine was boiling, much of the
discussion by concerned people focused on countries outside of the US, and the damage caused by
the US. The US, in this context, was largely regarded as an evil but coherent entity.
But that coherence has now come more and more into question. Discussion shifted gradually,
as the US made more and more mistakes and lost battle after battle in so many theaters, and
revealed itself as a failing actor. And in the last year or two there's much more discussion
about the US itself, largely trying to pierce the obscurity of how that country is actually run
and by whom. This shift was already happening, and Trump of course added to the
fascination.
I was glad to see that gradual shift. To me it indicated the war itself was won, while many
battles were yet to be fought. I think it's true that Russia, China, Iran and others are
increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict. Every day they
increase in actual, effective power, and the US decreases in that power. Yesterday's battle
will be fought differently tomorrow, because the balance of that power will have shifted again
by then.
Syria has been an enormously useful magnifying glass to show us so much about the relative
power balances of many nations. And even as the US lashes out in its death throes, it is
increasingly cornered and stymied. The same is true of Israel. It's reaching the point - if not
already there - that every move made by the US will result in clear damage to itself, with no
gain, and no damage to its targets.
The other side has had sufficient time to wargame countless contingencies, and think them
through and make preparations for them. Increasingly, it gets to choose what damage to allow
and what to stop, because the costs of every action have now been calculated - and the passage
of time reduces the costs too, so the equation constantly updates.
This is true outside of Syria also, in all theaters and on many planes of
activity.
The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill
for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan
Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to
function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS/etc. banks/economy.
... ... ..
As for US operations in Syria being handed off "to others", i.e. to Prince's latest
iteration of Blackwater/Xi/Academia, the last we heard of Erik was trying to sell a budget
airforce/drone system to countries in Africa. What a joke.
Not going to happen in Syria,
because Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Syria would have no qualms about directly assaulting
Prince's Kurd/Arab/Wahabbist mercenaries... Eric may be a self-serving parasite, but he's not
stupid enough to directly take on the Russian military, or even the SAA for that matter.
Especially with no NATO air cover...
Killary is not around to unilaterally impose a Libya-style
no-fly-zone.
Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US
out of being Israel's and the Rothschilds' bitch, but that is not a potential reality.
It would
involve dismantling the FED and cutting off the yearly $multi-billion military aid tap to
Israel. I doubt he is smart or informed enough to comprehend the situation he is in. Any sane,
intelligent person would walk away and tell the Zionist/Rothschild/Deep State to find another
patsy.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
Theresa May's
decision to authorise British military action over the skies of Syria by royal prerogative
rather than obtaining the backing of parliament was the wrong thing to do. Even if the prime
minister thinks it was done for the right reasons. It was wrong because the government's plans
should have been articulated so that MPs could have had a chance to endorse – or reject
– a motion to bomb Bashar al-Assad's weapons factories. It was wrong because there was no
emergency – an exception used when after a debate MPs retrospectively endorsed action
against Muammar Gaddafi's
Libya . It was wrong because only prime ministers can recall parliament – and there
was time to do so. It was wrong because decisions about how to police the unlawful use of
weapons of mass destructive terror in Syria turn upon judgment rather than available facts.
Parliament is the best place to assess whether the use of military force serves the overall
interests of a nation in such cases. This is especially true of a government without a majority
of its own. Jeremy Corbyn's resurrection of an old idea for a
war powers act , which would force the PM not to authorise the active and large-scale
deployment of British forces overseas without the approval of the House of Commons, ought not
to be dismissed.
But it should be accompanied by a wider recognition that the days of self-regulation of
cabinet government are over. Observing the parliamentary convention would be better than
creating an act where fractious disagreements over the precise nature of the circumstances in
which the law is to be applied – especially in a situation as fluid and volatile as war
– prevail.
After Greeks and British, now Italians reject neoliberal EU. Not many ideas what to put
in its place. 06/03/2018 Italian election results: How the world's press reacted
Italy's governing centre-left Democratic Party has seen disappointing losses in the election
result, while the populist League and Five Star Movement have had remarkable gains. Here's how
the world's press reacted to the vote.
Eurosceptic
Italy in race to form majority government
Five Star Movement and the League vie to form a coalition, but ultimate decision is held by
President Sergio Mattarella
Mon 5 Mar 2018
The two populist parties that won major upsets in the Italian election – the
Five Star
Movement (M5S) and the League (La Liga) – are in a race to be the first to try to
form a majority government after the election produced a hung parliament.
The decision will ultimately fall to Italy's president, Sergio Mattarella, who could take
weeks to determine whether the anti-establishment M5S, which took 32.6% of the vote, or a
fragile centre-right alliance led by the League's bombastic Matteo Salvini, with 35.7% of the
vote, are better equipped to create a majority government.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
Macron is a neoliberal. As such he is a Washington marionette. So what other behaviour you
would expect from him ? He is no Charles de Gaulle
And UN charter was violated by the USA already so many times, that it is difficult to take its existence seriously. The USA
clearly view itself above the law at least since 1991.
"Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was
necessary to stay." Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was necessary to stay
for the long term."
On Monday, the head of the far-left France Insoumise party, Jean-Luc Melenchon, said that
there was no proof of the chemical attacks which were used as a pretext to the US-led
strikes.
"It's in this context that morals and the adherence to the resolution of the United Nations
does not fully prove advantageous, that we intervened, without any proof. I'm not saying
without certainty or conviction. I'm not saying that intelligence services are incapable of
evaluating the situation," he added.
"But according to international law and international action, we can only act based on proof
confirmed by institutions that are responsible. However, these institutions were in the process
of conducting their investigations at the time of the strikes," he said during parliamentary
debate on the airstrikes.
He further noted that strikes were carried out without a mandate from the United Nations
"I'm adding that not only did we not have any mandate from the United Nations, but we did not
at all consider any regional organization involved in the situation in Syria, or at least
Western ones," he added.
Melenchon went on to stress that the attacks were carried out without consideration of "the
people in whose name we claim to act."
The leader of the far-right Front National, Marine Le Pen, also said that Macron had not
offered any evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.
On Sunday, Macron defending the strikes claiming that he convinced US President Donald Trump
to keep troops in Syria. Wh ,> 1 hour ago
Think about it, the three stooges strikes chemical sites irresponsibly in order to make
them
airborne to kill more civilians. Fortunately non of the sites that were bombed did NOT
have
any airborne of chemical syndrome, that meant there were no chemical weapon at those
sites. Douma must have been targeted but those missiles were shoot down. They will make
false flag again in order to destroy Douma to erase false evidence.
The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the
Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.
Russia's permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), Alexander Shulgin, said Russia has irrefutable evidence that there was no
chemical weapons incident in Douma .
"Therefore, we have not just a "high degree of confidence ," as our Western partners
claim, but we have incontrovertible evidence that there was no incident on April 7 in Douma
and that all this was a planned provocation by the British intelligence services, probably,
with the participation of their senior allies from Washington with the aim of misleading the
international community and justifying aggression against Syria," he stated. -
Sputnik
Shulgin added that the US, UK and France are not interested in conducting an objective
investigation of the attack site. " They put the blame on the Syrian authorities in advance,
without even waiting for the OPCW mission to begin to establish the possible facts of the use
of chemical weapons in Syria ," he said.
The nine-member OPCW mission people has yet to deploy to the city of Douma according to the
organization's Chief, citing pending security issues.
"The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who
participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there
were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place .
In the meantime the Team was offered by the Syrian authorities that they could interview 22
witnesses who could be brought to Damascus ," OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said as
quoted by the organization.
The Russian Envoy says that the controversial "
White Helmets " were one of the anti-Assad "pseudo-humanitarian NGOs" which staged the
event. As Disobedient Media and others have reported, the White Helmets are funded in large
part by the United States.
"The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) . Included here are two links showing contracts
awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of
Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will
be to use the funds for managing a " quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue
a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria ." The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from
August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the " Syria Regional
Program II " which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV)
program."
Via Disobedient Media
Moscow says they have confirmed that " these structures [NGOs] on a fee-based basis
cooperate with the governments of the United States, the UK and some other countries ."
Russian experts who conducted the verification of reports on the use of chemical weapons
in the Syrian city of the Douma, found participants of video filming, presented as evidence
of the supposedly occurring chemotherapy, according to the Russian Envoy to OPCW . -
Sputnik
"Everything has been developing according to the script that was prepared in Washington.
There is no doubt that Americans are playing the 'first violin' in all of this . The United
States, the United Kingdom, France and some other countries after the "fake" addition from the
White Helmets and their ilk in Douma, immediately pounced upon the Syrian authorities with
accusations," Shulgin said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has alerted the OPCW that Russia "may have tampered" with the chemical
attack site in Douma ...
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site," U.S. Ambassador
Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.
" It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the
efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation ," he said. His
comments at the closed-door meeting were
obtained by Reuters .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back in a BBC interview, saying " I can
guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site ."
Earlier, Britain's delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of
preventing the international watchdog's inspectors from reaching Douma.
The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to
determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign
blame for the attack. -
Reuters
"Unfettered access is essential," the British delegation said in a statement. "Russia and
Syria must cooperate."
Moscow says the OPCW delay is due to the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was
"groundless".
"We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this
information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are
groundless ," Peskov said.
***
On Friday we reported that Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has
"irrefutable evidence" that the attack - which allegedly killed over 40 people, was staged with
the help of a foreign secret service.
" We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret
services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved
in this staged event ," he said during a press conference according to AFP.
According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has
evidence that Britain was behind the attack.
Quoted by
Reuters , he said: " We have... evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in
organising this provocation ."
As RT
further adds , the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is " proof that the
reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged." It also accused the British government
of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the "provocation." During a briefing on Friday, the
ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in
the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of
people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the
aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered
from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim
that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.
"Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on
the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage," said
Konashenkov.
"The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in
arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta," the general added, referring to the neighborhood
of which Douma is part. " We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called
White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were
preparing ."
According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the
purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned
by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were
ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces,
which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.
The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them
"grotesque," "a blatant lie" and "the worst piece of fake news we've yet seen from the Russian
propaganda machine."
So when will Moscow release their evidence for the whole world to see? Or is it maybe
waiting for the US to first release its own proof that Assad launched the attack?
The blast area of just ONE cruise missile is 150ft/2 = 7000m/2
How many hit this target allegedly? You can even see the matrix caused by the layering of
the photo shopping software when you zoom right in (its not present on the first photo)
Fucking amateur hour LMAO
There really is not even a conspiracy theorist out there who would suggest it was a Syrian
government operation any way. Only batshit crazy raving lunatics have suggested it was the
Syrian government. This is clearly the stupidest thing Trump has done. It makes the USA look
like a bunch of circus freak losers. Very sad and shockingly insane. This is the stupidest
piece of propaganda in modern history. The USA looks very, very bad. It looks like, from any
reasonable perspective, that they are actively aiding terrorists on purpose. Wow. Interesting
cosmetics. Interesting optics.
Its almost as if the USA government hates itself and actually wants a nuclear war where
everyone dies. I think the only thing that should be considered is whether the nutty freaks
in charge are actually humans. Humans are a great disappointment, so likely, yes, human
beings really can be that mentally deficient. Trump really is such a level of mental retard
that he hates himself and wants to be nuked, so he bombs Syria knowing full well they have
nothing to do with it. He hates his career now and wants out.
chlorine gas is no big deal. Sarin is destroyed by fire.... There is a reason everyone
stores these away from People. Not saying Orange is right, by any means in fact the opposite,
but this story is a bit of a reach.
Not necessarily. There is no magic way to make this stuff go away. Incineration doesn't
solve the problems of the metal containers. All of this stuff would be making its way into
their environment, causing illness and death in the coming years. It takes decades to
properly neutralize this stuff. Lighting it up with Tomahawks definitely isn't the best way,
and without a doubt some of it would be immediately released into the surrounding area.
However small or not so small that amount is:
I used to manage a small apartment complex swimming pool. Dry Chlorine was mixed into a
40gal concentrated tank and a small squirt was pumped into the filter circulation all day
long. A newbee once lifted the top off the tank to have a look inside. Lucky I was there
(telling him, don't do thattttttt) I about had to carry him out of the room. There would be
reports all over that area if a few hundred gallons or more of Chlorine had been blasted into
the air.
I emailed the OPCW yesterday. I asked for the location of the Douma inspection
team at precisely the time the research center was attacked. I heard that they
were at the airport and only hours away from the site. I thought this would
give credence to the theory that the site was attacked just so it would
interfere with a proper inspection. They declined to release any info for the
protection of their workers and the integrity of their work. I guess we will
have to wait for the report.
Russia and the Syrian regime have been accused
by western diplomats of denying chemical weapons inspectors access to sites in the town of
Douma, where an attack killed dozens and prompted US-led missile strikes over the weekend.
Russia and Syria had
cited "pending security issues" before inspectors could deploy to the town outside Damascus,
said Ahmet Üzümcü, the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, at a meeting of the OPCW's executive council.
Syrian authorities were offering 22 people to interview as witnesses instead, he said,
adding that he hoped "all necessary arrangements will be made to allow the team to deploy to
Douma as soon as possible".
Meanwhile, the Trump administration delayed action on sanctions against Russians suspected
of helping Syria's chemical weapons programme, contradicting remarks on Sunday by the US envoy
to the UN, Nikki Haley.
US officials and the presstitutes tell us that the illegal US missile attack on Syria
destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured.
This
satellite image, taken Monday morning, shows the Barzah Research and Development Center in
Damascus after it was struck by coalition forces.
If this were true, would not a lethal cloud have been released that would have taken the
lives of far more people than claimed in the alleged Syrian chemical attack on Douma?
Would not the US missile attack be identical to a chemical weapons attack and thus place
the US and its vassals in the same category as Washington is attempting to place Assad and
Putin?
What about it, you chemical weapons experts?
Do chemical weapons only release their elements when they explode from intended use but not
when they explode from being militarily attacked?
There is no evidence in Syria of chemical residue from the chemical weapons facilities
allegedly destroyed by US missiles.
No dead victims.
No reports of hospitals treating Syrian casualties of the American chemical attack.
The OPCW said there was no chlorine and sarin there.
Remember when....March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community
was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before
the US invasion.
the lendman article suggests that missiles deliberately targeted and destroyed
non-chem-weapons sites that were being used to develop anti-cancer drugs.
that information is completely mistaken because otherwise the official reports would be
incorrect.
And on the left here you'll see our chemistry lab cleverly disguised as an office
building. We have no need for any of the essential components such as reasonable delivery
methods, power supply, storage tanks, pipes, etc. We're cutting edge, unlike all those
American plants:
"... For decades, a little-known section of the British Foreign Office – the Information Research Department (IRD) – carried out propaganda campaigns using the international media as its platform on behalf of MI-6. Years before Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir became targets for Western destabilization and "regime change." IRD and its associates at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and in the newsrooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street broadsheets, tabloids, wire services, and magazines, particularly "The Daily Telegraph," "The Times," "Financial Times," Reuters, "The Guardian," and "The Economist," ran media smear campaigns against a number of leaders considered to be leftists, communists, or FTs (fellow travelers). ..."
"... After the Cold War, this same propaganda operation took aim at Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Somalia's Mohamad Farrah Aidid, and Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Today, it is Assad's, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's, and Catalonian independence leader Carles Puigdemont's turn to be in the Anglo-American state propaganda gunsights. Even Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, long a darling of the Western media and such propaganda moguls as George Soros, is now being targeted for Western visa bans and sanctions over the situation with Muslim Rohingya insurgents in Rakhine State. ..."
"... Through IRD-MI-6-Central Intelligence Agency joint propaganda operations, many British journalists received payments, knowingly or unknowingly, from the CIA via a front in London called Forum World Features (FWF), owned by John Hay Whitney, publisher of the "New York Herald Tribune" and a former US ambassador to London. ..."
When it comes to creating bogus news stories and advancing false narratives, the British
intelligence services have few peers. In fact, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) has led
the way for its American "cousins" and Britain's Commonwealth partners – from Canada and
Australia to India and Malaysia – in the dark art of spreading falsehoods as truths.
Recently, the world has witnessed such MI-6 subterfuge in news stories alleging that Russia
carried out a novichok nerve agent attack against a Russian émigré and his
daughter in Salisbury, England. This propaganda barrage was quickly followed by yet another
– the latest in a series of similar fabrications – alleging the Syrian government
attacked civilians in Douma, outside of Damascus, with chemical weapons.
It should come as no surprise that American news networks rely on British correspondents
stationed in northern Syria and Beirut as their primary sources. MI-6 has historically relied
on non-official cover (NOC) agents masquerading primarily as journalists, but also humanitarian
aid workers, Church of England clerics, international bankers, and hotel managers, to carry out
propaganda tasks. These NOCs are situated in positions where they can promulgate British
government disinformation to unsuspecting actual journalists and diplomats.
For decades, a little-known section of the British Foreign Office – the Information
Research Department (IRD) – carried out propaganda campaigns using the international
media as its platform on behalf of MI-6. Years before Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam
Hussein, Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir became targets for Western
destabilization and "regime change." IRD and its associates at the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) and in the newsrooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street broadsheets,
tabloids, wire services, and magazines, particularly "The Daily Telegraph," "The Times,"
"Financial Times," Reuters, "The Guardian," and "The Economist," ran media smear campaigns
against a number of leaders considered to be leftists, communists, or FTs (fellow
travelers).
These leaders included Indonesia's President Sukarno, North Korean leader (and grandfather
of Pyongyang's present leader) Kim Il-Sung, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Cyprus's Archbishop
Makarios, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chile's Salvador Allende, British Guiana's Cheddi Jagan,
Grenada's Maurice Bishop, Jamaica's Michael Manley, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Guinea's Sekou
Toure, Burkina Faso's Thomas Sankara, Australia's Gough Whitlam, New Zealand's David Lange,
Cambodia's Norodom Sihanouk, Malta's Dom Mintoff, Vanuatu's Father Walter Lini, and Ghana's
Kwame Nkrumah.
After the Cold War, this same propaganda operation took aim at Serbian President Slobodan
Milosevic, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Somalia's Mohamad Farrah
Aidid, and Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Today, it is Assad's, Hungarian Prime Minister
Viktor Orban's, and Catalonian independence leader Carles Puigdemont's turn to be in the
Anglo-American state propaganda gunsights. Even Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, long a darling
of the Western media and such propaganda moguls as George Soros, is now being targeted for
Western visa bans and sanctions over the situation with Muslim Rohingya insurgents in Rakhine
State.
Through IRD-MI-6-Central Intelligence Agency joint propaganda operations, many British
journalists received payments, knowingly or unknowingly, from the CIA via a front in London
called Forum World Features (FWF), owned by John Hay Whitney, publisher of the "New York Herald
Tribune" and a former US ambassador to London.
It is not a stretch to believe that similar and
even more formal relationships exist today between US and British intelligence and so-called
British "journalists" reporting from such war zones as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan,
and the Gaza Strip, as well as from much-ballyhooed nerve agent attack locations as Salisbury,
England.
No sooner had recent news reports started to emerge from Douma about a Syrian chlorine gas
and sarin agent attack that killed between 40 to 70 civilians, British reporters in the Middle
East and London began echoing verbatim statements from the Syrian "White Helmets" and the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
In actuality, the White Helmets – claimed by Western media to be civilian defense
first-responders but are Islamist activists connected to jihadist radical groups funded by
Saudi Arabia – are believed to have staged the chemical attack in Douma by entering the
municipality's hospital and dowsing patients with buckets of water, video cameras at the ready.
The White Helmets distributed their videos to the global news media, with the BBC and Rupert
Murdoch's Sky News providing a British imprimatur to the propaganda campaign asserting that
Assad carried out another "barrel bomb" chemical attack against "his own people." And, as
always, the MI-6 financed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-Assad news front claimed
to be operated by a Syrian expatriate and British national named Rami Abdel Rahman from his
clothing shop in Coventry, England, began providing second-sourcing for the White Helmet's
chemical attack claims.
With President Trump bringing more and more neo-conservatives, discredited from their
massive anti-Iraq propaganda operations during the Bush-Cheney era, into his own
administration, the world is witnessing the prolongation of the "Trump Doctrine."
The Trump Doctrine can best be explained as follows: A nation will be subject to a US
military attack depending on whether Trump is facing a severe political or sex scandal at
home.
Such was the case in April 2017, when Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on the joint
Syrian-Russian airbase at Shayrat, Syria. Trump was still reeling from the resignation of his
National Security Adviser, Lt. General Michael Flynn, in February over the mixing of his
private consulting business with his official White House duties. Trump needed a diversion and
the false accusation that Assad used sarin gas on the village of Khan Sheikoun on April 4,
2017, provided the necessary pabulum for the war-hungry media.
The most recent cruise missile attack was to divert the public's attention away from Trump's
personal attorney being raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a sex scandal involving
Trump and a porn actress, and a "tell-all" book by Trump's fired FBI director, James Comey.
Although these two scandals provided opportunities for the neo-cons to test Trump with false
flag operations in Syria, they were not the first time such actions had been carried out. In
2013, the Syrian government was blamed for a similar chemical attack on civilians in Ghouta.
That year, Syrian rebels, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, admitted to the
Associated Press reporter on the ground in Syria that they had been given banned chemical
weapons by Saudi Arabia, but that the weapons canisters exploded after improper handling by the
rebels. Immediately, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Syrian rebel organizations
operating out of Turkey claimed that Assad had used chemical-laden barrel bombs on "his own
people." However, Turkish, American, and Lebanese sources confirmed that it was the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) that had badly bungled a false flag sarin nerve agent
attack on Ghouta.
Few Western media outlets were concerned about a March 19, 2013, sarin nerve agent by the
Bashair al-Nasr Brigade rebel group linked to the US- and British-backed Free Syrian Army. The
rebels used a "Bashair-3" unguided projectile, containing the deadly sarin agent, on civilians
in Khan al-Assal, outside Aleppo. At least 27 civilians were killed, and scores of others
injured in the attack. The Syrian Kurds also reported the use of chemical weapons on them
during the same time frame by Syrian rebel groups backed by the United States, Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia. The usual propaganda operations – Syrian Observatory for Human Rights,
Doctors Without Borders, the BBC, CNN, and Sky News – were all silent about these
attacks.
In 2013, April 2017, and April 2018, the Western media echo chamber blared out all the same
talking points: "Assad killing his own people," "Syrian weapons of mass destruction," and the
"mass murder of women and children." Western news networks featured videos of dead women and
children, while paid propagandists, known as "contributors" to corporate news networks –
all having links to the military-intelligence complex – demanded action be taken against
Assad.
Trump, now being advised by the notorious neocon war hawk John Bolton, the new National
Security Adviser, began referring to Assad as an "animal" and a "monster." Bolton, along with
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby, helped craft similar
language against Saddam Hussein prior to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was
not coincidental that Trump – at the urging of Bolton and other neocons – gave a
full pardon to Libby on the very same day he ordered the cruise missile attack on Damascus and
other targets in Syria. Libby was convicted in 2005 of perjury and illegally disclosing
national security information.
The world is being asked to take, at face value, the word of patented liars like Trump,
Bolton, and other neocons who are now busy joining the Trump administration at breakneck speed.
The corporate media unabashedly acts as though it never lied about the reasons given by the
United States and Britain for going to war in Iraq and Libya. Why should anyone believe them
now?
Wayne
MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society
of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
I suggest that Russia act as "marginal producer" and refuse to sell oil,
gas or raw petroleum products for less than double the price of other
suppliers.
All of a sudden... thing will change.
After the treatment Russia has gotten for the past year or more, they
are more than justified to adopt this policy.
What's going on?
Read this:
"In late March, the U.S. State Department warned European corporations that
they will likely face penalties if they participate in the construction of
Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, on the grounds that "the project
undermines energy security in Europe"
The Nord Stream 2 project and the
denial of pipelines through Syria territory is what's eating at the zio-cons.
This is power politics and Russia / China are too much of a threat.
The Russian central bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing
on March 14, marking a step forward in forging a Beijing-Moscow alliance
to bypass the US dollar in the global monetary system, and to phase-in a
gold-backed standard of trade.
Apr 3 2017 - Europe approves Nordstream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany
April 6 2017 - need to attack Syria.
Coincidentally, with a new government a gas pipelin can be run from
Qatar to Europe and cut-off Russian gas revenue.
*Three Mediterranean EU countries and Israel agreed on Monday to
continue pursuing the development of a gas pipeline ... EU countries and
Israel ... April 3, 2017 ...*
EU, Israel agree to develop Eastern Mediterranean gas pipeline
The Optics of the Inter National Geo Political Crises would suggest
that The Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Deep State Crime
Syndicate are going "All In."
The petroyuan project is the key. It will smash the petrodollar zio-world.
Saddam Hussien thought of doing that in the 80's by consolidating
Arab oil into a basket of currencies backed by gold. The problem for
him was he was a disposable puppet and not able to defend that
project. China and Russia are a different matter. It's driving the
zios batty.
And, the Yuan is now in the IMF basket of SDR's. Ultimately, the
Petro Dollar will meet its demise & it will be decided by which is
the cleanest, dirtiest shirt to put on among the SDR's.
Great, I voted for Trump in the hopes he would not be a warmonger since Hillary certainly
was. Looks like I should not have bothered after all.
I can only imagine what Putin et al are thinking. They know they and Assad were not behind
that attack, and they know we know, or should know. What this means is that they will have to
come to view our government the same way America used to view the Communists. As dangerous,
fanatical lunatics.
Once you come to view someone not as a rational actor, but as deranged, the dynamics
change, and in very dangerous ways. You cannot appease or come to terms with a lunatic. All
reasonable options begin to disappear, leaving behind only the last resorts.
The reason we voted for Trump is because we are tired of this sanctimonious hypocritical horse shit. Instead we get more of
what we didn't vote for. All Russia did was kindly not sink any of our war ships when we attacked Syria on an assumption.
You got exactly what you voted for... because if you were dumb enough to think you could actually get an outsider maverick
anywhere near the white house I have to think you are too dumb to figure out how to turn on a computer.
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
hostilities.
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
the knees.
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
forms.
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then
yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence
of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly
evident within its citizenry.
That's obviously
not
the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.
The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the
complete and total subjugation of humanity.
Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that
rules the West.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
fiasco in
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the
Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by
committing a GENOCIDE.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Salisbury.
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
The west wants to destroy the world cup for Russia so that things will heat up before June
to the point of war. So much money was invested in the stadiums that Russia expects the
visitors to help pay. The US will deny this through false flags and lies. I am so ashamed of
this nation that has changed to the point that I do not recognize it from my childhood.
What happened right after the second direct U.S.-missiles invasion of Syria, which had
occurred on the night of April 13th, could turn out to have momentous implications - far bigger
than the attacks themselves...
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headlined on April 14th, in the
wake of this U.S.-UK-France invasion of Syria that was allegedly punishing Syria's Government
for allegedly having used chemical weapons in its bombing in the town of Douma on April 7th,
"OPCW
Fact-Finding Mission Continues Deployment to Syria" , and reported that:
The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) will continue its deployment to the Syrian Arab Republic to establish facts
around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma.
The OPCW has been working in close collaboration with the United Nations Department of
Safety and Security to assess the situation and ensure the safety of the team.
The OPCW is not part of the U.N., nor of any country; it, instead (as introduced by
Wikipedia
):
is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons
Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997. The OPCW, with its 192 member states,
has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent
and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.
In conformity with the unchallenged international consensus that existed during the 1990s
that there was no longer any basis for war between the world's major powers, the Convention
sought and achieved a U.N. imprimatur, but this was only in order to increase its respect
throughout the world. The OPCW is based not on the U.N. Charter but on that specific treaty,
the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was formally approved by the U.N.'s
General Assembly on 30 November 1992 and was then opened for signatures in Paris on 13
January 1993. According to the Convention's terms, it would enter into effect 180 days after 65
nations signed it, which turned out to be on 29 April 1997.
So, although the treaty itself received U.N. approval, the recent Russian-sponsored
resolution at the U.N.'s Security Council to have the U.N. endorse the OPCW's investigation of
the 7 April 2018 Douma incident, did not receive U.N. approval. It was instead blocked
by the U.S. and its allies . Nonetheless, though without a U.N. endorsement, the OPCW
investigation into the incident will move forward, despite the invasion.
This fact is momentous, because a credible international inspection, by the world's top
investigatory agency for such matters, will continue to completion, notwithstanding the effort
by the U.S. and its allies on the U.N. Security Council, to block it altogether. This decision
was reached by the OPCW -- not by the U.N.
Among the 192
signers of the Chemical Weapons Convention are U.S., Russia, and Syria, as well as China,
Iran, and Iraq, but not Israel, nor North Korea and a very few other countries. So: all of the
major powers have already, in advance, approved whatever the findings by the OPCW turn out to
be. Those findings are expected to determine whether a chemical attack happened in Douma on 7
April 2018, and, if so, then perhaps what the specific banned chemical(s) was(were), but not
necessarily who was responsible for it if it existed. For example, if the 'rebels' had stored
some of their chemical weapons at that building and then Syria's Government bombed that
building, the OPCW might not be able to determine who is to blame, even if they do determine
that there was a chemical attack and the chemical composition of it. In other words: science
cannot necessarily answer all of the questions that might be legal-forensically necessary in
order to determine guilt, if a crime did, in fact, occur, there.
If the investigation does find that a banned chemical was used and did cause injuries or
fatalities, then there is the possibility that its findings will be consistent with the
assertions by the U.S. and its allies who participated in the April 13th invasion. That would
not necessarily justify the invasion, but it would prove the possibility that there had been no
lying intent on the part of the U.S.-and-allied invaders on April 13th.
However, if the investigation does not find that a banned chemical was used in the Syrian
Government's bombing of that building, then incontrovertibly the U.S.-and-allied invasion was a
criminal one under international laws, though there may be no international court that
possesses the authority to try the case .
So: what is at stake here from the OPCW investigation is not only the international
legitimacy of Syria's Government, but the international legitimacy of the Governments that
invaded it on April 13th. These are extremely high stakes, even if no court in the world will
possess the authority to adjudicate the guilt -- either if the U.S. and its allies lied, or if
the Syrian Government lied.
For us historians, this is very important. And, for the general public, the significance
goes much farther: to specific Governments, to their alleged news media, and to the question
of: What does it even mean to say that a government is a "democracy" or a "dictatorship"? The
findings from this investigation will reverberate far and wide, and long (if World War III
doesn't prevent any such findings at all).
These people are delusional and extremely dangerous. There's been zero proof of who
actually used the chemical weapons (if there were chemical weapons at all?) and they're
making statements about it as if it were a verified and universally recognized fact.
We are entering the psyops and propaganda phase of a war. In this phase we are ordered to
only say what they want us to, and this goes for both sides. They don't care about the truth,
just where and when the shooting will start.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a
fait accompli
, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation
mockingbird-controlled, corporate (MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN)
right now?
Wonder how Monbiot feels now Syrians are being killed by western bombs?
Will he be slightly suspicious about the urgency of the attack (which took place just
before the inspectors were due to go in) or indeed lack of parliamentary scrutiny about the
necessity for such extreme measures, not to mention the potentially catastrophic consequences
of provoking Russia?
The US is not under threat and neither is the UK – the Syrians have not asked for
bombs to be dropped on them.
The information sources alleging the use of chemical weapons come from the same tainted
Sunni extremists using weapons supplied by the west to destroy Yemen.
Yep, those Jihadi pals of Monbiot and co, need all the help they can get now that they are
losing the war against the legitimate government of Syria. Next time there is a jihadi
outrage against London, Manchester, Paris or St.Tropez, let's see what the likes of Monbiot
and the rest of the liberal-imperialist scum at the Guran has to say. This is Iraq all over
again. Every time the US-NATO wants to bomb a recalcitrant country they invent a pretext. The
Gulf of Tonkin incident, Saddams fabled WMDs and now the fake chemical attack in Syria. Is
there anything worse than liberal imperialism? This has been a political game changer. It is
now apparent beyond doubt that the liberals are on the side of the most vicious ultra-right
warmongering crazies.
What I find troubling about George Monbiot's opinions on President Assad and his supposed
habit of celebrating SAA victories by gassing the very people who voted him back as President
in 2014 (maybe they can't get enough of being gassed by sarin and chlorine, eh, George?) is
his use of strong and often bullying language towards critics like Tim Hayward, Patrick
Henningsen and Vanessa Beeley. He has the hide to question Beeley on who funds her work and
insinuates that she is in the pay of the Russian government. If he only stuck to his opinion
and dubious Just War reasoning – he would be all for invading Syria if, say, Denmark or
Sweden were in charge of leading the cavalry – at least he would be tolerable. But to
tell Hayward that he should listen to a suspicious and sinister character like Oz Katerji
– who openly flaunts his friendship with takfiris – "for [his own] sake" amounts
to harassment.
The Russian Centre for Reconciliation jointly with the Syrian authorities is completing
the large-scale humanitarian operation in the suburbs of Damascus – the Eastern Ghouta.
In total, 170,152 people have been evacuated during the operation, including 63,117 militants
with their families.
All the settlements in the Eastern Ghouta are currently under the control of the Syrian
government.
The Russian military police has been deployed in the Eastern Ghouta in order to monitor
situation and maintain law enforcement.
As environment in the suburbs of Damscus stabilizing, people are making their way back
home. In total some 63,000 people have return to their homes now. It makes a half of those
who had left the area.
The Syrian government working on rehabilitation of destroyed civilian infrastructure.
Power and water supply systems have been recovered; reconstruction is underway in the area.
People are provided with medical assistance.
Thus, the present-day Eastern Ghouta is far from a "black hole" where no one could get to,
but a capital suburb returning to peaceful life.
Excellent article. I suppose I shouldn't be too terribly surprised by Monbiot's irrational
and immoral stance on Syria, as it's lack of logic and ethical coherence dovetails nicely
with his new found support for nuclear power as a solution to climate change – inspired
no less by the events at Fukishima. Quite amazing actually!
If Monbiot wanted to find out what was happening he could find out just as easily as we
found out. Hes a fake, a traitor and a supporter of the destruction of a securer democracy by
British backed Al Qaeda terrorists on the orders of the zionist state.. There are no
excuses.
I have nothing but contempt for Monbiot or the people he works for and nothing but respect
for the Syrian people who stand against Monbiots head chopping, child killing, family
burning, evil cannibalistic scum
Some times people become so lost in their own ego through education and privilege that they
no longer have capacity to recognize anything but hubris. The whole education system pushes
this mindset through reward and accolade to the most susceptible students. This system
encourages a level of blind faith in the theories that are taught to them to the the point
that the student forgets that what they are being taught is only theory and indoctrination
that they should have learned to question. These students are the ones that life opens up
for. They are afforded the best jobs, high life styles, nice houses with big mortgages
effectively trapping them in a spiders web that becomes difficult to escape from even if they
do wake up. Deep down they realize that they are out of their depth but keep up the pretense.
These people become the perfect mouth pieces for the state and don't even necessarily realize
they have been hijacked and compromised by their status. This makes it difficult for them to
recognize others opinions and to question them selves or the narrative they hold. To query
there stance unhinges them. This is the point that they often become dogmatic, dismissive and
angry . The worst ones are often the ones who see them selves as liberal as they really do
believe that they have got where they are by being intelligent and informed. Guardian
journalists seem particularly susceptible to this belief. The most sinister part about these
journalists is they do manage to manipulate their readers on an insidious level lulling them
with their {liberalism}.
I appreciate the force and elegance of Prof. Hayward's argumentation. I'm not sure, though,
why he would stop at (or, for that matter, start with) the loyalty of the Syrian army. He
was, after all, elected and even after several years of violence, it could probably be fairly
plausibly confirmed (or disconfirmed), in principle at least, that he has majority (indeed
increased) support among the population. Another argument subject to (dis)confirmation would
be that a very significant number of the "rebels" and the vast bulk of their funding,
training, weapons and diplomatic / media cover are not Syrian. They would not, then, be part
of a rebellion but foreign mercenaries or (largely Salafist) fundamentalist legions in a
regime change operation that happens to be consistent with American policy towards Syria
since the 1940s.
During the time [around 2011] Monbiot was asking people about their opinions on Syria an
opinion poll on Syria was published, "According to the latest opinion poll commissioned by
The Doha Debates [ the sponsors of the debate no supporters of Assad by any means] Syrians
are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign". One of the main
reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the
country". Then in the 2016 presidential election Assad won gaining 88% of vote. Followed by
Parliamentary elections when the Ba'ath party won 200 out of 250 seats. The Syrian army is
majority Sunni and the majority of the Government is Sunni. He has overwhelming support
inside and outside Syria, in Lebanon for instance there was a huge turnout for Assad with
tens of thousands queuing up to vote for him.
How anyone can voice support for the "rebels" is beyond me, since they are made up mostly of
Jihadis who want to slaughter any opposition to themselves. They say so themselves.
Very early on in the jihadist attack on Syria, there was a massive demonstration in Damascus
of two million, where a huge Syrian flag was held aloft by the crowd, in support of the
Government. It was broadcast on the Austfalian SBS 'multicultural' TV as an 'ANTI-Assad'
demonstration ie a complete LIE, but one as far as I know never acknowledged or
retracted.
Thereafter, until today, the SBS, has been the vilest of all our filthy fakestream
propagandists working for a takfiri victory. The Syrian Government is 'the regime'. The
salafist child crucifiers 'rebels', the favoured media source the al-Jazeera sewer controlled
by the vile Wahhabist Qatar regime, one of the prime sponsors of the death-squad butchers.
The SBS even has a coterie of female voice-over operatives, whose histrionic utterances,
spitting out the hate propaganda, often verge on hysteria.
I've often wondered why they took this position. I suspect Zionist influence, all pervasive
in this country, but NEVER dared to be mentioned (the PM Turnbull represents the richest
electorate in the country with a large Jewish constituency, and his groveling is epic)and
Saudi. For decades the Sordid Arabians have been allowed to finance Wahhabist proselytisation
in this country, including in Moslem schools, a decision of bizarre stupidity. As a result we
sent scores of enthusiastic wannabe head-loppers to Syria, one of whom was photographed
grinning as his seven year old son held up a severed head. While these butchers were used in
Islamophobic hate propaganda, the scum death-squad army they were members of, was still
afforded TOTAL support by the local fakestream as 'rebels' against 'animal Assad'.
This is excellent. Far from being 'too kind' to Monbiot, its restraint, both in tone and in
substantive argument – not making claims that can't be defended, and being precise on
such as the difference between high probability and empirical or logical certainty – is
a great strength. Hayward stands head and shoulders above Monbiot not just in his arguments
but in his scrupulous manner of advancing them.
Monbiot is a fake. His role is to help maintain the fiction that there is a diversity of
opinions in the corporate media, which enables them to pretend there is no rational dissent
from the official narrative when the pretend left and the centre and the right all agree,
such as when they all say: Assad is bad.
This is a very well put together piece on a very troubling individual. Monbiot has always
been deeply suspicious in my view. He issues his statements (often lies) and never engages
his critics, evidently viewing criticism as an intolerable offense. Not the behaviour of an
honourable man.
I would very much like to see a follow-up piece similar to this but that looks wider and
takes apart his deception on issues other than Syria.
Ultimately, he should not be working as a so-called journalist. His ability to push lies
is deeply offensive to those of us with an interest in truth and integrity. He is truly a
stain.
The feeling I get from Tim Hayward's article is of lost love – but not in the romantic
sense – for Monbiot – who he used to feel part of, believe in, stand side by side
with? Is this a long letter TO G.M?
There's another feeling I get over the incitement to war on Syria – and that is of
the many being forced, terrorized, or convinced at least that going along with the pressure
to act out the line or at least not challenge it – is the choosing of a lesser
evil.
However I do not see any convincing actors on the stage in the 'case' for making war on
Syria. Only of assets by one means or another.
We may be misled about most everything, perhaps because the mind from its earliest
adaptations to sense of loss of love, support and connection, learns to mask pain and seek
protection in strategies of self justification.
Since the earliest catastrophic beginnings of the development of this peculiarly split
human consciousness, the gods that terrorised us from above were sacrificed to in
supplication of appeasement. So that which sends fire and plague is entreated to save us from
it. Nothing has changed but the costumes of its human reenactments.
I feel it is time for a New Story.
Don't fight over narrative – just read where it comes from with some compassion. The
promise of 'power and protection' reveals a hollow and pathetic dependency. We feed a monster
as if to 'survive'.
The capacity for introspection is also the capacity to uncover a fundamental humanity
within even the worst of times. Everyone acts in self interest as in that moment they define
themselves to be in relation to it. The lie is considered bad to be exposed in – but
necessary to hide by.
But if everything is subjugated to serve a lie (too big to fail) then there is nothing
true – excepting the power to say so and enforce it, and is that not the 'thinking' to
which we have been trained to suckle?
I cannot make another man (or woman's) choices. I can only live my own and by tasting the
results, learn to make better choices. But this absolutely depends on self-honesty. We cannot
lie to others and be true to ourself nor lie to ourself and be true to others. And if we try
to make the lie true – we will project the mind of it into the perceptions of others
– whether they extend a true willingness or a deceit – we wont be able to
tell.
That is the recipe for hell – because everything reflects a hidden hate that
'threatens' to destroy or violate our defences. But the enemy is not 'OUT THERE!' –
even if there are many with grievance.
The lie and the father of the lie sets us against our Self – each other and our
world.
"No it doesn't – it protects me from chaos, powerlessness, humiliation and loss of
self!"
Yet all these things has it delivered while pointing the finger away.
There is a heart prayer from Hawaii
The mind is erected against saying it:
"I'm sorry, please forgive me, I love you , thank you".
This is an excellent article among many here, but Binra's comment really resonates with
me.
I see a direct link between:
unconditional love (love is unconditional, or it isn't love),
learning how to become part of love's continuing evolution,
learning how to avoid war.
For me, the quality of being that is love is the nature of the personal choices we
each must make if we are to learn – both as individuals and by extension as larger
groups – how to navigate the sinister and deceptive propaganda this article addresses,
and hopefully put an end to it one day. We otherwise fall prey to its machinations and are
lost to history's darker forces.
"I'm sorry, please forgive me, I love you , thank you".
Humility, love and gratitude are strong when undertaken with courage, perseverance and
patience. This is not easy to do. But we know that. The right way is the hard way.
"Monbiot is, like Noam Chomsky, a Khazarian Jew " What the hell has this to do with the point
you are trying to make?
Are you trying to say that all Khazarian Jews (or all Jews?) "support the globalist
finance plutocracy." etc.? Unlike the very justified condemnation of the massacre of unarmed
Palestinian protesters at the Gaza/Israel border by the Israeli army, this is genuine
anti-semitism.
It's fine to criticise Monbiot and Chomsky as individuals, however harshly. but there
should be zero tolerance for attributing the "sophistry and faux-empathy" you see them
exhibiting to their ethnicity.
The global capitalist elite are indeed our enemy. They are mostly white and male but share
few other characteristics.
Susanna, that type of idiot with their stupid stereotyping of whole groups, are often, I
suspect, frauds, sent to discredit those around them. So, some Ashkenazi Jews are descended
from the Khazars who converted to Judaism. So what-as Shlomo Sand shewed, a number of groups
over time converted to Judaism, when it was more proselytising than now, just as groups
converted to Islam or Christianity. That makes no difference to how Chomsky acts (pretty well
as far as I can see) or Monbiot (increasingly very badly, and shamefully).
Monbiot's arrogance is innate. It got him into strife when he tackled the formidable Edward S
Herman over the phony Srebrenica 'genocide' and was savagely mauled, but, as expected, he
declared himself the victor and retreated to smear his adversaries from the sidelines.
He propagandises as he must, or he'd get the Pilger treatment, and his nice sinecure at the
Fraudian would disappear. And since the Sorosification and the other measures taken to turn
the Fraudian into the sewer of disinformation and hate-mongering that it is today, working so
frantically for a jihadist victory in Syria and Syria's vivisection, to the greater glory of
Eretz Yisrael, Monbiot has simply goose-stepped ever further Right, as scores of his type
have done, over the years.
Polonius: This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the
day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!
I have been thinking lately this might apply even to villains, as in Peer Gynt. Then if
you are really strong black and white but sincere, the Divine Photographer has a chance to
season you in acid gall and reduce you in sulfite until your positive emerges Lily White. But
if you are just a misty inbetween maundering Boyg of a man, you have to resort to Photoshop
to provide a fake identity.
"Those who were neither for God nor for Devil but only for themselves . So many, I had not
thought Death had undone so many". -- Dante, The First Circle
Sorry, the above post should have been addressed to Binra who said something similar to the
advice Polonius gave Laertes. Ibsen's Peer Gynt goes further: even a villain who is true to
himself may be valuable in the scheme of things; but people like the Fraudian journoes who
just drift the way the wind blows are puffballs that carry no seed.
The bombing of Syrian government targets by the United States, Britain, and France is a disgraceful and ineffectual act masquerading
as a noble gesture. Far from preventing a more vicious war, the bombing instead legitimizes the continuation of the conflict. In
fact, what this barrage of weapons really reveals is how little interest the global powers have in ending Syria's ghastly war.
ss="rich-link">
Syria: who are the key players in the conflict?
Read more
Similar to the attacks on Syrian government targets that Donald Trump ordered just over a year ago, the airstrikes
this time will not seriously damage Bashar al-Assad's larger military capacity, nor are they intended to. Instead,
we're told that the western bombing campaign has specifically aimed munitions at locations where the storage and testing
of chemical weapons occurs.
But wasn't last year's attack meant to put an end to Assad's use of chemical weapons, and aren't these the weapons that he was
supposed to have destroyed under international auspices in 2014? At this rate, should we expect that an aerial bombing mission to
finally and completely destroy Assad's chemical weapons will be launched every April?
The question is ridiculous, of course, but so is the idea that this attack will accomplish anything beyond boosting the war-making
egos of its protagonists and enabling Assad, his reprehensible regime, and his allies to complain of being the perpetual victims
of western aggression. Beyond the bombast on both sides, Syria's daily misery will continue.
These strikes mark the first timeTheresa May of Britain and Emmanuel Macron of France have committed their respective militaries
into combat, and they have done so, according to May, "to protect innocent people in
Syria
from the horrific deaths and casualties caused by chemical weapons, but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the
international norm that prevents the use of these weapons."
May's words might sound more intelligent than those of Donald Trump, who in his statement about the attacks told the American
people: "Hopefully, someday we'll get along with Russia and maybe even Iran, but maybe not." But what May's words really reveal is
not the ethical reasoning of a head of state but the devastating lack of moral concern by the international community when it comes
to the people of Syria.
The fact that three of the world's most powerful militaries have now been mobilized into action, even for a limited campaign such
as this one, to prevent "the erosion of the international norm" of using chemical weapons is far from comforting. Since the war began,
Assad's regime has engaged in the repeated and dreadful use of barrel bombs and mass starvation, the systematic torture of thousands
of citizens and the laying siege to multiple cities, the killing of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of more
than half the population. Yet, all of this horror does not seem to "erode an international norm" and certainly has not motivated
these western leaders to any meaningful action to end the war.
On the contrary, regional and global powers now exploit Syria for their own advantage and apportion out its territory for repeated
bombing. At this point, the country has been bombed by the Assad regime, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, Iran, Turkey,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE.
Rather than limiting war, this latest bombing of Syria normalizes the war's ongoing brutality. Forget the chemical weapons for
a moment. The bombing of Syria by the western powers essentially and unconscionably establishes near total warfare on civilians as
an acceptable "international norm." Our politicians will wallow in their most recent action, calling the bombing a great success
for our civilization. In fact, it's much more akin to our demise.
Folks, like some alien abductors, the Deep State has taken the Donald hostage, and with
ball-and-chain finality. Whatever pre-election predilection he had to challenge the Warfare
State has apparently been completely liquidated.
Trump's early AM tweet yesterrday, in fact, embodies the words of a man who had more than a
few screws loose when he took the oath, but under the relentless pounding of the Imperial
City's investigators, partisans, apparatchiks and lynch-mob media has now gone stark raving
mad. To wit:
"....Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia,
because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!" You shouldn't be partners with a Gas
Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
Yes, maybe Wall Street has figured out that the Donald is more bluster than bite. Yet when
you consider the broader context and what the Russian side is now saying, it is just plain
idiotic to own the S&P 500 at 24X. After all , earnings that have been going nowhere for
the past three years (earnings per share have inched-up from $106 in September 2014 to $109 in
December 2017), and now could be ambushed by a hot war accident in Syria that would rapidly
escalate.
Indeed, did the robo-machines and boys and girls down in the casino not ponder the meaning
of this message from the Kremlin? It does not leave much to the imagination:
# Russian ambassador in beirut : "If there is a strike by the Americans on #Syria ,
then... the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired,"
Zasypkin told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV, speaking in Arabic.
Sure, the odds are quite high that the clever folks in the Pentagon will figure out how to
keep the pending attack reasonably antiseptic. That is, they will bomb a whole bunch of places
in Syria where the Russians and Iranians are not (after being warned); and also deploy
stand-off submarine platforms to launch cruise missiles and high-flying stealth aircraft to
drop smart bombs, thereby keeping American pilots and ships out of harm's way.
Then, after unleashing the Donald's version of "shock and awe" they will claim that Assad
has just received the spanking of his life and that the Russians and Iranians have been
messaged with malice aforethought.
But our point is not that Douma is Sarajevo, and, besides, this is still April, not August.
What should be scaring the daylights out of Wall Street is that we are even at the point where
the two tweets quoted above are happening.
For crying out loud, there is a brutal, bloody and barbaric civil war raging in Syria where
both sides are bedecked in black hats; both sides have committed unspeakable atrocities; and
where it is a documented fact that the rebels possess chemical weapons and have launched false
flag gas attacks in the past---even as 1,300 tons of Assad's inventory, which may or may not
have been the totality of it, was destroyed according to the certification of the Organization
for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
In that context, who can tell whether the alleged chlorine gas release last Saturday in
Douma originated in a bomb dropped by Assad's air force or came from a rebel stockpile that was
hit by a bomb? Or whether it was another deliberate false flag attack staged by the jihadists
or perhaps that it never happened at all.
The evidence comes mainly from rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. One
of these was the Violations Documentation Center, a virulent anti-Russian organization funded
by George Soros. Another was the White Helmets, a completely comprised operation financed by
the US and UK and which has operated only in rebel held territories--- often check-by-jowl with
the al-Nusra Front and other terrorist elements.
Indeed, Washington's fabled spies in the sky and taps on every node of the worldwide web can
read your email and spot a rogue camel caravan anywhere in a Sahara sandstorm. But they can not
tell whether dead bodies are the victims of bullets, bombs, collapsing buildings or chlorine
gas. You need to be on the ground and perform chemical tests for that, and Washington just
plain isn't there.
Besides, even if a careful investigation--like the one proposed by Sweden and which the US
and UK vetoed at the UN---were actually completed, why is it Washington's prerogative to
administer a spanking to the culprit?
For one thing, if you are in the spanking business owing to bad behavior, then just within
the region you would also need to administer the rod to al-Sisi in Egypt and Erdogan in Turkey;
and also to Washington's on and off wards in Baghdad and to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
for his genocidal attacks on Yemen. While you were at it, why would even Bibi Netanyahu be
spared the birch---given his periodic "lawn mowing" exercises on the Gaza strip?
The point is, Assad has never attacked, threatened or even looked cross-eyed at the United
States. So you would have thought that administering spankings to international malefactors is
the business of Washington's permanent War Party, not the leader of America First.
To be sure, the only evidence we have to date is the gruesome images posted on the internet
by the "Douma Revolution", which we don't credit because it is a tool of the good folks of
Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), who were holding 3,200 pro-Assad hostages in cages when the
attack happened. But even if Assad is culpable, why is the Donald getting out the birch switch
if he doesn't mean to effectuate regime change?
Yes, inconstancy is his middle name. But how in god's name could even the Donald have
rearranged the modest amount of gray matter under his great Orange Comb-Over so quickly and
completely with regards to Syria?
As a reminder, this is what the Donald said just last week:
"We'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon," Trump said on Thursday, "Let the other
people take care of it now. Very soon, very soon, we're coming out....We're going to get back
to our country, where we belong, where we want to be."
The fact is, it's way too late to drag Bashar Assad behind the Moammar Khadafy Memorial Jeep
to be ritually sodomized by his enemies. That's because he's already won the civil war (red
area in map below).
What's left is not remotely conducive to regime change because the majority Arab population
of Syria (regardless of Alawite, Shiite, Sunni, Christian, Druse etc. religious affiliation)
would never consent to be ruled by the small minority of Kurds (who control the yellow, largely
desert areas). And besides, a Kurdish Syrian state in part or whole would guarantee a Turkish
invasion and a blue (Turkish controlled areas surrounding Afrin in the northwest) versus yellow
war where Washington would be on both sides.
Indeed, the only thing that a regime change attempt at this late date would accomplish is a
resurrection of the remnants of ISIL (small black specs) or an upwelling of chaos from the
three or four islets (green areas) that warring gangs of rebels, jihadists, salafists and
blood-thirsty warlords now nominally control.
So the map below, in fact, tells you what is really going on. To wit, the neocons and deep
staters around Trump--with the Walrus Mouth (Bolton) now literally shouting in his ear----are
really about picking a fight with Iran and Russia. These are really Imperial Washington's
designated enemies, and the purpose of the impending attack on Syrian military installations is
to intimidate them into backing down----even as they issue hostile warnings and rhetorical
fulminations (especially the Iranians) against America.
Stated differently, the Orange Comb-Over is being lured not so much into an Assad spanking
exercise or regime change maneuver as into a Proxy War with Iran and Russia. The latter is
literally manna from heaven for the Warfare State.
Indeed, with the defense budget already cranked up to the absurd level of $720 billion , the
Deep State and its military/industrial/surveillance/congressional complex allies would like
nothing better than maximum rhetorical belligerence (and occasional provocative acts) from
Russia and Iran in order to keep the national security gravy train inflating toward the $1
trillion funding mark.
Needless to say, the contractual droppings from these staggering budget levels will keep the
beltway think tanks, NGOs and pro-war lobbying apparatus in clover for years to come, thereby
fueling the ugly secret of Imperial Washington.
Namely, since America lost its only real enemy in 1991, Washington has become an unhinged
war capital. It is now endangering the entire planet in a doom-loop of expanding military
muscle, multiplying foreign interventions and occupations, intensifying blowback from the
victims of Washington's aggression and an ever greater chorus of Empire justifying experts,
apparatchiks and politicians getting fat on the banks of the Potomac.
It is difficult to ignore the cross-cultural parallels prompted by the growth of
neoliberalism, an economic and moral philosophy in which sociologist Zygmunt Bauman notes, "the
responsibilities for resolving the quandaries generated by vexingly volatile and constantly
changing circumstances is shifted onto the shoulders of individuals -- who are now expected to
be 'free choosers' and to bear in full the consequences of their choices" (Bauman
2007:3–4). Bauman essentially argues that neoliberalism's deceptively seductive offer of
increased individual choice comes at a heavy price, rendering individuals more and more
vulnerable.
Neoliberal economic policies have increasingly impacted individual lives throughout
the world through the unprecedented untethering of workers and the workplace so that those in
positions of power and privilege have less direct contact with or responsibility for those who
work at the lowest levels of the same industry. Such new labor practices are a constant
reminder to workers that they are expendable, easily replaced, and thus not in a position to
negotiate the terms and conditions under which their labor is carried out.
Such vulnerability is even more pronounced for those who already inhabit the margins of
social life because of their poverty or other forms of social exclusion. This is particularly
true for situations wherein particular types of state-endorsed socioeconomic inequalities
create a larger pool of feminized labor that is typically lower paid, less respected, and less
able to u
"... While market competitiveness is idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes. ..."
The Scholar & Feminist Online is a webjournal published three times a year by the
Barnard Center for Research on Women I begin this article by reflecting on one of the biggest
professional mistakes I have ever made. I became a part of corporate humanitarianism in 2006,
when IOM Korea invited me to be part of a research project on trafficking of Korean women
overseas, sponsored by the Bom-bit Foundation, an NGO set up by the wife of the CEO of the
biggest insurance company in South Korea. She had been concerned about the barrage of news
reports that were circulating both in and out of Korea about the trafficking of Korean women
into forced prostitution overseas. She wanted a global research project, "Korean women victims
of sex trafficking in five global sites": South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the East and West
Coasts of the United States. The ultimate goal was to find solutions to end such outflow and to
save these women. The principal researcher, a male Korean academic, drafted a survey
questionnaire laden with assumptions about coercion, violence, and sexual abuse. Even though
the final reports from different sites came back with little evidence of trafficking, they did
not prevent the principal investigator from producing a final report about the "serious problem
of sex trafficking of Korean women into the global sex trade."
The first woman who I interviewed for this project was working in a massage parlor in
Queens, New York. She came to the United States after the Korean police cracked down on her in
her home, after they had obtained her address from her employer in Seoul in an antiprostitution
raid. She explained her work in the United States:
Jin: Some people only come in for table showers, massage, and chats. Interviewer: Are they the good clients? Jin: No, they are not. Interviewer: So who are the good clients? Jin: Those people who finish quickly, they are the good ones. Those who have shower
and then have sex and go. They are the best.
This response exploded the entire premise of the research and its assumptions about the
inherently victimizing nature of sexual labor for women. Those who demand sex rather than
conversations are the good clients -- if they finish quickly, get themselves cleaned before
having sex, and leave immediately after sex. Jin situated sex squarely within a repertoire of
labor performance, along with other physical and emotional work, and identified sex as more
efficient ("quick") in providing return to her labor. She made between $11,000 and $22,000 per
month. On that note, let me move on to some important points in the discussion about gender and
neoliberalism within the context of South Korea.
Neoliberalism is useful as a term only to the extent of understanding macro-historical
shifts and setting a framework for investigation. But its history, manifestation, and effects
can be so diverse in each location that it cannot be a useful analytical category without
empirical analysis. For example, contrary to the trend of de-democratization [
1 ] observed in the United States, in South Korea, neoliberal reforms coincided with
the democratization of civil society and the state in late 1990s, following four decades of
military and authoritarian rule. In 1997, just when the first civilian democratic leader Kim
Dae-jung became president, South Korea went through a major financial crisis and received the
largest IMF bailout. The president supported a new wave of civic/human-rights organizations,
set up the first National Human Rights Commission, and founded the Ministry of Gender Equality.
During the same period, structural readjustment also ensured the flexibilization of labor and
the weakening of trade unions, rendering many lives of more precarious as they became
underemployed or unemployed.
In my work, I am grappling with how individuals like Jin live and make sense of their lives
within a number of paradoxes/contradictions in neoliberalism:
1) The apparent amorality of neoliberalism and its facilitation of conservative moral
agenda. The deployment of market principles to reconfigure the relationship between
sovereignty and citizenship not only remakes economic, political, and cultural life, but also
remakes citizen-subjects as entrepreneurs and consumers. While market competitiveness is
idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for
particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from
accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain
sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for
example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a
conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes.
2) The depoliticization of social risks and the hyperpoliticization of national
security. The emergence of an ethics of self-management and risk-taking justifies some form
of retrenchment of the state in the social sphere. Yet this by no means suggests a weakening of
the state. What we witness in neoliberal transformations is the assertion of the state through
more hard-lined enforcement of criminal justice and border control. The consequence is an
uneven emphasis on and legitimation of the self-enterprising individual, invoking national
crisis, social danger, and self-harm to justify state intervention or exclusion. These measures
have significant gendered repercussions -- reshaping discourses on domesticity, sexuality, and
mobility.
3) The concomitant and continuous ravaging of vulnerable populations and celebration of
humanitarianism/human rights responses from state and civil society. Neoliberal
developments create vulnerable populations by polarizing resources and wealth, and
concomitantly generate a set of humanitarian/human rights responses from the state and civil
society. Rather than being a set of problems that are being held back or eliminated by a set of
solutions, they seem to grow symbiotically together. In effect, many humanitarian/human-rights
interventions turn out to reiterate dominant interests, reproducing conservative gender,
racial, class, and national hierarchies and divides.
How are these contradictions lived? Maybe Jin has some answers for us -- not just from her
personal trajectory, but also in what she said:
I am working hard and making money for myself. I am saving money to start my own business
back home/to further study. I am not dependent on the government or my family. I am not
harming anyone, even though this is not a job to boast about. I don't understand these
women's human rights. These activists don't understand us. They are people from good
background. I am not saying the antiprostitution laws are wrong. But do they have to go so
far?
My research since 1997 on sex work and migrant women in South Korea and the United States is
located right at the intersection of these paradoxes. As women who strategize their immigration
and labor strategies for self-advancement as sex workers, they embody the sexual limits of
neoliberalism. While they may personify the values of self-reliance, self-governance, and free
markets in a manner akin to homo economicus, they violate the neoliberal ideals of relational
sexuality and middle-class femininity. [
2 ] As many critics have attested to, even though the antitrafficking movement hails
women's human rights, gender justice, and state protection, its operation predominantly through
the crime frame reinforces gender, class, and racial inequalities. As such, antitrafficking
initiatives, as they have taken shape in the twenty-first century, are part of neoliberal
governance, and underlying the claims of equality and liberty are racial, gender, and sex
panics with nationalist overtones that justify the repression of those who step outside these
limits.
I think antitrafficking initiatives need to be situated within a broader set of political
and social transformations in order to analyze the undercurrents of gender and sexuality across
different sites. In South Korea, there was a strong gender and sexual ideology pervading the
expansion of social policies in the post-1997 era. While the government could claim credit for
addressing the needs of certain vulnerable populations (the unemployed, the homeless, migrant
wives, women leaving prostitution, etc.), public anxieties about the breakdown of the family
(runaway teenagers, old-age divorce, the fight for women's equality) that started during the
1997 crisis have continued into the new millennium (same-sex families, "multicultural
families," single women). As national boundaries seem to have weakened with the incorporation
of "multicultural families," the heteronormative nuclear family became more reified, and the
domestic sphere as the proper place for women was reinscribed in a range of social policies.
These include protection for "prostituted women," since 2004, and support provided to migrant
wives -- both policies designed to harness these women's reproductive powers for the future of
the Korean nation, and to reproduce their class location.
It is also important to be wary of claims to promote "women's human rights" and how these
claims are circumscribed within certain spheres -- only in sex work, and not in the gendered
layoffs during an economic crisis, or in relation to the homeless women who have been excluded
as legitimate recipients of government support. "Women's human rights" have been hurled around
to legitimize activism and policies that turned out to make lives more difficult for some
women, rendering them either as targets or instruments of criminal law.
We also need to ask why the law is resorted to so consistently for women activists to make
claims on the state. And why does the general public have so much faith in the law to enforce
morality?
I would like to see cultural struggles become a more important site to extend into, building
on a solid economic and political critique. As we witnessed i the Occupy movement, as well as
with the sex worker festivals in different global locations, creativity, humor, and
conviviality have a lot of power to draw attention, if not to incite solidarity. The new sex
workers' organization in South Korea calls itself the Giant Girls ("GG" also means "support" in
Korean), and organizes its own seminars, holds a sex work festival celebration, and produces
its own podcasts, in which everyday conversation and serious discussion take place in a
light-hearted manner, often with bursts of laughter. The fists-in-air protests are no longer
the main part of the movement, marking a significant departure from the victimhood discourse. I
am hopeful that this will appeal at least to a younger generation of potential coalition
partners in the LGBT community, labor movements (for women and migrants), and cultural
movements. This could be a refreshing -- and possibly transformational -- shift in feminist
politics and critique in South Korea, and in other sites in Asia.
Footnotes
Brown, Wendy (2006). "American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and
De-Democratization." Political Theory 34(6): 690-714. [
Return to text ]
Bernstein, Elizabeth (2012). "Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? The 'Traffic in
Women' and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights." Theory and Society
41(3):233–59. [
Return to text ]
Mattis said that the U.S. aim in Syria is to defeat Islamic State, not "to engage in the civil war itself." But referring to the
use of chemical weapons, Mattis said that " some things are simply inexcusable, beyond the pale " and require a response. -
Bloomberg
The Wall St. Journal reports that Mattis "brought those concerns
directly to the White House on Thursday, where White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the national security team
didn't agree on a response."
Exactly two weeks ago Mattis met Bolton - telling the bemoustached bringer-of-death "I heard you're actually the devil incarnate,
and I wanted to meet you."
... ... ...
"If these strikes start, it could end very tragically and it's impossible to predict the outcome -- that's the nature of military
actions," said Russian Senator Frants Klintsevich in a phone interview, adding that there are "no madmen" among Trump's top military
advisors. " These are professionals who aren't populists and know what this could lead to. "
Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia issued a stark warning on Thursday that there was a danger the war
could escalate beyond Syria because of Russia's military presence.
"We cannot exclude any possibilities [of war between Russia and the U.S.] unfortunately because we saw messages that are coming
from Washington," Mr. Nebenzia said. " They were very bellicose. "
In an attempt to settle things diplomatically, Russia asked for an open Security Council emergency meeting on Friday morning,
calling for UN Secretary-General António Guterres to brief the council, according to the Wall St. Journal .
Meanwhile, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says they are sending a team of investigators to Syria
on Saturday to collect samples from the site of the alleged chemical attack last weekend.
Mad props to Mattis for calling him the devil incarnate to his face even if couched tactfully.
But remember, Bolton is just a scare tactic, he isn't really a demented bloodthirsty demon. He wants to go balls out against
a nuclear power over a false flag but it's a bluff. /s
Mad props to Mattis for calling him the devil incarnate to his face even if couched tactfully.
But remember, Bolton is just a scare tactic, he isn't really a demented bloodthirsty demon. He wants to go balls out against
a nuclear power over a false flag but it's a bluff. /s
Let's see. Who's responsible for toppling (or trying to) one strong man after another in the Middle East and leaving the place
in a shit storm? USA! USA! USA!
while President Trump told reporters on Thursday "We're looking very, very seriously, very closely at that whole situation,
and we'll see what happens, folks, we'll see what happens. It's too bad that the world puts us in a position like that."
The lack of self awareness and the victim mentality in this cry-bully statement is breathtaking. Akin to projectile vomiting
on someone them blaming them for smelling disgusting. Extraordinary .
"It was very disconcerting when I saw that an attack is planned on Mosul, an attack is planned. ... Why do we have to talk
about it? Why? I never saw anything like this. Every time we are going to attack somebody, we explain. We're going to attack,
we'll be attacking at three, noon on March 25. I don't know, unless you disagree with me, wouldn't it be better if we were going
to go after Mosul to not say anything and do it, as opposed to announcing -- they're announcing all over television they're planning
to attack Mosul." -- Donald J. Trump
"... There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government. ..."
@ BM: My take on the situation in Germany: the MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter -
mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to.
There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here -
and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing
the MSM and/or our government.
But what can you do when the published opinions are completely manufactured and anyone has
to suppose his neighbours all believe this idiocy?
That's a bit of a stretch. Germans were demoralized long before, as each sane person knew the war will end in
defeat from mid'42 on. Back in the days I had the somewhat questionable pleasure of talking to German ex-soldiers
(two of my grand-uncles) that were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compared to the kind of warfare that was going
on there, the fighting in the west and south was almost akin to being on vacation - I'm serious about that.
On average the Soviets, mainly comprised of todays Russian peoples, lost 16-18000 people a day, this is
evidence of the fierceness of fighting and, also, to what amount of a beating the Russians can take without
losing sight of their goal.
The Soviet Union did the real fighting against German forces. At all times there'd been about 85% of all
German forces deployed to the east, without this there would had been no bombing campaign against Germany simply
because the number of fighter aircraft available against allied bombers would had been overwhelming.
Except for a few elite units, hastily re-deployed from the east, the main force was inexperienced draftees
with both a lack of proper training and equipment. All other experienced units stayed east in a desperate attempt
to hold back the red army as long as any possible.
A very good friend of mine, who died a couple years back at age 84, was one of these unfortunate souls. When
he turned 17 in late Dec.'44 he received an official letter that read 'A gift from the Fuhrer' - it was his draft
note. That's been the kind of opponent the western allies faced late in the war, a bunch of badly under-equipped
troops consisting of exhausted regulars and youths, that were scared shitless (his words, not mine).
Russia's a different kind of animal. They won WWII - European theater almost singlehandedly but had to pay
dearly.
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as mitigating circumstances into
account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
White Helmets was the greatest war propaganda invention since Goebbels "big lie"
The sheeple might realize that they were duped only when it's too late... It's all very darwinian: Elite is too nasty and common
people are too stupid and too busy with surviving in economic uncertanty to decipher lies
Notable quotes:
"... "the West is ruled by a gang of thugs" ..."
"... It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson. ..."
"... The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative. ..."
"... Well here you go Dutti. Both Glen Greenwald and Amy Goodman are out there in media land championing the 'truth' for good old Isramerika. ..."
It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson.
Unfortunately, even among friends and acquaintances, the story about "evil Assad killing Children" is often readily believed.
The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that
look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative.
"There was no chemical weapons attack," Nebenzia told the council. "Through the relevant
channels we already conveyed to the US that armed forces under mendacious pretext against Syria
– where, at the request of the legitimate government of a country, Russian troops have
been deployed – could lead to grave repercussions."
A few hours earlier, Donald Trump said his administration was on the brink of deciding its
response to the Douma attack. "We are meeting with our military and everybody else, and we'll
be making some major decisions over the next 24 to 48 hours," he said at a cabinet meeting. "We
are very concerned when a thing like that can happen. This is about humanity and it can't be
allowed to happen."
Pressed by reporters, Trump went further, saying: "We'll be making that decision very
quickly, probably by the end of today. But we cannot allow atrocities like that. Cannot allow
it."
Trump ordered airstrikes against a Syrian airbase after a previous chemical weapons attack,
in April last year. The latest use of poison gasprovoked from Trump unprecedented direct
criticism of Putin, something he had previously been at pains to avoid.
... ... ...
In his address, Nebenzia suggested a visit to Douma by the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) might be possible under Syrian and Russian military protection. The
UK envoy to the UN, Karen Pierce, said the Russian proposal was "an offer worth pursuing" but
she added that OPCW inspectors would have to have complete freedom of action and of access.
"... So, in a different way, were old American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral lecturing by politicians. ..."
"... Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them, and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be "persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.) ..."
"... Condemning the other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." ..."
"... An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this whole tradition. ..."
I agree entirely with your view. In order to make sense of the "purpose" behind actions
taken by various political actors, it is necessary to take seriously their worldview and
value system. It is not necessary that one should "respect" them or believe them for oneself,
but recognize that these do actuate the choices that they do make.
I suppose this might sound
like a sort of backhanded compliment, but this is something that the old British were really
good at -- and lay behind successful management of the empire.
So, in a different way, were old
American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to
manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral
lecturing by politicians.
Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low
on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them,
and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be
"persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.)
Condemning the
other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if
one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." (not the science based on
logical deduction and empiricism, but something that is vaguely "right" because it "just
is.") But that certainly rules out actually dealing with the other side responsibly to
accomplish something.
I still feel that the brand of "rationality" that too many people in the West subscribe to
is a brand of smug pseudoreligious fanaticism that is itself "irrational." It may be itself
"rational," given the context, as much as beliefs in witchcraft might be, but it is not what
its believers think it is. When such beliefs clash with other, comparable beliefs, nothing
good can come out of such encounters.
'One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some purpose behind it.'
This takes me into areas where I get out of my depth.
But the link of 'rationality' to purposive action is certainly very much in keeping with
the tradition which goes, through Collingwood, into areas of British anthropology (exmples
chosen from limited knowledge, Evans-Pritchard, Wendy James, Paul Dresch.)
An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in
some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this
whole tradition.
So if one of one's basic conception of human purposes is to keep a kind of social order
'on the road', then beliefs which may be 'irrational', in the sense of indefensible in terms
of canons of Western science which are, patently 'rational', may have a 'rationality' of
their own.
An example is the analysis by Evans-Pritchard of the witchcraft beliefs of the Azande.
Implicit in this is a nightmare possibility which is lurking in a manner which is often
hysterical, but not necessarily 'irrational' manner, in a tradition of conservative thought:
that what is 'rational' in terms of scientific enquiry may be subversive of what is
'rational' in terms of the need to maintain functioning societies.
One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some [market-related] purpose behind it.
Most people who rant about
what "social science" says about the universe and how it should be are sophomoric thinkers
who don't know what the "science" part of social science is. The tragedy is that they are
what the rest of society expects social science to be about, to rant about morality of this
or that mode of politics, and not engage in hard headed analysis based on logic and evidence.
The context of the entire Russia mania is ludicrous and the fake news is so ridiculous
that war must be close.
A) Congress votes unanimously to sanction Russia for tampering the election by hacking and
everybody in DC makes believe they've never heard of the dead staffer.
B) Putin decides to poison some guy right before their election using a special poison
only Russia has. Their involvement in the "investiagtion" is forbidden,
C) The maverick outsider says the US will be pulling out of Syria and ~ a week later Assad
decides to shoot chemicals at people like no one will ever find out. Trump calls Assad an
animal and blames Putin.
There are a few possibilities. Trump could truly be a dotard moron and believe this shit
or he's being strong-armed.
It's either that or some sort of wacko plan. Even the most ardent deplorables are having a
hard time with this.
"... U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. ..."
Unless you've been living under a rock, by now you know that the British government falsely claimed
that irrefutable evidence proved that the Russian government was behind the poisoning of a former
Russian double agent and his daughter using a "Novichok" nerve agent.
In response, the UK and US
carried out the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history.
Now that the wheels have come off this farce, it is interesting to note previous examples of the
West falsely blaming Russia for bad acts.
Official German intelligence service documents show that, in 1994, the German intelligence
services
planted
(original
German
)
plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to
frame
Russia for exporting dangerous
radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
This frame-up job was so successful at
whipping up fear
that it
got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's
nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.
While everyone "knows" that the Kremlin poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with
radioactive polonium, a very
high-level
French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, alleges that French, US and UK intelligence worked
together to kill Litvinenko and to frame Russia:
And
see
this
.
U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017
admitted
that
a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft .
There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a
provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly
installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.
Newsweek
ran
an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):
U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS
SHOW
The article notes:
The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to
justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.
***
False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out
by another group than the group that actually carried them out.
Indeed, falsely blaming other countries for terrorism or violence is
the oldest way
to create a "justification" for war.
The governments have certainly learned how to mess with the thinking gear of people.
I spent most of my life working with inanimate objects not spending much time
figuring out how people think. Most of the people that I did try to figure out were
personally known to me. It was only in the last few years of my career that I paid
any real attention to how people are manipulated. I knew people were easily
manipulate for years, just think about how the war in Iraq in 2003 was so popular
amoung most people.
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on
top of other lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost
track. I am not sure if even MIC or Israel knows anymore.
Someone didn't RTFA: " President Trump recently announced his intention to pull US troops
out of Syria - although the neocons that now dominate the Trump national security team have
been aghast at such a suggestion, and have managed to convince the president to slow-roll
this. It remains unclear if they staged the false flag chemical attack in Syria with the help
of Israel, or on their own. "
Despite President Trump
adopting his harshest rhetoric yet
to condemn Russia and the government of Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad for an alleged chemical attack in rebel-held eastern Ghouta, a missile strike carried out
overnight on a Syrian airfield was not the US's doing.
Instead, Russia and Syria have accused Israel of carrying out the strike on Syria's T-4 airfield,
situated about halfway between Homs (Syria's third-largest city) and Palmyra (famously the site of
ancient ruins).
RT
reports that
two Israeli F-15 jets fired eight guided missiles at the airfield from Lebanese airspace. The jets never
entered Syria.
Of these, Syrian air defenses intercepted five. The attack left roughly 14 people dead, including
Iranians and Syrians, the
Associated Press
reported.
Russia and the Syrian military blamed Israel for a pre-dawn missile attack Monday on a
major air base in central Syria
, saying Israeli fighter jets launched the missiles from
Lebanon's air space.
A war-monitoring group said the airstrikes killed 14 people, including
Iranians active in Syria.
Russia's Defense Ministry said two Israeli aircraft targeted the T4 air base in Homs province,
firing eight missiles. It said Syria shot down five of them while the other three landed in the
western part of the base. Syrian state TV quoted an unnamed military official as saying that Israeli
F-15 warplanes fired several missiles at T4. It gave no further details.
Israel's foreign ministry had no comment when asked about the accusations.
Since 2012,
Israel has struck inside Syria more than 100 times,
mostly targeting
suspected weapons' convoys destined for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which has been fighting
alongside Syrian government forces.
Most recently,
Israel hit the same T4 base in February, after it said an Iranian drone that
had violated Israeli airspace took off from the base.
The base, which was used as a launching
pad for counter offensive attacks against Islamic State militants who were at one point stationed
close by, is near the Shayrat air base, which was targeted by U.S. missiles last year in response to a
chemical weapons attack.
Monday's missile attack came hours after President Donald Trump warned there would be a "big price
to pay" after a suspected poison gas attack Saturday on the last remaining foothold for Syrian rebels
in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.
At least 40 people were killed in that assault, including
families found in their homes and shelters, opposition activists and local rescuers said.
Eight missiles were launched by two Israeli Air Force F-15 jets at the T-4 airfield located about
halfway between Homs and the ancient city of Palmyra. Israel previously launched a strike against the
base back in February after an Iranian drone ventured into Israeli airspace, provoking an alarmed
response.
This isn't Israel's first unprovoked attack on a Syrian military installation: most recently,
Israel launched an attack
against a government installation near Damascus almost exactly two months
ago. Before that, the Israelis launched another unprovoked attack
back in September.
Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen reported Monday that Israeli reconnaissance aircraft had been spotted close to
the border with Syria during the attack. The missiles crossed Lebanese airspace over Keserwan and Bekaa
before heading toward Syria.
France, which we had initially suspected might be behind the attack, along with Israel...
While the US was quick to pin the chemical attack in Ghouta - the last rebel stronghold in what's
considered suburban Damascus - on Russia and Assad, the US jumped to a similar conclusion a year ago when
Trump authorized a fusillade of tomahawk missiles to strike a Syrian airbase. It was later learned that
the US had no proof to suggest that attack was orchestrated by Assad's government.
As for Israel's
desire to provoke another regional war, it is understandable in light of growing Iranian influence on its
border, while President Trump recently announced his intention to pull US troops out of Syria - although
the neocons that now dominate the Trump national security team have been aghast at such a suggestion, and
have managed to convince the president to slow-roll this. It remains unclear if they staged the false
flag chemical attack in Syria with the help of Israel, or on their own.
Meanwhile, the Guardian says the IDF views the chaos in the West Wing as the latest sign that it must
take matters into its own hands, and not wait for explicit US approval. However, with a UN Security
Council meeting scheduled for Monday over recent events in Syria, we now wait to see what kind of
response Russia and Assad will decide on, and how Moscow will respond to this provocation by Netanyahu,
who has been friendly - at least superficially - with Putin in recent months.
The natural regional powers are Iran, Turkey
and Egypt. Just look at any population map
and/or economic activity indicators.
Israel has only technology and
'influence' to create a temporary, brittle
form of power. Saudis have only oil and
'influence', ditto.
Hence, by a short-term accident, Israel
and KSA can effectively create death and
destruction in the region, killing babies for
their own greed and power.
BUT ONLY IF THE US HELPS.
The IDF is essentially useless on
the ground, ditto the Saudis, and neither can
handle Russian intel and air superiority on
their own.
So this populist insurrection is
indeed a pivotal moment,
coming as it
does when the global balance is shifting
toward Eurasian integration, global peace and
prosperity. A 'Chinese Peace' with Russian
muscle. The main idea being to not blow up
shiny new Chinese ports, roads, etc.
So the tiny, tiny minority of
war-mongering, globalist traitors in these
very, very few countries (Israel, KSA, and
the 'Five Eyes') has essentially NO other
cards to play. Use WMDs against civilians,
false flags, try to get their own killed to
trigger war fever.
The very best part right now is: we're
already past the tipping point. No one
cares, and almost no one believes them.
Pretty much game over, but a very
dangerous end game.
I think we
should round up all these sociopaths pronto
before they murder more babies.
Take it one step farther. The US public
is on to the con. BUT the US economy
still depends on the MIC. And the MIC
depends on maintaining the constant state
of little brush wars around the globe to
sell their hardware. Every Israeli or KSA
plane, missile, and bomb is stamped "Made
in the USA". As China and Russia step in
to impose peace in Eurasia and the Saudi
oil runs out, the petrodollar ceases to be
the world reserve currency. The US has
two economic pillars: the MIC and Big Ag.
With a failing currency and no customers
for war toys, it becomes locked into the
position of being a global commodity
supplier: pork, wheat, corn, soybeans,
peanuts. Historically, agricultural
commodity suppliers are third-world
nations, forced to accept low prices on
highly-competitive products while paying
high prices for monopolized industrial
goods.
This is the END for global US
dominance. One can understand why the PTB
are desperate to keep going no matter what
the resistance at home or abroad. A major
war is likely. Victory is not.
And if the Syrian Air Force launched missiles from Jordanian
air space against an Israeli Air Base nothing would happen?
By the way, the Golan Heights does not belong to Israel so
they launched from Syrian territory.
Whatever......hopefully no U.S. Ships are in the way.
Five missiles out of eight shot down - by Syrian (old) defense
systems. Not too bad. Russia is not there to stop Israel. It's
there to stop Daesh, which it's done. Smart, patient, focused
strategy.
"... Nikki Haley claims that the US "Will Respond" To Syria Gas Attack Regardless Of Security Council's Decision ..."
"... Last year, the US destroyed more than a dozen aircraft, as well as oil storage facilities and other structures, and killed at least seven people when it fired 59 missiles at Syria's Shayrat Airbase following a chemical weapons attack that the US also pinned on the Syrian government. ..."
"... Both the UK and France have suggested they're considering military action in Syria. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said he and his French and US allies agree there should be "no impunity for those that use such barbaric weapons." ..."
"... However, Johnson added that Monday's emergency meeting of the UN Security Council would be "an important next step in determining the international response" and that "a full range of options should be on the table." ..."
Nikki Haley claims that the US "Will Respond" To Syria Gas Attack Regardless Of Security Council's Decision
Update (4:15 pm ET): US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said during an emergency meeting of
the UN Security Council on Monday that the US would retaliate against the attack in Syria
regardless of what the UN Security Council decides.
"History will record this as the moment when the Security Council either discharged its
duty or demonstrated its utter and complete failure to protect the people of Syria. Either
way, the United States will respond."
She described the victims in graphic terms.
"I could hold up pictures of babies lying dead next to their mothers, in their diapers,
all lying together, dead, ashen blue, open eyed and lifeless, white foam bubbling from their
mouths and noses."
Haley added that "the world must see justice done" in Syria.
* * *
Before heading into his Monday afternoon cabinet meeting, President Donald Trump condemned a
chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, Syria during an impromptu press conference. The president
said "even with the world as bad as it is, you just don't see things like that" before saying
he'd decide on a response "probably by the end of today."
And while the US was "having trouble getting people in" to the town, Trump added that he
would definitively determine which states were involved in the attack - be it Syria, Iran,
Russia (or presumably all three).
With Trump and his most trusted advisors still debating the proper response, several
anonymous Pentagon officials have told the
Washington Examiner that the US is considering several options including a missile barrage
similar to the strike carried out on a Syrian air base last year.
The Israeli F-15s launched a lethal strike on a Syrian airbase early Monday, killing 14
people with
the US's tacit approval .
The options being considered now are similar to the options that were provided to the
president before last year's strike. The US has several ships armed with tomahawk cruise
missiles stationed in the region - including the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer
that just completed a port call in Cyprus and got underway in the eastern Mediterranean. The
ship is within range of Syria and could presumably strike at any target the president
orders.
Last year, the US destroyed more than a dozen aircraft, as well as oil storage facilities
and other structures, and killed at least seven people when it fired 59 missiles at Syria's
Shayrat Airbase following a chemical weapons attack that the US also pinned on the Syrian
government.
But according to one official who spoke with
the Examiner , Trump could be considering a "more robust" strike this time around,
considering that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad didn't quite get the message last time.
Both the UK and France have suggested they're considering military action in Syria. UK
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said he and his French and US allies agree there should be "no
impunity for those that use such barbaric weapons."
However, Johnson added that Monday's emergency meeting of the UN Security Council would be
"an important next step in determining the international response" and that "a full range of
options should be on the table."
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill
Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to
frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
Court documents seen by the Observer reveal that Russian state investigators have named
Browder, a London-based hedge fund manager, as the suspect behind the mysterious murders of
three men.
All three deaths are linked to a £174m fraud believed to have involved Russian
officials -- a crime that was uncovered by Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, in
2008. Magnitsky was subsequently imprisoned on charges widely considered to be false, and died
in jail amid claims he was tortured.
Browder, once the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia, has infuriated Putin by
lobbying western governments to punish those responsible for Magnitsky's death. A number of
countries have imposed sanctions on individuals believed to be involved.
"... Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people with first-hand experience). ..."
Reasonably intelligent people? Like this Iranian woman (in US) whose postings during the war
for Aleppo was full of righteous indignation for the rebels. when I told her that the people
whose fate she was bemoaning would do many evil things to her as a Shia Iranian woman; she
would not hear of it.
Couldn't agree with you more Babak. My dad is a 78 year old Orthopedic physician here in the
US. He would be considered intelligent by most people. And he is. Except when it comes to
Geopolitics. He believes everything the MSM parrots and I gave up long ago in voicing my
opinion to him. It's hopeless. And consider the vast majority of the citizens of my country
are far less intelligent than him. In my opinion, the forces that push for war know they are
lying and don't care if a small percentage are on to them. They have the microphone and we do
not.
Yes, people like that. Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM
narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people
with first-hand experience).
The Brits blinked and did not punish the criminal liar Blair. Since then, the war
profiteering based on false flag operations has become a national British pastime.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. ..."
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on top of other
lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost track. I am not sure if even
MIC or Israel knows anymore.
The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are
no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. Human minds are reinforcing
the concept of untrustworthy governments that actually lasts far longer than the elected
period of time of those who purport to represent the population we now know to be a
deceit.
As example, take Blair ex-UK prime minister who concocted the whole Iraq dodgy dossier in
the UK who most people I know now call him a war criminal but nobody will put on trial in the
Hague. He has not been PM since 2007 but nobody forgets the criminal acts he instigated and
supported and will be remembered for a long time for this. So how do you make Blair appear
human again to the population?
You can apply this concept to so many elected criminals in the west ... join it up those
that rule us are in fact criminals not ordinary people. The psychos rule over us and to them
we are no more than dead meat.
The big game is the eradication of Western sponsored terrorists and ending of the Syrian
civil war.
This is on schedule and nothing can stop it. It will be over soon.
Russia sees EVERYTHING flying over the entire theatre and in due course the SAA will be
supplied with the means to destroy the IDF over Lebanon also.
The IDF attacks are nothing more than an irritation and will be dealt with in the fullness
of time. 5 from 8 is nothing to brag about at all. In mission planning terms its a disaster
really and will lead to failure in a full war.
Only a direct attack on the Russian military will elicit a direct response from Russia. It
has been stated publicly enough times.
Any response from Russia in that instance will come from missile launches from Russia
(hundreds of them at that) The antagonists know this.
Syria is winning its war and that's all that matters.
Assad is fighting Sunni Insurgency, their all RADICAL. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Gulf
States are funding them. AL-Qaeda, ISIS, and all the other groups, all SUNNI's. This pocket
in SYRIA is filled with Sunni's, their fighting force are all RADICALS.
Look at one of the groups that USA supported a Jihadist Sunni Division, who went to
KITCHEN grab a cooking knife and cut off the head of 10 year old KID.
THE USA, FRANCE, UK, are all in BED with Sunni's, Ironically, It's Sunni's that are also
committing TERROR attacks in EUROPE. Yet Jew Boss's in USA and EUROPE want make Sunni the
Allies and SHIA the enemy.
"Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate
that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners
quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the
uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of
completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar
Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria."
Regime change is the only reason we or any of our proxies are there. We have NO GOOD
REASON being there other than this BS.
The US Congress has not approved the US being in Syria.
The UN Security Council has not approved the US presence in Syria.
President Assad of Syria did not invite the US or approve the US presence in
Syria.
Only the US deep state neocons have approved the US presence in the context of "regime
change".
Dammit Trump! Get control of your staff and get out of Syria leaving the Kurds all the AA
stinger missiles they need to take out Turk aircraft. And on the way out, rip the Turk
invasion force to shreds, then just say, "oops, sorry."
one reason Israel remained silent even though it seems clear they had advanced knowledge
of the 9-11 attack; and allowed them to proceed. Israelis Agents filming the attacks were
arrested and later deported, more than 70 of them.
Fortunately, Bibi was ready to take the microphone minutes after the 9-11 attack and
define the enemy for the American public, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American
service men and $7 Trillion wasted in the shit hole middle east.
The Anglo Jewish Alliance continues to try to provoke a war between the US and Russia,
Iran, and Syria.
Trump is right to get the US out of the shit hole as fast as possible, months not
years.
Former CIA Steele claims that the Epstein Compromise Kiddie Sex tapes from the Lolita
Express, the palm beach estate and probably six other Epstein properties are in Israel for
Control-Blackmail purposes. The next time Bibi calls Trump, Trump should tell Bibi to fuck
off. What happened on the 300ft yacht ?????
CFR and AIPAC and all Globalist and Foreign lobbyist organization must be registered as
Foreign Agents, and forced to meet at the State Dept, and cut off from contact with the rest
of the US govt.
The plan is for Israel to conduct however many cowardly missions it takes until their
murderous ways are considered normalized behavior.
Someday in the not so distant future, israel hopes conversations such as "did you hear
Israel told an incidious lie then killed a bunch of innocent people?" to which a typical brow
beaten dufus responds "yes, but it had to be done," become as common place as banter about
the weather.
"... Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel? ..."
"... Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence (and a University position) in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia. There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016): ..."
"... "In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published." ..."
"... "There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason." ..."
Remember, the evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damning
Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin
(and yet the Skripals are still alive!?).
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to
create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained that "the chemical components or precursors" of
Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies
that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve
agents. So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then
spray it all over the little Satan. Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of
information that could lead to thousands of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him
residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence (and a University position) in the United States
after he was kicked out of Russia. There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero
solid evidence for the existence of the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in
Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the
West, some countries carried out such research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some
reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
@11 Yes, Maracutu, shivers are pretty much a daily thing for me in these times. An
"accidental" bombing of Latakia was the spark that finally set off WWIII in the old, but
still popular, nuclear apocalypse novel Alas Babylon .
@ all Meanwhile, as all the Mad Magazine "Spy vs Spy" nonsense spins out in the UK,
the Empire is keeping busy on the other side of the pond. In late March, a couple of nice
folks from the US Southern Command paid a courtesy "friendship" visit to Ecuador:
During his term as President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa had (not very) politely and very
firmly invited US military personnel to go home (or at least elsewhere than Ecuador) and he
shut down the US base at Manta. His successor, Lenin Moreno, has proven to be some kind of
neoliberal mole who wormed himself into the Alianza Pais and has completely betrayed the
Citizens' Revolution. In less than a year in office, he has wrecked most of the progress
slowly and steadily made under 10 years of Correa's leadership. In the past month or so,
there have been three "terrorist" attacks on the Colombian border. These are supposedly
connected with FARC. There had been NO troubles with FARC under Correa.
So far, I have not found any English-Language media talking about any of this. I have not
found mention of how many US troops are involved. I have seen that there are now 500
additional ones in Peru to help with security for some summit Trump is going to. Of course,
the ones in Ecuador are only there to be "helpful" to the country.
Also: RIP Nash Van Drake and his guinea pig siblings (has anyone heard what their names
were, if any?). The murder of these pets may just be a weird side story to this madness, or
it may have been to cover up and destroy evidence. The explanations for their deaths seem
very suspicious to me. Some years ago, I had a male cat whom I let outside sometimes. He got
himself shut in the neighbor's garage one afternoon. I looked everywhere, placed want ads,
etc. No luck. Having basically given up, I discovered by accident he was in there after a
week. I called the neighbor, who came out late at night and opened the garage up and I coaxed
him out. Cat was very happy to be home and glad to see his food and water dish, but he was
hardly malnourished. He essentially was no worse for wear, physically.
It takes quite a long time without food for a healthy, well-fed house cat to become
"severely malnourished," unless perhaps there are some other special health problems already
or special needs. I don't know the timeline of when they went in and found him. Two weeks?
Three? Even then, look at all the videos out there of sick, malnourished cats rescued and
nursed back to health.
I know a lot less about guinea pigs, but similar with them. If they had a bottle waterer
mounted on the side of their cage, it was probably kept refilled pretty often. Even if
already down by half, it should have lasted a while. How much water would they drink in
normal house temperatures in the UK in late winter?
"... The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals, several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared: ..."
"... In the UK case of May and BoJo, any alternative will result in a continuation of the decline of the society. To be honest, much of the decline is baked in structural with the loss of income from former "slave" colonies and the decline of North Sea oil and gas reserves. Staying in the EU against the will of the people will continue to further drain resources to Germany, which has structurally colonialized Western Europe. ..."
"... France, like the UK, has extracted the wealth from their former colonies and facing a reduction in tribute from these sources. Macron has attempted to maintain control of some colonies such as Mali and really wants to conquer Syria. I suspect the meetings between Macron and MbS will result in an agreement for Saudi Arabia to buy French weapons while France getting financial aid to expand French troop bases in Syria. ..."
"... Almost all sectors of the French society are protesting against the neo-feudal policies of Macron, FIRE economy participants and his dwarves in the National Assembly. There are strikes among: ..."
"... The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia ..."
The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia
using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing
their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and
babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals,
several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as
Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared:
In the UK case of May and BoJo, any alternative will result in a continuation of the
decline of the society. To be honest, much of the decline is baked in structural with the
loss of income from former "slave" colonies and the decline of North Sea oil and gas
reserves. Staying in the EU against the will of the people will continue to further drain
resources to Germany, which has structurally colonialized Western Europe.
France, like the UK, has extracted the wealth from their former colonies and facing a
reduction in tribute from these sources. Macron has attempted to maintain control of some
colonies such as Mali and really wants to conquer Syria. I suspect the meetings between
Macron and MbS will result in an agreement for Saudi Arabia to buy French weapons while
France getting financial aid to expand French troop bases in Syria.
Somehow, the current revolution in France is blacked out in the Western Media. Videos of
the current revolution are common on Youtube such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21_myERteQ
Almost all sectors of the French society are protesting against the neo-feudal
policies of Macron, FIRE economy participants and his dwarves in the National Assembly. There
are strikes among:
transportation (rail, airlines, rotating bus and subway workers)
hospital workers
students
teachers (including kindergarden)
retirees
postal workers
television workers
Government workers (Fonctionnaires de France)
lawyers and judges
sanitation workers
EDF and GDF workers (Electricite de France and Gas de France)
Macron has already deployed the CRS assassins and the street war will begin when EU police
and military invade to crush to protestors. This will be far more violent than May 1968 and
may usher in the 6th Republic. Unfortunately, Macron would prefer the cities to burn rather
than resign and turnover the government to the President of the Senate.
The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to
distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used
as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
These EU conflicts will not end peacefully as the system will fight back rather than step
aside.
Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax evasion
and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development. Yet, even very strong
institutions cannot control all situations that may allow for cheating. Well-functioning
societies also require the intrinsic honesty of citizens. Cultural characteristics, such as
whether people see themselves as independent or part of a larger collective, that is, how
individualist or collectivist a society is, might also influence the prevalence of rule
violations due to differences in the perceived scope of moral responsibilities, which is
larger in more individualist cultures.
If cheating is pervasive in society and goes often unpunished, then people might view
dishonesty in certain everyday affairs as justifiable without jeopardising their self-concept
of being honest. Experiencing frequent unfairness, an inevitable by-product of cheating, can
also increase dishonesty. Economic systems, institutions and business cultures shape people's
ethical values, and can likewise impact individual honesty.
I described Gachter and Schultz's work in April 2016, and thought I could immediately see a
problem with the interpretation that the authors placed on the results. Putting forward a
different perspective took a few days. Getting that new approach published has taken 2 years.
For how long will researchers put up with these absurd delays which impede the prompt
assessment of arguments?
The authors of this very interesting study, having revealed the cheats, interpreted the
national differences as being due to cultural factors, particularly whether there were
institutions in each society which encouraged honesty. Of course, this leaves open why one
society would have such institutions and another would not. Culture must come from somewhere. A
reasonable hypothesis is that the institutions of a county are built by the people who live
there. Here is our reply:
Honesty, rule violation and cognitive ability: A reply to Gächter and Schulz
Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, James Thompson.
Intelligence, Volume 68, May–June 2018, Pages 66–69.
Our argument is that both institutions and honesty are determined by the intelligence of
people, and that bright people can see the long-term benefits of honesty and of institutions
that support honest behaviour. Any institution with a code of conduct leads its members toward
probity, and shows prospective applicants what standards are expected of them. However, those
institution do not arise randomnly.
Gächter & Schulz assumed that institutional rules affect individual honesty.
We added cognitive ability as further factor explaining national differences.
Stronger effect of IQ (total 0.55) than of rule violation (total −0.34) on honesty.
Stronger effect of IQ (total −0.68) than of honesty (total −0.26) on rule
violation.
________________________________________
Abstract
Gächter and Schulz (2016) assumed an effect of institutional rule violation on
individual honesty within societies. In this reply we challenge this approach by including a
nation's cognitive ability as a further factor for cross-national variations in the
prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. Theoretical considerations,
correlational and path analyses show that a nation's cognitive ability level (on average
β = |.62|) better explains and predicts honesty and rule violation. While
institutional and cultural factors are not unimportant, cognitive factors are more
relevant.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
Cognitive ability seems to have the strongest causal effect on the honesty of a society:
The same pattern holds true if you assume that social levels of honesty intermediate
individual levels of honesty as shown by rule violation.
Either way, it seems that intelligence explains whether some societies cheat at games and
cheat in real life.
Society rots from top and doesn't matter who is at the top. It still remains valid even when
the so called least intellectually developed honest poor people get shafted for hundred of
years by so called high IQ nations who bring cheating,dishonesty,and violations of existing
laws and destruction of existing institutions without replacing them nationwide. Often these
newly created institutions are nothing but vehicle to whitewash the corrupting and corrupted
new system.
Public moral status has a lot to do with corruption at the top -both local and
international in these days of neoliberalism and post -colonization. It sounds painful and
hurtful though.
Interesting work! I am amazed academics have the patience to deal with such a long lag time
for letting arguments play out.
Is there any chance of you publishing a scatter plot matrix of the variables you used
and/or the data itself?
Do you have the correlation matrix for your variables? By any chance did you try single
and multiple variable models to try to predict rule violation from the other variables? It
would be interesting to see how much variance an assortment of those models explained.
Has anyone explored the idea of "cheater fraction" (analogous to smart fraction) to
explain dishonesty in societies?
It's an interesting question. Some years ago The Economist did a "European Honest Test "
leaving a wallet with a fair amount of cash in it (but also including clear contact details
of the owner), in capital cities around Europe.
The test was to see how many wallets were returned – and they found that the
Scandinavians returned almost all of them, and the Italians returned almost none – with
a clear North/South gradient in the results.
By coincidence, at about the same time, I found a wallet beside some rubbish bins with
€ 400 in it and some credit cards (one from my own bank). So on my next visit, I told
them about it and soon got a call from the owner ( a Spanish carpenter working in Germany).
His reaction was 1) to check that the money was still in the wallet 2) say that not many
people would return a wallet with € 400 in it 3) leave 2 bottles of wine at my front
gate.
I checked this reaction with my secretary at the time, and asked her what she would have
done, with the answer that it would be a "Regalo de Dios" (Gift of God), i.e. it was not
going to be returned to the owner, so there seems to be some anecdotal evidence for the
result.
China's position on the Intrinsic Honesty chart is puzzling both at the macro level
(remarkably honest, competent policy-makers) and at the individual level (above average IQ).
The Edelman Corporation, which has a lock on international surveys of personal and
institutional honesty has consistently found the Chinese to be among the most trusting people
on earth, as have World Values Surveys in their own, independent polls of the Chinese.
The source of the discrepancy appears to be the source of the data: "a n indicator of
political rights by Freedom House that measures the democratic quality of a country's
political practices; the size of a country's shadow economy as a proxy for tax evasion; and
corruption as measured by the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (Supplementary
Methods)".
Relying on George Soros' Freedom House for information about China is akin to relying on
the neighborhood fox to keep an eye on your chickens while you go on vacation. Garbage in,
garbage out
I would rate Japan pretty high for getting things returned, but this ethic has eroded over
the past three or four decades.
Also, in the past you'd see adult males scolding unrelated misbehaving teens in public,
who'd slink away with their tails between their legs. This you do not currently see: men are
less masculine and assertive and some teens at least are more beligerant.
I think, David Perkins' findings about high IQ-people being also very tribal would make for a
nice addendum here, to better understand how IQ and honesty are related.
I refer to Jonathan Haidt's argument, that he bases explicitly on Perkins' findings, that
because of the tendency of high IQ-people to be even more tribal than the lower IQ ranks, ist
is so crucial, to understand with J. S. Mill's On Liberty (and I add: with Kant and
– – the Kantian Habermas' "Theory of Communicative Action"), that the core
achievement of modernity is the institutionalization of disconformation in the
democratic/liberal rational discourse and liberal public sphere (universities, the media,
etc.).
Here's Jonathan Haidt, referring to Perkins and Mill to make clear, how important the
institutionalization of disconformation actually is:
Correlation≠causation. Maybe honesty leads to brighter minds. Is it your knowing the right
answer that makes you follow it, or is it you looking at the situation, as it is, considering
evidence and proof, and getting the right answer through correct deductive reasoning, which
is then to be followed? You can't be honest and act ideologically, because by definition you
follow your observations of the world, not your ideas of the world. An honest person is bound
to direct observation, an intelligent person is not. Honesty is probably primary to an
accurate understanding of the world.
I think that 16 per cent is a bit arbitrary. In a class or caste dominated society you
might, if of a class which can choose to avoid countries, decide that it really doesn't
matter if your butler and housekeeper have to terrify the lower orders to stop them ripping
you off (and the butler and housekeeper have enough relations they want to place in
employment to keep them to the rules as to how much they cheat you).
I recently lost my wallet for a short time in a supermarket-plus-other-shops complex as I
wheeled my trolley to the car park. I thought my pocket had been picked so went to a nearby
poluce station to see if they could accelerate access to CCTV. Mr Plod was useless and
unhelpful. (Fortunately I didn't start cancelling credit cards immediately as he pretty well
demanded). Back in the shopping centre I was directed to a caretaker's office where a 30 ish
man of Pakistani origin had my wallet that had fallen out of my pocket as I went up a ramp.
He had taken the trouble to count the cash and wrap it separately with a note on it that the
amount was $915 or whatever. I never bothered to count it myself or even unwrap it for
several days. What does that say about the standard of civilisation in one of Australia's
biggest cities?
As anyone who has seen how inadequate religion is today to form moral young people may have
thought, the obvious starting point is to ask oneself how I bring up my children and what
moral rules I rub in (preferably by example as well as preaching). One knows children are not
going to be cunning ruthless sophisticates by nature – unless psychopaths – and
will not benefit from being taught to think immediately how they can get away with some theft
or lie. So you bring them up with rules which will help to make sure they are both trusted
and trustworthy – seeing you return the small amount of change over paid for exsmple to
rub in the message about rules they should still be obeying without thought when they have
children. Morality is about the customs of the tribe, its mores, and children are rarely done
any sort of favour by not being trained to be strictly moral (even if taught Christian
forgiveness, especially for the "poor in spirit"). However ..
It occurs to me that the place of intelligence in this may extend to what hss been called
Divergent Thinking (does this overlap with Lateral Thinking? Or imagination?)
A quick imaginative laterally thinking brain may think of several ways some dishonest
subterfuge may go wrong almost st the moment temptation arises. So honesty for him he quickly
concludes is the best policy. And so down the speculative path on which little evidence is to
be found. After all what is one to make of the arrogant lawyer that one reads about in the
big tax case who thought arrogantly he could get away with something and the Mr Plods of the
tax office would never sus him out and prove his wrongdoing to a court?
I was guided by my recollection of the modelling of neighbourhood crime risk, but it is a
sliding scale, I agree. I assumed, years ago, that at the 16-20% level one would begin to
notice a difference from base rate. See, in this particular example, Fig 2 and Fig 3
What does that say about the standard of civilization in one of Australia's biggest
cities?
It doesn't really say anything. You need some standardized parameters and a reasonable
sample size. Then you can draw some conclusions and assess the level of accuracy – like
The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment.
However , at the individual level, a continuing positive outcome would be the wallet owner
saying thank you, and being more inclined to return the favor one day.
It occurs to me that 5 per cent might be a horrible worrying prospect if you, as a lawyer
or doctor, thought it applied to the five or ten thousand you might come across as fellow
professionals in your city or state. But then it could be that you rarely gossip about others
and only regard as liars and cheats those who have done it to you (apart from the few who
have been busted for insurance fraud). Maybe 16 per cent sometimes fudge or fiddle something
but you don't know so you remain happily (and honestly) complacent, and proud of your
profession.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative consequences
of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put them in a
corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out ways to rip
off customers.
I've lost a wallet once and then I was visited home by shop owner, who carefuly tracked
where I could live by using data from the wallet. She wanted nothing in exchange.
On university, I also was also given back a wallet once; I got back also a cellphone
(which was quite expansive at the time) I left somewhere few years ago.
OTOH once I left a wallet with cash at university and it was not returned.
So, here you are my anecdotal evidence from Poland: three wallets and one cellphone, one
time not returned, two plus one times returned.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative
consequences of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put
them in a corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out
ways to rip off customers.
The purpose of the institution in question is to "figure out ways to rip off customers."
It's neither dishonesty nor cheating. The trick is not to have a culture that puts
corporate/employer concerns first.
Obviously smarter people are going to tend to be more moral; you need to
know what the fuck morality and ethics even are, and assess the circumstances, before
you can make your decisions. Retards can't even get to the point of making a decision. Stupid
people are great at missing the moral implications of their behavior. Smart people are the
ones who need to come up with rationalizations.
All "honesty" begins with the self. Lying to your self, about your self is the basis of
delusion and
in-authenticity. How can you know reality when reality is constantly reinterpreted to fit the
needs of a run-away ego ?
The general point, that intelligence is linked to long term thinking seems sound to me.
Dishonestly is often about immediate gratification: a question of gaining or avoiding
immediate pleasure/displeasure. Honesty is a strategy that "pays off" over the long term.
Honesty, or truth telling (in so far as one can) is also a factor in an Honour culture. The
liar is a "base" person, a person who has no sense (or no care about) their own social (self
conscious) standing. Honesty also has a close correlation with such things as "loyalty",
"promising" etc.
Oh yes !
That's the joy of the corporate structure: no one is responsible. EVERYONE acts because they
"owe" obligations to another. (Executives to higher executives; Higher executives to the
Board; the Board to Shareholders) Personal, moral responsibility becomes entirely lost in
this deliberately confected ethical melange. The Large organisation is the perfect
environment for crafting crimes safe from individual consequence.
It says you are damn lucky. If I had $ 915 in my wallet I'd super-glue the damn thing to
my chest. Rather lose a couple layers of skin than that kind of dosh.
Self honesty is a long tortuous process.
Ideology is a relief: it removes the constant anxiety of needing to "question".
Science is -- should be -- the strictest form of public honesty.
Its frightening how many reports we so often get now about the systemic "dishonesty" in the
scientific realm. (Dishonesty driven usually (not exclusively) by the demands of corporate
profits)
Sublime opportunism, entwined inside collective incentives, converges into supreme ethics,
moral behaviour.
Sadly, the convergence is beyond the gradients of our elites.
The why of hard-wired human elites as are, cannot transcend to long term survival strategies,
and society resembles a chicken coop.
To add another factor randomly, embedded into the above, it does not matter, how
intelligence plays out between individuals, because individual opportunity feeds back into a
pool of extended family, group, tribe, waves of culture and ad-hocs, lastingly and durably
not encased in cognitive ambition, itself a consequence of cognitive genetic effort. Colleges
and universities worldwide are a better example of petty games.
The "truth" and other concepts of "honesty" are a psychological, relative variant,
depending on context. The agnostic concept of real and it's pursuit is unknown to our
archaic, analogue brain without the preposition of a limited context, opportune in the
now.
I would be interested in how honesty was explicated. And the valuation of cross cultural
rules that note the value of said rule equally across cultures. Now perhaps, these are fully
layed out in the study, but I was unable to access the sight provided.
I would also be interested how the study rated honesty as a national value. Thus far the
model looks to be applied by survey data. As I was reading I kept thinking of the multiple
national scandals in which dishonesty played a central role. Once one figures out the
definition and meaning of what constitutes honesty among individuals and or societal groups
as agreed upon by those groups, then a model of measuring said honesty is built. This is
essential because the article indicates that the difference in variable is largely cultural.
So I have to conclude that a standard was established that recognizes what honesty is across
cultures.
Because even withing culture, honesty varies. If intelligence is the key demarcation than
one would expect those groupings with supposedly higher intelligence to have a higher degree
of honesty. But again, even withing culture an agreed upon understanding of honesty is
required.
Assuming intelligence matters to some set post of morality, in this case honesty -- could the
model replicate supposed intelligence to honesty withing a given system in which the rules
are more readily identifiable and agreed upon. Assuming that the students at the US military
academies rank higher in intelligence than say the students at any comparable sized
university would the students among the military academies rank higher or lower as to the
being or practicing honesty. Considering the value placed on meritocratic institutions such
as Harvard when measuring that intelligence grouping demonstrate a higher degree of hon
Softpanorama
